User talk:Indubitably/Archive 40

Existentialism
Hi. I apologize for sending this your way, but I noticed you recently helped clear up some vandalism on the Existentialism article. I and other editors are experiencing a lot of problems working on the article, especially the lead, because a user with no Wiki account (variously identified as 162.84.184.38, 71.247.12.83, and 141.155.135.66) persists in inserting challenged material, without attempting to reach a consensus and while refusing to provide citations (he/she calls citing sources "plagiarism": " I do not believe in using citations, because it smells like... plagiarism" [near the end of this discussion]). I currently have a [Wikipedia Etiquette alert] posted in an attempt to address the name calling, but it's really the problem editing which has brought work on the article to a standstill. An admin who has previously edited philosophy pages responded to a request for an outside opinion [here], but the IP user rejected it [here]. Perhaps it's time for a RfC on User. Any advice or assistance would be much appreciated. (The problems really run down the Existentialism Talk Page beginning [here].KD Tries Again (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I started looking into this yesterday. I'll continue later today. لenna  vecia  11:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. The Talk Page situation has deteriorated.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Oh, damn. I never got to this. *facepalm* My apologies. I'll do it now. لenna  vecia  14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jenna. I thought this was basically a problem of getting the editor to accept the policies on consensus and verifiability, but the civility issue sort of developed a higher profile this week.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * No problem. I'll check back in, but drop me a note if I'm needed again. لenna  vecia  14:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think he/she really gets it. "If your interpretation were dominant over the actual requirement of summary (in "a clear, accessible style"), then a pretext of lack of consensus (as in the ancient Rome "lese-majeste" or "treason") could be used to obstruct developing a summary the same way my attempts had been hindered. ...(Y)ou are too serious. You may need to loosen up and get more perspective. Children are taught that storks bring babies and it is not a big deal."

Am I being too sensitive? The remarks don't bother me, as I hardly understand them, but it makes really hard to accomplish anything.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Serious, not sensitive. I think you're being neither. Regardless, if he does this again, let me know immediately and he'll be blocked. لenna  vecia  18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! ...sorry. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and happy Halloween! --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Administrators
Dear لenna  vecia

I see you've recently had a run-in with User:Rama as well, though you seem to be taking it more philosophically than I do. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for precisely five months, mostly on Vietnamese history (the Sino-French War is my pet subject), and up to now fellow-contributors have been extremely helpful with images and additional material. Go to the bottom of Rama's talk page to see the dispute which arose out of nowhere two days ago. I've appealed for arbitration, and hope this is the right thing to have done. Perhaps you could advise ...

