User talk:Lexi Marie/Archive3

Thank you for your vote.
Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Endless Online
I'd like to request a change of the stub tag in Endless Online (the page you have protected) to, as a part of WikiProject Stub sorting. Conscious 05:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Conscious 05:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, I thank you for your support to my adminship. We shall surely interact more. And, I entered here boldly without abandoning any hope ! --Bhadani 10:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The charter is here. (Relating to Esperanza)
Hello Phroziac, the Charter for Esperanza is up. Take a looksie :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the help. I’m still trying to get a handle on this. The Image is created by Alex Kolesar, the artist of the web comic the article is about. The material on the site is © to him, but he allows the use of the banner posted on the article as well as any other images on the site if they are used for promotional purposes (reviews, links, etc.) Did I select the appropriate tag? Thanks again!

The palantir 17:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I owe you another thanks!
It looks like I won't have to hang my head in shame for loosing my first article.

The palantir 18:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cheer up...
...or the bear gets it!



Don't let the bear die! --GraemeL (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce
Hi, for information, I have added a task to your desk. Andreww 11:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

extreme lesbian support
I'm unsure what you mean with this comment, which you have made several times here and at commons. If you are adding the word "lesbian" for emphasis or shock value, I believe that doing so is misguided since the many Wikipedians who have been gay bashed here or in real life may find it evocative of those events. If you mean something else, I'll admit that I'm puzzled. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The "extreme lesbian support" is rapidly becaming a fad at WP:RFA (see Requests for adminship/Durin). Could you finally explain its meaning and significance? &mdash; J I P | Talk 11:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza made less bureaucratic
Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. Perhaps an RfA cliche template is a good idea. Anyway, I look forward to using my new powers in the service of Good.

Great, now I'm talking like some sort of deranged superhero... -R. fiend 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff
Hello Phroziac. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

EfnetM-a-t-h
Can you redelete EfnetM-a-t-h? It was recreated. *rolls eyes* &hearts;purplefeltangel (talk) &hearts; (Contributions) 01:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

165.111.2.149
I notice you've warned this user, could they perhaps be blocked as they continue to vandalise Democritus and I'm near the 3 revert limit. I'm sure you'll deal with this as you see fit, so no reply is neccesary :) Mallocks 15:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

R/C picture
I'd forgotten about that picture...been a long time since I uploaded that one. It's from someone's online photo album and, if I'm right, isn't copyrighted. I'll tag the info. Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti
Hello, Phroziac. I noticed that you responded to the page protection request for Jack Sarfatti; I'd already protected the page. However, could you immediately take a look at WP:AN, where I've posted a summary of the issue? If you could review it immediately, that would be great, as User:JackSarfatti still seems to be logged on, and he appears to be sincere about his legal threats (see the post at the bottom of my talk page). Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to drop a thank you note (those are always welcome, right?) for your quick response to my request for page protection, even though it didn't turn out to be needed. I'm not sure blocking was the best move, but it was getting rather nasty.... so thanks for that too.--C S 05:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

subst tags
Thanks for giving me the heads up on the subst tags, I had seen those a couple times (AfD instructions), but didn't know what they meant. Seems pretty useful. -GregAsche (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Your evidence
Hi Proziac! I noticed that you have provided some diffs to the ArbCom case, and I would like you to change this "Davenbelle admits to stalking Cool Cat" as it is obviously misleading. Try to read the diff again please. Thanks in advance. -- Karl Meier 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, many thanks for that! However as a suggestion I think it would me more accurate to write something like "Davenbelle reject stalking and claim to have monitored Cool Cat for a number of good reasons". I think it would make it more easy for the members of the ArbCom to have it spelled out like that. There is already a lot of material to read for them. Oh, and BTW just made a comment on your evidence on the discussion page here -- Karl Meier 15:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And another thing (I know I am writing a lot on the talkpage these minutes, but I feel it is needed), is you commentary on the Kurdish people edits. I find that the comment: "Karl Meier reverts Cool Cat, but shows sign of talk page usage" is also misleading. If you go through the diffs you will notice that I used the talk page and mentioned my concerns right away, and from the beginning. I think the above comment might make mislead the ArbCom members to think otherwise. I suggest that you remove the comment and add possible add something like "and mentions his concerns regarding Cool Cat's edits on the talkpage" on the first of my diffs. That would as the history show be much more accurate. -- Karl Meier 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that Phroziac. You are obviously a reasonable guy. However, I also think that comment should be at one of the much earlier diffs. My first comment on the talkpage regarding this issue was here: . -- Karl Meier 16:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Hall Monitors
Hi, and thanks for the heads up dude!What name should I choose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hall Monitors (talk • contribs)

