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

Admin
Hello again. I have seen you around quite a bit of late, and was wondering if you'd like to consider adminship at WP:RFA. You frequent RfA enough that you'd probably know if you're ready; if you think you are, I'll gladly nominate you. Let me know of your decision. Wizardman 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 Wizardman would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wizardman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Here you go. Let Ryan and Rudget know they can add their co-noms if they so desire now, and I'll be waiting for it's transclusion :) Wizardman  05:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall do your co-nom in 20 minutes. Rt . 16:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rt . 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And you lecture me about not letting me nom you...&mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't pass, you should go rouge. In other words, there's no way it won't...&mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required
Hi, I picked you from WP:EA, because of your interest in policy and Wikiquette. If you aren't too busy, I would be grateful for any feedback on difficulties with a relatively new editor, User:JimBobUSA, at Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold. He is, IMO, lawyering, POV-pushing, showing a generally disingenuous attitude and bad faith in his approach to the use of sources. Your comments would be appreciated. Grant |  Talk  17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Grant |  Talk  17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
Sent you one. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cayra
Thanks for jumping in to help. However I don't believe we actually have any reliable sources to meet notability criteria. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Requested
Hi this is regarding the the dispute over the entry Cayra -->talk. There are two issues.

Could we clarify which of the content needs an inline citation? It is not clear how it applies and I am not getting any help from the other editors.

The other issue is the continued debate over notability. A user, Ed, opined that he didn't think it was notable. I replied to his concerns, making specific points in rebuttal. He replied to my post, but avoided addressing any of the points I made and instead produced a list which, if we took it seriously, would represent an alteration in the notability policy.

I took a good deal of time to reply to his post, specifically 1) rebutting that the list he generated was valid 2) relating in detail how and why the references were valid and should be counted towards the notability requirement

He replied that my post was too long, and he didn't see anything of substance in it. The post is long, true enough. But not even a 5 minute read. He was, IMO, attempting to smuggle in a notability guideline change, and I took that as something to be dealt with. So he got a long post back.

Basically, it would be nice if someone could adjudicate here as to notability. My arguments are substantive, well reasoned, coherent and on topic. That is what counts on wikipedia. I feel that procedural maneuvers are being employed in order to avoid actual debate. Escalation to 3rd parties by user Ronz and citing of non-existant or made up rules (see my post) by Ed. Neither of these parties is willing to engage in direct, point by point back and forth discussion, unless you count saying "no I don't agree" as a form of debate.

Thanks for your attention. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

Age of Empires III.
I replied to your comment here. · AndonicO  Hail!  21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reply. ;) · AndonicO  Hail!  21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * E-mailed. · AndonicO  Hail!  00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right back to you. · AndonicO  Hail!  10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Ladies
Hello, I have added additional information, links and performers to the article to improve notability & verifiability. Maybe these changes would change your mind about deleting the article. Thanks for your consideration. Mh29255 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Goin to hell
Its cool, I'm Jewish :-P Avruch talk 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

congralulations
A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just got word. Great job! Well done. Rudget . 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I strongly suggest a trip to New admin school. Very helpful place, that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that as well. Thanks Moonriddengirl! :) Rudget . 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. Thanks, once again! J- ſtan ContribsUser page 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats. I wish you luck in mastering the new buttons :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats, glad to see you've become an admin :) Oysterguitarist 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD: List of buildings in Lower Manhattan