Djwilms (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While he clearly abused his admin tools deleting the images I brought to his attention, he's correct in your disagreement with him, although he's being unnecessarily rude about it. Your writing is nice for a book, but it's not written in an encyclopedic tone by any means. We need facts, not conjecture. That whole paragraph (the first on his talk page) can be summed up in a couple sentences. Sorry to disappoint, but you should keep such writing to your book, and keep it simple and based in clear facts here. لenna  vecia  12:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Main page
HI Jenna. I was thinking of something like this combining my header with your layout: 2008 main page redesign proposal/Dr. Blofeld 2. I've messed up the layout though as it isn't aligned properly and there wouldn't be any gap at the top and the recent featured articles wrongly shows at the top but you see how it would look if correctly documented. That would be my ideal. What to do you think? Dr. Blofeld  21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against the search bar in the header. I also think the borders should be consistent throughout the design, including around the header. The extra border adds waste and decreases the viewable content without scrolling. لenna  vecia  03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I liked the links to the portals at the top, with the icons. It looks very bland now. J.delanoy gabs adds  04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I have images for both. That will come down to community consensus. I like it with the icons, too. لenna  vecia  04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing though. Why is there no right hand border on your proposal when they is one on the left? It only has three borders  Dr. Blofeld   14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about! :O My design has a flaw that I didn't notice!? EEEP! I'll go look. Thanks, لenna  vecia  14:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, no. I don't see it. When you look at my screengrab of my design, do you see it in the image? If not, can you do a screenshot and show me what you see, along with the details of your browser and such. Thanks, لenna  vecia  14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
Hi. Thanks for handling the RFPP request; there hasn't been any editwarring since then. At WP:RFPP, you said, "User warnings would be more important here as you're editing against the consensus you quote." I linked to a number of discussions in the talk page archives, in which various points of view were expressed. Please tell me specifically what you're referring to when you say "the consensus you quote". By the way, the current talk page discussion looks to me as if it may be arriving at a new NPOV consensus. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The link in your edit summary lead me to that discussion. If consensus is swaying, this project is surely speedily on its way to Hell. لenna  vecia  03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the sentence containing the word "deer" in this edit: please avoid unsourced statements about individuals of a type likely to be unwelcome to the individual described. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If Jimbo has a problem with it, he can come let me know. At that point, I'll go find the interview and link it so that everyone can see the deer-in-the-headlights look. لenna  vecia  22:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Award
For your impressive display of guts and spine and brains (and whichever other appendages you can think of) in dealing with this issue, I proudly award you the yet-to-be-designed "The Lucifer's Barnstar Of Bitter Truth" for great justice and epic lulz.  Lucifer  (Talk)  04:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahahaa, thanks. XD What kind of image represents "Bitter Truth"? :D لenna  vecia  04:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal
Hey, are you open to new Bathrobe Cabal members? Given the link, you're clearly completely depraved. I'm intrigued and offer my bathrobe as evidence. - Flying  Toaster  06:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What cabal? What's a cabal? Some type of sandwich? &mdash;Dark talk 09:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are open to new members. Submissions should be emailed to me. You can post your bathrobe image here if you want, but it's no longer required. :D Now, where's my sammich, Dark? لenna  vecia  14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bre iz hungree
HUNGREE Mike H. Fierce! 13:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. لenna  vecia  14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington
Hi,

Just dropped in to this page and saw a small error so corrected it. In doing so I noticed that it had been semi-protected since 13th October and wondered if you'd mind lifting the protection as quite a bit of time has passed now since the vandalism. BigHairRef | Talk 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing that out. There's an error with TW that, regardless of what duration is set, it auto indefs protection. I need to go back to all my protections from that day and unprotect! It's unprotected now. Thanks again. لenna  vecia  15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. لenna  vecia  00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Userpage
Just to let you know, you have your 'Graphics editor' set to GeForce. I assume you know what is wrong ;) &mdash; neuro(talk) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * O, hmm. I misread that as just straight graphics. :/ Thanks. لenna  vecia  00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jc37
I'm a bit confused. Can you talk with Jc37 regarding how we're closing the RFC? We a discussion going on my talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I find that opposition like this can easily make a break this proposal: it would be interesting if he changes his position, and equally interesting if does not. Nevertheless, I think we can still proceed regardless. Congrats for your proposal. In the unlikelihood that if we edit war, I probably would have posted to temporarily lock the article. But seeing that everybody is an administrator except for me... I didn't feel like shooting myself in the foot. Anyway, David have posted, though I doubt his neutrality. Thanks nevertheless. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He's already expressed his strong displeasure with our process, I don't think he'll be the neutral party requested, rather just another participant in the discussion. I find it distressing that this process is taking so long due to so many hiccups. This one is particularly distressing because there is no way to address his original concern, or really the one that followed. It is practically impossible to consider which designs his comments support (and I'm pretty sure my design is a "four box design", so I would get support from it if we did manage it, so it's not like I'm fighting it to save my design). So I don't understand in the faintest what he expected us to do. And the chances of us getting someone uninvolved to close it? We had to fight tooth and nail just to get people to vote. And for someone who hasn't been following all of it, who wants to spend the hours upon hours it would take to review all the comments and compare them to all the open designs, and then apply them to five or less? And what if they got it wrong? Then what? It's just utterly absurd. But this is Wikipedia, and this is what you get. لenna  vecia  14:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was trying to bring back some comic relief and humor. I'm still new to the field, but after working for three years in design; when you loose your humor, you loose your creativity and constructive attitude. I disagree with jc37 and David, but I try not to become disagreeable. In some respects I think jc37 has ebbed, and David is just politicking. Both of which contain little constructive substance, so I'm not too concerned with them. What I am concerned about is that it's hard to be both the lawyer and designer. So in short, we are faced with the failure of the proposal by our own will — that is we forget that our intent is to provide a high-quality replacement for the current main page; or we are faced with the failure of the proposal by their will — that is they garner enough support to "shut down" our proposal.