RfA
Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Skuld
Could you please motivate why you have moved Skuld. It is nice to know that there are more people who think like User:Coolcat, but I think you both are wrong here.--Wiglaf 17:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You could also explain on Talk:Skuld why you think that Skuld should be a disambiguation page. Both I and Uppland would read it with interest.--Wiglaf 17:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

RickK anti-vandalism barnstar!
Do you know that User:Cool Cat is a lot of why RickK left? &mdash; Davenbelle 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * RickK could even request the barnstars name be changed after he learns that one of the main persons responsable of him leaving the project, get a barnstar named after him. People here seems to have a rather short memory, and it is a diservice to the memory of RickKs contribution to Wikipedia. Fadix 21:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Spam Court
Was it a good idea to close this nomination early? You seem to be making a point here. Non-notability is a de facto qualification for deletion in many cases. While I mostly agree with the point you are making this seems like a bad way. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw that too. Phroziac, I do not know if you were trying to make a WP:POINT, but that's not really the crux of the issue here, methinks. I just wanted to suggest that maybe you could consider a somewhat less hasty approach when you find yourself in situations where someone else is annoying you, or seems to have done something you consider wrong or stupid. Maybe talk first, shoot later, know what I mean? If you find yourself getting annoyed at a nom you consider silly or inappropriate or poorly explained, a good thing to do is explain politely why you think so. It's less helpful to just close off the nom or delete the page. If you find yourself disagreeing with another admin's close, a good idea is to talk to her first, and find out why she did what she did. It's less helpful to open up an archived thread, unilaterally overule her, and delete the article. When you talk to folks first you might understand why they acted in ways that seemed inexplicable to you—and who knows, you may find you agreed with them more than not, eh? Cheers— enceph alon  15:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to make a WP:POINT. It's not that nomination that was annoying me, it's a pattern of similar ones. And, I didn't speedy keep it because it annoyed me; I did it because we should only allow nominations made in good faith, and where the person actually *looked* at the article first. If you looked at the article, then making a short summary of why it should be deleted should be no problem. Two letters and the word delete, or three letters, are not acceptable. Lazyness is no excuse. Would we accept an RFC that says " is a ", even if it has two people to certify it, and there is evidence and proof that dispute resolution hasn't worked? And, certainly we wouldn't allow that on rfar? Anyway, I won't do it again...it's obvious there's significant opposition. But, if I could get the afd policy adjusted... --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 15:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Phroziac, it's kind of you to reply. I don't doubt that you were not trying to make a WP:POINT, and I do not at all suggest that you did. As to the larger question we're talking about, perhaps I should be clearer: I'm not disputing that you may have very valid reasons for feeling as you do—in fact in this AfD we're talking about I agree with you that a longer explanation of the rationale is desirable. I'm just suggesting that the way you're registering your disagreement may not be ideal. Instead of closing off mikka's page, it would have been more productive for you to have spoken to him—that way, if he had a good reason for doing as he did you'd learn it, and if he didn't he'd learn a useful thing from you and improve the way he writes AfDs. If you unilaterally take action without talking to the other party first, there is greater potential for needless disagreement and conflict. Don't you agree?


