User talk:Grace Note/Archive March-May 2006

Archives?
Hi, I just wandered over here to find out about an argument that had occurred to see how it ended so as to learn how other editors handle difficult situations but find that you have archived your talk page and not provided links to these pages? Could you explain why to me as it is a curious thing to not keep archives of talk? -Localzuk (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. It just helps for continuity. Maybe a message at the top stating that you just have to look for the message before 'archiving' in the history would make it more obvious. Cheers -Localzuk (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned user
As you requested, this is to let you know that I reverted an edit to User:Grace Note/proposed FAQ for Wikipedia report from a banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * == Template:User review ==

This template was not recreated. The original reason for deletion was not a criterion for speedy deletion; therefore it was out of process and I speedily undeleted it. The deletion review discussion will clearly result in the template being undeleted. —Guanaco 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor question
Just a question - with this new system, we no longer put in "jewish father" or "Italian mother", right? Someone is now either "Jewish" or "Italian" or not on the list? In that case we had better remove these tags from the people we keep (if the tags are there). Vulturell 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing on your changes to the Catholic list. I will probably remove some names tonight. JackO&#39;Lantern 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also believe user RMS has returned, despite his 48 hour block. User:63.164.145.85 is labelled as being a sock-puppet of his, and he has made many edits today. JackO&#39;Lantern 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's another question. What if someone explicitly describes themselves as "I am half Jewish"? (Or is described by another source in exactly those words?) Do we include them with a note? I mean, they are saying they are Jewish in a sense. Vulturell 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I was asking about Gavin Rossdale. The Jewsrock website included him in their list of Jewish musicians and said that he was "half-Jewish". I had previously had a source for Rossdale where he talked about his Jewish background. It wasn't clear. Sharon Osbourne's son, Jack, called her a "Russian Jewish woman" in the citation for Kelly, so that would do for us. I think usually it's ok to include a person who explicitly calls themselves "half Jewish" (well, as long as they aren't making it up). Vulturell 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
That is so kind. Thank you! I really do value it coming from you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the nice comment! I hadn't really considered this before but it is nice that my work here is appreciated. I think I have 16 thousand edits or something since I started in summer 2005. I'm going to look back and see where I know you from; I can't remember but maybe it's somwhere music-related (?) I'm not sure I want the added responsibility of being an admin (especially having to handle disputes), though; as here, as in life, I prefer doing work in the background  ;-).  Badagnani 07:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right; there's our exchange in my "talk" page (which I've never archived, ha ha)...you're from Brisbane. The Melungeon dispute you speak of did resolve itself very nicely, but now has become quite silly in that the editor in question now doesn't like to permit other editors to add information to the article, posting in "discussion" more than once that she is the real author of the article, etc. Hope you have a nice trip; just curious, where to? Badagnani 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on my RfA
I have responded on my RfA to your comments about my answer to one of the questions posed to me, and was hoping you would consider my response to your "oppose" vote. As I said on that page, the question posed to me asked about sockpuppets being used abusively, which I took to mean that they were being used to commit gross policy violations. Regards, JDoorj a m    Talk 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding "Jews" to the List of British Jews
Arnie, please, I realise that for whatever reason you wish to add as many people as possible to the list of British Jews. But you can see that I'm systematically working through the list. Why be in such a hurry to revert? I'm not going to have changed my mind in the ten minutes since I removed Born, for instance. You are simply creating conflict. Why not discuss it on Talk? Why not wait until I have finished and then bring those names you have a problem with to my talkpage? Simply editwarring over them is not constructive and, I have to say, does not paint you in a good light. Grace Note 03:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are the one whose actions do not paint you in a good light. If you want to dispute someone why not post a message on the talk page about them instead of dismantling the whole list? It is nonsense that I want to add as many names as possible to the list, as I have told you before I am only really interested in early British Jewry and I have personally have only added about 4 people, mainly early Jewish politicians to the list. Arniep 03:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Useful tip
When referring to a template in a post, you can add tl| (T+L+pipe) inside the curly brackets, before the template name, and it will call the Template link template, which avoids including the template (and any included categories) on the page. For example, with the template citation needed, if you add the tl|, it renders like this: citation needed. Anyone can follow the link to see what the template is, but the page is not modified. Hope this helps you! KillerChihuahua?!? 05:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All I did
Was restore names you just removed, with better citations. I can't see how that has anything to do with your current edits. Vulturell 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can't see how my edits are "aggressive". If I source someone as soon as you discredit the old source, it makes me rapid, not aggressive. Vulturell 09:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I find the whole process of the past week to be "aggressive", on behalf of you and SlimVirgin. I see no problem in responding to your questions/concerns as soon as they are posted (in fact, that is efficency) or adding new sources once old ones are questioned. I refuse to be criticized for being rapid and efficient. Simply refuse. As for the Wikipedia Board, it is set up precisely for the purposes that I have been using it. And, for the record, although I questioned your actions, I did not in fact directly insult you on the board, although I certainly stuck it to SlimVirgin, and that is something I will not disown. Vulturell 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Absolutely ridiculous"
Howdy Grace,