 * I've made up my mind. Going by the lead up, I believe we need to start a thread discussion our goals, and another thread discussion our designs. So going by the plan, I would say: congrats again, we're half way through let's finish it, write an essay on how to run a MPRP, and wait for 2010. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think David is genuinely concerned. He's an old-guard member of Wikipedia and I really wish he'd just tell us how he thinks we should take it. Instead, IIRC, he just told us to go read over some old pages, and I have no clue where they are. That's not helpful, in my opinion. It's criticism, not constructive criticism. So whatev. They're insulting me and my design in an off-hand manner, but I'm confident that we'll be able to build a good design from mine and the other four and some of the aspects and features from others eliminated, even, from the comments left. As far as jc, I really have no idea. He's making a big fuss but he's still not, as far as I can tell, said what he expects us to do. I seem to remember him being a pain in an RFAR I participated in, but I could be confusing him with someone else. I try not to keep tabs on that sort of stuff. I realized it does no one any good to hold grudges. لenna  vecia  03:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure
Out of curiosity what will happen now that the poll is closed? Do we present the top three in a final? I would hate to think that people spent time in creating and commenting on these proposals if the main page wasn't actually going to be changed. What will happen?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not quite. The top five have moved on. The page at 2008 main page redesign proposal has been reset for this phase. From here we will determine the best features from each based on the comments made in the poll. And from there we will create one (maybe two) final designs to put up against the main page in the final community poll. And I share your feelings about a final poll resulting in no change. Months of coding, commenting, tweaking, processes, drama and stress (most of it unnecessary), more coding, more stress, more commenting, and then all for nothing? It's a chance we take. لenna  vecia  14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there is a better chance of the Mainpage changing than RfA... --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hahahhahaaha... ah... so true. BUT, hopefully we can get both to change! XD لenna  vecia  16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just ducked out for milk.
Hey! I just returned to Wikipedia and thought I'd drop by and say Hello and offer you some pine tree juice (if you actually can remember what that references/what conversation that's from, you get 10 points).

