User talk:Flcelloguy/Archive07

Members of WikiProject edit counters, good news!

 * Version 3.40 of Flcelloguy's Tool has been released: all edit summary bugs are quashed. Also, Version 4.00 is under development, and this version will allow for direct downloading of a user's contributions - copy the source code at the Java Sandbox and at bottom of the Tool's page to test out the new version. I've marked a few things that need to be done - if you're interested in doing any of them, please feel free to contact me. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way... you could archive your talk page. ;) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's what's going on, roughly: There is one instance of the Namespace class per namespace in Wikipedia (they are retrieved using Interiot's Special:Export method), and each instance is able to store the extended Contrib objects inside of it. As for the Help page, yes. It would be a good idea to make the page at WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool/Help with more detailed explanations on how to use the tool and snapshots of the UI (I've uploaded a few). As for the scan - yes, it could be done easily, since you could always retrieve the Contrib.editSummary field (which is public), you would just need to browse through the contribs somehow (AySz88 can help you with maps much more than I can). The actual code should go in Stats.java, as that's where all the analysis functions are located. Thanks! Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I posted the newest version of Contrib.java on the Java Sandbox, just to keep you updated. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder
Thanks for the reminder, I do plan to get to it today or tomorrow. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED
Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked guy
Hello, I just saw you blocked some guy for posting a "virus link". Well, I just entered there, do you mean a virus link (I didn't think these things were posible) or a page designed to be anoying? algumacoisaqq 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost interview
Better late than never, I suppose:

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
 * A bit overwhelmed; it's a lot of work, and getting even busier. But honoured as well.

2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
 * It seemed conducted reasonably well. I think the purpose of the question page could have been better clarified; too many of the questions were simply thinly disguised attacks (or, in some cases, completely undisguised attacks).  As well, the "winning" criteria might have been more explicit; was it simply percentage, or was it total Support votes, or Support-Oppose votes? Different measures gave radically different rankings.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
 * I would simply thank those who supported me, and let both supporters and opposers know that I will faithfully carry out my mandate.

4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
 * They all look like good candidates for the Committee.

5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint yourself, Fred Bauder, and Jayjg? What would you say to those who opposed this decision?
 * I'm Jayjg, I assume you mean James F. :-) Well, naturally I'm biased, but it seemed reasonable to me.  The Arbitration Committee has, as far as I know, always had appointed members on it, and Jimbo stated that the conditions for eligibility this time were simply getting over 50% of the vote.  All 3 of us are experienced Arbitrators who have proven ourselves, and we all had significant support no matter how you measure it: for example, if you measure by "Support-Oppose", then Fred came in 4th, I came in 7th, and James came in 9th:  If you measure by Support votes alone, then Fred came in 3rd, and I came in 4th.

6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
 * Most of the new members seem to be enthusiatic and are contributing well; in particular, they have provided new thinking on a number of cases, which is welcome. The backlog seems to be slowly clearing.

7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
 * I think I answered that when I ran for the office. :-)

8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
 * I would have a process that automatically put arbitrators on the inactive list if they hadn't contributed in a reasonable period of time (say, a month), and would automatically remove them from the Committee if they were inactive for a similar period of time.   This would help ensure that all members are active and contributing, and help keep cases moving through the pipeline.

9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
 * I'm quite concerned about it. If it were simply an administrative role, which opened and closed cases, tidied up various pages, nagged the Arbitrators, etc., then I'd be all for it.  However, I am not keen on the "summarize the case" aspect of the role which it seems to have taken on (indeed, almost to the exclusion of all other aspects); it seems very much like an arbitrator role at that point.

10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
 * Yes I plan to finish my term, and I have no idea if I'd run again. It's a lot of work, and it makes you the target of a fair amount of abuse.

11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
 * Let's work together to build a great encyclopedia! Why?  Because that is our ultimate purpose here.

12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?
 * Hi Mom! :-)
 * -- Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interview

 * 1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

Well, partly "oh, no, not again"... ;-) Hm. Both honored and overwhelmed that so many people expressed their support and worried about doing it, as it's a bit of a nerve-wracking job.


 * 2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

I was initially quite skeptical of the idea of open elections, and I'm still not thrilled with it (I refrained from voting, as a candidate), but it did turn out better than I thought it would, despite a few unfortunate incidents. Difficult to propose an alternate system; all have their tradeoffs.


 * 3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

To those who supported, thank you for your confidence in me; to all, I'll try not to let you down; please let me know if I screw up.


 * 4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

All of them are people I have a good deal of respect for (and I'm not just saying that because you're going to print it publicly, either)!


 * 5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?

Yes, I do; all of them have done good work in the past and I'm glad to see them continue. (Also, having more "old hands" around is really helpful when so much of the committee is new.)


 * 6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

Hm. This directed more to the new class than to me, I guess; my own thoughts now are mostly the same except for "we have how many cases open?"


 * 7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

I think I've answered this before; my opinion is mostly the same. :-)


 * 8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

Hm. I'm happy to see the committee expanded a bit; there were plenty of qualified people running and I'm glad to see we'll get a wider range of opinions.

I'd like to see the earlier stages of dispute resolution (particularly RfC) worked on some so we don't see as many cases; it's hard to give proper attention to over 20 at once.


 * 9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?

