User talk:Goldom/Archive 2

oops
Thanks! PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Regarding the article Christian Bowman, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, etc. that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article states that he was "the winner of the Education Queensland, Minister's Award for Excellence in Art in 1997", which is an assertion of importance. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it didn't say that when I tagged it (just checked history), that was added the next edit when he removed the tag, and then someone else put it back on. Either way, it's a decent article now. Nice when someone actually adds notability after being warned. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t
Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A hug from the past
Well, I never knew if you saw my little "thank you" response (things have been quite hectic in that time) but since I happened to stumble onto your userpage I though I just might say "thank you" again - your barnstar really made my day back then :) Charon X /talk 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Movie you were looking for
I stumbled across your postlooking for a movie - about the two brothers, and the chinese proverb "look in pot". I found your post cause i was looking for the same movie. Anyhow, incase you havent found it yet, I was able to, the movie is Mystery Date. Hope this helps.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nvmyz28 (talk • contribs).
 * Hm. Looking it up, it doesn't sound familiar, but it was a long time ago, so maybe you're right. Thanks! -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just saw it, thanks, that was it! -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support!

 * I'm especially thankful for the well-written support you gave me! I think it might've swayed the bureaucrats. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Catamorphism
Just wanted to drop off a very quick note &mdash; I've asked the nominee a question to clarify their position on assuming good faith and on anonymous editors. Thought I would let you know in case the response would be of interest to you with regards to your vote on their RfA. Thanks. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess who!
Hey! Found your userpage by google-ing "goldom". A link for the past: http://hometown.aol.com/tweedy7736/. Send an email to tweedy [at] gmail [dot] com sometime and let me know how you're doing. — Tweedy7736 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism revert
Many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Greatly appreciated. Best, Gwernol 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy
Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it actually looks a lot better now, and I can understand it's purpose. I've changed my vote, and fixed a line in it too :) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "The Weaver's Answer"
Goldom: I wanted a new page for the Family song "The Weaver's Answer" because when I created the original page, I included quotation marks in the title. I ddin't realize that quotation marks weren't necessary for song titles when you were using them as the titles of the Wikipedia pages devoted to them. You shouldn't type "Penny Lane", for example, you would type in Penny Lane. So I was trying to take out those quotation marks. Could you please do that for me, if I can't? Captain Caveman
 * Ah. I got a bit confused when I saw the order of the articles, and ended up thinking that song actually had the quotes in it's title. Unfortunately, because there is something at the other page title now, it can't be simply moved over by myself, but rather needs an admin to do it. I'll put it on requested moves so it'll get done. In the future, to change the title of a page, just use the "move" button at the top of the page, rather than copying the content by hand. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Weaver's Answer
Goldom - Thanks for your help. :-) Captain Caveman

Ask this to Aldux
You said "Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you."

