User talk:Jnc/2005A

Do come by again:

Hi -- sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but the site is so different from when I used to contribute regularly. Thanks for the kind words. I do pop in now and again to see how things are going, but try to limit my time because I tend to get emotionally invested in things I put a lot of work into, and would rather put that effort into working on the new classes I'm teaching and on new research for publication. Cheers! JHK 01:41, 1 Jan 2005


 * Hi Again -- just thought I'd let you know that I did have a go at some editing, but the damned software crashed after I'd spent over an hour working on a drastic rewrite to Feudalism (for flow, mostly, but also to make it more coherent in including Zain's incomprehensible understanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't -- check out the talk page.  It's having to deal with a tendency of the agenda-driven to break up articles into disjointed blocks so that their insertions make more sense that makes me despair and really lose all joy in an enterprise like this. JHK 23:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfD help:

Thanks Noel for the help with Bolivarian revolution... its undeleted now Happy New Year! 21.43 1st Jan 2005  (utc) user:max rspct

Re:Rfd:

Oh thats fine, I don't care, I was more confused as to why it survived all this time. Thanks for taking care of it. K1Bond007 05:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Reply notification:

Hi! I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN:

No complaint. I'm all for aggressive archiving. In the circumstances, though, with the issue apparently not dead, I figured it was best that I restore the prior discussion for context rather than start a new section. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Humboldt:

Thanks for fixing this. I have been changing quite a few of the links from Humboldt University to go directly to Humboldt University of Berlin. However, it may have been simpler just to retain Humboldt University as a redirect to Humboldt University of Berlin, with a disambiguation notice on top. There are probably very few references to Humboldt State University.

Anyway, I noticed that there are many links to University of Berlin, which now redirects to Universities of Berlin. I disambiguated the only two pages linking directly to Universities of Berlin (Henry Bruce, 2nd Baron Aberdare and Rudolph Schoenheimer). Some of the post-WWII-references may refer to one of the other universities, but I'd bet most of the links to the University of Berlin also should go to the Friedrich Wilhelm/Humboldt University. Alas, I suppose these links will be fixed with time. BTW, I have noticed that the pages concerning the University of Paris are also a mess needing some merging and moving. / Uppland 13:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush vandal:

Heya, could you have a look at Dick Cheney and consider reverting the Bush vandal's edit there? (Unless you want to stay out of this because you've already blocked him and want to remain impartial, but I don't think that's necessary here). --fvw *  18:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Thanks on TfD/CfD:

Thanks for helping on Templates for deletion. It's in a bit of a back log, just needing someone to perform the deletions.

For Template:DVD cover and Template:D, consensus was to delete those ( & ). The suggestion to redirect "DVD cover" was placed later, and "D" has too many alternate templates it could be used as a redirect for. The "Holding area" is what we use for marking those that came out of discussion in favor of straight-up deletion. Thanks again. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)


 * Hold on, Template:D isn't going to be linked to Template:Delete now? There was a strong majority for that redirect on TFD. --fvw *  23:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

There seems to be some recent concern over the bot (NetBot) that I use to help cleanup TFD/CFD and other maintenance things. Could I ask for you to comment on it at Wikipedia talk:Bots? It truly is a beneficial tool, and I doubt I could help with all the tasks I do without it. -- Netoholic @ 15:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

CfD:

Thanks for your help at CfD! Everything that you did was absolutely fine. (Actually, it was more than fine, it was great.) I'm the only one who seems to really clean up that page regularly (there are some administrators who help sporadically and some non-administrators who help with clean up but can't delete), and I've been out of town, so the backlog is getting excessive. My hope is to eventually get it caught up. Any further help would be much appreciated. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the administrators that deletes empty categories. :) I tend to not clean up the article until I've deleted everything that needs it.  Your cleanup was helpful, and today, pretty much followed behind my deletes by only minutes.  :)  Thanks.  --ssd 02:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Genghis Khan:

Genghis Khan:
 * Around the age of 16, Genghis banged fifty five virgins and had many kids that were beheaded.

BANGED??? 206.53.17.162 00:27, 12 Jan 2005

Thanx for your assistance on my botched RfD:

--Silverback 13:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced comment on WT:AN:

Nope, it was a response to "inappropriate images (pedophilia, pornography, etc)"; My point was there's nothing inherently wrong with uploading pornography. --fvw *  15:09, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)


 * I didn't really intend to start a discussion, just trying to make sure examples used are clear... --fvw *  15:38, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

WT:AN archiving:

Re: the sections I dumped from the administrator's noticeboard, I wasn't planning on archiving them as they seemed to be everyday occurrences rather than notable happenings. I'm feeling a little deletionist at present. silsor 00:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RfD:

Oops, must have edit-conflicted myself and not payed attention. Thanks! --fvw *  12:18, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

RfA:

Thanks for your note regarding my last RfA request. I don't plan on self-nominating again too soon, I plan on waiting to see if someone else nominates me. In any case I think I should wait at least a month: while no real time limits seem to exist a month seems to be a reasonable minimum to me. Jordi·✆ 08:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt:

Requests_for_arbitration

Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision

Note that Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban.

— Davenbelle 22:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Open proxies:

Heya, you took an interest in the open proxy discussion on WP:AN, could you perhaps give your opinion on Wikipedia talk:Bots? Thanks. --fvw *  23:37, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page:

I'm just dropping you a note to let you know that I'm removing your threatening and abusive comments from my talk page. Also, if you bothered to read the section in question, you will notice that I was not the one who "brought the matter to our attention." --Viriditas | Talk 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI...calmly discussing a policy issue is not "spamming" (feel free to read the link). I can't speak for OneGuy or his comments, but I'm not sure why you think polite discussion is flaming. In any case, the issue is being addressed by a number of users in a constructive fashion at this time (Jmabel in particular). --Viriditas  | Talk 13:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GZPL:

I see. Sorry, I may be out of my element here. And, I didn't make the connection between your statement on my talkpage, and on AN. I just thought your 'not being interested in fairness' was a bit harsh: I am interested in it as a means of building a (balanced, non-cabalistic) 'pedia. But I see you haven't done anything wrong. You just seem to be very annoyed at gzpl, and while he does seem rv-happy, he is only defending himself against pretty harsh accusations on AN, and I must say I still don't see why people seem to blame him more than his opponents. So, no offense to you, and I should probably just stay away from all this. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * sure. I apologize for accusing you of "taking action" after you said on my talk page that you did not. My bad. Concerning gzpl, I am just a bit disturbed that he may be a comparatively innocent victim of bullying. Of course he does get into revert wars regularly (while you and I don't), but as I said, judged from what I have seen, he is not any worse than his opponents (but that's just from a superficial scan of the dispute). dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American):

Hi Jnc.