I think the idea is worth a shot -- the mechanical work of opening and closing cases, and of doing notifications, is tedious stuff. As for the rest, it may be helpful, it may not; it's worth a try to see what the benefits and drawbacks are. The case summaries I'm not sure of; some of the evidence is all but unreadable, but necessary to slog through anyhow; however, I've seen people working independently do things on Workshop pages that made my job in that much easier and if this happens, then great. I'd rather wait until it's actually been working for a while before offering much of an opinion.


 * 10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

I do plan on finishing. But three years is an eternity in Wikipedia time (I haven't even been editing that long), and I've seen plenty of others burn out from this. I have no intentions of running for re-election; one term will be more than enough! (Oh, great, of course, now that I've said this, watch me pull a Marty Meehan. I swear I won't have anyone go back and edit this for me.)


 * 11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?

Other than "please don't do anything that makes me have to read a case against you"?

No, really. Do the right thing, and use your best judgment. Policies exist to help us do that, not to use as a bludgeon, a straitjacket, or a game. Be nice to people (nicer than you may want to be, even). Assume good faith (which doesn't mean letting bad behavior go unchecked). Use the talk pages. Don't be a dick. Remember that it's possible you're wrong, especially if lots of reasonable people are telling you to consider your actions. If you start feeling like editing is a battle, go do something else; the wiki really won't fall apart.

In other words, please don't do anything that makes me have to read a case against you. (Why? Purely selfish, of course: so I can get back to writing articles and quit reading cases. I suppose there's that whole community project bit too. ;-))


 * 12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?

See above; I've rambled on too much already. :-)

--Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
I ask you a question. I am currently working on a very massive change to how the dispute resoution is done as well as how Wikipedia functions. I want to make an Appeals board (for use of a better name), that would resolve issues before they go to the Arbitration Committee as well as help enforce there (arbcom's) rulings. Earlier, when I sought to make a higher group it didn't work, but my goal would be reached with either proposal. Now back to the idea: The board would have nine members, three selected by the Arbcom, five selected by the public (users) and one selected by Jimbo. They would each serve six-month terms (I can always change this) and would require a simple majority to make a descision. I feel that I must recieve your advise, because you deal with disputes all the time. So I ask for your comments, good or bad. Thank you for your time.!~

Wiki e Zach 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy
I checked this one with User:Submarine on IRC, apparently it is behaving as an open proxy. I will post it at WP:AN/I. Physchim62 (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw this one come through after three or four Saudi edits on the page, which were reverted. An identical edit came through from Vietnam, which raised my suspicions, especially as it came from an IP that had been repeatedly warned for vandalism. I then asked on IRC if anyone could access through that IP address, and the answer came through as yes. In other words, a person (in this case from France) could edit Wikipedia whilst appearing to be in Vietnam, which is against No open proxies. Hence the indefinite block. Physchim62 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The welcome template
Hi Flcelloguy. Despite of the numerous people who object to the link to the bootcamp in the welcome template, and the fact that it is not in fact necessary, with the helpme template being enough for their project, the people from the bootcamp project keep on using their administrative privileges to put the bootcamp link back in. I don't plan to get involved in such a game, as I find it silly to push one's point with edit wars using admin privileges rather than talk, but something should be done about it. Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost update
Per Jimbo's desysop of four other administrators, your article needs updating. If you don't get to it, I will, but I figured I'd give you first crack at it if you wanted it. Ral315 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost
That's actually quite funny, because I had just started the first sentence of it when I saw that I had new messages :) I would suggest that if you have the time, that you break them apart into the userbox-related article, and a more general cartoon-related article, that doesn't deal with Jimbo so much as the controversy itself, and the battle over whether it's censorship, etc. (keep the last paragraph pretty much as-is, but make sure the article focuses on the issue as a whole.)  If you don't have time to do both, I'll write the latter when I get home.  Ral315 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

semiprotection
even the appearence of semiprotection prevents some vandals --mitrebox 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Flcelloguy. Thanks a lot for your excellent handling of the bootcamp issue at template talk:welcome. I must say that I have been very impressed with your diplomacy and insight in a number of places on Wikipedia. I believe you would be a valuable addition to the arbitration committee, should you decide to run for the job. Keep on doing the good work! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello again Cello... check out my posted ones on wikipedia and my test page so to speak let me know cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaoJin (talk • contribs)

Protection
Hello, GregAsche! Could I ask you to be a bit more careful when unprotecting images tagged with mprotected? You unprotected two images which I had already protected and tagged earlier today (at approximately 00:30 UTC), both of which will appear on the main page tomorrow (in less than an hour now.) I find that looking at the "what links here" is useful; it tells you which template/pages link to there, and the pages for the FA and selected anniversaries have the date in the page name. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I didn't realize images were protected so far in advance, and I assumed they were images that had already appeared on the main page. Sorry about that. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Topic Re-locking?
Greetings, after fixing and watching other editors diligently fix several acts of vandalism on Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy I was wondering if there was any chance to have that topic re-locked?

