User talk:Meegs/Archive 2

I think that's my cue to go to sleep
The coaches are all yours. :^)--Mike Selinker 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gordon S. Wood
Please note WP:MOSDATE. Thanks. -- User:Docu
 * The point is that all dates, even solitary years, should be linked if they're the date of birth or death in a biographical article. That's what those examples demonstrate, even though it contradicts the instruction prose above it. I see I missed the recent discussion. ×Meegs 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the years at least in the intro. The samples have been there for quite some time, not so the instruction prose though. BTW recently, there were various debates and dramas about linking, not-linking, delinking and not-delinking solitary years. -- User:Docu
 * I've seen a number of those too. The status quo (that incomplete dates are rarely linked unless they're a DOB/D) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I'm not going to rock that boat. The bigger problem is that there is no prose anywhere, that I can find, that explains the DOB exception to the rule. ×Meegs 16:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Still kinda trying to get the hang of things. As you probably guessed from reading the article I wrote, Michael went to my college and we're all pretty psyched about having him in the NFL. I think I remained objective, though. I'm not sure what the four tildes deal is, but I'm gonna try it here. Tromboneguy0186 09:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's good that you're thinking about objectivity, but there are no problems there; you did a great job. I especially like the section about his 58-yard field goal.×Meegs 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sports Wiki
I noticed you were active on a bunch sports pages. My friends and I started a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is [deleted]. We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh01 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Small Question
Just wondering what happened to the cover for Fallen Angel and also what does '(bypassed Uriah Heep disambiguation page)' mean?--duckpatch
 * I looked through the history, and it looks like Fallen Angel (album) never had a image. You can upload one if you want.
 * That was the edit summary I used when I was going though all of the links to Uriah Heep and changing them to either Uriah Heep (fictional character) or Uriah Heep (band).
 * ×Meegs 08:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah OK and do you mind if I change the main picture for the band which has Gypsy? We need to do lineup timeline aswell!! --duckpatch
 * I don't understand. What do you want to change it to?  I put-up the Easy Livin' single because it has a good group picture of the band's classic lineup, but we can change if you have something better in mind (so long as it's fair use). ×Meegs 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Aleged copyright violation
Hi Meegs. I wrote "Brief interventions' from material on my website, to which I hold copyright. Therefore, there is no copyright violation in "Brief interventions."David Justin
 * I'm replying at talk:Brief interventions. ×Meegs 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Meegs-

I've requested permissin from Dr. Kilmer and have also sent him a copy of the Discussion Page so he can understand the reason for my request. I'm Professor Emeritus at SUNY Potsdam; Dr. Kilmer is at the University of Washington and Evergreen State College. I met him professionally at alcohol research conferences and asked to interview him on my website Alcohol: Problems and Solutiions because he is one of the leading researchers and experts on the subject of brief interventions.David Justin 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thanks a lot! ×Meegs 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Meegs-

No need to apologize. I've had some incredible difficulty with people who repost material (including typos!) from my website and then deny that they have done so.David Justin 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

re:merging
Hi Meegs - hey....its a spirited discussion. I enjoyed answering your very-valid questions. You can't make policy without working together. Thank you for your input. Listen, if you do feel its a good idea, can you please say so on the talkpage, or else I'll never gather the consensus for this to work. The topic's open as long as its open, so please feel free to help out anytime. Rama&#39;s Arrow 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

notability
Hi Meegs. Thanks for your response about my query about notability.I think you are right-there can be no objective parematers about notability but I think there is a general consensus about certain achievemnets which would make a person natable-Nobel Awards,Pulitzer Awrds and according to your own Wkipedia Fellowship of American Academy of Arts and Sciences.I was concerned about this particaular instance as there were two problems-there apparently was ome concern as this person's namesake had some very unpleasant antecedants.This lead to two votes for deletion.When it was established that this person was different there was another vote for deletion claiming that he was not notable enough although his Fellowship of the American Academy was verified.There was only one vote for retention and those who had voted for deletion resulting from an unfortunate coincidence of similarity of names did not get a chance to retract.I am not requesting restoration but this is a problem that I think needs to be addressed-those voting should not be in a hurry to vote as there may be namesakes and some achivements do not invite any dispute over notability.Anil Kumar 24th Feb.2006