I received a comment on my talk page about an RfD tag on Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American). I don't think I've added such a tag and couldn't find it in that page's history. I guess it's vaguely possible that I did it by accident or even forgot doing it. In any case, while I dislike the ad-hoc pronunciation "system" very much I don't have a reason to get rid of that page. — Hippietrail 12:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoops:

Sorry, didn't see the talk page discussion. I've reverted myself, thanks! -Frazzydee|✍ 20:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Historical revisionism:

This is a heads up about your ID appearing on a page you may not know about, Talk:Historical revisionism. I sent user:Stbalbach an email in which I mentioned your contribution in the Dresden talk page about Evans's analysis on Irving. He choose to publish the Email. If I had thought he would publish it I would not have sent it, it was bad judgement on my side. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have inadvertently caused you. Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect problem:

Thanks for the help on my redirect problem --Mikerussell 05:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Templates:

Thanks for the note, and for the help with templates. I wish I could help more. I tried to get bot approval to help with clearing templates agreed to be deleted, but one admin fairly aggressively combatted it (see Wikipedia talk:Bots). If you can add any comments, or perhaps approach that admin in someway, that would let me do more (hopefully so that all you need to do is hit the delete key :) ). -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


 * Admin oversight of template deletion is essential. No bots. — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:33, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Spion Kop:

Hi Noel, yes I understand where you coming from but Spion Kop is a bastardised spelling of the word and means nothing, where as Spioenkop is the correct name of the hill which is afrikaans for "spy hill". There is no such place as Spion Kop in South Africa. Sorry to put it this way but I feel that it should be re-directed. --Jcw69 15:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard:

Thanks for all your archiving work, it's much appreciated. silsor 15:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the archiving work you do. silsor 17:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

And again! silsor 04:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Use English:

But the current (anti-policy) way of doing things is completely counter-productive, and is hurting Wikipedia. When an English-speaker wants to learn about Zurich he or she types "Zurich" into Google, and us having our article on it somewhere else (using a character that no English-speaker ever uses) makes it far less likely for people to find it. That's the whole reason behind the "most common name in English" convention, which is one of the most central tenets of our naming policy. (And besides, my Oxford Manual of Style specifically says that "Zurich" is spelt in English without the umlaut.) Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IPs and ISPs:

As the owner of my ISP,the only way I would be forced to get another IP address would be if I switched upstream providers. The 12.144.5.2 address belongs to only one server and that's the one I do my Wikipeding from 99.9% of the time.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

umlauts:

Here is another on: See history and talk of Battle of Hurtgen Forest. Sigh! Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A man of letters. Now that you have pointed it out, yes I can see a funny side, but it was unintentional my spelling is really bad. Thank goodness there are so many people who enjoy doing copy edits on the artices! I usually run most of it through a spelling checker but sometimes if I am in a hurry I'll edit what I have just written on the page one last time before saving it and bang spelling errors. In this case every one was umlout (including the title). After Yooden posted his reply I realized I had made a mistake and corrected them. But I missed that one. Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you nailed down "Battle of Hurtgen Forest". I did the same for Albert Forster half a day earlier. A case of "great minds think alike" or "fools seldem differ". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN:

It's cool. Archive away :) Actually, I'm thinking we need to split the page into two pages... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Mate, just do it. You'll have my support, and I started that page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you've just gotta do it :-) I'll put that bit back. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I wouldn't do it on most pages, but the admin page is staffed by a reasonable bunch of users hand-picked from the community. Someone might get annoyed, but it's nothing that can't be resolved. Noone is going to keep battling with me. This had to get done, so I just had to do it! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ya, I know that :-) But, I've found that after the heat has gone grudges haven't been kept. That's what I've found as a rule. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR:

Wow. That was fast. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Only one minor thing... I included a hidden template so that reports will look more uniform.  Could you take a look at the page again?  Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Up to you really. I didn't even know those actions existed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I can explain how localurl: works. It's quite simple.   you already know, this reports back  on this particular server.  What localurl: does is tack on the /w/index.php? stuff.  It also changes depending on the namespace, and whether your linking to an article or to a namespace.  It allows one pipe, which is to allow someone to set an action, or something else.  It basically does &(passed text).  You can look at my User page for the same link you put up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * For even more of the wacky use, look at Votes_for_deletion/Log/Today -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fiddling with WP:AN:

Should I ever decide to "Fiddle" with WP:AN, I'll be sure to drop you a line. Please consider my most recent edit a "post." From the WP:AN page:
 * However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

However, since you appear to be familiar with the page, can you tell me if the section in question was mis-archived, or simply lost in the shuffle during all the housecleaning over the past 24 hours? Thanks -Rob 209.86.1.198 03:17, 3 Feb 2005


 * You are correct, and the oversight was mine. I'm still getting used to the new locations of things.  Thank you for such prompt replies, and I apologise if I caused any inconvenience. -Rob 209.86.1.198 03:31, 3 Feb 2005

Reversions on WP:AN/3RR:

Hi. Emax was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. He continued to use different IP adresses to evade this block, so I reverted his contributions and also blocked the IP adresses. His block has now expired, and all related IP adresses are also unblocked. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio poll:

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. —Cantus… ☎   04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

'''Argh! and Aargh!:'''

There was a request to merge Argh! and Aargh! so I formed Argh! and aargh! copied the text from Argh! to it and redirected the original articles to the new one. In retrostpect I should have move Argh! to the new name and created a new Argh! to redirect. How do I fix it now? RJFJR 03:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Argh! is a proper noun but I thought the policy was lower case words after the first in titles. I'll have to go look for the standard.  Thank you. RJFJR 04:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing this. It looks much nicer with the capitalization change (especially in category esoteric languages).  I appreciate it. RJFJR 13:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Revert/question:

Hello. I just reverted your change to the admin notice board, due to an edit conflict. Unfortunately, the edit conflict screen doesn't show edit summaries, so I didn't see your reason and assumed that it was accidentally lost. Could you direct me to the correct subpage for reporting 3RR breaches? - Jakew 16:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR:

Don't worry about it -- these things happen all the time, and are easy to fix. I appreciate your message, but really, it wasn't necessary, Slrubenstein 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north express:

Thanks for deleting this.  —msh210 14:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my glitch:

Hi - thanks for fixing my deletion of the template on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I was trying ro figure out what I did wrong and how to get it back, and viola there it was :-) - sorry 'bout that. -Vsmith 01:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN: apologies:

(William M. Connolley 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You wrote: Please sign&date all postings on WP:AN. Sorry. I forgot.