Just thought I'd drop a comment regarding your reference to my remark in Will McWhinney; I see no reason to make the observation there. First, I don't consider proper invocations of CSD to be "unilateral." CSD is a process, with rules for its execution, and a procedure for appeal. There is no sanction for truly unilateral deletions on Wikipedia, save Jimbo (now sometimes in the form of the problematic policy WP:OFFICE, which is hard to consider as a process, since it operates secretly.)

Secondly, "Statement X is absolutely ridiculous" is a favorite catch-phrase of the Cabal, isn't it? I had thought you were above that sort of remark. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was a f-cking ridiculous thing for you to say. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. --Bhadani 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue Hills Elementary School
I just wanted to let you know that I wrote a response to your vote at Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary School. ClarkBHM 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not even slightly interested. -- Grace Note.


 * Not interested wherever you post it. Grace Note 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I started off on the wrong foot with you. For that, I apologize. The responses to the AFD made me feel like I was being attacked and I believe that I reacted poorly. Now, almost two weeks have passed. Today, for some reason, your response made me curious about you so I explored your user page. I really appreciated the comments you made here, and it made me see you in a new light. This thing is supposed to be fun, not annoying! Please accept my apology so that we can put this behind us. ClarkBHM 06:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions
When nominating Template: space, or other pages that are transcluded for Speedy Deletion, please wrap  ...  tages around the tags so that it does not categorize pages transcluding the page for speedy deletion as well. Thanks! — xaosflux  Talk  02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

long time, not see: Plagiarism
Any way: check this, if you like: Regards, Huldra 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way; here is what is at the heart of the matter: here is Jay/Slims version of the Ben Dunkelman article, while here is my version: (this version in no way is a "finished" version, as I pointed out on the talk-page: there was e.g. nothing on his lfe between 1948-1997. ) Everything they took away was sourced in the book I gave as a referance. Regards, Huldra 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Schools
Hi, I have protected the Schools page (at the wrong version of course). Try to reach agreement with Rob on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion at Profanity
Hi Grace Note, I'm sorry if you took offense to my reverting you. While I agree that reverting edits is not as good as discussion, they do have their place and they are not limited to vandalism. Just as you were under no firm obligation to discuss your edit on the talk page before you made it, another editor is under no obligation to have to discuss it before rolling it back. Johntex\talk 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Grace Note. I am sorry, I was wrong about the rollback tool - I had thought that it was covered under the same policy as reverting through any other means, but I went back and re-read policy.  The policy at WP:REVERT makes no distinction between the methods.  However, at WP:ADMIN, it is clear that the rollback button should only be used for simple vandalism.  So, I apologize for the misuse of the tool and I will watch myself not to do that again.
 * As for my comment on discussion, what I said was that I was under no more nor no less obligation to discuss my edit than you were. I stand by that part of my statement. You were the one that edited a guideline with no Talk page discussion, I merely went beck to the long-standing version.  You were under just as much obligation to discuss your edit as I was. What I should have done, though, is avoid the rollback button so that I could include a more informative edit summary. Thanks, Johntex\talk 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User marriage man-woman
This template has already been thoroughly discussed at TfD, where it received an overwhelming consensus to keep (22 Keep votes versus 3 Delete votes). Please review the arguments put forth there, and if you still think the template should be deleted, please go through the proper channels, as it's clearly not a speedy candidate given the number of people who voted to keep it at TfD. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grace Note. Thank you for writing on my user page regarding the marriage man-woman template. I refer you to the same link you sent me about civility. Have a great day. Stanley011 05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant my "discussion page" not my "user page." You did not write on my user page, that was a mind lapse--I appologize for the accusation, it was not intentional. Anyway, I still refer you to the link you sent me about civility. Have a teriffic day. Stanley011 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If by saying "I look askance at editors who want it kept. It's like you ran up a flag," you mean to imply that you think I am homophobic, you are badly mistaken; I am a lesbian and a card-carrying member of the Human Rights Campaign. However, the box merely expresses an opinion on same-sex marriage, and it seems obvious to me that so long as we allow any userboxes expressing opinions on same-sex marriage, we must allow all userboxes expressing opinions on same-sex marriage; we can't discriminate against those opinions we don't like.  This interpretation of Wikipedia policy was borne out by the consensus on the TfD - and I would like to remind you that 22 editors voted to keep, which is more than even vote in the average AfD, so your claim that the discussion only went that way because the page is neglected is unwarranted. Therefore, there is (at the least!) debate as to whether this box meets the speedy criteria, and when there is debate as to whether a page meets the speedy criteria, the procedure is to take it to 'X'fD for discussion.  Also, please note the official deletion policy: "In general, if an article has had a deletion discussed and this did not result in a "delete" decision, the article should not be immediately renominated for deletion."  This is doubly true in a case like this where there was not only no consensus to delete, but there was in fact a very clear consensus to keep.  Repeatedly nominating this template for speedy deletion, despite the demonstrated consensus that it should be kept, is inappropriate and against policy. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, my preference would be for all of those userboxes to go. However, many editors do not agree with me on that issue, so we still have large numbers of activism templates hanging around.  Given that, I'd at least hope that we could be fair rather than using discriminatory userbox deletions to enforce a particular POV, worsening the problem.  (Also, I don't know how much you have followed the Userbox Wars, but it seems to me that speedy-deleting userboxes against consensus has been more divisive than the userboxes themselves.  Even if you managed to get the box speedy-deleted, it wouldn't stay deleted for long and a whole bunch of people would be pissed off.)  If you want to nominate all the sexuality-activism-related templates for deletion as a group, I'd be happy to put my two cents in for "delete"... I just don't think there's much hope of them actually being deleted, given how consensus has gone in the past. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 06:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Situation of administrator abuse
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