Thanks! Netscott 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship
Just a note: it says in a couple of spots that this isn't a real attempt at promotion, just an attempt at seeing what a "pseudo-article" may look like. - brenneman (t) (c)  00:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I also seem to have seen this fundementally differently than at least some of the folks have. It's not live, so I thought we were still "sandboxing" stuff.  Sorry. -  brenneman (t) (c)  01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN
Sigh. I wasn't thinking particularly straight. I received an email from this person who's information had been revealed, and I was urgent to get rid of it...so I sort of jumped into it without thinking :). Anyways, I'm sorry for the hassle I caused.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your break
Thanks for working hard to put together the arbitration election series, it was good to see your work grow and develop. I look forward to seeing more stories from you again soon. --Michael Snow 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

E-mail sent to you.
I e-mailed you. Ral315 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Signpost interviews
That interview of the arbitrators was great. It must have been a lot of work to organize. I really enjoyed reading it. Thank you very much. --James S. 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Badr (Nomination)
How's that? (Merged "cultural references" section with "implications", slimmed down lead, and rewrote "The Message" as prose) Palm_Dogg 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

1996 campaign finance scandal
Unless you specify what the alleged "questionable phrases" are, or why you think the lead is "poorly written," I will not be able to do anything to change it to your satisfaction. I feel the quote I used is pertinent and useful in that is distills the issue in such a short and clear way. Mr. Lund may not have been directly involved in laudering funds from the Chinese government, but he was a China analyst for the Canadian government. I personally feels this give him weight on the subject. I guess this issue is just a matter of opinion. Lastly, your comment that "the rest article also needs significant improvements" leaves me helpless without any specific criticism ("formatting" is too vague). Thanks.

P.S. I have no idea what you mean about citing improperly. I used the format suggested by Wikipedia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)

All issues have been addressed. I look forward to your support. :) --Jayzel68 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated your suggestions. Hope you like. Thanks --Jayzel68 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from The Kindness Fairy
In celebration of Random Acts of Kindness Week, The Kindness Fairy wants to thank you for all your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Your work as a mediator, contributor to the signpost, Esperanzan, and editor have contributed in immeasurable ways to making Wikipedia a better place to work. The Kindness Fairy 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil Collins (FAC)
Hey there, thanks for your comment on the FAC page for Phil Collins. I don't know how often you review the page, so I wanted to let you know that I responded on the page, and copied-and-pasted below. Thanks for taking the time to review my article! --Ataricodfish 06:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Flcelloguy, thanks for the comment, and I appreciate that you reviewed the article. I personally like where further reading is because it's immediately after the article text itself.  My logic; if you've read this and would like to read more, here you go.  As for the audio samples, it was the same logic; you've just read about the guy, now here's a list of samples in historical order for the article just read.  I modeled this after the Marilyn Manson featured article, as I liked how the audio section was featured and ordered.  I placed the discography and band afterward because they are lists and, I feel, would be distracting placed earlier in the article.  I don't know if there's a general accepted format on Wikipedia for this, but I personally like how it is set up.
 * As for the band list, originally the article had a LONG band list of every member in the band ever, including studio musicians. I liked the information but felt an entire list was inappropriate for this article and that a summary of the current band would suffice.  I created a separate article, Touring and studio musicians of Phil Collins, and cut-and-paste that information over.    I had briefly considering deleting the band section and putting it in a "See Also" section at the bottom, but I thought it looked unprofessional with only one link, (That touring link), and nothing else, and I also thought the information was informative in its current format, so I kept the article as is.--Ataricodfish 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Antarctica
Hi, I've made some changes (well, some other user did actually) regarding the placement of images. Can you please check to see if it is satisfactory, and if so, how about a support. :) Well, thanks for your feedback. Gflores Talk 07:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Period before the
At Cite.php, the one example they provide has the period in front of the ref. I don't mind going through and changing them all if you concur it's the right way to do it. - dharmabum 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for catching it! - dharmabum 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just want to throw a thanks your way for making me really look at the length of the Floyd article and how sections could be spun off. Years of trying to meet word counts for English essays tend to make a person loath to remove material, but after a good hard look I've removed nearly 30% of the article to the Pink Floyd discography and the newly created Pink Floyd live performances, which really tightens up the main article. Most of the critiques you seem to get during a FA review often relate to formatting, grammar and citation issues, but yours really improved the article tremendously (which, FA or not, is all I really care about as a Floyd addict since the mid-80's). Thanks. - dharmabum 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you once again, but is there any chance I could get you to re-evaluate the Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd article? It's been removed from the FA candidates page but not yet archived, and I want to be sure that the people who opposed know how much it's changed and have a chance to re-evaluate before the bureaucrat removes it. - dharmabum 00:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just what I don't understand; it doesn't seem to have actually been de-listed. It's not on Featured article candidates, Featured article candidates/Featured log or Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. It's just lost in the ether, and there isn't a link to the page anywhere on the site that isn't one I put on a talk page. After the work I've put in, it's got me a bit distressed. - dharmabum 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted to Raul's talk page again, and I got all panicky for nothing - the article was promoted to FA and had indeed just slipped through the cracks. It was my first FAC, and I didn't realize what I was getting into, hence the panic when I thought it was all going to hell in a handbasket. Thanks for all your help and suggestions. - dharmabum 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Uma Thurman FAC
I have done some rewriting on the parts of the article you suggested attention for, an edit summary is here.--Fallout boy 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Esperanza election statement
Hello Flcelloguy: I just wanted to drop a note (no pun intended) about your Esperanza statement, which I think is excellent. If many editors were as considerate and encouraging of the project as you are, I think that Wikipedia would be a lot easier to work on. Good job. Regards, <font color="#669933">Bratsch <font color="#003300">e <font color="#669933">talk 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/Water_drop_animation
You may wish to reconsider your vote after seeing the new version of this animation. Feel free to remove this note once you've seen it. --Gmaxwell 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FAC: Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Please take a look at the changes and reconsider your vote. Thanks! --Goodoldpolonius2 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Second Malaysia Plan
I've responded to your objection. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ernest Percival
Anthing else I can do to get your support for FAC? I think that I have expanded the sections you are looking for Nickhk

Caravaggio featured article candidate
You said that the refs section of the Caravaggioarticle is badly formatted. Could you explain what needs to be done to make it properly formatted? Thanks PiCo 12:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's Esperanza Request
I have a request of my fellow candidates, and of the voters -- that all candidates give a vote to every other candidate.