 * My change was a complete mistake, I didn't even realize the page was being transcluded :| -- Netoholic @ 01:02, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations:

Thanks for trying to fix Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations; unfortunately the category is now shown inside itself. As for the what links here error, I've seen that before - I moved New York Subway to New York City Subway a while ago, and the database was really lagged; when everything fixed itself, nothing was shown as linking to the old page. --SPUI (talk) 02:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal:

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

re: WP:AN:

There is no need to use such a rude language to make your point. I have moved my message to, hopefully, the right section. —Cantus… ☎   04:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and WP:AN:

OK, will do. It just made it a lot easier to find all her material when it was under one section! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... good idea, but I'm done with it now :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: WT:AN:

See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism:

I am not "recreating" the article. This is a new one, about an existing term. Please feel free to dispute my behavior at the appropriate conflict resolution place, following the policies. Mikkalai 19:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Noel, I didn't realize Mikkalai was an admin. What can I do about him abusing his power in this way? There was a very clear consensus about Jewish ethnocentrism via two votes already (VfD and VfU) and now he's trying to engineer a third to deal with the title only (sigh). SlimVirgin 19:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought there was a special process, or special page, for admins abusing their power. Also, has he abused his powers? I'm totally confused as to what has happened here. I thought Andy L had deleted the page after the VfD. Did Mikkalai have to use a special admin power to recreate it, or can anyone recreate a deleted title? Sorry to trouble you with this, but I lack the knowledge to be able to work out what has happened and what should happen now. SlimVirgin 20:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, Noel. SlimVirgin 20:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Alert:

About WP:AN/I#Vandalism alert: i'll keep an eye, archive it away to oblivion :). muriel@pt 10:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories:

Can you tell me how I can improve the policy so you'll change your mind? Or let me know behind your reasons for opposing it? Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The requirement was changed to strongly recommended, and changed to polite notification -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please look it over again. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism logs:

It may interest you to view this: Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs as your name appeared in the log. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari:

I don't understand why that proposal is "Language correctness run amok"; Squeakifox's appeal might have been based on a sense of fairness rather than a proper understanding of naming conventions, but looking at usage supports the view. I looked around, both at academic publications (theses and dissertations) and at Google and it seems that Rastafari is more widely used than Rastafarianism, with Rastafarians as the people. (see Talk:Rastafarianism). Thanks Guettarda 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I:

Yes, it was me - I hadn't realised I was logged out at the time - an easy mistake given that I was breaking into half a dozen different accounts at the time:) Kind regards, jguk 18:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden:

SlimVrgin wrote in the section Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II
 * 1) "There are reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, but these claims are not supported by recent work by a German historian. 5" But (5) points to Richard Evans. So who is the German historian, and why not NAME HIM OR HER IN THE SENTENCE, instead of using these silly footnotes?

I think you wrote the words she is highlighting here. Perhapse you would like to answer her or change them. Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of 3RR Page:

Not sure what's going on, but do assure that it's not deliberate! My setup is bogstandard XP Pro and IE6, so shouldn't have any problems. Wasn't game to apologise again in case it happened again. Skyring 13:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Respecting other people's decisions:

Feel free. If you check out the standard text I leave on the talk page of people I have blocked I ask them (if they disspute the block) to appeal to other admins or the mailing list. I've had quite a few of my blocks undone (every block I have applied to an admin for example).Geni 04:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comments on blocking wars:

Hi, If you feel my comments may produce a constructive discussion, please feel free to cut and paste them someplace else. -Brian. (--BM 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry for messing up your Talk page.  I don't remember now what I did, but I probably didn't hit "back", since I don't do that.  However, what I might have done is this: the "save" was taking so long, I used the time to reread the text and tweak it, and save again, without waiting for the first save to return.  I've done this before and usually it works out fine, although occasionally  I get an edit-conflict with myself by doing this.  This has to be resolved by doing the edits over again.  I never noticed before that this resulted in any massive duplication such as you describe.  I have seen the scenario you are describing, though, and perhaps there is some kind of glitch or bug.   Again, my apologies for the inconvenience.  --BM 22:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cut and Paste moves:

The only reason I did cut and paste moves is because the wikimedia software is broken; the "Move" tab is broken. If admins don't want cut and paste moves, it would be best to make non cut-and-paste moves possible. That said, the only other cut and paste move I did was to move Ted to Ted (airline)--for the same reason. The move tab was broken.

I think, when the move tab is broken, there should be a page explaining why the move tab is broken, and how to request a move in such a case.

Take care, and thank you for your comments. Samboy 21:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for updating the Ted page. I have updated the links to anything in the main encyclopedia that linked to Ted.  The only things that point to Ted now are in User pages and talk pages. Samboy 08:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN:

Sorry, I just figured that if it were left on the noticeboard, we would end up with two parallel discussions, one on the noticeboard and one on the RfC, and it would be more productive to consolidate them. Rad Racer 17:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you:'

You are quite right. I need to put my mouse where my mouth is. I will get to work. ;) Mark Richards 02:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Spion Kop:

Talk:Battle of Spion Kop this time the move is in as an WP:RM Philip Baird Shearer 13:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason for moving your comment from WP:RM (even as I agree with it) was because there was a straw poll on where votes and discussions should take place when a move was posted to WP:RM. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3. Ironically this was primarily for articles like Calcutta which generate a lot of traffic, not for articles like this. I will not move your comment again, but someone else may. Philip Baird Shearer 00:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a head-up User talk:Philip Baird Shearer -> User talk:Elf-friend --Philip Baird Shearer 17:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spion Kop:

This is already covered in Naming conventions (not policies), line two: It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone.... We use our judgement and work towards consensus. Try to move on and apply your positive energy to other things on WP. There have been many consensus decisions I don't agree with, too. And you can cheerfully remind me to buck up when I get bitter about some other one. Cheers. Michael Z. 2005-03-10 19:15 

Chinese and English compared:

Well, I won't do it again, but this is a tempest in a teapot. I created both pages, both with the same content -- I probably created the wrong-cased one first, then the right one when I saw the link I wrote to it was still "broken". Somebody killed the right-cased one and redirected it to the wrong one, and I just swapped everything around, including all the talk. There is no history worth mentioning. Plus, this is really a tempest in a teapot, since I'm starting to think the whole article is a Bad Idea and am getting ready to put it up for deletion myself -- instead, I think I'll add my comments to another article.