huh?
I am a little mystified at this edit in Schools. I can't conceive of why you would add wording that basically says we shouldn't have articles on the typical school. I thought you wanted articles on all schools. I'm not reverting you, because I think you added an opinion opposite to what you want. --Rob 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to vandal warning toolbox
I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. --Kbh3rd talk 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your user page
Some interesting ideas. Thanks for posting them - hopefully they'll get a lot of readers, and perhaps even some action... Ckatz 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
While I may not like what you said about ArbCom on the mediation cabal page, you were fair, and I appreciate that. It's the first bit of fairness I've had. Thank you. Ardenn 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comments
Grace, please don't add editorial comments to articles please. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My, we are defensive today aren't we? Please point out my editorialising. My comment stands, you've been around here for quite a while now and you know Wikipedia policy. Please follow them. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation for being diligent and willing to stick with unpopular opinions
I can't say that I agree with every position you've taken, but I appreciate your honesty, your integrity with regards to your principles, and your willingness to stick with an endeavor that can so often drive us insane. For that, I'd like to award you the Resilient Barnstar.

I love your userpage.
Thank you for spelling out my feelings so eloquently, on your user page. --Connel MacKenzie 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth
Out of interest, Grace Note, are you an administrator of Wikitruth.info? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just asking you directly, better than talking behind your back. As for the Wikipedia Review, I do look at that site every now and then, and to be honest I'm more amused than upset that they think I'm a Wikitruth.info admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lar's RfA
I'm sorry if my asking for clarification could have been perceived as bullying as I certainly didn't mean it as such. For the record, I've had no major interactions with Lar and have no reason to bully people into supporting him. I simply wanted to know more about your reason for opposing because it might change my opinion; I supported only based on what information was available, so I might have missed something. My apologies if I came off differently than intended. — Cuivi é  nen  , Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 22:40 UTC 