It may seem that this request goes against the idea that leadership and potential leadership of our group should be neutral, a precedent that has been followed since the beginning of Esperanza by JCarriker, but I beg to disagree.

For one, mathematically all votes would be cancelled out, but unlike if we stayed silent, we are showing an affirmation of our support for each other.

To me, that's what Esperanza's about. I've had disagreements with many people in Esperanza, but i'll always support them in some form or another as long as I believe as they'll do the same for me -- as long as we're unified in a belief that kindness can cure the ills of Wikipedia as a whole.

Karm a  fist  04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikizach supports this request
 * Dakota Kahn supports this request and did this in the last election for maintaining neutrality.

RfM
Would you look over and consider taking Requests for mediation/Vlaams Belang? No special reason, I'm just matching available poeple up with available cases. If you're agreeable, would you leave me a note on my talk page? Thanks! <font color=#696969>Essjay Talk • Contact 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:MIND
Hi Flcelloguy! Just to warn you people have already begun answering questions on Mind Benders. If you want to watch...  F e  tofs  Hello! 19:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure! I'd love the opportunity!  F e  tofs  Hello! 12:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, now that you have given me the reigns of power, would it be harmful to me (as I'm competing) to know the details for part 3?  F e  tofs  Hello! 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the polls on the quality of the article? How will that be added up (the overall, the mean, etc). I hope that is my last doubt...  F e  tofs  Hello! 11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PCP
Just to say here, because you may not read the FA nomination anymore, that you misinterpreted my sentenced, really. I thought that no foreigner would ever take the job of reading that kind of stuff, really. Its very frustrating finding that Portuguese related articles are of little importance in en.wikipedia and I think no one really reads articles like that one. That's why I never found a person interested in doing a copyedit to my non native english writing. No one participated in the peer review of the article, the few objections were based in the size and minor issues, that's why I think no one reads that stuff. But I understand. You may ask, so why don't you contribute to the pt.wikipedia? And I answer: that's full of brazilians writing in brazilian portuguese, which I find horrible. Along with that, this wikipedia is much more complete and I develop my english very much each time I come here. About the article itself, I think the part you criticized is a bit like verbatim, but that's why it says: "the party defines itself as:" I could not say a totally different thing, could I? That's it. Sorry if I made you upset or something. If you answer, could you make it in my page please? Regards. Afonso Silva 00:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Education in the United States FAC
Since your vote I have greatly expanded the history section, changed over to the new cite format, added many cites, and created a table which replaces the bulleted list you disliked. I'd appreciate it if you reconsider your objection, and possibly even change it to a support--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Second Malaysia Plan
Could you have another look, please? I responded on the FAC page. :) Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arrestcuff.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arrestcuff.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. SteinbDJ 14:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

unusual copyright situation
I need some 3rd party intervention in an unusual copyright situation. A user has repeatedly submitted copyrighted material, BUT he is the copyright holder. The material is otherwise OK, except for being a little POV. He seems uninterested in the rules against submission of copyrighted material. Anyway, I'm limited by the 3RR, and anyway this user is annoyed with me and not likely to be swayed by any arguments I make. Could you please have a look? Our correspondence can be found at the bottom of User talk:Dannyhellman and the article in question is Legal Action Comics. ike9898 19:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sanger
Sorry to intersperse with your edits - didn't realize you weren't finished Trödel• talk 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem - I love the new feature that lets people edit different sections at the same time - it feels like a hyperwiki Trödel&#149; talk 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism
I need your help. I don't know what to make of this. It is either vandalism or someone hacked the page. Click 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal to see what I mean. If you click the old page name Chinagate which is now a redirect you can still see the correct version without the vandalism. --Jayzel 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That was very bizarre. Now the page is back to normal. I swear I am not nuts. At first when I clicked on the 1996... link I was getting a page with nothing but nonsense words and then after a short while any time I clicked on the link a pop-up box would open asking me to download and save a file. Weird. Thanks anyhow... --Jayzel 18:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac FAC
Thank you for your comments on Featured article candidates/Roman Vishniac. When you get a chance (I see you're busy), could you please review my responses and questions related to your objections? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 05:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have now addressed all of your objections. When you can, please re-evaluate the article. Thank you. -- Rmrfstar 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! -- Rmrfstar 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your tool, much improved
Ok, there has been significant progress on the Tool since you last saw it. We implemented full and correct processing of edit summaries, automatic downloading of edits, fixed the one-off bug with Special:Contributions, and designed the tool to be able to read an unlimited number of edits, either from a remote connection (which has several features to prevent usage of the tool as a DoS vector). So, the only thing we really need to do is now check it for a while and then release version 4.00. A user has already contacted me about hosting, so as soon as we get that done, as well as other things, we should be ok. Most of the updated code is at the Java Sandbox, so you can update your copy of the tool to the most recent version. We also have to write the help page soon... could you help us doing that? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Protecting main page images
If the image is on commons and you dont have admin rights on commons, you need to upload a local copy and use the template c-uploaded not mprotect --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce
The article spore has been added to your desk. Please let me know if you would like to decline this article. RJFJR 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC
Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
I see you took another look at the material you just restored to the Talk:Disco page and quickly reverted! This "Drphilharmonic" showed up sounding like an academic authority on music, contributing some useful information on the orchestras behind disco (but perhaps wnet a bit overboard with it), and criticizing some of the material in the article as "impertinent". When I ask him to discuss, he then began pitching some longwinded far-out view on the history of disco; but it became clear that he was advocating a particular website. When I and another person responded, these other writers all followed with similar longwinded rambling praising Drphilharmonic and each other, as well as flaming us. I kind of suspect they are all the same person, and the owner of the site discomagic.50megs.com! ("Dr. Rob") Please watch the talk page. I would think everything on the talk page as well as the article should be reverted back to the last version before Drphilharmonic showed up, but some of his info on disco composers was useful.Eric B 04:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK; I just created a new page Disco Orchestration with Drphilharmonic's orchestra info (which is a whole page in itself, thus too much for the Disco article), and greatly reduced the info in the "disco" article. He or his "friends" may come back fighting, so I thought I should make you aware of that. Eric B 15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my successful Requests for adminship/Raven4x4x request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsable use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources and authorities
Hi. Thanks for your instructive and constructive comment on my recent FAC submission on the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer. The objections were around a lack of references and citations, to which I responded that this article was the authorative source on the topic, as the information was obtained by me from source. You went on to explain that it should also be verifiable. I'd like to continue the discussion really, not in terms of whether or not my featured article application should or should not have succeeded (I accept that it failed) - but more about how to encourge people with first-hand experience - because, at the moment, I don't feel particularly special! :)