Please tell me how to quickly mend this sort of trivial error.

BTW, your talk-back-to-me-on-my-talk-page template is in error. It asks me to reply to you on your talk page "(above)", but there is no link. Nor did you sign your comment. I had to edit my talk page (or, I suppose, check its history) to find you. As a new guy here, I don't want you to think I'm trying to order around an Old Head, but I thought you might want to know. Xiong 22:48, 10 Mar 2005


 * Thanks for tidying up, and I'm glad you think the topic has some merit. I am led to believe that WP does not encourage "comparison" articles, but I thought the contrast was so extreme that it deserved special attention -- discussion that takes it out of the context of the straight articles on either Chinese or English. I'm still not convinced, though. I want to hear more comment on it, but then, maybe I'm just being a wuss. Xiong 02:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

WP engine issues:

To whom do i direct comments regarding the overall WP engine? For instance, I notice that about half the time when I load a page -- any page -- my browser never stops loading; even after the page is fully loaded, I see various "loading" indicators. I don't know if anyone will fix it just for me, but there must be a place for me to post the bug FYI. Xiong 02:17, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Cleaning department:

Thanks for pointing me to this page - I wasn't aware of its existence. Trödel| talk 03:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Solana:

User:Cumbey has now engaged in an identical edit war at. Any help would be much appreciated. --SqueakBox 17:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Cumbey has made another personal attack against me at Talk:Javier Solana--SqueakBox 04:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cranky:

I'll admit I was using Internet English -- Webster still has
 * Cranky: Addicted to crotchets and whims; unreasonable in opinions; crotchety.

I'm sure it's the same word, with an original meaning of "twist". Probably the same as German krank "ill". A brief websearch will convince you that more kooks than fidgeting children are online :o) dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits :

Regarding your post on my Talk Page.

I have not read the link you provided and have no plans to: if you can't be bothered to do more than post a link and say "read this," then I can't be bothered to read it. It's the basic principle of proportionality in action. If you feel I'm in error on some point and you want me to acknowledge or correct it, it's up to you to tell me what you're talking about, not make me guess your intent.

In any case, if you feel how and why I mark edits distorts, impedes, or abuses process, or is otherwise a roadblock in the path of improving Wikipedia, I invite you to file an RFC, where you can — and, indeed, are required to — describe in as much detail as you like where I've gone wrong. If it's not that important, then please stop bothering me. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I've taken the liberty of nowiki-ing a and fixing some DVD/D template tags on this page.

AN Header / Footer:

Eh, borrowed it from VFD. Maybe you should do it for your talk page too? -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: TfD janitors:

Thanks for the message. I certainly don't mind anybody else helping, there is somewhat of a backlog, thanks for helping out :D It is very much appreciated. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vote removal:

Surely I am allowed to remove a vote from a page. Your readdition of my vote on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 16 is completely inappropriate. anthony 警告 15:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfD:

Hi, Sorry for the multifarious mistakes. This is what happens when you fall out of the loop for a few months. If you ask me, Wikipolicy is altogether too much to keep track of. --Smack (talk) 21:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfD:

No worries...I wasn't questioning the fact that it hadn't been deleted yet. I just meant that the fact that nobody had commented on the nomination yet made it unlikely that anybody would object to me just killing it then and there (since one of my ongoing projects is cleaning up the Canada-related stuff). Sorry if I wasn't clear. Bearcat 15:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three unrelated questions:

On Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion, you mention the little pop-up, but I couldn't find it. Where can I find it?

I replied to your replies further down on that page. I'm curious to see a reason, but I can live without it. I'll just add VfD to such pages and won't care what happens afterwards.

Regarding New Stuff: Are you aware of the template?

Sebastian 08:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Zen-Master:

Sorry, I wasn't mocking your praise of Zen-Master, we just coincided. I note you did detect some tongue in cheek, in my post re: KingOfAllPaperboys. --Silverback 13:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism:

I don't question your decision to protect Capitalism, but my policy is to unprotect whenever it looks quiet, and watch closely. Three days is often enough to get people thinking, and some of the guys editing that page are experienced and not the kind to panic. If you really think it needs to be protected longer, please do so and I'll leave the decision of when to unprotect entirely to you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected page:

I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the distinction between real pages and protected-from-re-creation pages on Protected page wasn't really being observed anymore, and that people were just adding stuff at the end, in the re-creation section, even if it wasn't protected against re-creation. I agree it's a useful distinction if it's observed. -- Curps 22:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sister project templates, protection thereof:

May I ask for how long you intend to have the sister project templates protected? While I agree that they should be protected - although I would rather have them protected on my version, of course - do you honestly think that this will help? For my part, I intend to revert them to the correct version the moment they are unprotected (unless some progress towards resolving this is made). — Itai (f&t) 16:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you deprive me of such an amusing pastime, at the very least you can offer a solution. Leaving this protected until either Netoholic or I leave Wikipedia or are run over by a donkey carriage or any combination of the above is a solution, but not a very noble one. This has been discussed endlessly in the past - I can provide links if you like - and neither Netoholic nor I will change our opinions, nor can a compromise be reached (it's one way or the other). As for additional measures, I've got three surveys showing a community majority for using Template:Sisterproject, and Netoholic's got his I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong page. Seriously, as long as you took the time to protect this, it would be nice if you also said how you believed this should be decided. — Itai (f&t) 20:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be away Sunday through Thursday, so I won't be able to reply to your (belated) reply. Basically, what I'm saying is this: it is very easy (for an admin) to protect a template. It is harder to find a lasting solution. I would be much obliged if, as long as you took the time to intervene, you would also aid in solving this once and for all. — Itai (f&t) 12:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why the posting rule?:

I was curious as to why you have the unusual rule about posting above the last section? The software supports a feature for adding comments to the very end of Talk pages (the "+" sign next to "edit this page") — people who use this feature may never even have a chance to read your instructions before they post. — Matt Crypto 17:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My request to edit MediaWiki messages:

Instead of adding a link to MediaZilla, you could link to Bug reports so those unused to bugzilla won't be alarmed. Thanks!