 * As to your final thoughts, please understand that no one is "opposing" your contention that AfD noms should be clearly written—both Chris Parham and I would agree with you. There is also no need to "get the afd policy adjusted". We're only saying that it will be helpful for you to communicate with those around you whom you may disagree with: at the very least it's good conflict management. Wadya say? :) All the best— enceph alon  16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. But, I really do think the policy should be adjusted to ask for clear and verbose reasons. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 16:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

RickK anti-vandalism barnstar!
Thank you! --Cool Cat Talk 11:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

University of Miami Help/Question.
I brought someone to your attention on the 3RR board just over a week ago and you banned him fgor 24 hours, Brian Brockmeyer. Well, the day after he was suspended, a new name popped up and carried on his crusade, Soldia1219. Coincidence? Maybe. Then there is Juicedpalmeiro, who also seems to only edit the same pages that Brian edits and started contibuting the first time Brian was suspended in August of 2005. Coincidece? Maybe. Seems very odd though. I am sick of editing the Miami page, and the people won't discuss it to settle it. What should I do? AriGold 20:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to look into it. Now it looks like the three names are alternating to avoid the 3RR vio. I have tried repeatedly to discuss this with "Brian", on his page, but he just keeps deleting my message.  Can we just get it locked, or can a user be blocked by his IP? AriGold 17:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

AFD
Thanks for the tip, but I had to do them all at once as they were from one source. Speedy would be best. :-) -- Spinboy 23:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

NPA
Please keep in mind WP:NPA, even for people you feel are harming wikipedia and vandals. --fvw *  02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, where did i violate NPA? I sure don't remember doing that, and that's one of the rules i believe in the most. :/ A diff or two would be nice. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There was some talk of morons and such on coolcat's page protection and the related pages. It's no biggie, the annoyance gets to us all some times, but even if they are just vandals it's not conducive to pleasant editing and don't solve anything. As they say, don't wrestle in the mud with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. (And that's not a personal attack but a metaphor). --fvw *  02:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: RickK
I did not assume, you did it in purpouses, you did not need to defend yourself. About the incidence. You can read more about it here. Fadix 05:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Two-letter reasons for deletion
Hey Phroziac,

I noticed the conversation you're having above about your "speedy keep." While I'm not sure I agree with the way you dealt with it, I have to agree with you that a two-letter reason for deletion is not helpful. Specifically, I think using "wikipedia jargon" or very short abbreviations is an inadvertent way of biting the newbies, who may not understand what it means when their article about their favourite band/teacher/self gets nominated as "nn". Where should we start bringing this to the community's attention? One idea I have is to make a Template:nn with something like: "Delete, this article does not meet my standards of notability" so people can still minimize the number of keystrokes but type something clear to non-regulars. What do you think, and where is the right place to discuss this? moink 15:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi moink, good idea. I think the AFD page and associated talk page are good places. I don't think a separate template is necessary though; we'd have to create quite a few to cover everything, too. The message really is: explain your nominations clearly, with no jargon. Perhaps a post on the AfD talk page to draw attention to the matter, and the inclusion of a sentence in the step by step instructions, specifically II, in the AfD guide at the bottom of the page will suffice.— enceph alon  16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree it's biting the newcomers, and I have also commented on this to several people now, and atleast one of them agreed and said they will stop. A template for this is a good idea, but how many would we have to make? And, encephalon is right. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 16:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the number of templates, we'd just have to create one or two and it would start a trend I think. I should eat today, and do real work, but maybe later I'll start a general conversation about it in the places encephalon suggested.  moink 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of abbreviations on AfDs, etc.
Hello Phroziac, what's the rumpus?