This applies directly to User:Aldux, which accused me of beeing Iasson/ Faethon and conviced another admin that I am a suspected sockpuppet. Aldux continued accusing me that I am a confirmed sockpuppet, and when I reverted a page saying that he was wrong accusing me of beeing a confirmed sockpuppet, he abused his administrator powers and blocked me. If this is not personal attack, than what is it? Could you please unblock me? I am User:ARrohetMeZemer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.251.221 (talk • contribs).
 * I am not an admin, and so cannot unblock you regardless of the situation. That being said, I am not aware of both sides of the situation, and so would suggest you discuss the matter with the blocking admin, or someone else who knows, rather than simply vandalizing his user page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Goldom. There's little to discuss really: if you see Requests for checkuser/Case/Iasson, it was User:Essjay, not me, who estabilished through Checkuser that Iasson and ARrohetMeZemer are the same user. Essjay simply forgot to apply the block, so I did it.--Aldux 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Images without sufficient license information
Well, what happens is that images with insufficient license information are put into a category, either by an editor or by a bot. That category then acts like a queue for administrators to delete from, seven days after the image has been identified as lacking proper license information. This doesn't happen automatically; an administrator needs to do it by hand, and often the queue is backed up -- there was a backlog of a week or two last I checked. There's also a whole set of images that have been tagged as having insufficient license information but without information on when they were tagged. These images are confusing; they sometimes sit around for a long time before getting deleted because they aren't nicely sorted into a date. I don't know what else might be causing any confusion, but this has been our practice for quite a long time now. I'm not sure what in particular is confusing about User:Hetar's response; his response shouldn't be read as a statement that lacking sufficient license information is not a reason to delete. Jkelly 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I was confused about his response was not thinking that licence-less images couldn't be deleted, it was that he said they had to be tagged with nld in order for it to happen, which is not the tag on pages in that category. Also, that that category has much more backlog than the other (nld-placing) category (which still seems identical to me, just differently worded), making it seem like the images were not being deleted after 7 days. I do understand that none of it is done automatically, hence the delay, I was just confused why one category was so much behind the other, while both seemed like simple CSD (ie, "It has a tag, it's been 7 days, hit delete") - is there something that must be done to those in the more backed up one that isn't done to the others, that is causing a larger backlog? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you're on to something; which is that the redundancy of these two categories (which mean more or less the same thing), is actually obscuring what needs doing, and may contribute to the backlog. I would support a change to the templates so that they populate the same category.  Jkelly 18:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, that makes me feel like I'm not missing something obvious anyway. One last question (not that it is entirely relevant to me now, but I would like to do admin-work at some time in the future), is it correct to say that images in either category (and tagged for over 7 days) could simply be deleted at any time, such as just going through the category deleting, or is there something else that must be done first? Of course, an attempt to find a proper licence first would be good, but apart from that, is there anything? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes, there is more involved than just repeatedly hitting delete. As you mentioned, one might see a sourced, but unlicensed, image that is clearly from the 1800s, and feel obliged to research the image, find verifiable licensing status and fix the problem.  The real work, however, is that after OrphanBot removes unknown-license images from articles, editors often add them back in.  That means the deleting admin needs to go to the article and edit them back out again.  That's the real time sink.  Jkelly 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Also, I suppose (without counting, just a guess) that the category the bot uses is probably much more populated simply because it is a bot, leading to the longer backlog. Anyway, thanks for the help. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 4, August 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

You RfA
First of all I hope it goes well - for some reason I thought you were Bureaucrat! Secondly, I have left you an optional question. Thanks, Viridae Talk 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!
  Open your card! Dear Goldom, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best. Despite I've never had the pleasure of talking to you until now, dear Goldom, I really think the best gift that my RfA has given me is to meet people like you, as I see that you're a great editor and an awesome person. And that's exactly the reason why I'll support your own RfA right away! :) From this day on, I also consider you my friend, and I'd be happy and honored if you accept me as your own :) With a big hug, your friend,   P h a e d r i e l   ♥    tell me  

A smile for you...


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Michael 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

questions
GerardCousin 04:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * why some wikipedians are allowed to edit their talk page by removing edits while others are banned for acting the same?
 * why some wikipedians are allowed to charge a wikipedian of being a socketpuppet without any evidences at all while others are warned for acting the same?
 * Removing warnings is generally frowned upon, since it makes it more difficult for others to see how many times someone has been warned, as well as it looks like one is trying to hide their behavior. No one should be accusing anyone of being a sockpuppet without evidence. If you have been accused, and are not actually, you should take it up with the person accusing you. I have been reverting your edits because they seem based on nothing but trying to attack other users. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : Just saw your new signature...
Yup, I certainly am! Randomness forever! Long live the B! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