BTW I've suggested changes to Copyrights at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (and another person has requested an interlanguage link). Probably there are some other channels to go through for such changes? What do I do? Thanks for any info. -- Paddu 08:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR:

Hi. I have absolutely no idea what caused WP:AN/3RR to break like that. I merely clicked the edit link beside the section header, and made an edit to that specific section (as you can see from the automatically generated edit summary based off the section title). I'll file this bug to Bugzilla, because something equally weird happened today (everything on a page disappeared but the section I was editing). Sorry for the disturbance, and thanks for fixing the problem. - Mark 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Matrix:

It looks like the guy who kept adding "Matrixism" references to The Matrix is gone (he's conspicuously absent on List of religions) and a consensus is developing on the talk page as to how to proceed with the editorial dispute. Philwelch 00:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich:

Zürich has been nominated on Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Down the memory hole:

This comment originally appeared in Village pump (policy) 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC). It was not only removed from the Pump, but from the Pump's history itself -- pure Orwellian censorship, and not by a common user, either.

If you think this is unacceptable, I hope you will work to preserve not only these remarks, but to discover the actor who obliterated them. — Xiongtalk 03:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)


 * I have struck my charge of Orwellian revisionism; just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid. At the time I posted several copies of this around the project, I actually did fear that someone would systematically go behind, deleting them without a trace.


 * If I posted this comment to your user Talk, you may wish to delete the box itself and replace with a link to User:Xiong/Minitrue. I will not consider that revisionism. — Xiong 熊 talk 02:11, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

 Following process on Templates for deletion

'''Who are we? Why are we here?''' I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here?

Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views.

If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the Templates for deletion page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions. No need for debate, no need for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP.

But it is not so. I think widget should stay and blivet should go; El Supremo thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then?

Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones.

Recently, the nominated template divbox came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on the nominated template's Talk page.

Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page and simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines. Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable?


 * TfD page, including process guidlines, prior to Orwellian reversions -- here is an excerpt:


 * "It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove tag from template's main page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept."


 * I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my misspelling of "consensus" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must all be destroyed. (!?)


 * This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work at the same time as we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do?

If we have come to the point where everything is up for grabs, please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which manage the way we manage the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement illegal?

If we have not come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

This, that, and the other:

1. Your system (including the 3rd H0 tag, "New Stuff") fails when the sidebar link "Post a New Comment" is used; in some skins, I gather, there is a "[+]" tab with the same effect. I don't say you are right or wrong; I merely mention it. Perhaps you have a method for detecting careless messengers.

2. I carelessly dumped "Down the memory hole" below "New Stuff". Since my fear that it would quickly be deleted by some black bag team has abated, I suggest you may wish to delete the box. You may like to replace it with a link to User:Xiong/Minitrue, if you feel that preserves Talk.

3. Would you consider a Charter Convention? — Xiong 熊 talk 02:21, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Users:

In fact I'm using Username. I think that I got it from the Vandalism in progress page. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I've never tried it any other way... Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Locked France page:

Hey, I was wondering why you locked the France page. The vandalism wasn't too severe at all if thats the reason you did it. It's not that I have anything to edit, I was just wondering. — oo64eva (AJ) (U @ 15:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Response:

I've responded to the question you posed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Cheers. Noisy | Talk 17:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Archival:

By the way, your Talk page has grown so large that I must reload it 4 or 5 times before I can add a new comment. You might wish to consider archival by your chosen means. — Xiong 熊 talk 20:16, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Please see my Talk. — Xiong 熊 talk 22:12, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Xiong:

As one of the people who's tried to encourage Xiong to act more appropriately, I thought I'd let you know I have opened an RFC on him at Requests for comment/Xiong. In short, his actions have continued to be increasingly disruptive and his attitude dismissive, especially his recent nomination of Templates for deletion for deletion (see Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion.

If you'll consider either certifying or supporting the summary, that would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)


 * This user has been soapboxing around, pasting this identical, soothing text into user Talk after user Talk -- a far cry from his usual rude edit summaries. Can nothing be done? Must I campaign, too? Is there some limit to good taste? Am I permitted to indiscriminantly spam user Talk pages with mention of Netoholic's case before ArbCom? I need some direction here. — Xiong 熊 talk 07:34, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Speedy delete of old redirects:

Where is the policy to keep stale old subpage redirects? SchmuckyTheCat 19:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks:

Thanks for adding the user link to Admin noticeboard for. Still a little new here....should have thought of that myself, lot's to learn! Later :) Rx StrangeLove 14:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Wigram:

No probs. I'd probably not have gotten around to putting my notes into any coherent article for ages yet. Pleased you found out a load of stuff I didn't.   — KayEss | talk 05:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry:

Didn't notice. In the middle of a pretty big maneuver myself. Just revert my stuff if you like, I'll pick it up later. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. I will be more careful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

VA Historical Society:

Thanks! BTW, if you like the talk box on my user page and talk page, I can make one for you in about 3 minutes, gratis. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 22:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

WP: RFD:

Thanks for the comments. I originally didn't know about WP:RFD, so when someone pointed it out, I copied them over there, but didn't want to mess with deleting the WP:VFD entries (there's too much work involved, and I didn't want to miss a step or something).

