User talk:New England/June 2007

It never hurts to be a little more civil!
Can I kindly ask that when you participate in future requests for adminship, that you try to remain civil and not bite the newcomers. I am specifically referring to this where I feel that your comments were innapropriate. There is nothing wrong with a simple oppose and an simple explanation. The extra assertions seemed slighlty unecessary to me. Please take this into consideration as RFA is often a treacherous place for newcomers who feel they are ready for adminship and seeing regular opposes pile up is never a pretty sight, much less ones that attack their work. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't mean to be uncivil. I just meant to point out from his edit summary that he had a very narrow range of contributions from which I could guess his personal info.  I hope you don't find this too serious an offense worthy of a block.  Black Harry  19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most certanily not! I dont think you intentionally meant to slam the guy which iw shy i left a friendly message!  I think many of us have had our first RFA fail and that is often enough for some to pack ther ebags and leave for good.  Thanks for your contributions and good luck editing! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message on his talkpage saying essentially that he could be an admin in the future, but that he needs to edit a wider variety of pages.  Black Harry  19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great call! It never hurts to offer to help!  Thanks! I think you deserve an award!---- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Award was moved to user page at 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) by  Black Harry 

America, the controversial
I'm amused that of all the comments you've left on the America talk page the one that gets the most and the fastest responses is not one of your insightful or well reasoned ones, but is the one where you basically give up and turn to ridiculing the process out of exasperation. I guess what I'm trying to say is: it doesn't look like logic is going to prevail with a consensus, but you're better off continuing to fume eloquently and intelligently rather than giving in to the frustration many of us share. Gruber76 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really surprised though, they've managed to turn a common usage debate into a recitation of Encyclopedia Britannica and a history lesson. I'm a little surprised that they took the whole Colombia thing seriously.  Black Harry  18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hi
I would gladly co-nominate RGTraynor however the problem is I don't very much know the likelyhood of him accepting the nomination. I had asked him a few months back if I should try and nominate him again, but he said not to bother. However, if he does accept the nomination, I will gladly put in a co-nomination. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks i was unaware that you asked him again. I read his first RfA and noted some irregularities there, mainly that at least one user who opposed him was a first time editor  Black Harry  06:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it seemed it was the users that weren't familiar with him were the ones that voted oppose. However Traynor withdrew his RFA still at an early point, I think it was only a couple days after the nomination. But I don't think there was anything really out of the ordinary when it came to his opposition, other than a few people on a vendetta against him, but that wouldn't be the first time that's been spotted in an RFA. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He turned down my offer earlier today. And another user offered to Co-nominate him.   Black Harry  02:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Password Security
Hello: I saw your question re: password security on the RfA page. Just wondering how "secure" a passowrd can/needs be and also why you were asking about the wi-fi issue. Are there problems with password security on wi-fi networks and are there ways to encrypt or othrwise increase security? thanks. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw it on a television show that here are free programs that allow people on free WiFi to basically steal all the information one enters into there computer. This can only happen on unencrypted networks (like the ones at Starbucks) and I am unaware of any admin accounts being compromised this way.  I'm not a computer expert so I don't know to increase security.


 * As for the secure password, I think it contains at least 8 characters, and two of them must be numbers. A website that I know of that will check that for you is hotmail.com, when you go to sign up or change your password.  Black Harry  16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I am a computer expert. What's the conversation involved? Gruber76 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To keep it short, I asked an RFA candidate if he accesses his account on free WiFi networks. I did this because I recently heard that free WiFi networks (such as those in Starbucks) are unencrypted and it is possible for someone with the right program to steal passwords and usernames of other users on the network.  Another user asked me how to add extra security, and I replied that I didn't know as I'm not a computer expert.  Black Harry  01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Your password is pretty much open game if you connect to Wikipedia from an unencrypted wireless like Starbucks.  Doesn't matter if you use the most complex password ever thought up, it's sent out in the clear and someone sitting across the room can see it with freely available and easy to use software.  Even if you're connecting from home, or use pretty intense security methods to encrypt your wireless connection, the trip from where ever you have control (I.E. your cable box, or your company's router) to where Wikipedia has control is sent in the clear and someone who was sitting there (such as the NSA's wiretaps put in place at all the ISPs over the last two years) would be able to read your password.  Sweet dreams. Gruber76 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Schilling
Hi,

I do not wish to engage in a revert war. So I thought I should explain myself (which I didn't. I apologize). On Schilling (disambiguation), the first sentence says "Schilling generally refers to the Austrian schilling". And looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Schilling, a lot of them refer to the currency. That's why I redirect schilling to the currency. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay no problem, if you haven't already fixed I'll do it myself. I'm more familiar with Curt Schilling but looking at the whatlinkshere shows that the redirect should stay at the Austrian Schilling.   Black Harry  04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No more br
I took the liberty of simplifying your talk page. Now you never need to manually add  anymore. Works for both Firefox and IE. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No Problem, thanks for fixing it.