Hope things are well! I'm sure we'll cross paths again over the next few weeks, we usually do.  Pursey  Talk 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! I think it had something to do with this. :) Welcome back! You've missed a lot... don't ask what, though. It's too dramatic to even go through... all of it! XD How have you been? لenna  vecia  04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 10 points! Yeah I know I've missed heaps, I've spent the last day or so looking over some of what I could find easily. Some of it's just really weird I swear. Drama Llama's been running rampant. Still, if there's anything super interesting to look out you should link me! You haven't gone crazy yet though? I've been alright, I've just had a massively busy year. I took some time off after a death in the family and got distracted by "more important things" (not that they were really more important - I just chose to focus on myself for a while). I'll try and actually stick around this time, even if it's in a reduced capacity. It's too hard to keep having to catch up on everything, hah. :)  Pursey  Talk 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I don't even want to think about it. I changed my name and now it's a new era. Let me know if you need anything. :) لenna  vecia  04:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I saw that. People confusing you with the Adult Star hey? ;) I keep getting confused with this guy but I don't have a backup name handy. :)  Pursey  Talk 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, that's not the real reason, but some peeps in my IRC chan didn't think I'd do it (link that)... how silly of them. XD Of course I would link it!! Hahaha. Ah, good times. So you're not a train? لenna  vecia  04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I could be. Occasionally I blow off steam. I've derailed before, but I managed to fix that.  Pursey  Talk 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Eeep. I don't know which is worse. Gin or a lobotomy! لenna  vecia  16:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * \o/ Thank you! :D لenna  vecia  15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please do not make false edit summaries. And please stop trolling Jimbo Wales, see WP:BLP. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's you told. –  iride scent  18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You what. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Laughable. I'm literally laughing out loud. Like, haha, srsly? Are you kidding me, SqueakBox? Did you seriously just say I'm trolling? You must be kidding, because that's the biggest pile of crap I've seen since visiting my mother-in-law's stables. Stop your whitewashing, kthx. Otherwise, I'll fight you every step of the way. لenna  vecia  04:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahha, and just for reference, an editor makes this change to the article, but I'm getting talk page messages? Hahaha, speaking of LAUGHABLE! XD لenna  vecia  06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you have changed your name since the white pride scandal, I hadn't realised who you were. I am very clear that asserting the co-founder rubbish in non-relevant articles re Wales is trolling, and I am certainly quoting Jimbo in this. Your claim it is a fact that he is co-founder indicates you do not understand what facts are. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth is asserting that he is a co-founder rubbish and how is the article on Jimbo Wales irrelevant to this? Why does "the white pride scandal" have any bearing on this at all? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the Rogers Cadenhead article not the Jimmy Wales article. And the point is that in articles not directly related to Wales this extremely controversial and debated piece of information should not be inserted as if it were a fact. The white pride scandal has nothing whatsoever to do with this but it does have to do with my perception of Jenna and so is certainly relevant to her talk page, ie I hadn't realised she was an editor with whom i have had contact in the past. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The white pride "scandal" was a misunderstanding of views. And, SqueakBox, rest assured that no matter how pathetically low your opinion of me is, my opinion of you is so much lower and has been that way since months before you even knew I existed. That said... so we're talking about another article now? Because this is the first time you've mentioned this article here. How about this SqueakBox, keep up your whitewashing and we'll just get wider community input on your disruptive editing. Consensus is already against you on Talk:Jimmy Wales, so wake up and note that you're the troll, SqueakBox, not me. لenna vecia  15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes well your opinion of me fits with your white pride beliefs, no doubt, I assume you refer to the pic of me and my wife in creating your "low opinion of me" even though you do not know what my opinion of you is. The wider opinion on your disruption and trolling of our founder could indeed do with wider input, ideally from the arbcom, who would also equally take offence at your "low opinion of me" and perhaps your "white pride beliefs" too. If I am a troll then so is Jimbo. I suggest you read fact. I am, though, intrigued by your assertion that you and Quack disagreeing with Copportwig and I represents a consensus against me, esp given Jimbo;'s repeated views on the subject and why the repeated insertion of co- as fact is trolling. This strikles me as a funny kind of consensus fro your opinion. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Squeak, I'd advise you not to take it to ArbCom - for one thing, this is merely a content dispute, And second thing is, I've looked over the talk page and your contribs, and frankly, you're looking worse off than Jenna is. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that is your opinion, just as Jenna's opinion is that she has a terrible opinion of me, or morte to the point she has a worse opinion than that she alleges i have of her. I suggest you are not that well informed of the deeper co-founder issues, the only thing I would take to arbcom is this ridiculous co-founder dispute, and were i to do so I would suggest Jenna will not be seen to have acted to the high standards of an admin that we expect in wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to ArbCom, SqueakBox. I have no problem with that. لenna  vecia  18:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is it that expects high standards of admins on wikipedia? Certainly not me. That is, of course, in no way a comment on Jennavecia, who seems to have acted quite properly in this content dispute. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, you can continue to use your misconception of my beliefs to try to strengthen your weak argument, but I don't think it will work. Go ahead and take it to ArbCom. I'm not even slightly worried about how it would go. And as far as my low opinion of you, I have never seen a picture of you, I base my opinion from your editing. لenna  vecia  17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just clicked your link. Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. Oh damn, his co-foundership with Larry is still a fact, even after reading what fact means... o, I already knew that, though. لenna  vecia  18:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done reading the fact article. Something like this co-founder business is so submerged with opinion and innuendo that it cannot be considered a fact any more than "McCain was tortured in Vietnam" can be considered a fact, both being disputed by actual witnesses, in this case Wales himself. he doesn't get less rights than the rest of us just because of what Cadenhead wrote or because of what Sanger claims, or because he is Jimbo. This has been an issue of mine for a long time, see User:SqueakBox/wikipedia founder. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * your beliefs re white pride are not at dispute, what is at dispute is your claim that it is a fact that Wales is merely a co-founder and the inappropriate POV pushing of these beliefs in many articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you're the one attempting to strengthen your argument by bringing up unrelated issues that you are ignorant of. You're ignoring facts and whitewashing the article. That's clear. So you can go on with your disruption and trolling, but I'm not changing my stance. It's a verifiable fact that Jimbo co-founded Wikipedia with Larry Sanger. So regardless of whether or not you were born fighting this issue, I don't care. Sources verify the claim. Jimbo attempted to write Larry out of the history. We have sources for that as well, and you can keep removing them from the article, but we'll just keep putting them back. لenna  vecia  18:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe some editors are simply adhering to this edit summary mandate =P. One thing I see missing here is common sense - there exits an huge amount of policy debate, but not much inference. This edit shows that at one point, Mr. Wales accepted a role as co-founder as the article stated at the time. Anyway, sorry to read about your family's pet. I'm going to stay clear of most of the bios (as I tend to anyway), but could use help on Halloween-related articles. Lawshoot! 02:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This caught my attention randomly - mainly because it's this kind of wank that kept me away from Wikipedia for so long after I meant to take a "short break". SqueakBox: so I would suggest Jenna will not be seen to have acted to the high standards of an admin that we expect in wikipedia. You're shitting me, right? You suggest some form of mythical high standards that are expected of an Admin? Most people's criteria during an RfA consist of being active, civil, not biting newbies, and likely to not misuse the tools. Jennavecia hasn't deviated from any of these "high standards". Mind you, I can tell you right now if I saw your name at RfA I'd be opposing just for the vindictive, stupid, and rude original talk page message you left here. You may as well template her. How about instead of threatening to take established, respected Administrator's (more importantly, a constructive Editor) to ArbCom over some stupid personal crusade about whether or not to put Co- at the start of someone's title, leaving rancid talk page messages, and acting like a spoilt child you have the decency to show respect that I'd expect any user to show any other user and start a civil discussion next time? (Sidenote: Sorry to Jennavecia, for invading your talk page with my vent)  Pursey  Talk 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Law, thank you (about the loss of my pet). I'm taking it harder than I would have expected. And I fear for the other, as he's not eating or drinking. I don't know if he's sick like Ozzy or if he's just sad. Thanks also for the diffs. Pursey, thanks to you as well. Feel free to vent here anytime. I am happy to provide my talk page to anyone who needs to vent. لenna  vecia  03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Central_ventilation_tube2.jpg]]  Pursey  Talk 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a Star, but where's the Barn?
Thanks! :D لenna  vecia  04:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're Welcome! :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 04:49