David Tench
Thank you kindly for paying attention to my friendly note about editing what you don't like instead of a nom for deletion ^_^ Your grounds on Articles_for_deletion/David_Tench_%282nd_nomination%29 states WP:SELF, if you would like further instruction on how to edit pages I can give you a quick rundown. Do you use an IM program such as msn messenger? I can guide you step by step on how to edit things that you don't agree with, or maybe direct you to a page for beginers. JayKeaton 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's nothing personal, but this page was just deleted by consensus, and it appears to be headed that way again. There is nothing I could edit of what I "didn't like" about the writing, as the problem is simply notability. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but the page is looking pretty good. With 7 days until the show launches, what is the plan? It just seems silly, the whole thing. I don't see how info on an upcoming show is an ad. The tag for upcoming tv shows specifically says that the information is based on advertisements and interviews and may change in the future. I'm guessing this is one of the weak spots in the wikipedia system JayKeaton 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time you should tag it for speedy deletion under G4 repost of previously deleted material. You just put this tag on the page. I have tagged for speedy deletion that particular article about four or five times in the last week. I've also repeatedly tagged David Tench Tonight under G4, most recently tonight and it was just deleted and protected against recreation. As long as the articles are essentially the same, we don't need to go through an AfD each time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen the previous article, so I wasn't sure if it was reposted content or a newly written page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They've all been basically the same since there is only limited information available. You can tag it as G4 and then if an admin rejects it, AFD it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipedians?
just fuck off! wikipedians? hehehheheh low life scums? eh? go get a life instead of acting gay, be a real man... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.88.80.115 (talk • contribs).
 * Even if wikipedia is useless in the medium term of things, which I suspect it will be (see rise and fall of websites and unsubstainable fads), making fun of peoples hobbies isn't that funny. I mean some people spend ages making robots just to smash them to bits. As long as everyone was having fun while the robot show was popular, then there is nowt to worry about JayKeaton 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

valdalism in wisdom teeth
I added to the a motivation why I changed the part on etymology. Because it reiterated a false folk etymology popular in the Netherlands. I would call this vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Australnaut (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not sure quite what you're trying to say, but the edit I reverted for being vandalism was not yours. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken Revert - Descent: FreeSpace
Goldom, I do not acknowledge your revert of Descent: FreeSpace for "rm nonsense from old vandalism". I know this comment is made two days late, but let me tell you that there is no nonsense or vandalism in that article:


 * The name 'FreeSpace' has always been capitalized at the S according to Volition Inc. Even their FreeSpace Reference Bible reflects this in the file name.
 * The ESRB rating is E for Everyone as at GameSpot.com.
 * The acronym 'FRED' meant FReeSpace EDitor. There are sites that confirm this.
 * Descent: FreeSpace is Descent: FreeSpace. FS1 is its adopted abbreviation.
 * Use the proper designation for ships. The Lucifer is a Lucifer-class superdestroyer, hence the SD Lucifer.
 * The phrase "jump node" is NOT hyphenated. Go and see the game for yourself.
 * The SJ Sathanas is of juggernaut specification, not class. It would be 'a Sathanas-class juggernaut'.
 * There is only one GTVA Colossus in the whole of FreeSpace 2, therefore it would be GTVA Colossus, not GTVA "Colossus".
 * The SJ Sathanas is NOT of destroyer specification, but of juggernaut specification, which "exceeds superdestoyer specifications".
 * The PVN (Parliamentary Vasudan Navy) is part of the PVE (Parliamentary Vasudan Empire).
 * The five new screenshots at the bottom of the page were uploaded to demonstrate the graphical superiority of FS2_Open over FS2. You should not remove them.

I write all this because I thought you needed to know. If you truly belong to RC patrol, you should know which articles to revert before you start reverting. -- A. Exeunt 08:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes!! Thanks for pointing that out, that was a total mistake on my part, I didn't mean to hit revert at all. I think what happened was, I saw one little bit of nonsense in there, then went to see when it was added in, forgot I was looking at an old version, then edited that one, effectively reverting everything else too. Don't worry, I had no intention of changing all those other things. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks for the speedy reply. -- A. Exeunt 08:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)