 Black Harry  05:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your kind words and support. They mean a lot. Cheers! hmwith talk   21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I hope to see you around again.  BH  (Talk) 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...
Strange how you people find ANY excuse to censor REAL information that goes against your propaganda. I also find it odd, but not surprising that you have deleted everything that PROVES my point. By doing so, you help to prove my point even further. Trolling my ass. How can someone troll in a talk page? It is there to discuss things in the article since no one can just go in and edit something without biased editors who seem to want to control topics that suit their POV. All I can say, it is the good thing that the word has finally gotten out about Wikipedia - you can't believe what you read! You people are nothing but scam artists and liars. When a man brings proof, you STILL dismiss it and make excuses for your POV. Lying about things does not help the matter.--71.235.81.39 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To find the thread on WP:ANI related to the user who left this on my userpage, go here: WP:ANI  BH  (Talk) 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion was archived, so go here to see it: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive254    BH  (T|C) 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday349's RfA
Hi, I responded to your ageist comment. Please reconsider your position, and perhaps evaluate the candidate by his edits and not his age. Thanks. Signed, under-18 administrator  Majorly  (talk | meet) 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Though normally I would disagree with you commenting on my page about this, I just checked his edit history and its very impressive. I've decided to switch to support.   BH  (Talk) 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

re: my RfA
Thanks for the supportive comments. I do find it indeed unfortunate that an expressed opinion (userboxes on a userpage) is given so much more weight than someone's actual contributions to the project - but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'll just keep editing the way I do and not worry too much about the RfA bit, but thanks again for your support.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, youre a good user who hopefully will consider taking another shot at adminship down the road  BH  (Talk) 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please-the-world-pedia
Hey Black Harry,

Thanks for the note. Wikipedia gets some flak for being US-centric, and I agree that it is sometimes. On the other hand, there are a lot of cases like the America disambig page where the opposite is true. Unfortunately, the majority of people who actually care about things like the usage of the word America are the minority group, so you don't get a fair cross section on the RfC's/RM's, etc. Ah well, it's not a huge deal in this case I guess, but I understand the annoyance at the stubbornness of people to stick by their personal experience and familiarity with non-English languages and regions rather than look at things objectively. If you ever happen to be involved in such a RfC or RM in the future, let me know and I'd be happy to stop by and weigh in. --Cheers, Komdori 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm not sure where Wikipedia has been accused of US-centrism, but I'm relatively new here so I guess I'll find some examples eventually.  I really didn't expect my RM to go through anyway, because changes like that generally fail.  I was a little disappointed anyway, and just wish those opposed to the moved could've supported themselves with some citations of policy or stuff like that.   BH  (Talk) 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:RfA
Let's just say that it was extraordinarily unlucky timing on my part. Handling an RfA while also being in a content dispute on a sensitive issue is not helpful to either. --tjstrf talk 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for signing my autograph book! Bmg 916 Speak 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rfa
Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk 1  7  04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No Problem. I felt you were very qualified to be an admin.  I hope you enjoy the old mop & bucket.  Hopefully I can get to use them too one day.  I also hope your feeling better, I read the message on top of this page.   BH  (T|C) 05:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks buddy. Keep up the good work, and you'll be there before you know it :).  Also, feeling a bit better, but have only gone to work twice this week so far, but I seem to be getting back up to par, slowly but surely.  Thanks again!  Jmlk  1  7  05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA edit
Hello: You appear to have removed some content further down on this RfA edit. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That must have happened accidentally. The comment that I removed by accident was essentially the same as mine, though.  The one difference is that I removed the comment by Tom 31 11.  A similar move occurred in another debate where several one-time accounts voted support 1.  If you feel I did anything wrong, or that the comment needs to be replaced, don't hesitate to do so.   BH  (T|C) 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think for even a second that you had (intentionally) done anything wrong. it looked like several editors were on the page at the same time and there was just some kind of crossed wire.  I've seen you around enough to know that you are not the type to remove comments from pages...I just wanted to let you know so that it could be corrected.  Cheers! &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for the advise. It´s obvios that my RfA won´t pass; I had considered withdrawing as a possible option before your message, and, with the addition of your advise, I have decided that, with all the opposes and with the fact that some of the opposing users encouraged me to try again after some months and advised me on how to improve (Nishkid gave me plenty of advise), meaning that I recieved plenty of feedback on which to work on; I will withdraw my nomination right now. ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   20:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got your message, and saw you withdrew your nomination. Hopefully this won't stop you from working here at Wikipedia.  If you keep up the good work, you should be be re-nominated sometime by the end of the year, and the chances of it passing should be much higher.   BH  (T|C) 14:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