 * It's good to hear from you. Three things:
 * It sounds like this article had a rough time on Articles for deletion, but you seem to be avoiding telling me the name of the article in question. That's fine, if you just want to move-on, but if you want to tell me the title, I'll look into what happened.  If there was confusion between two subjects with the same name, and critical votes were cast before the confusion was cleared up, then there are probably grounds to bring that case to Deletion review and have the issue relisted.  AFD is supposed to function like a discussion, not a vote, and off-topic opinions are usually discarded by the closing admin, but mistakes happen sometimes.
 * You said on the other page that you were worried that articles you're planning to write might be similarly deleted. University professors are deleted quite frequently when their articles don't prominently discuss contributions to their field.  Also, it is probably the case that simple membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is not sufficient for inclusion, but I suspect that many-most-or-all of its members have achievements in research that do merit their inclusion. Check WP:BIO and WP:N, and look for similar subjects that we currently have articles for.  I'm also happy to give you my opinion on any potential article's subject.
 * You should consider creating an account and logging in to Wikipedia. Right or wrong, people here are suspicious and critical of contributions that come from anonymous users (in part because that's the group responsible for most of the vandalism), and give their comments less consideration in discussions.  There are also lots of other advantages (see Why create an account?).
 * Let me know if I can help you with anything else. ×Meegs 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Meegs.Thanks for your most helpful comments.I am new to Wiki and found them most encouraging.I shall certainly create an account today. Indeed the article had a rough time.The worst part of it was that it concerned one of my teachers who was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences after writing a stellar book on Neuroses.I tried to impress upon the person who had initiated vote for deletion of the merits only to be called a self-seeking vanitarian!!.By the time I became aware of the problems,two votes had already been cast as the name resembled another person with not so savoury antecedants.Another person got into action and cleared it up establishing that there were two people with the same name but then the person who had called for deletion declared that he did not think the person was notable.I am easy and am not asking for restoration as I may be accused of being a vanitarian again just by the fortunate coincidence of being this person's student and would like it to leave it to others if they feel any merit.Thanks once again for the encouraging words. Anil Kumar 25th Feb.2006
 * Sounds good. Once you register, try working on some existing articles, or creating ones that aren't right near WP's notability threshold.  Once you have a little more experience, you may want to revisit this professor's article. Good luck, and welcome. ×Meegs 06:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC]

Thanks once again for your encouraging words.As you can see I have registered as vr.Just to sus out,I had included my suggestions in the Crietri a for notability of academics.To my surprise,I received a response which supported my view.In fact on browsing,I found that Fellowship of the American academy of Arts and Sciences is one of the mosr prestigious honors in the world.I am hopeful that someone other than myself would take the issue up. Thanks once again for your encouragement. vr 28th Feb.2006