I saw your post in reply to Brighterorange and myself on the Land of Monsters AfD, and left a semi-lengthy reply there, which I'll post below in case you're not planning on going back there. I was irritated when I first read your reply, so kindly take that into account. Now that I've thought about it more, I wanted to bring my different point of view to your attention, and hopefully clear the air about my thoughts on the matter. First, here's the original posts (just mine and yours):


 * Delete Nn zine-cruft. Sounds good 'n' worthless. --Blackcap | talk 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the term cruft on AFD, it's biting the newcomers, and many people find it offensive. And, please don't call peoples work worthless. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * From WP:GAFD: "-cruft (for example, 'fancruft', 'gamecruft' or 'forumcruft') is shorthand for 'This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc.'" Bollocks to not using "cruft." It's useful, and it's even listed in the Guide. For one thing, newcomers who vote on AfDs votes are rarely counted and are often assumed to be sockpuppets, so the "don't bite the newbies" argument is simply trite and unhelpful. When was the last time you saw a newcomer vote on AfD have a vote that was actually grounded in WP policy and was worthy of being counted? Never, for me. Second thing, if a newcomer can't be bothered to read the instructions to AfD, which includes in its glossary such terms as "nn" and "cruft," then that's their problem, not the person who uses those terms. It's shorthand so that we don't waste our time writing out the same old arguments over and over again in longhand. --Blackcap | talk 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I am entirely in agreeance with not biting newbies, and go out of my way to apologize for and explain misunderstandings. But saying not to use established, easily understood terms that apply perfectly to the article in question to avoid offending the writer of an article that doesn't belong here is too much. --Blackcap | talk 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I realized that I was risking you not taking this as I meant it, so I'm writing here to clarify a few things:
 * 1) Honestly, I take WP:BITE very seriously. I want people to be welcome here, esp. the new fellows, and I watch the pages of users I put test tags on, just in case they reply, and in the rare cases they do, I do my best to help them understand that they're welcome here but that certain things aren't allowed. I have my own welcome message and so on and so forth. I can give some diffs if you want, but I just wanted you to know that I try hard not to chase away the fresh meat (kidding).
 * 2) If a newbie votes on AfD, I welcome it, but if it's not rooted in WP policy, or more often, is just simply vandalism, then I'll ignore it and probably mark it as a sock. WP is for encyclopedia writers, not vain wankers who couldn't give a shite about WP or what we stand for.
 * 3) And lastly, when a newbie comes onto AfD or VfU or whatever, and is insulted by having an article called "vanity" or "cruft" or "non-notable," or doesn't understand what "nn" or "dab" means, then I try to explain it to them on their talk page or on the AfD. (I'm hoping you don't ask me for proof, because I have no idea where in my contribs I have a diff for this, but I know there're some somewhere :)).

My two points are that frustration on AfDs is normal, and is permissible in my mind—after all, that's where WP removes its worst content, and it's natural to feel ticked that some IP is vandalizing, hoaxing, etc. all over your favorite online project. It's where we can have a sense of humor about how bad it gets (e.g. "good 'n' worthless"). If someone is insulted, I can always explain, and I do. The second point is that these terms (cruft etc.) are necessary for our sanity as editors so that we don't write the same boring arguments over and over again, and it gives us a mildly insulting term to let off a little steam rather than holding that in. And as I've said before, it can always be explained.

Please forgive me the length of this post, I didn't mean to pull a GordonWatts on you, but I wanted to say how I felt on the matter, hear your thoughts, and let things rest. I hope this clears things up.

Slán agat, --Blackcap | talk 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Replied here. --Blackcap | talk 17:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

More on cruft
According to the WP article on it, and the links it has, cruft doesn't mean crap. Here, take a look. Just thought you'd be interested :). --Blackcap | talk 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Although the origins of this term are uncertain, it is suggested that the term is derived from Harvard's Cruft Hall, which was the Harvard Physics Department's radar lab during WWII. As late as the early nineties, unused technical equipment could be seen stacked in front of Cruft Hall's windows. This image of "undiscarded technical clutter" quickly migrated from hardware to software, from which it was even more mind-bogglingly difficult to remove." <-- sounds like crap to me. ;) But ok. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 05:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, less insulting, right? More like kipple. Didja ever read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Seems a bit more on the humorous side. --Blackcap | talk 16:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I haven't read that. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 16:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User Page
Could you please lock my user page. Thanks. Leonig Mig 13:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)