User talk:J-stan/Archives/2008/February

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of free party sound systems (2nd nomination)
Could you please take a look at this and see if I did it right? Thank you. Corvus cornix talk  23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Alright. I'll try. Look at the history of WP:AIV. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll go to WP:AIV, but its 'anybodies block' from there :) -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  01:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RfR
I'm a bit new to this admin thing, but I was looking the RFR archive page at Requests_for_rollback/Denied/February_2008 and was a bit surprised to see this log entry in light of the Feb 3 block, the  Feb 9 removal of Rollback, User_talk:Compwhizii, User_talk:Compwhizii, and the last entry at. I'm not gonna do anything about it, but it I think he may have an itchy trigger finger.  MBisanz  talk 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ALUUF
Just trying to be funny; it was just my attempt at coming up with the most absurd group I could think of off the top of my head, so no one could accuse me of actually attacking someone real. Look at my userboxes, that's kind of a description of me... --barneca (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkup
Hiya mate! How are you? I'm doing good, I got this article up to a B recently! I've just started work on finding out about the "origin" section (I may need some advice on that, early days yet though)

But more importatly I'm doing a big big project now. About three weeks ago, a new user who served on HMS Cardiff (D108) during the Falklands War basically killed the article with kindness. He recently figured out "how talk works" lol, and we've struck up a rapport. As you can see he's a veritable fountain of knowledge, so we've decided to rewrite the article completely (the rewrite's in my sandbox here). I think there's enough subject matter here for this to make FA grade (look at all the sources on it's talk page!)

Why don't I ever ever wanna be an Admin? Well it's simple really... I can't fucking stand em! LOL mainly I don't have a problem with em, but I just I don't think they should be able to carry on contributing to articles once they get sysopped (creatively I mean, obviously they should still do maintainence work, some of you lot refer to yourselves as "janitors" don't you?) Why? Well obviously there's a conflict of interest, everyone suffers from a bit of "I know I'm in the right", the big difference with admins is they can enforce it!

The logic behind this train of thought is; it doesn't seem natural to go from creatively adding content to articles to wanting to the run the the place! I just don't trust it, I trust you however, because you've always been more interested in being an admin. You're were on all the "behind-the-scenes" Wiki stuff (like AFD's, RFC etc etc) and it seems you only had 2 articles you put your heart into (EndWar & Timekeeping, lol which was part of your RFA), whereas as I hate all the behind-the-scenes stuff (can't handle all the "Dispute resolution" me) and am getting to quite enjoy my little "projects".

I hope you don't take offence, it's not a slight on you. I guess some of us were born to work and some of us were born to lead, you are the latter. However some of your new pals are not.

P.S. Oh and I hate the whole RFA thing, it's stupid. Nobody can realistically "oppose" coz they think actually, this person will be a real twat if they get the tools. Because they don't wanna look like a troll in front of the whole of Wikipedia's polic force! So then it makes you wonder how many people don't really actually wanna sysop someone, I think this article probably explains it better lol.

Thank for checking in ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come on Stan, we both know that's what adminship is on "paper", but we both know in reality some of them exploit their powers. And I'm not even talking big violations that get em de-sysopped, some of them just use the subtle hint of "I'm an admin, have u ever heard of 3RR?"


 * I mean, if u guys are really meant to be our "janitors", we'd all be like "get to work bitch" except we tremble in fear when one of u come to an AFD or something. If you guys were really "janitors" why do u have the ability to block people? The janitor at my school just used to tell the headmaster if anyone was naughty, not fucking kick me out of school himself, why don't we have blockers (who can just do blocking)?


 * LOL wow I'm starting to rant (and we're friends), but basically my point is "We all know how this place is really run and we must like it coz we're still here" Ryan4314 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry pal, didn't mean to sound heated. I think you're a good admin and obviously we need em, I just try to steer clear of em and do as they say.


 * I peer reviewed the medal article, I guess I should do the JLA one as well. However both the WikiFilm & WikiComics people say it's "inbetween" a start and a B. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah I don't think I could raise it's level anymore, it's got a really small "production" section, just because there's a lack of source material, it's here if u wanna look. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, I need some adminly advice again. I proposed an article for deletion recently, and it was a "no consensus", what should I do now?


 * To give you a little background, I rewrote this article a while ago. I really love the book "Starship Troopers", that's why I was keen to bring this article up to scratch, it wasn't until a fan-boy troll type started adding his own ideas to it that I realised this article is totally vulnerable to interpretation (possible even from myself!). To be more specific, it's vulnerbale to the speculation and opinions part of the WP:OR policy.