articles for creation
hi meegs. ive just readded the note whioch you took out about stubs on Articles for creation. the reason that is there is explained at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. its annoying having to remove stub templates from so many not-yet-articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation every day - since putting in the 'please dont' note the number had drooped away no nearly zero. now theyre reappearing again. please leave that message there!  BL Lacertae -  kiss the lizard  06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused about who that message is addressing – you want to tell it to the people submitting the AFC, but you've put the requenst in the section giving instructions to the people fulfilling the requests. I'm giving a fuller response on the talk page. ×Meegs 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Afd Rudy Gay
Hi, was just wondering if I put the AfD up what people's thoughts would be on the deletion of the article. Tom Hawkins, if you look at the history, used to be an entirely differnet article, on an Australian rules football player who is yet to be drafted into the Australian Football League. It was deleted and redirected into something entirely different. If that article is deleted, than surely there can't be double standards and Rudy Gay will have to be deleted, if you understand what I'm saying.  R o  gerthat  Talk  11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I told you on your talk page, the article was not deleted: no content was lost, and, if you want, you can revert it back to the way it was. User:Harro5's actions, redirecting a page with long history, were a bit heavy-handed, but I suggest you wait for their response to your inquiry before doing anything.  There are any number of outcomes to this conflict, and even the worst still requires Tom Hawkins (the football player) going though AfD and getting a lot of attention.   And AfDing basketball player Rudy Gay is not going to help – again, I suggest you drop that.  ×Meegs 11:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough mate, it seems that User:Harro5 has a vendetta against Australian rules players - recently he has vandalised and deleted massive chunks of articles (see Chris Judd as one of the many examples), citing "non-NPOV". Now that would be fair if he took steps to improve the article but he is simply deleting everything and offering no help whatsoever.  R o  gerthat  Talk  08:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left a message for Harro5, proposing some solutions to the Tom Hawkins issue. I looked at the Chris Judd article though, and don't see any evidence that he (you said he, right?) has a vendetta against Australian rules players – if he did, he wouldn't be working so hard improving the formatting and removing speculation and some really strong POV from the article (e.g. a remarkable young athlete, Chris Judd was seemingly destined for great things).  These nicknames you added really did not belong either. Maybe this one big reversion removed some valuable information along with the POV, but you can always revise and re-add those bits. He may be rubbing you the wrong way, but it looks to me like each of his edits are, all things considered, steps foreword.  However you feel, though, don't accuse him of vansalism.  I'd be happy to look at any specific edits if you want a third opinion, but you're probably better-off asking him if you want his rationale.  ×Meegs 11:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I did not add anything to that article. Certainly not those nicknames you claim O_o I am not some hooligan who adds idiotic comments such as those, I totally understand the NPOV issues but think Harro5 should take the steps to improve them rather than just cutting out everything in sight.  R o  gerthat  Talk  11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my, sorry, you're right, it was the editor before you that added the nicknames. And you're right, the ideal thing to do is to try to revise and neutralize POV when you come across it, but when there's a big section of it in an article, as there was in this case, removing the whole block is still a step forward.   Even if you disagree, you have to concede that the edit was made in good faith and is not vandalism. And remember, the removed text isn't lost, and portions of it can easily be revived from the history.  ×Meegs 11:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring the Tom Hawkins article is just WP:SNOW. Look at a similar recent case: Adrian Khoo was a student in Australia who won a big award at secondary school, but hadn't achieved anything. I state my view cleary in this comment about the issue of Tom Hawkins, and Rogerthat has forgotten my contributions to Australian football articles in the past - see my contribs, and what he has said to me in the past. An AfD has now been opened; that should provide a definitive end. Thanks for your help. Harr o 5 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks you, Harro5, there are at least two people that will strongly argue to keep it, so I think the AfD is worthwhile. Here's your chance, Rogerthat:  fix up the article as best you can (advice – trim it way down and make his notability clear) and make your case at Articles for deletion/Tom Hawkins.  Good luck. ×Meegs 11:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

any thoughts on this?
I've run out of ideas on this talk page. Want to weigh in?--Mike Selinker 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Meegs. Thanks for the helpful guidance as well as the improvements you've made to "Brief Intervention Techniques"David Justin 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship?
I'm wondering if you might be interested if I could nominate you for adminship, you do great work around here especially with the football players articles, participate in AFD, work on categories etc and adminship status can help out and you do have plenty of edits for it. Reply in my Talk page, Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I created it Requests for adminship/Meegs go on and accept. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks
That was my first AfC, I wasn't totally sure of procedure :) -- Tawker 12:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dlyons493
Hi, You may not know the Flann O'Brien story about the policeman who turned into his bicycle. I had fondly hoped that I was assimilating my laptop electron by electron but perhaps the reverse has actually been happening? Daisy, daisy, give me your answ... fading off into silence like HAL. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * heh, very good! I haven't, but really should read that book, The Third Policeman. ×Meegs 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