 * I was going to close it as delete, but I wanted to know if you wanted to put it in your userspace and make it a category. Please respond on my talk page. Regards, J- ſtan ContribsUser page 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did copy the text to my userspace at User:ChrisRuvolo/List of buildings in Lower Manhattan. Perhaps you can make it a move in order to preserve the edit history?  I'll categorize later.  Thanks for your help.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As in move to Category:Buildings in Lower Manhattan? I'll wait for your reponse until I close it. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 18:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, as in do a move, moving List of buildings in Lower Manhattan with history on top of my copy at User:ChrisRuvolo/List of buildings in Lower Manhattan. The GFDL says that the edit history must be preserved. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Soooo you're an admin now ay? How is it? Don't suppose you can tell me how I can archive my talk page, I said I'd do it in January ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea it's quicker, although Twinkle lets u type why u rolled, cheers all the same :) Ryan4314 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea I'm gonna use it for vandal hunting. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Done
Congrats on your successful RfA. If there is any help I can provide you with your new tools, don't hesitate to ask. Pastordavid (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722
How is his block indicative of him abusing rollback if granted? John Reaves 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment
I originally posted this on the page where the discussion was taking place, but ran into an edit conflict. I'm not sure if I can present some clarification here and if not I apologize. TTN has been vandal editing (see the 3RR rfc, ani, and I believe an rfar, cases against him), and because of this I have stepped back from many of the issues surrounding him. I went and read the rules pertaining to the privilege of this feature before I used the few times I had, and I want to state that I would not use it on an established editor. The TTN issue goes way back and probably requires more time than you all have to review it. However, if you all deem it necessary to revoke this privilege, I will (not because I have to) accept that. Please reconsider my edits overall and not just the issue of TTN. --User: (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think it was fair to just base the decision on this one case. The issues surrounding TTN are vast, but again, I would not use it on him or another user. And my history will show that to be the case. I have made mistakes early on in my editing, but like any editor, I have grown and will continue to do so. Please reconsider if you will the decision. Cheers! --User: (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Roolback
Thanks if it is kept, I'll make sure that it wasn't in vain for your archives here is my. Having the tools and using them wisely is surely better than borrowing somebody elses? Thanks. Keep an eye on me. Bpeps (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I got my wings clipped before I could start. Bpeps (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RavenPurity
Sockpuppet? I only guess because I noticed that there was only one other new account in support of keeping it, removing the AFD tag...both were SPA's....Guess we'll never know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello J-stan, I would have fully-protected the article, but unfortunately, I was offline at the time. At least it's been sorted now anyway. :) Acalamari 23:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
 Dear J-stan, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator,  Rlevse  and  Ryan Postlethwaite  who in addition to  Ioeth  all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki,  Dihyrdogen Monoxide  and  OhanaUnited  who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community  really does have something  other places  don't. Who would have though  Gmail  would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget  .  15:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa
Thank you for your support in my RFA of last week. If you ever need assistance, let me know. I'm writing to you for more than rfa spam reasons.

Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. Archtransit (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi, and thank you. Springnuts (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Doyouknowsquarepusher
This user had not edited since their second warning, which they probably didn't even see until after the edit as it was posted during the same minute. Did you feel that this was a sock of another vandal? TigerShark (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. No problem, easy mistake to make. I didn't realise that you were such a new admin, just looked at your RFA and I see it took place while I was on holiday. Congratulations and I hope you are enjoying it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TSQUAD.
You assumed correctly, fellow Cabal member. ;) · AndonicO  Hail!  17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Thanks! I'll try to keep these changes of mind to a trickle. --barneca (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't notice the signature change; maybe it's because you kept the same color scheme. Don't be offended; I don't notice when my wife gets a haircut either (and don't think I don't pay for that).  Now that you point it out, tho, I like it. --barneca (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...
Hope you don't mind that I copied your talk page template? I've been meaning to make one since December 2006... :P · AndonicO  Hail!  15:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and use it; I would be honored. :) · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail.
Replied. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sent another. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  02:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cannon.
Err... Did you copy from here, or from another place on wikipedia (and thus, they copied from us)? · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's okay, just read this in the source: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Modern cannon", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License." :P · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm betting half the school essays/papers--the good ones, I mean--are copied from here too. ;) · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear J-stan: It has been suggested that I work on a talk page regarding my situation. Since you clearly seem to be the most reasonable person I have encountered in this Wikipedia process, might I ask you for advice? I have a 25-year career in education, having worked in three states for five governors. However, there is a small cadre of individuals who persist in distilling my entire career down to one issue: the evolution debate. It has become very bizarre. My Wikipedia bio entry is biased and non-factual in this way; people I have never met have taken sides “for” or “against” the entry; and any time an attempt is made to render my bio into something neutral – wham! – it is re-edited. What recourse do I have? All I want is a neutral and accurate bio, but this constant editing makes me feel like I am being stalked. Wikipedia policy states “Do no harm.” Well, any prospective employer who reads my Wiki entry is going to think I am some kind of a nut. How can this be resolved? Integrity II (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Iran-Iraq War intervention
I have to commend you for your bravery (or is it foolhardiness – I'm never sure there's a difference) in taking on that bucket of worms! I got involved in response to a RfC, but I doubt that's going to resolve anything. In any case, I've raised the issue with the terminology with the WP:MILHIST crowd, since the infobox is their template. If some clarification ensues, that may help decide this issue one way or the other. Good luck, Askari Mark (Talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Semester, New Appeal
This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if. If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