Facts are verified at source, by me. I'm not the authority myself, but I did verify them from sources that are not pubicly accessible (one to one face to face, phone or email conversations) and therefore can't be referenced.

In a nutshell, the problem for me is that if I chose to write a book with content in it derived first-hand from the inividuals who are the source of the information, then I could write a Wikipedia article citing the book as an authority. However, seeing as I chose not to do that, but instead to cut out the (old hat) printed page, and to make Wikipedia the authority, the current rules and support framework, doesn't really allow for that.

I would be interested in seeing how we can accommodate and encourage this type of contribution i.e. original research into the Wikipedia. 81.171.156.97 17:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

from Pol-Sci-Prof
Dear Flcelloguy, As a social scientist, I am interested in the civil reconciliation concerning all that has occurred in []. First, it was uncalled-for and unprofessional for an administrator of Wikipedia to state "off topic flame war and personal advocation deleted." Married, with 2 children in college now, I am a professional educator in the university system. I do not know any of the other contributors to the page, and, as I read the comments from the other educators, I interpret supportive elements from entirely different and varied perspectives, which is what an encyclopedia should strive for. Should we dismiss the contributions from a longtime orchestra conductor who shared a wealth of information from which we all, including you, a cello-player, can learn? Should we dismiss the contributions from a longtime recording engineer who also shared a wealth of information on the multiple aspects of putting together a music recording during the time? It is a terrible thing that their contributions were deleted from the talk page; how much just I learned, how much more I would love to know, and how much their presence might elicit from others in the business who could be invaluable resources. Wikipedia should love to have them as contributors. From my observation, there is not a reference to non-Wikipedia pages in the text of the "Disco" page; non-Wikipedia pages are suggested only as a resource in the talk page. I had not known of the pages until their mention, and, if one visits, one will realize that the pages are inactive, archival pages, without even an active e-mail address. It is highy improper to make the preposterous accusation that just because many individuals have a similar point-of-view and can present them in an eloquent manner, yet substantiate their assertions from entirely different perspectives, no less, they must be the same person. The one obvious element in the whole discussion is that there are just two individuals - Eric B and KAB - that have chosen to devote great amounts of energy in making mendacious accusations than in becoming more learned; "every person that is against us even if from different backgrounds and different professions and different places in the world is the same person" bespeaks a troubled personality. A professional organization must neither abide nor entertain this character-type. Thank you for your time. Pol-Sci-Prof 19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Our dear friend Rob Mercadante of Massachusetts wrote me a kind reconciliatory email on 6 March 2006. He sent the email under the subject "to Kevin: apologies from "Drphilharmonic" on Wikipedia" and signed himself as being someone from "W. Hartford, Connecticut" who also travels to New Haven and Boston frequently. The interesting thing is that the email "Drphilharmonic" sent me from Hotmail has an X-Originating-IP that resolves to the library of Amherst College, in central Massachusetts, the same region as his former ISP in Longmeadow, Mass. and his radio show at WTCC-FM in Springfield, Mass.  Therefore he accidentally proved himself once again to be the very same person as Dr. Rob, the host of DISCOmagic.org.  And the first and last name he signed himself as, in his email to me, don't match any professor, encyclopedia writer, symphony conductor, or disco expert that I'm aware of, nor does it match any person in the Faculty Directory at directory.amherst.edu; it's a fictional creation to promote his POV. I, in turn, wrote him a reply in which I wrote such statements as "And you know that I share your interest in symphony-backed disco music." and "Your important contributions to the study of disco merit further discussion and evaluation." I welcome further discussions with him on the condition that he stop pretending to be six people at once, that he stop pretending to have been merely a listener to Dr. Rob's radio show when in fact he was the show's host, and that he stop removing valid song listings and valid comments concerning post-1979 disco, including post-1979 symphonic disco. An important test will be whether he leaves the material I wrote about VERIFIABLE symphonic disco from the 1990s and 2000s at his brilliant essay on Disco orchestration. It is my hope that he will not engage in further 1970s-centric POV vandalism, so that no arbitration will be necessary. If arbitration becomes necessary, I can supply the IP address Rob emailed me from so that administrators can trace the IPs used to post comments by "Pol-Sci-Prof" and his other aliases to see if they match or at least all come from central Massachusetts. - KAB, 6 March 2006