John Baker (musher)
Thanks. Though it is kind of silly I can't even create my own user page. :) 68.84.34.154 13:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to clear-out your old IP's user and talk page; who knows who'll be using it next. Do you want me to move User talk:68.81.231.127 to User talk:68.84.34.154/archive or something similar?  You could do a cut-and-paste, but a move would preserve the history.  Also, I just made you a user page, so we should probably blank the old one, or have it deleted.  In any case, let me know if I can help you with any registered-user kind of stuff. ×Meegs 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be great. If you're really feeling inspired, you could even move Talk:Ramy Brooks over to Ramy Brooks :). --68.84.34.154 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I took care of Ramy Brooks and moved your old talk page to User talk:68.84.34.154/68.81.231.127 Archive. I'm just going to blank the old user page, but I'll list it for deletion if you prefer. ×Meegs 17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. Redirects mean all the links out there can find their way home. Thanks again. --68.84.34.154 17:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you restored the redirects. That's fine, just keep an eye out for new users on the old IP, and clear-out if one shows-up. ×Meegs 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody else has ever edited from that address. It's more likely my ISP will reassign it to me :). 68.84.34.154 18:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Financing
Thanks for the reminder; I don't frequent the article requests and couldn't find the instructions I'd looked at last time I created one for someone -- do you happen to know where those are at? I googled the text quite extensively and checked the sources -- it appears quite a bit better than the previous one and the editor has been in contact with the OTRS helpdesk a few times, so hopefully understands our copyright requirements a bit better. I'll keep an eye on it though. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On WP:AFC, the section is called "Fulfilling requests", and is located right below "Recently created articles". The layout of the page is definitely oriented towards the submitters, but we're still working on it, so if you have any suggestions ... ×Meegs 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated Magazine Covers
I don't quite understand why the Sports Illustrated magazines that I have uploaded are not allowed but the John Brodie cover is (I'm guessing) allowed since it was uploaded in January and nothing has been done to it. Also the Walter Payton cover too, which you uploaded. --Phbasketball6 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, they're all in the same boat, and I didn't say they're not allowed. I'm taking this back to your talk page, since most of this discussion has taken place there. ×Meegs 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Book links
Hi. On The Rules, I changed the book reference you put there. Articles should not link directly to Amazon entries. Instead, give the bibliographic details of the book, and end the entry with the characters " ISBN ", a space, and then the ISBN number (which is shown in the Amazon entry). Example: ISBN 0446518131. The Wiki software automagically turns this into a special link, which takes you to a page where you can find libraries and booksellers (including Amazon) that carry that book. This way, we don't end up "endorsing" Amazon over other retailers, and everybody can find the most convenient source of the book for their own country.--Srleffler 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually an article from WP:AFC, and I kept the Amazon link around only because the submitter listed it as their source. All the changes you made are great, though. Thanks. ×Meegs 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sports cards
There's no question that those images are copyrighted and not subject to fair use. Images are tagged inappropriately all the time around here. Sports card images should be removed on sight. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I always though so, but there was some doubt and opinion to the contrary floating around. It's good to have it codified now. ×Meegs 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof of copyright
If you wonder why I inserted a sort of legalese paragraph after your reply to the Argentine anon user IP 200.*.*.*, who wants to create new articles, it's a long story consequence of months of particular behavior. His long silicon trail is better discussed by private email you can send me from my talk page. Jclerman 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. I was considering challenging your post by pointing-out that the obstacles to attaining permission are not quite that high, but I'll trust your handling of the situation. ×Meegs 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jclerman is trustable at all. That's why I challenged him to do the work. --200.43.201.77 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh
Sorry, I looked at Kyle Boller and saw the same. SushiGeek 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd still like you to tell me why we can do it on Kyle Boller and not Bryan Barker. SushiGeek 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, we can't keep the Boller image either. I'd previously tagged it , but I just now changed the tag to  and notified the uploaded. ×Meegs 01:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your RFA --Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: RFA
Congratulations for your successful RFA. Thanks anyway. :) --Ter e nce Ong 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)