My RfA
Dear, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

 * Quit because I failed adminship?! No way! Quite the opposite mate - the failing of my request for the tools has served to tighten my resolution and my determination. I guarentee that you will see me around, or even a second nomination in a few months time. Thanks again, Anonymous Dissident  Utter 06:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

America
Yep. For another example, see here. *sigh* My hat's off to you for taking on the "America" issue in the first place. Best, Tkynerd 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked that link you put on my talk page. I don't know why people don't realize that this is an English language site.  BH  (Talk)


 * I know. Of course, the enlightened, broadminded view is that English, having become the lingua franca (ha) of our time, belongs to the world. I understand that to some degree, but I also can't help feeling that English is my native language and nobody from another language community has the right to dictate to me how it should be spoken. You know? --Tkynerd 12:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know I'm starting to think that one day we'll be forced into a debate over the use of the term "North America". I already see the argument being made that since Native American's were here first, we should use one of their names for the continent.  BH  (Talk) 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, I think it's more likely that Latin Americans will try to convince the rest of the world that the term North America is imperialistic because it inherently excludes South America, and that everybody has to use America for both continents together, the way they do. Of course there's nothing imperialistic about trying to dictate other people's language usage. *sigh* --Tkynerd 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good Point, that would make more sense since wikipedia is anti-US Imperialism.  BH  (Talk) 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm against U.S. imperialism myself -- I just know it when I see it, and this ain't it. :-P --Tkynerd 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss about this topic as I wanted to do so for some time. You can read my userpage to read what I think. --Shadowy Crafter 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really feel like getting into an argument/debate over this, however one problem with your little opinion on this issue is that you fail to realize that in English (the Language which this encyclopedia serves) America as a continent doesn't exist. In its place are North America and South America.  Thus, in English, America (and American) most certainly is commonly is used to mean the United States of America and her citizens; just as how Britain (and British) is used to describe the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her citizens.   BH  (T|C) 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.235.81.39
Bah, don't delete his comments or give lengthy replies. That will just fuel him. Just quote the dictionary and let him burn himself out trying to circumvent it.--Loodog 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I already started a thread on him at WP:ANI  BH  (Talk) 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored his comments on the New England talk page. It's generally non-productive to delete talk page comments. He is certainly wrong. But citing sources is the way to write the article, and to proceed with the discussion. Plus, in his over the top way, he has a point. New England distinctiveness is fading, slowly, and the article does have a bit of a Boston-centeredness to it. Jd2718 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was going by WP:SOAP, however there are probably other policies out there that say not to remove comments, regardless of content.  and yes New England distinctiveness is fading in some places (SW Conn. being one of them) but its still strong in others (Maine for Example).   BH  (T|C) 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ief
With all due respect, I believe it's not such a cheap shot. Our aim for such hopeless RfAs must be to encourage users to gain more experience without making them feel inadequate, which in my opinion you may effectively be doing by shooting him down question for question in your comment. —AldeBaer 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks for removing the user link, should've thought of that myself. —AldeBaer 10:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't want to hurt him too much. I thought that by going through his answers and pointing out problems with them, that he could learn from it and know what to say next time.  For instance, mosts users would prefer that he talk about doing activities only admins can do, not activities that any user can do.  He can already help take article to featured status, which he might want to try and put as his answer to question 2.  And I called it a cheap shot because others expressed sentiments similar to mine.  BH  (T|C) 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote he should listen to what you are saying. Issue cleared up, it seems. Friends? —AldeBaer 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the issue seems resolved, friend.  BH  (T|C) 15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ach. Not yet. I feel like I owe you an apology. Just noticed the encouraging comment you had left on Ief's talk before I even commented on the RfA page. And you didn't even rub it in my face... So, shame on me, twice. —AldeBaer 17:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long for me to reply (I got alot of posts here the day you poated this, so I overlooked it), but you really don't. You thought I was being a little harsh, and you're entitled to that opinion.  But I do appreciate you trying to talk it out with me.  And I'd post this on your page too, but it was archived, and I couldn't find the section.   BH  (T|C) 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Corticopia
Copied over from my talk page: Oh, he's massively uncivil, bad-tempered, and (what's worse) obtuse, seldom realizing how shaky his ground is. I don't know about starting a thread on WP:ANI (I usually have faith that people will see themselves the errors of their ways), but if you were to do so I could comment on my experiences with him. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Go here to see the thread Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents  BH  (T|C) 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've weighed in. Thanks for taking the lead on this.—DCGeist 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the thread was archived. The new link to it is Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive259