Apology
Hi, Jennavecia. I'm really sorry about what I said about a day ago at the Admin's noticeboard. I wasn't right for me to insinuate that you were not being transparent, fair, or prudent. (I know you didn't intend for it to wind up that way, so I don't hold it against you.) I probably came of as really arrogant saying I would have done this and that and the other; I didn't mean to belittle all the work you've done. Right now, most people are discussing - remarkably calmly, actually - the merits of specific approaches under ChyranandChloe's Goals discussion. We're figuring out what we want the Main Page to be and we'll start drafting in a week or two, at which point we'll revisit the old designs. In the mean time, we'd really appreciate your input and ideas. A lot of the ideas from the previous go-round are coming to light, and even if things seem chaotic at the moment, I know the final design will be better because we went through this phase. Again, I sincerely apologize from alienating you from the group and ask you to rejoin it. Thank you. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and apology. I appreciate it. I've not abandoned the group, though. I did decide to take a day to myself, sort of. I stayed off of IRC, closed out my messenger and just hit up an article for some ref work (and a little talk page debate); but other than that, I had Halloween with my kids and I work long hours on the weekend. So I have limited wiki-time on those days. I should be back at the design on Monday. I'll peek in for a look tonight (Daylight Savings, fall back, so I get an extra hour... to sleep or to wiki!? :P). Thanks again. Best regards, لenna  vecia  04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Amazing Race Asia 3
Hey Jennavecia! Can you please restore the page of The Amazing Race Asia 3 per Aleenf1's edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_Asia_3&oldid=249004370