 * Congratulations! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Personalized RfA thank you messages? how uncommon and delightful!! Congratulations, I'm sure you'll make a fine admin.--Alhutch 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * you're doin' fine. keep up the good work :-)--Alhutch 08:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations!! And thank you for the personalized message! Mushroom (Talk) 10:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Meegs, good luck --Ugur Basak 10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the RfA, and thanks for the personalised RfA message! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 11:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-11 21:08Z 

I'll take you up on your offer
Your thank you spam said "if there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask". Well, there is something I need help with. I'm trying to get the Tip of the day project back up and running, and to do that, we need lots of tips. It would be fantastic if you could write down your favorite techniques as tips and submit them as tips of the day. Come check us out. --Go for it! 08:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'm drawing a blank on new ideas at the moment, but I'll try to help-out in other ways. ×Meegs 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Congratulations. I think you were already doing an incredible job. Good luck.Mikereichold 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ken Hensley

 * comment moved from top of page

And who are you to decide which copyright I own and which I don't? Don't bother to answer, I've already had enough of Wikipedia. Goodbye. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isabellotje (talk &bull; contribs) 14:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Unless you represent Metal Management, Norway, the copyrights are not yours to release, and the material can not be added to the article. I also want very much to expand Hensley's article, so please let me know if you have any more questions. ×Meegs 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on adminship and ...
Hi, Well done. Don't know if you like to consider what to do about Thomas-Trevorrow? It's had a short tangled history and I'd speedy it myself except that looks futile. Much too complex for me - I don't understand the sort of antics you humans get up to! Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  20:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and done. What a mess that was. ×Meegs 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wish.--Jusjih 06:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD != AfC :)
Yes, I was a little tired when I did that, you're right, I'll do it in the future. Silly squidward crashing my bot and making me have to fix the darn thing! -- Tawker 09:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New Sports Wiki/Community
Hi:

I noticed you were active on many baseball pages on Wikipedia. My friends and I are starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. It also has a database where you can display statistics for any baseball player since 1871. If you’re interested in it, check it out at [deleted]. Here's the MLB page: [deleted]. And here's the link to learn about the stats section: [deleted]

Thanks --Roblefko 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new admins!
Congrats on your adminship Meegs. I'm currently sending you (and in fact all recently promoted admins) a quick request to use your new admin powers to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source information after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured if I got one...
...you deserved one too. So here's a Running Man's Barnstar for you, for working with me and others on many, many sports categories. Soon the world will be put in tiny little boxes of our making.--Mike Selinker 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for what I'm working on, nothing too interesting right now. I've been making sure everything I can think of in category:Fictional locations has a home, so there's lots of new categories there. Plus I started a lot of activity over at category:American Hockey League players and category:American Hockey League teams, which could eventually lead to every NHL player getting his AHL teams listed. But not yet. Mostly I've been thinking about proposing something I'm calling the "Great Category Shift," which would give every article a category of the "(X) (Y)" model ("Canadian rivers," "Washington Redskins players"). When I get some time to put that together, I'll give it to you to play with before it goes live.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

matrix of o's
hello there, you can call me Allan in the future if you remember, it rather weirds me out to be called by my user name since it's sort of contrived, but that's neither here nor there. Since it's been decided that those images are copyright violations and not proper fair use claims, I'm gonna go ahead and delete them. You're right, doesn't seem to be any sense in tagging and waiting 7 days when they've been removed from the articles already. I will commence with the deletion now. let me know if anyone that you know of suddenly decides to object or if there is a big problem with deleting them. see you around, Alhutch 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * they're all gone, making red links of your impressive matrix of o's. let me know if anything crops up regarding these or anything else. keep up the good work, --Alhutch 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * done, and done. and thanks for calling me Allan :-) Alhutch 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Quarto_v002_fr.pdf

 * Hi Zanimum. There are two more of these Image:Quarto v002 nl.pdf & Image:Quarto v002 it.pdf, but all three are on the commons under identical names.  How about we delete all three WP versions and let the commons versions show through? ×Meegs 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for pointing that out! --  Zanimum 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on civility you left on my discussion page
Regarding the note about civility regarding my comments: I meant what I said in the comment. And no, it had nothing to do with me personally; it was just yet another (of hundreds? thousands?) of anonymous IP users who, if you bother to look through their history, do nothing for the most part but fuck up pages here. So I stand by my comment that they're shitheads. Not only that; most of you (meaning busybodies like yourself who supposedly try to minimize stuff like this ) are pussies. I see almost no action taken against such gross violators as these. Why not just shut them the hell down?