Esperanza Elections
Hello Flcelloguy: Sorry this is a bit late, but thank you very much for your support in the Wikipedia elections. It looks like neither of us were (re-?)elected, but nevertheless, your Wikipedia duties, Esperanza work, and supportive vote is very much appreciated. Cheers, <font color="#669933">Bratsch <font color="#003300">e <font color="#669933">talk 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Flcelloguy! A note from me too, thanks for your vote! Please let me or any of the other board members know if there's anything we can do for you - we have some great examples to follow ;-) Kind regards, --Joann e B 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza
Mind having a look at the last thread in the page? Your name has been brought up, and I am not sure if what's being stated as your opinion is accurate. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition (re MarkSweep)
He has a RfC for his actions, which his admin coconspiritor removed, so now they are both the subject of an RfC, which is not well known at moment (I just learned about it, and I am interested party). In my admin alert, I only ask that the destructive edits be reverted. StrangerInParadise 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment/clarification. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So, I see you are an administrator, will you reverse the damage? StrangerInParadise 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No; I will not take action when I have not spent time carefully reviewing the entire situation. In addition, because you've already posted the matter at WP:AN/I, if immediate action is really needed, I'm sure one of the many administrators will act after discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What is to review? MarkSweep hacked categories from 53 templates, resulting in the delisting of hundreds of userpages from categories, without the knowledge or consent of the owners. You are an administrator. I am asking that they be put back. It will take a few minutes. Would this even be a question if an anon had done so three months ago?

By not acting, you (and others) lend to the impression that the userbox matter has already been decided, and inhibit those who would rightly seek similar relief.

StrangerInParadise 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nagin image
Hi, I retagged Image:Ray_Nagin_portrait.jpg as "fair use", as it was inaccurately tagged-- it is not public domain, the source site is not US Federal Government site, and is clearly labeled as copyrighted on the page. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Millipore - how did you do that?
Hi, I was in the process of changing Millipore (company) to Millipore Corporation. Was trying to remember how to do a redirect and was looking up one I did a few weeks ago. When I got back I found that you had already done it for me, but not only that, you had moved the entire article history along with it, along with adding Corporation to the article just as I had, but with no indication that I had ever been there! How the heck did you do that? H2O 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, duh, I guess I should have noticed that move button after two years! Seems like that is the only button I haven't used.  Thanks for teaching this old dog a new trick.  H2O 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aine Chambers
You deleted this article without even giving a reason. Why? --Dtcdthingy 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stale IP Talk Page Blanking Discussion
I posted a proposal on Village_pump_%28proposals%29 but it seems few to no people have read the section / commented on it. I've moved in all of the existing discussion but have not tallied votes, you might want to have a quick look there and see the comments from other editors. -- Tawker 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Very much! :-) Danny 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

News and Notes
Feel free...the milestones are taken from Wikimedia News, and everything else is basically from the tip line. Have a good break? Ral315 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK - thanks
Hi Flcelloguy, I regularly update the DYK but cannot do it for 00:00 UTC on monday as it is sleeping time in India. Thanks for updating the DYK. A couple of heads-ups though: We typically follow FIFO, i.e., First in first out so that the suggestions from older articles make it first, before they become too old for DYK. Hence, articles created on March 9th need to be updated first as they would become too old for tomorrow. Anyways, I would update DYK at least two times today, so it may not be an issue - but you may want to keep this in mind when you update next. You had not archived one of the DYK entries from the template, I have done so. btw, DYK would become a daily feature rather than a weekday feature, once the new main page design becomes effective. Keep up the good work!! --Gurubrahma 03:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Gurubrahma here. Please take a note that only the links to new articles are bolded in the template. So, the bolding of First Lady of Jazz seems to be redundant. Keep it up, Ghirla -трёп- 08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ilse Huizinga is my sister in law. Although it's very flattering to see her on DYK as The First Lady of Jazz, she is NOT known as Holland's First Lady of Jazz. That is another singer, called Rita Reys. Since it is not mentioned in her article, I wonder who came up with this.

C-uploaded
Unlike previously, the updation would also involve adding attribution. C-uploaded itself has the instructions, interestingly, but I myself did not notice it till some 3 days back (it was updated 4 days after these changes were made, I believe). btw, during your last message on my talkpage, another message got accidentally deleted - it was probably due to a bug that afflicted WP in my part of the world. Ironically, the message that got deleted was a SOS about the bug ;). --Gurubrahma 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Epic
I monitor the Epic dab page for links to it. The latest Signpost in your work space goes there. There really isn't an appropriate "epic prose" page. Not sure what you want to do with it. . . No answer necessary, but I'll be watching here if you do. John (Jwy) 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Epic poetry would work, but so would no link (and assume the dictionary definition). I'm hoping some out-of-work English Major will create an epic prose page. . .  John (Jwy) 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sleeper account
Did he give you a reason why he would create an account, and then not use it for many weeks? Usually these kinds of accounts are created to get around sprotection or for page move vandalism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was created at the same time as a bunch of other accounts, all from the same AOL IP, and had never been used to edit. At the time it looked like someone was preparing for some Willy on Wheels page move vandalism; that's how they age their accounts.  I consulted with other admins on this, and AGF only goes so far when dealing with this kind of evidence. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in this case I'd agree. You should know that at the time I blocked that account, I also blocked at least 2 dozen other suspicious accounts; as far as I know this is the only one that complained, which is a reasonable indicator that this may be the only one that is legitimate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackthompson
Just curious, but why was this deleted? I mean, unless it was vandalized after I put the lawyer userbox there, then I understand, but certainly classifying him as a lawyer isn't disrespectful.. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