User page
Sorry about not putting the comments on your talk page, I usually do move them over. Not sure what I was thinking and in the case of the link I'm not really sure what I was thinking about that. OK now I know why I missed the message to you. I cam here indirectly from the WP:ANI through Incorrect's contributions list. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect
Okay, done. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. You got a chuckle out of me. I am pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggiethewolfstar 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!
Thanks for your vote in my RfA! I greatly appreciate your concern, and liked your comment. The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm happy to have accepted it; it has been a good learning experience. - Amgine 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:LISTS
Why are you stating that this proposed guideline was rejected? Please state your objections in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists
Why don't we team up? As you may or may not know, I want all the Wikipedia "foo" or "Foo-American" lists to be in synch with each other. If you're saying that the people on all of these lists have to be described as "foos" or "Foo-Americans" (i.e. described as "Greek" or "Greek-Americans", for example) to be included and avoid original research, then that is how they will be organized. As you probably remember, I did the Catholic American list pretty quickly, and that is how I would like to do all the other lists. However, I do need the assurance and back-up, because there are editors on certain lists, like the aforementioned Greek Americans, who insist on including anyone who has any "Foo" ancestry. Essentially, I'm willing and ready to do the work on all the lists we have (there isn't an unreasonable amount of them) and finally get this over with, but what I need is your back-up - something like a note co-signed by both of us on all the pages explaining the Original Research policy and what I am doing. I could paste it around. By the way, something I'm not clear about, are people who are described as, say, "Polish-born" (like "Polish-born American artist" or something) or "born in Poland" immediately Polish-Americans? Or is that not acceptable either? Looking forward to getting these lists organized, Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User page
Interesting read. It's uncomfortably close to the truth. I just keep trying to figure out ways to solve some of the problems you point out. Can you help? Kim Bruning 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re RfC.
It may very well be a "waste of time" but I have a perfectly logical reason for filing the RfC: We can both agree that the block was excessive. He deserves a review by his peers.

I believe that any admin who makes those kinds of mistakes deserves a review by his/her peers.

True, he may have too many admin friends who would back him - the whole thing reeks of cabalism. — Nathan (Got something to say? Say it.) 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists
Fair enough, so far I've already fully sourced a few full lists (alphabetically up from Vietnamese/Swiss/Swedish/Russian/Romanian) with this method, and haven't been opposed to yet. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remain Civil
However strongly you feel about issues, please remain civil during discussions. Your comments at and  are inappropriate and are inflaming already difficult situations. Thanks, Gw e rnol 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Nothing should be expected of admins but that they apply the policies. IAR was okay for a small wiki but it's shit when you have thousands of editors. IAR should only apply to not stressing noobs out with a whole bunch of policy they have to obey or perish. It should not be a licence for the likes of Aaron to do what he likes without let or hindrance. Grace Note 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My first response to that was ... If admins can only apply policies, then who would want to be an administrator? Being an admin and being an editor would almost be mutually exclusive. I'm probably misunderstanding somewhere, can you point it out?


 * Hmm, on another point, have you looked at the figures gmaxwell worked on for me? Apparently, while in total we have around 900000 registered accounts, most pages on wikipedia really only have a couple of editors working on them, even today.
 * I'll agree that the number of pathological cases where there are >100 people working on a particular page or project is rising. Perhaps we need two sets of rules, one for busy pages and the other for not so busy pages.
 * After all, it'd be silly to require people to apply 100K of rules to a 1K page ;-) Kim Bruning 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that stricter rules must apply where there are 1) more people who are 2) not well acculturated.
 * The thing is, folks have been doing measurements, and it turns out that most wiki pages are actually only edited by a couple of people (10 is already a lot). This means that looser rules are actually more effective, most of the time. I'll agree that there's a number of pathological cases. Interestingly, only relatively few of those cases are in the encyclopedia namespace.
 * Rather than yelling stricter rules, stricter rules, and starving the encyclopedia in favor of the community, it might be wiser to restructure some of the pathological systems in the other namespaces, so that they remain robust even when rules are applied less strictly. Kim Bruning 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright abuses
Hello, this message is because of your comments opossing User:Ta bu shi da yu admin here. Because of the abuse of authority of User:Ta bu shi da yu, Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".

Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. User:Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images.

We stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright

Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own trival power here on wikipedia. Like most authoritarian personalities, these misguided copyright fanatics have finally have overstepped the bounds of good sense and restraint, when they began deleting tens of thousands images from wikiusers' pages. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not abuse other editors.
.--Sean Black 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking your talk page
I understand that you wish to archive your talk page, but you must provide a link to the content for it to not simply be considered talk page blanking. Please do so. — Cuivi é  nen T, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:16 UTC

As your discussion page contains admin warnings, you need to either keep these on the page or achive the contents via cut and paste on a subpage see How to archive a talk page ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to have to make this into a "big deal", which it shouldn't be, but blanking your talk page is not allowed if it contains warnings from administrators. I also remind you to avoid personal attacks and assume good faith; I am not harrassing you, as you have accused me of on my talk page (assuming that that anonymous editor is in fact you). I am giving you notice that you have violated rules. — Cuivi é  nen T, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 02:28 UTC


 * I have restored all content on your talk page. You may blank it if you do not blank warnings, or you may archive by moving the entire page to a separate subpage. — Cuivi é  nen T, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 02:32 UTC