Thanks. ApprenticeFan (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests like this need to be made on the article's talk page using the editprotected template. Sorry that the dispute template which explains this had not been placed on the article. Tan must have forgotten. لenna  vecia  15:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page again
Given the number of people who edit wikipedia we are never going to decide on one main page which everybody likes. Why not keep the front page as standard but allow a new preferences option where the editor has the choice to select his/her main page preference. E.g make those top five entries available by preference?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an option, as several are available like that currently, though it's not an easy page to find. However, I joined this process because I don't like the main page and I never have. It's cute, and the design looks good for user pages, but it's unprofessional and does not represent what we're doing here very well. The various pastel colors and basic boxes... we're an encyclopedia. While we are a wiki thus do not have a professionally designed main page, we can still attempt to have a professional looking main page. So that's why I'm working for change. If that doesn't happen, then I'll add it to the list of main page skins. Thanks for the note, though, it's a good idea that I'd not considered since early this summer. Now to remember where that page is!? XD لenna  vecia  16:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree with you on that one Jenna. I've always thought given the possibilities of web design the front page is lacking. What we need is one solid looking page by default one which looks much better (the problem is that it is difficult for everybody to agree on something, many people are total opposites!!!). Personally I prefer block colors which is reflected in my clothing preference!, admittedly I don't like the pale green and blue we currently have and the main title is far too weak. I agree, we know that thousands of new people visit wikipedia every day drawn by google and many people judge a book by its cover. We all know that quality of content and depth is most important but the main page is still the first that people see and is somewhat of a "wiki base" so quite rightly should be of the highest quality aesthetic appearance and useability that we have to offer. Even though if we make the change, I;d still like to see a new options section for changing it from about 5 options in our preferences if some people aren't keen on it. I hope the main page reproposal runs a bit more smoothly from now on and I can see it was difficult the last few days. Hang in there and I much appreciate your efforts to do something about it. Best regards Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dr. Blofeld. I appreciate it. :) لenna  vecia  18:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ozzy
I'm very sorry. You have my condolences :( Sam  Blab 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sam. لenna  vecia  18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes me too, I have suffered a lot from losing animals in my life, here is a pic of new life, the office cat. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't deal well with pet deaths. I guess it's a good thing that my kids are taking it better than me. لenna  vecia  18:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   CWii ( BOO!  has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Camp Tamakwa Michael Greene
Thank you very much for correcting with references - i really did not know the proper way to post valid information. there were two other articles on www.davidsaulgreene.com. user:Stokru720 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sorry it took so long for the article to include it. لenna  vecia  18:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism Continued
Hi Jenna. Our IP User friend with the "expired" account has issued two accusations of trolling against other editors today at the Existentialism discussion page.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Hmm. Neither appear to be direct accusations. There's not much I can do with that, really. لenna  vecia  21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess he could mean trolling in some abstract sense... Okay.  At the [Wikiquette discussion], there's been a suggestion that RFC is the way to go.  There may be no alternative if IP User manages to avoid a summary ban, but I suspect (wrongly?) that RFC on a user who doesn't have a user account - i.e., ona  temporary IP number - may be a waste of time. KD Tries Again (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I've not seen this done before, but I wouldn't think it would be pointless. It would just take some dedicated admin(s) too keep and eye on him, I think. Hmm... all the more reason this project should lock down and require registration to edit. لenna  vecia  04:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's something I hadn't thought of. I might try to work on a different section, and if the editing is disrupted seek partial protection.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

MPRP discussion
I think our discussion is finally reaching a conclusion. I used your as backing on several occasions, and I'd apologize if what I said didn't really represent your views or positions. In a way, I think it's another hurdle and now we're about to return what really counts: design. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it's moving, I don't care if you misrepresented me. Whatever works. لenna  vecia  05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP Vandal
Your (now expired) block on User:Ssbb6 may relate to User:SSBB pro, User:Yoshi, User talk:LOLYoshi and/or User talk:209.20.66.205. Note frequent use of pwnd (and variants), frequent Super Smash Bros. Brawl references, exclamation pint appended on "YOSHI!". Could you please have a look?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged as puppetering. لenna  vecia  04:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales
Hi, Jennavecia. Thank you very much for your efforts in working together to form a consensus about that confounded founder/co-founder thingy; I'm quite pleased with how it's working out. About the sentence in one of your comments on the talk page which I allege to violate BLP: would it be OK with you if I delete most of that sentence from your comment and leave like this? "When addressed as the co-founder in an interview, he (Rest of sentence deleted; alleged by Coppertwig to be a BLP violation Coppertwig(talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)) ". Coppertwig(talk) 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it. لenna  vecia  04:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