Thanks also for the suggestion to save them to my hard drive until I can change them all at once; I'll do that from now on. ral315 17:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Editing errors:

Yikes, I did not notice this (usually I am careful to avoid such things). Is it my responsibility to restore the deleted text now? Balcer 19:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I:

It was just a passing comment (80K seemed a bit excessive) and honestly had no idea if anyone was responsible for archive maintenance -- I assumed someone who came across the edit summary and knew how to do it might take it upon themselves to do it. I am personally loathe to make large changes -- especially reductions -- to any pages excepting my own or I might have done it myself. So thought I'd leave a heads-up, is all. So no reply necessary. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My mistake:

If you noticed that I'd reverted your archiving work on the Admin's noticeboard — sorry. I was in too much of a hurry, and I missed the word "archive" in your edit summary. I assumed that there'd been some sort of glitch (as has happened a few times recently), and that the material had been deleted accidentally. I've re-reverted now. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism:

I described - the violation of the 3rr, changing of the IP (every 5 minutes) and the vandalising of the Administrators' noticeboard - as vandalism. See:


 * 
 * 
 * 

--Witkacy 13:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit collisions:

Thanks, Noel. Your point is well taken. El_C 22:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

RfD:

I didn't know there was a admin who "ran" the page. Sorry about that. Won't happen again, yadda yadda. I just began browsing the page after spending some quality time at Shortpages. humblefool® 03:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sofixit:

Hi there! I don't really object to this, but there seems to be an accepted convention to do allow some phrases to redirect from mainspace to wikispace, e.g. No personal attacks and Assume good faith. This may be a consistency issue. Yours, Radiant_* 08:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your snide comments...:

re: your posting on my board...


 * Dude... Take a pill... Who pissed in your Cheerios?  My finger must have slipped and I did a Ctl-X instead of a Ctl-C.  So sue me!  I'm not perfect - apparently unlike you...  --JonGwynne 04:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

China History Forum (serious POV problem):

I have noticed that for the last several days, the article China History Forum has been extensively altered to suit the point of view of its founder, General Zhaoyun. This could imply self-promotion and misrepresentation of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BnaiBrithChai (talk • contribs) May 27, 2005

Request page "Cyprus problem" to be deleted:

Hi,

User:Argyrosargyrou has created the page Cyprus problem in reponse to the protection you applied on Cyprus dispute. Previously he also created Cyprus Issue which was subsequently deleted. He seems to be constantly moving his POV content to a new article so as not to be detected. Help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.A (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 May 2005

Moons of Endor and your message:

Thanks for notifying me. You'll be glad to know I managed to fill 3 archive pages in the process. As for Moons of Endor. As long as he's blocked again, there's no problem. Unblocking removes all blocks on someone. Be sure to check the block log next time. Happy editing! - Mgm|(talk) 15:23, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Request page "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus" to be deleted/redirected:

Hi,

Sorry about the cock up with the editing, advice taken. User:Argyrosargyrou has gone and created a new article, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus with the same content – is there no way to stop him spreading this? Because he cant get his way on Cyprus dispute, he is constantly creating new articles to put them in. Thanks again. --E.A 16:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Genghis Khan:

*lol*, does that put you to just to the left or just to the right of GWB? (just kidding:) dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can never wrap my mind around whether "liberals" are supposed to be left or right wing. They seem to be called right wing by leftists, and left wing by the conservatives. You don't sound anywhere near Genghis though, I don't think you can get any more right wing than "unless they're from our own tribe, slay them, burn their crops, impale their babies and enslave their women". cheers, dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Zivinbudas:

More pages vandalized by Zivinbudas:

Kaunas, Panevežys, Balts, Suvalkai region

--Witkacy 1--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)5:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Zavinbudas should be blocked for 3rr (he is not, because of the ArbCom Request) are block evasions not vandalism? (see also blanking of pages: ) However, its not the point..

" Let us know if he picks up again, and what the targets are. Noel (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC) "

..and thats what i did..--Witkacy 18:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, thx :)--Witkacy 10:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What happened on Panevežys is not vandalising, see Talk:Goldap and yet unuanswered arguements there, I think there will have to be a vote as for city names.DeirYassin 18:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Zvinbudas make a very convincing case there with his arguments about Polish nazis. DeirYassin, are you feeling all right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Answered at your place.DeirYassin 21:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm, could you both take any discussion between you to your pages? I really don't care about the fine details of Baltic history, thanks. Noel (talk) 20:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I have long said that a long-term block on Lithuanian ISP is the only solution. I'd appreciate If we ever had a Vandal Hall of Infame, Zvinbudas would have earned himself a place quite near the top. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat:

Hi, I was updating a voice actors page, and this animated was listed, I double checked with imdb and it was actually titled "The Twisted Adventures of Felix the Cat", so I moved the page, and fixed all the wiki links, except for the one on your user page. Just thought I would drop you a note to let you know. <>Who 20:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was pretty sure I remembered it as the "adventures", I just doubled checked with IMDB. The main hits I got for "tales" was in VHS/DVD release. I looked at a few other sources (dont have them handy atm) and they all showed "adventures" for the series. I will look more into it if you like, as long as its correctly listed I dont mind it being either one. Who ? ¿ ? 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately, after further review, although the majority of my sources, and memory, referred to it as "Adventures" the official offical felix site has it listed as "Tales". Unless for some odd reason they changed it over the years. Every reliable source I could find showed it as Adventures. I should have proposed the move, I was in a bit of a hurry working on something else at the time, still have a lot to get used to on wiki. I am not an admin, so I believe it would be in the best interest of wiki to revert it, if you aren't opposed. Any thoughts? <> Who ? ¿ ?  23:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Block of entire Lithuanian ISP:

Hi, how are You? I'm patient & creative :-) --AndriuZ 21:02, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Gdansk:

Oh dear, this has nothing to do with my nationalism. The vote result is very specific here: the trace does not have to be significant or substantial. There has to be a trace at all. Also, if the rules are so strictly and pedantly obeyed in case of Polish cities, then why not in relation to German ones? Is it some sort of German phobia to see Polish names where they should be (at least that's what the community consensus is)?. If so, then it's not my nationalist bias.

There are people here in wikipedia, who use the same interpretation of the vote outcome I am using currently. For almost a month we've been trying to reach a compromise on all relevant talk pages (namely Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice) to arrive to a diferent community consensus, yet to no effect. Unfortunately User:Chris 73 was less cooperative than most of us and he continued to enforce the rules on all sorts of WP articles, be them related or not (check articles on Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, for instance). So, in other words, the current interpretation is common and it's perfectly in line with the outcome of the voting I don't like it either, but rues are rules. If you want to question it please do on the respective pages, but do not accuse me of nationalism. Please. Halibutt 18:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Or articles like Szczecin-Grabowo, Lechia Gdansk, Bialystok, Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc. Should I like Chris add Polish names to articles about Lithuanian, Belorusian, or Ukrainian political parties, football clubs, or suburbs of cities etc.? :)--Witkacy 18:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Szczecin is well-known in the English-speaking world as Stettin (indeed, that's the form of the name I'm most familiar with), and you are completely out of line removing it."