I think it's comical how you'll see a page full of nice, polite boilerplate messages: "Thanks for your efforts at editing." "Your experiment worked." "Please use the sandbox." Do you actually think these have any good effect? If the person ever even reads these (which in most cases is doubtful, which makes this whole discussion rather inane and pointless), they probably crack up when they do. That's what vandals do.

But thanks for sharing that with me. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your warning, if it's as effective as those I've seen left on vandal's talk pages, I'm none too worried. Doesn't it bother you that there are pages and pages full of warnings on hundreds? thousands? of anonymous IP talk pages, which result in what? at best, an occasional short period of banning? Meanwhile, the users of those addresses are free to spew whatever crap they feel like. And consider the result: yes, I've heard that lame argument that while there is lots of vandalism here, it is (usually) quickly reverted. But think about it: even it that's true, it still means that a very great number of pages here are defaced to the viewer for a significant amount of time, before someone gets a chance to fix it. Do you really consider this to be "encyclopedic"? Give me a fucking break!


 * In the meantime, until someone (like the Übermenschen Jimbo Wales, say) decides to get serious about this problem, I'll consider all the nicey-nice admonitions and warnings about vandalism to be mostly a lot of idle talk. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Jumbolina
Hi, You're right of course. I prodded then noticed that tags had already been removed so moved to AfD - but I should have de-prodded. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup - will do. Thanks.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images for Speedy Deletion
Hey Meegs. I have been tagging images for speedy deletion when they have reached their no-source/lisence 7-day mark for several weeks now. I did not know there was a backlog over at CAT:CSD, however I'm sure that you can find others to help you on IRC (as I have done in the past). :-) I just checked out the CAT:CSD page and I saw that there were in fact almost 50 articles and about 10 images (which I didn't tag). Rest assured, it is not as large a task as you think! Several admins have thanked me in the past for tagging these images for them so as to keep them aware of CAT:NS. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply here. --ZsinjTalk 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tagging them for speedy deletion is a wasted edit. Think of that category as a subcategory of candidates for speedy deletion; being included in either category is sufficient to have them deleted reasonably quickly, and it's nice to have them separated. But you're right, the backlog is mostly at its peer Category:Images with unknown copyright status. ×Meegs 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Touche! Thanks for informing me of CAT:NL, that is indeed quite a backlog. I've been placing adminbacklog on CAT:NS when it's gotten that bad over there, but now I see that CAT:NS is not the only category in need of some admin love. :-P --ZsinjTalk 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was a big swell from about the 5th through the 15th, with volume swelling from about 200 to 400 /day. It seems to be dying down now. A lot of interest in copyright these days... which is very good, if you ask me. ×Meegs 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, that coincides with the surge of activity we've seen over at Untagged Images. --ZsinjTalk 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

CSCWEM
whatever you tried to do - please retry without deleting a load of comments. I have just reverted that edit Agathoclea 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me. It was Stollery in the edit before mine. I'll try to merge it when I get a chance in a few minutes, though.×Meegs 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been a wider issue. Agathoclea 10:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--Oops, not sure how I did that, sorry. - Glen T C 07:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, Glen. That day, I realized a few minutes later that the site was behaving extremely strangely; who knows what really happened? Regards ×Meegs 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wakko's States
A thousand apologies. Didn't really give it much thought to be honest! Michaelritchie200 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, it happens all the time. If you come across pages with similar problems, please bring them to WP:CP. Take care. ×Meegs 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Idit Harel Caperton/archive1
After your RfA was succesful (congrats, btw), you commented that you would volunteer some assistance on a future project. If you have a chance, check out the above peer review. Any comments/ideas/criticisms that you may have would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.  young american (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)