heheh too quick
I'll let you handle fixing the pagemoves. =D --Syrthiss 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know. Its like saying "Oh honey, I saved the cat box for you to clean up!" --Syrthiss 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you're not aware, while you and Syrthiss were fixing the page-move vandalism, Crusade and Talk:Crusade had their entire histories deleted. I managed to rescue the talk page, but the article history is too big and I keep getting an error. &mdash;Xezbeth 15:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting JFK so soon?
Greetings. John F. Kennedy was "sprotected", but you lifted it less that 24 hours later, saying "It's been protected for a while now; let's see how it goes". Now, I'm new, but does 20 hours count as "for a while now" for something that is continually vandalized? (See history). Sure enough, it's been vandalized and reverted again. Can we leave the protection on for a few days possibly? -- Sholom 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm a bit new. I hope you're right.  We'll see by tomorrow.  Thanks. -- Sholom 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to bring this to your attention, and I am saddened to do so . . . but as of this writing, of the last 50 edits to John F. Kennedy, 14 were reverts and/or to fix vandalism. Again.  :(

Template:Did you know
"of a image consulting firm" can you make that "an image" on that last line? kthxbye. SchmuckyTheCat 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
Thanks much for inserting the notes. I feel like the shoemaker who woke up after the elves had done their work. Thanks again. Jtmichcock 00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce
Sirhan Sirhan has been added to your desk. Please examine it and work on or pass it (or let me know and I'll reassign it). Thank you. RJFJR 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Much appreciated. :) Ambi 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Plasticcuff.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Plasticcuff.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. SteinbDJ 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Flcelloguy! Thanks for supporting my RfA, mate. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Indian College
I happen to be the author of the webpage to which you refer. I believed my Harvard Indian College insertion to be a humble albeit necessary contribution to a better understanding of Harvard's history-- important enough at any rate to have organized two conferences around the topic, offer two lectures in a course "Inventing New England" offered at Harvard, and of course, create and author the website. If your difficulty with the material is one of copyright, thank you so much for your kind consideration, but please do permit me the use of my own material.

thanks and cheers, LumbeeRiver —This unsigned comment was added by 140.247.47.177 (talk • contribs).

Hello
Nice to see you. I added a tag unsigned under your welcome message to User talk:Netscott. Was I right in doing so? Or, did you had jsut left it unsigned? --Bhadani 15:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect the POTD row pictures
Hi. I noticed you've protected the Main Page picture of the day (POTD row) up through April 19th. Perhaps you weren't aware that the pic of the day is only protected a day or two before it is scheduled to appear on the Main Page. No harm done, but I need the April pics unprotected so I can finish working on them. Some of the pages you protected are blank!!!. Those pages had merely been prepped with a line of code, which out of the four versions of the pic of the day, only POTD row uses. Also, one of the pic slots has the wrong picture in it (someone posted a picture without realizing that the pics are posted on a specific schedule based on the order in which they were promoted to featured picture status). And finally, none of the April pictures' captions have been proofread yet (the same goes for March 26th thru March 31st). Please unprotect these pics please, so that I can finish them up. Thank you. --Go for it! 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"good article" star on main article page
hi, i wonder if you could comment on the debate at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 about a new template to be slapped on the *main article page* when an article is deemed "good". it would be directly equivalent to the featured article star on an article mainpage, and suddenly appeared, without prior discussion, on hundreds of articles marked as "good articles".

note the GA process is not currently policy, and was formerly restricted to talk pages only, putting an icon on the main article page itself is the new development). would you consider "good article" differently from "featured article" in this case, and allow the narcisisstic meta-data on the main ARTICLE page? Zzzzz 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "star" for the good article icon and it is not directly equivalent to the featured article icon! The template places a small Good Article symbol ([[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|14px|Plus icon]]) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. &mdash;RJN 11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

hi, what do you think of my new proposal? i think it should satisfy everyone, assuming they dont have a secret agenda and have finished highschool. basically the template stays, but the tags on the main articlepages are all removed for now, pending the result of a *proper* discussion involving the wider wikipedia community. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles. Zzzzz 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta:Meta:Requests_for_adminship
(This was copied to Meta before I saw your note) To let you know, I have tagged various images for deletion, so that is why I have a low edit count. I have placed a link to Interoit's editcount tool so that my total edit count can be shown. I hope this helps. Thanks again for the comments. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFB
I've added a new question, heads-up. NSL E (T+C) at 01:23 UTC (2006-03-27)

Opposition withdrawn
Hi mate, I have withdrawn my opposition in your RfB nomination because my judgement on Wikipedia has been heavily criticised and is no longer trusted. I am also no longer a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck in achieving bureaucratship on this nomination or in the future. -- Francs2000 13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding edit wars over use of "foreign" word vs more standardized word??
I am new to Wikipedia and find it to be a truley amazing space. I stumbled onto the Glasgow page and trying to be helpful, or so I though, edited the word "outwith" to "outside of" thinking it a typo. Low and behold I learned that outwith is a Scottish word of the same meaning. Long story short, if you could check out the current edit war and provide some neutral(unless you are Scottish of course, j/k)input I would aprreciate it. It seems that articles should use words with the greatest usage to the community at large or something to that effect. I am more interested in rules/procedures rather than banned some guy from using the word outwith if you get my drift. I thought I was being nice by putting "outside of" in as a compromise by that didn't go over well either. I linked a page into the discussion section about the usage of the word outwith that helps. Anyways no biggie..Thanks!Tom 21:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by and tell you how proud I am that you're keeping wikipedia a great place (and keeping a certain history classes vocab up to date).