creating sockpuppet categories - a request
Thank you for your addition of a sockpuppet category. When you create these categories in the future, please include Sockpuppet category. This will keep the category from showing up on reports such as Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Best wishes, - Stepheng3 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I'll try to remember that. Thank you. لenna  vecia  03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. And let me know if there's a way to alert other sockpuppet category creators. - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just add it to the template? If not automatic, as I suppose categories are not always created, then a commented out note that if a category is created, be sure to include Sockpuppet category? لenna  vecia  04:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which template are you suggesting it be added to? - Stepheng3 (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any applicable template, particularly those that automatically generate the category link. لenna  vecia  12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. But see, I don't know of any such templates. I've never been involved in sockpuppet processing, so I'd appreciate any pointers you can provide to appropriate intervention points. - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll look into it and list them here. لenna  vecia  04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, that didn't take me as long as I thought. Category:Sockpuppet templates.  لenna  vecia  04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a lot of templates. At what point does the sockpuppet category (or suspected sockpuppet category) get created? - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A user creates it by adding any text to the page. Some of the templates provide the redlink, but the cat is not actually created until someone edits it. لenna  vecia  04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. That suggests I need to add a notice to Special:Wanted categories.  Correct? - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm... I don't think so. You're not creating a category, right? Just adding some code to the templates. Hmm. Maybe drop a note about it on WP:AN to see what others think. لenna  vecia  05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How are you doing?
Is there anyone you'd like me to go over to and slap with the stick they keep up their ass? Just let me know, I've got nothing to lose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFL. Well, I could tell you, but then the Civility police would be after my bit. :D I do, however, appreciate the offer. I just got a new camera, I've spent that last hour making scarves for Christmas presents, and I'm watching my favorite shows. So, I suppose I'm doing alright now. I'm going to attempt to keep my stress levels low. How are you doing now? لenna  vecia  02:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since you ask, my mother is dying of cancer, my father recently committed suicide after murdering his bigamous wife, my house is about to be repossessed, and I was laid off yesterday. So in the grand scheme of things what happens here is really pretty small beer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * O.O I was like :O hahaha. Ass. Yea, it's just a website. That's what we must all remember. Deep breaths and the mantra, it's just a website. لenna  vecia  02:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the offer still stands, I have a candidate. I think you can guess who he is. Malleus, I think he even lives near you. –  iride scent  21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I lol'ed at this.  Syn  ergy 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
for dealing with the SSP yesterday.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) لenna  vecia  03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi
See my talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sox case
Hello, Jenna. User is a sockpuppet of blocked user. I have read the instructions at WP:SSP, but they are too complicated. Would you mind taking care of this case? Thanks, --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Already taken care of. :) لenna  vecia  12:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Once in a while ...
Once in a while it would be really handy to have one of those nifty delete buttons. Like now. A GA review page was created in error Talk:Lyme Park/GA1, which makes the GAN template think that a review is underway, when it isn't, potentially confusing for a reviewer. Forgetting that when plebs like me move a page a redirect is automatically set up I tried to fix the problem by moving Talk:Lyme Park/GA1 to Talk:Lyme Park/XX1. But of course I've only made things worse, with two pages that need to be deleted now. Oh dear! Can you help? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you want a delete button when you can get a slave admin to do it for you? :-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A very good point. Thanks! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear someone else has taken care of it. Glad I could be of service. :) لenna  vecia  20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the benefits of having a well watched talk page. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * tru.dat. لenna  vecia  20:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion
User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)



Rajesh Khanna
Hi. Yes, this old chestnut again ! User 220.227.97.99 tweaked the introduction again - I've reverted it back (again), but considering your last message to him/her about this article, perhaps it should go to WP:AIV ? Let me know what you think :-)

P.S. I won't ask why there is a picture of a kitten in a waterbasket just above this....some things are probably best left unknown ! CultureDrone (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * AIV would not be the appropriate place for such a report. I've taken care of it. Thanks for the note. Also, it's a wastebasket. Someone made a stupid and pointless MFD that was sort of ironic in that the concern was basically the page was a waste of time, and really, the MFD was a waste of time. Those always make me laugh. لenna  vecia  16:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What worries me is that I typed 'waterbasket' when I patently meant 'wastebasket'.... and I can't even blame Microsoft autocorrect this time ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)