We are talking about the suburbs of Szczecin not about the article Szczecin...

"Keep on reverting it, and you'll wind up keeping Zivinbudas company"

Because i removed German names in Polish suburbs articles?? Come on... Chris is the one who acting like Zivinbudas.

I wonder why you dont say the same to him (Chris)? Is the adding of German names in articles of Polish political parties or Polish football clubs not nationalism? Why do you not say to Chris that he will wind up keeping Zivinbudas company if he dont stop that? ... --Witkacy 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just my 2 cents. Adding german names to a handball club was a mistake of mine, I do not think these are needed. I was reverting a large number of edits of Witkacy (which I believe to be an emax reincarnation), and the handball club must have slipped in. About articles like Szczecin-Grabowo, I believe neighborhood of the city of Szczecin (German: Stettin) is useful and in accordance with the vote. Thanks for your help -- Chris 73 Talk 19:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes a mistake...., also on Bialystok (east Poland)?, , (the last one by User:Calton--Witkacy 19:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * After looking at Bialystok, I don't see the point of including the "German - Bialystok", since it's the exact same spelling. Having said that, it was part of the Prussian Empire for a short time, so I can see the case for giving the German name; however... it was for such a short time (and I get the sense that the cultural connection - i.e. German-speaking population - was small, although that is just a guess) that I would say it falls beneath the threshold for needing the German name anyway.
 * All of which points out something that I think it being overlooked - each one of these articles is a case-by-case decision, and one has to (if one is being reasonable, IMO) look at the specific facts of each case before making a decision. I can't give a blanket rule to cover them all; in some I will agree with you, in some I will not. Noel (talk) 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But is the behavior of Chris better then mine? See for example the history of Szczecin-Grabowo.


 * An anon removed the German name (whis was befor added by User:Juntung - a friend of Chris) - the anon edit was correct, because the article is about the Grabowo suburb of today.
 * User:Boothy443 (sockpuppet i dont know of whom) began to revert him.
 * Both the anon and Boothy443 broked the 3rr (for which only the anon was blocked, Boothy not...)
 * Chris 73 joined the edit-war and reverted the anon.
 * Halibutt jointed the edit-war and reverted Chris.
 * Chris reverted Halibutt...
 * I was joined the edit-war and reverted Chris..
 * User:Calton (friend of Chris) joined the edit-war and reverted me...

But you only accused Halibutt of nationalims, and me of acting like Zivinbudas...--Witkacy 19:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW. he reverted again tons of articles, and broked the 3rr inter alia on Szczecin-Grabowo--Witkacy 20:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is so much going on (and so many posts being made) that I can't keep up. If the edit wars would stop, then if you could point me out specific things you have a problem with, then I can look at them and see what I think, and if I disagree with the call made by the other editor (e.g. Chris 73), I will be happy to tell them so and see if I can get them to change their mind. The same goes for his behaviour; I have a limited amount of time, and I'm so busy keeping an eye on you and Halibutt (not to mention dealing with the people who have a problem because of the block on the Lithuanian ISP to stop Zivinbudas) that I don't have time to look at everyone else (let alone do what I'd really like to to do, which is work on articles about early computers, like ACE). Noel (talk) 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amber/Amber Room:

I know you "don't care about the fine details of Baltic history" but if you insist of inserting a reference to "Danzig" in the Amber article, then you should know that Royal Prussia was a name of a province of Poland (1466 -1795) and that in 1701 Gdansk was a Polish city. Space Cadet 21:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Ethnic Germans", who have not seen Germany for generations. We don't know what they called it, but if they were loyal citizens of Poland (and with Polish being "lingua franca" in the region at the time), they probably called it "Gdansk". The original vote was for "Gdansk" in this time period, but then Chris falsified the outcome by eliminating some votes. Space Cadet 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't even trying to be sarcastic! All I meant, was that in XVIII century there was a lot of "ethnic Germans", whose families emigrated to Poland at least 2 centuries earlier, in the region. The vote is not a policy and 3R applies to you as well. Space Cadet 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just violate the 3R rule?Space Cadet 02:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noel - I've edited the page myself, and am viewed with great suspicion by Space Cadet and Halibutt, so I probably wouldn't be the best person to protect. (I won't even get into the specious arguments Space Cadet is making here...) john k 04:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I edited Amber, not Amber Room. But I am still very wary of protecting these Polish articles, since I can very easily be accused of bias. john k 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, I know. They don't care in the slightest what actual books in English about the period call it, so far as I can gather.  They either vaguely claim that things are changing very quickly towards calling it Gdansk (Space Cadet has done this in the past, and never provided any evidence to back this up), or else ignore the issue entirely (most of the others).  I hate how an issue which is essentially one of English usage has to become a nationalistic football for people who dodn't have any idea what English usage on the issue is. john k 04:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to keep up, and I'm hoping that I've caught all the changes by now. What a mess this is. By some miracle I haven't broken the 3RR, but if this keeps up someone else is going to have to step up. Mackensen (talk) 05:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In past discussions on Gdansk I have cited numerous sources - I did a JSTOR search for mentions of "Gdansk" and demonstrated that the name is never used for 1793-1945, and only very rarely for pre-1793. I looked at all the various early modern history textbooks I had at the time and noted that they all called it Danzig. And so on. It didn't do any good, because they don't care about usage. john k 19:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check my compromise version on Amber, Amber romm, Albrecht Giese, Luise Gottsched etc. and let me know if its acceptable. Contrary to the popular belief I'm not after edit wars. It's just that the previous versions hid the fact that these people were born in Poland. Space Cadet 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus broke 3RR rule:

Piotrus broke 3RR rule in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Please block him. 85.206.194.51 19:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Just reverting vandalism. In case you want more detals, please visit Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas aka 'the Wikipedia against Zvinbudas'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ArbCom is involved so we can get a non-disputable permission for long term ran ge ban. This is not a content dispute - at least, not unless you give every vandal the right to claim he has all rights to do what he wants with any article. Check Requests_for_comment/Zivinbudas for some evidence - Zvinbudas is breaking 3RR often more then once per day, majority of his changes are not supported by anybody except him, he fails to provide a sigle source, he engages in scores of personal attacks AND as a result he forces the protection of many - more then 10 IIRC, including at least one FA - pages, some of them for over a MONTH now (actually, some of them, with short breakes, for 3 months - just go to Wilno for prime example). Now, usually I'd simply protect GDL, but I was in a hurry and just reverted, as I don't want to give Zvin the satisfaction of one protecting one more page (actually, he was vandalising 3-4 new pages that day, and I was considering protecting them all). This is nothing but a vandal-prevention reverts. Although as it appears he has found a way to use that to waste yet more of our time, I guess I will have to simply revert and protect any page he edits from now on :( At least, until ArbCom start doing something and issues a ruling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. I guess I should be more careful in the future. Any idea when ArbCom can do sth? I mean, seriously, having that many articles protected by that long (and both number of protections and their lenghts are increasing) is shocking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kiev:

"...please "just say no", and just turn around and walk away and work on adding good content somewhere else."...

Yes, you are right :) But... some users removing Polish names in articles of cities which once were part of Poland, and on the other hand they adding foreign names in articles of Polish cities... And even in such non-important like Rumia.--Witkacy 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts:

PLEASE calm down a bit with the new redirects; while I may admit some are useful, you don't need to make TALK page redirects. Yes, someone may incorrectly search for Commonwealth of Massachussetts - but they will never search for Talk:Commonwealth of Massachussetts. --Golbez 04:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh hm ok :) --Golbez 05:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Redirs:

Ok, I see no real harm in cross-namespace redirs anyway. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hans Nusslein:

Hi! Yes, what I meant was that there should be a *link* at some point from the Hans Article to the Pro Championships. And vice versa. Not a redirect, I guess. I'm sorry for the confusion -- I stopped playing with Wiki for a while and I forgot a lot of what I used to know. Thanks for your help in clearing this up.... I also mean the same thing for the little articles about Vinnie Richards and Karol Kuzelof and their listings in the Championships. Hayford Peirce 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid:

Protection on apartheid has been tried--for weeks--and it didn't help. It's just one user and he's going absolutely bonkers. He's had two warnings and if he reverts again he'll be blocked and that'll be that. Up to you though, I won't release the protection but I ask you to consider doing so as it's in Wikipedia's interests to keep our articles editable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't spot the earlier use of different IPs. I'll give it a go because his IP ranges do look blockable for reasonably useful periods. This guy isn't going away so I think we should tackle him head on and see what comes of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:AN/3RR:

My bad. Thanks so much for reminding and fixing it. — Instantnood 06:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Rules that promote unethical behavior:

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not. Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute. It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him. Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation? If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking. Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page. The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues. Rex - Rex Judicata 07:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version, note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. |lang_es&client=firefox-a Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day, and keep the sensible advice coming, SqueakBox 15:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: redirects for deletion:

Sorry about that... I should have read more thoroughly. Well, I've fixed it now and I have a stub article up. You (Talk) 17:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Put-in-Bay, Ohio:

Just thought I'd say 'Thanks a lot' for protecting Put-in-Bay, Ohio. --Silas Snider (talk) 22:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Minor edit flag:


 * Yeah, I know, it was an accident - that is, the minor edit check box is right above the save page button... I have done this a few times. Sorry. BLANKFAZE | (что</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jake007:

Thanks SO much for blocking that, uh, user. He ran us through the freaking wringer over on VfD with his nonsense and when I saw both his threat and the fact that RickK was giving up less than a day after returning from my own Wikivacation, I saw red. Also, thanks for not pussyfooting around. Lowering the boom right away was the right thing to do. Take care and stay in touch. Best, Lucky 6.9 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. In fact, I was just reading his talk page when the message flag came up.  Good God, when are the powers-that-be going to tighten these ranks?  Why must an admin vote be an 85% consensus?  We need more vandal slayers with broader powers, not less.  This is just wrong.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia is one of mankind's great achievements...but it's not without its warts.  Warts can be cured.  We persist... - Lucky 6.9 18:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Protection:

It looks like activity on the talk page has died down. The newly-registered user was likely the anon IP doing all of the POV deletion. I posted a message on the user's talk page and on the Wal-Mart talk page and haven't received a response. Perhaps the user has moved on. Are you willing to unprotect the page to see what happens? Feco 19:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karel K, however it's spelled:

Thanks for moving the article. The reason I didn't try to move it myself is that there were about a zillion warnings at the top of the page telling people not to, among other things, try to move it. This Wiki business can be complicated sometimes. In any case, I will take your advice and, in the future, move an article rather than starting another article.... Thanks for the tip. Hayford Peirce 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karel's tennis record:

Thanks for your eagle-eyed scrutiny. When I first wrote the brief article I did it under the impression that K. had had almost no notable amateur background. It was only after all this back-and-forthing with the names etc. started that I discovered he had actually once been a quarter-finalist at Wimbledom (1927, I think). That's a pretty fair showing. So I changed my words to say he'd been a "fine amateur" and forgot to revise the earlier statement. I'll fix it all up tomorrow. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 04:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the Karel Kozeluh article to reflect everything I've said in the other two stubs. I wish someone would expand it.... Hayford Peirce 28 June 2005 04:34 (UTC)


 * Total madness! I've just discovered that there was a Jan Koželuh who was a Czech contemporary of Karel's and who was an equally good player.  Apparently they were not related.  It is Jan who was a Wimbledon quart-finalist twice and Karel who was the successful pro (as well as being a great ice hockey and soccer player).  I've rewritten the Karel Koželuh article and started a new article about Jan.  What next?  A third Kozeluh mebbe?  Hayford Peirce 29 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Archiving on WP:AN:

Are you using automated software to archive Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? You appear to have removed a large number of discussions from the page, but you have not added them to the proper archives. An example is. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive28 has not been edited since June 16. I'm afraid this is going to require a large amount of cleanup work. If you're using a bot to perform the archiving, please turn it off until it can be fixed. Rhobite 05:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)