You're welcome
You're welcome! I hope it is successful next time. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (ditto) – WB 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. Good luck next time... and wow, your signature is weird. Just saying. <b style="color:#DF0001;">Matt Yeager</b> <b style="font-size:medium; color:#B46611;">♫</b> ( Talk? ) 02:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I too am sorry you didn't make it this time. Best of luck for the future. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 07:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see you fail in your recent RFB. Better luck next time and you will always have my support! -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  07:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I always believe in consensus, but in this case the consensus was... well, just plain wrong. I hope you run again and I will be very happy to support again - I meant what I said in your RfB, and you will be an asset to the 'pedia in the role when you get it next time. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 11:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to see it pass; I think you'd have done well. Cheers and take care. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cellos are...
cool, Highway 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

About the Reagan page....
I have established that the level of corruption was extraordinary and want to make sure I am free to insert the following paragraph in the opening bio. Now, for comparison, Nixon's opening bio addresses that he was forced to step down, and clinton's addresses his impeachment. Warren Harding's bio addresses the scandals in his administration as does Ulysses S. Grant's opening bio.

Ronald Reagan presided over an administration that saw over twenty of his appointed staffers convicted on various corruption charges ranging from bribery to lying to Congress. The scandals included the Iran/Contra scandal, the HUD scandal, the EPA scandal and the military procurement scandal among many others. Overall, Reagan saw more than twice as many of his staffers convicted on corruption charges as Richard Nixon who lost only eight.

As far as I can tell, Bush Sr, has the best contemporary biography. I haven't looked at our current president's and probably won't. But I'd like to see the Reagan page and the Clinton page brought up to the standards of the GHWB page.

Smokingmaenad 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we'd all like to see that page be the best that it can be. However, this is Wikipedia, so it has to also be acceptable to everybody who cares enough to edit it.  I think we're approaching that now, but substantive edits should be discussed and consensus reached BEFORE the edit is made, not after.  I think you see why now; the other way just leads to edit wars and bad feelings.  You obviously care about this issue; combine that with following the prolicies and guidelines, and you'll make a great Wikipedia editor.  I haven't been doing it very long either; I had to learn these lessons too, and am still learning most of them. -Syberghost 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Reagan page is still listed as unmediated in the cabal. I've decided to take up the case. If it is indeed closed, then it should be removed from the case list. If not, I'd like to take a crack at mediating this. Please post comments at that page.Danny Pi 23:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... and a question
Thanks for unblocking User:Gnome (Bot), what do you think was the problem? I was (and am) really confused over the whole thing?Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet tried it, I will now... if I get blocked, will you look at my user page in about 15 min... to see if I put the message up. I really don't want to wait 6 hours agian...Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Now only the bot is blocked.... At least my IP address did not get blocked this time... Look at my user talk page for more description.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes... and only the bots account... I am able to edit... Before the autblocker blocked me and the bot... at least now I can communicate... a little less irratating.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you got it!!!, just a quetion, what is wrong with blocking a bot for 24 hours... if it is not a vandal bot. Why did I have to deal with 2 indefinate blocks.??? After all the bot operator should not, (in my case, Would not) operate if someone found something wrong...?Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it works.... I just am curious... why did the two blocking admins use indefinate blocks??? Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently the two blockers did not look hard enough... At the time the bot was run it had approval to run on a trial run... In addition all you have to do is put a message on the talk page of the bot to stop it. (part of the Good Form) guidelines. I'm ok with it... this was just a lot of hassleEagle (talk) (desk) 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... I will also go and thank the second admin. Sorry about the questions.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MUSLIM GOD CARTOONS MY OPINION
Islam is not a religion. It's a terrorist group. And thanks to democracy I can have my say, unlike muslims in the middle east. Anders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.106.247 (talk • contribs)

"Infinite" blocks
At User talk: Eagle 101, you mentioned "Note that infinitely does not mean forever; all it means is that the account is blocked until the issues are sorted out and the account is unblocked." If I may be a bit pedantic, "infinite" does mean forever; that's why you'll often see people referring to such blocks as indefinite blocks, especially if later unblocking is anticipated. Just my opinion! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah! I should have known you were too smart for me! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indef block User:65.206.41.240 please
According to Google that IP is an open proxy. Netscott 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also User:80.55.101.122 as well. Google says open proxy. Netscott 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Another: User:218.47.199.55, according to Google. Netscott 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And another: User:83.160.180.101, according to Google. All used to vandalize. Jyllands-Posten Cartoons article. Netscott 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's another that just left me a little love note.User:83.15.90.109 Google says "book 'em Dano". LOL Netscott 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't sprotect... I'd like to draw out all of this idiots proxies and shut them all down... I've got a bit of time here. Netscott 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * allrighty I may just pop into IRC and try to muster up a Freakofnurture, I know how much he loves to block proxies... hehe. Thanks again! ;-) Netscott 22:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, we'll do.... catch ya later. ;-) Netscott 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)