 * So I put it in an AFD and it got a "keep" (c'mon "no consensus" is exactly the same as a "keep" lol, even the admin said it!), the admin said; "Two "delete" opinions advocate merging, which does not only not require deletion, but actually precludes it due to licencing issues". Well I'd happily merge it or redirect it or whatever the hell gets away from what it is now, how do I go about doing this? Would muchly appreciate any advice you could give please. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondly I don't think it helped that the AFD got listed at the Science fiction-related deletion discussions, this probably alerted all the fan-cruft types (sorry to stereotype), who see this as an attack on a great book. But the reason I'm taking this so seriously is because I love this book, after I read this book I looked it up on Wikipedia and I don't want people like me to come along and get mislead by some idiot (including myself), who's twisted the book's message to suit his own POV.


 * And the reason I am so resolute in my conviction is because I really don't see this as being "up for debate", it's a clear violation of policy, for users to talk it over and decide this is ok would be "Wikiality" in the extreme. I think if there had been some admins there (or users who had even heard of WP:OR, one of the "keepers", has only been editing 2 weeks!) they would have seen the violation. I think I've heard of an appeal or something, is there anything like that?


 * Well the review went shit, and one of your sysop pals was bit rude to me (ya know the sort of rude they do that's intentionally rude, but not rude enough to be considered an attack lol), saying I should respect the consensus. Sounds a bit ludicrous to me, a consensus overiding policy is pure wikiality. I realised I've lost and can't protect the article from OR (other than tagging it), is there anywhere I can lodge a complaint, against the process (not the admins), like a PR department, without fear of reprisals or having to justify myself to a bunch of guys who've been editing for like the past 20 years??? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate, came on a bit strong there (not that strong mind, what are you a girl? lol), I knew the 1st rule (it's a good one to keep handy), but didn't think OR "improves wikipedia" and I didn't get the reference to the 2nd one (is a bold amount of OR good then?). Also I don't think the "if you don't like it, bugger off to some shit wiki then" line would help me either, as I'm no longer interested in improving the article (I already bloody did that). And I don't want to fight a battle to protect the article from OR (desperate struggling isn't very dignified), as well as the moral implications of helping Wikipedia maintain it's integrity while it refuses to help itself.


 * I wont push it any furter, unless there is a "complaints" section? Basically I don't see you as admin, we're mates, which probably is why I give you an earful, it's just me, bitching to my mate lol ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny u mention that, my little cousin's gone to see it tonight, I tried to warn her, but some people wont listen... Ryan4314 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Afd top
Hi J-stan,

I noticed while fixing an AfD I closed today (hooray for poor spelling!) that there was some extra wikicode that I hadn't noticed before. When I checked it out, I found that you had updated the template to use parameters. While I personally think that's actually not a bad idea, it creates a situation different to that described on WP:DELPRO, which was apparently the reason that this has been specifically rejected twice on the talk page. Based on these discussions, I took the liberty of undoing your edit, and so I thought I'd stop by to tell you why.

The good news, though, is that I'm pretty sure any issues with the extra code can be fixed with a parser function and some well-placed subst: and tags, but I wanted to check with you and see if you wanted to pursue updating the template before I mucked it all up with code. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply--I responded on my talk page. -- jonny - m t  05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the helpful rollback feature.-- TBC !?!  05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC for cannon?
I think it could be ready soon (see the page there). As for noms, whoever worked on it should get credit for the article (along with the whole squad), but I think you, Andonic, Bibliomaniac, and I should be listed as co-nominators. Would that work? Keilana | Parlez ici 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can set it up. I'll add you all in as co-noms, and we can all deal with any concerns that come up. I'm almost done, just going over a couple more things. Should be ready soon, this is way sooner than I thought. Keilana | Parlez ici 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready, should we wait for another opinion? Keilana | Parlez ici 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * EyeSerene said that they could go over it later today, I think we should wait for their review, fix whatever they find, then put a nomination up tomorrow-ish to give people time to notice anything. Would that work for you? Keilana | Parlez ici 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, we've got their review. There are a few things I think we should do: Fix all the stuff EyeSerene mentioned, copyedit at least once each, and make sure everything's referenced. Keilana | Parlez ici 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I think we should postpone FAC for at least another week, just to keep tidying up. There's always something we've missed. Also, we need sources on every claim, preferably. And finally, we should probably add a "Projectiles" section, for the article to be truly "comprehensive." · AndonicO  Hail!  09:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll do what I can. Keilana | Parlez ici 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops
I just publicly confessed to playing too much Guitar Hero, didn't I? --JayHenry (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, J-stan, for your support in my RfB. I appreciate your trust. Glad to also know you still appreciate my RFPP work too. :) Acalamari 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)