About Twinkle..
I know i have it, but the reason i dont use it is because im not sure how. Can u give me a little help? the juggreserection IstKrieg! 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * wait-i just read that it doesnt work with IE. well, i have no other option for web browsers so i guess Undoing will have to work for now. thanks anyway. the juggreserection IstKrieg! 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would love FireFox. However, my computer at home has no internet so i must edit from school where Websense is in effect. So...anytime i download firefox here, it doesnt work. the juggreserection IstKrieg! 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, our computers suck. Only a few have IE7 on them. This one has IE5.5, will it still work? the juggreserection IstKrieg! 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion: use huggle instead, it's much better. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If they still have IE5.5, I very much doubt they meet the requirements for huggle – Gurch 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Youtube
Hi, er I'm sure I've read somewhere you can't have youtube vids as a source, but do u know where the policy is? I checked here, but it doesn't mention youtube, or vids for that matter Ryan4314 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate, I keep forgetting where I read stuff! How and when does an article RFC close? Can't find where it says so on WP:RFC. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I didn't realise you had a new sig! Well I did, ya see I have a friend I talk to on here a lot called "Justin" as well, so I thought something looked a little odd when I clicked on where your sig was meant to be. Always imagined you as a Stan though...


 * Re; the RFC, OIC! crap well, I'm watching an RFC at the moment and it's over a real fundamentalist ideal. I can be honest and say some of the contributors are obviously only on wiki voice their opinions, make POV pushes etc etc. I cannot realistically see either side "backing down" or a "middle ground" being met in such a "yes or no" type debate (me personally I think a middle ground has already been met). What's the next step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, am I allowed to tell u what RFC it is? By that I mean is it classed as canvassing or something, coz even though ur an admin I still see u as my mentor... Ryan4314 (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, well the RFC is on the Iran-Iraq war article, it's a long read but basically some Iranian editors are insisting the USA should be listed as a "combatant" in the info box. So then, predictably, this whole irrelevant OR debate starts over the meaning of the word "combatant". But what really set my alarm bells off was when the Iranian editors started mentioning the film 300 and telling Americans to take responsibility for "their" actions . Plus having statements like this; "In the West I realised how large is the agression towards Iranian history and identity," on their user pages and looking at their edit histories makes me think they're only here to push a political viewpoint (is this a violation of WP:SOAP?). Oh and by the way when I mentioned middle ground I meant that this article; "U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war", was created by one of the editors who thinks the USA should be listed as a combatant.


 * I don't even see the point of why they're pushing this, I mean, there is a whole article giving referenced facts (ironically "facts" is a word you'll see mentioned over and over again throughout the RFC lol) about what the USA actually did. But they want to insist on dubbing the U.S. with this name "combatant". I mean, what does combatant even mean (metaphorically speaking)? People will read the articles for themselves and decide how to judge the U.S, indeed if they even want to judge (lol thought encyclopaedia were meant to be about learning).Myself personally I think they should just scrap the "combatant" section (it's optional anyways) and if that can't be done then I'd rather the U.S not be added, because the MiliHist project guidleine says "may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding." I think adding them will just confuse people more, it makes it sound like U.S. and Iraqi troops stood shoulder-to-shoulder as allies! Plus this would also raise doubts about other countries who have supported any side during a war, being a mention. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK mate cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, one of them is being quite disruptive now, they've accused me of being a puppeteer! What do I do now? I thought there was meant to be a "case" were I could argue my side? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hiya mate, I saw you posted the RFC in the ANI, so what happens next then? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I not so keen on the name change, for a start it kinda flies in the face of the MiliHist people's template, secondly it detracts from Iraq & Iran, who most definitely were combatants. Like you I agree we should remove the combatant section. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just read, ignore that last message then. Like you say it's a step forward but lets just wait for the rebuttals. Did u hear about one of them accusing me of being a puppeteer? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea I know, it doesn't even seem like a compromise at all, just a move sideways. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good so far (i think)
Well ive been doing a decent amount of anti-vandal work so far, im not sure if im ready for rollback just yet. but i was wondering if you had any pointers for me. Could you take a look at my contributions and tell me what you think? the juggreserection IstKrieg! 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. the juggreserection IstKrieg! 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)