My recent RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it failed man. I guess the best thing I could tell you is that you will be supported by me in the future if you're a candidate again.  And I mean it.  You made a couple mistakes one night while your judgment was impaired, and hey, we've all done that; just not on Wikipedia.  So please stick with project and try another RfA in a few months.   BH  (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ck lostsword's RfA - Thanks
ck lostsword • T  •  C  17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ericorbit
See my talk page for more information. —AldeBaer 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks I took at it, but it essentially just confirms what I thought the opposer meant.  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

my RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem man. I feel you're very qualified to handle the mop and bucket.  I might need help, but doubt you'll make many mistakes.   Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New England
I thought that the somewhat annoying comments should stay, but that the racist and anti-gay stuff should not, but he seems to think otherwise. I don't know policy here, so I'll need to defer. I hope I didn't give the impression that someone had intentionally done something wrong. I really meant to keep what was useful. When he said that we should keep all, I was a bit surprised.

As far as the annoying talk page comments, that guy had a point. The article is somewhat Boston-centric and does not properly acknowledge that parts of New England are at this point less joined to the region than to New York. He doesn't, though, make his case particularly well. More patient editors will sort this stuff out over time. Jd2718 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There aren't any policies that necessarily dictate that the more offensive stuff should stay or go. but I believe that if you keep the trolling comments, you should keep the offensive ones, though a disclaimer should be given stating that "Some readers may find these statements offensive, but they are preserved for the record, and do not represent the opinions of Wikipedia".


 * The main reason why the article may seem Boston-centric is that historically New England was very much tied to Boston, and many areas, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and eastern Connecticut still have ties to Boston (not sure about Vermont, but I'd say they still look at Boston as their 'capital'). However, no reliable sources can be (or have been) found to suggest that part of Western CT (or anywhere else in New England) no longer think of themselves as part of New England.   Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Strawmen arguments
Please don't try to characterize editors statements or make blanket remarks about intent. You mischaracterized the argument (re: Ted Kennedy request for protection) and you summarily dismissed my request "since they want only Pro-Kennedy information on the page."  That isn't the motive (or the issue) at all. It's been covered at length on the talk page. Please check out WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. WP:NPA might also be a good read -- try addressing merits of an argument instead of trying to characterize editors motives. Thanks. /Blaxthos 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to make a strawman argument, just clarifying what the hell you meant. Seriously, the explanation you left for requesting protection was extraordinarily vague. Also Looking over the talk page, I saw no clear consensus, just you arguing against the people who opposed your POV.  Explain, please, how, BLP applies to this case.  The information cannot be described as libel since his opposition to Cape Wind is well sourced.


 * And I've looked at pages for other current senators, and almost all mention current issues to which the candidate is attached:


 * Olympia Snowe's page mentions "Both Snowe and fellow Maine Senator Susan Collins were reluctant converts to limited gun control following the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. Although she is pro-choice, she has expressed opposition to partial-birth abortion; however, she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act because she felt it did not include the necessary exemptions"


 * Chris Dodd's page mentions this "Dodd was one of 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit federal funding of the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster."


 * From Arlen Spector's page "Specter is notoriously abrasive, and has earned the nickname "Snarlin' Arlen" among his foes on Capitol Hill and in the public"


 * So please, explain why Kennedy publicly stated opposition to Cape Wind doesn't merit space on his article?


 * --- Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Your text:  "since they want only Pro-Kennedy information on the page. -- blatant violation.
 * If you want clarification, please ask me. Don't assume you know what I meant.  You either missed the point entirely, or you're purposefully misrepresenting the position (strawman argument).  Given your comment (see #1 above), if I were gonna guess I'd guess it'd be the latter.
 * The consensus I'm talking about was a few months ago, and it was agreed upon by the majority of the editors on the Ted Kennedy page. We're not talking about what happens on other pages, we're talking about the conesnsus regarding this particular article.
 * The political overview section is just that -- an overview. I'm sure you could find contrasting votes for every politician on every issue, which is why we stick to a generalized overview.
 * The issue in question, most especially how it's been worded, seems to be trying to insinuate that Kennedy is hypocritical. I'm sure (again, by your comment re: #1) that the intent is less to show a singular issue as it is to insert (your words here) "anti-Kennedy information".  Wikipedia isn't the place...
 * Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your support at my RFA. In return, I will even try to think kind thoughts about the Red Sox.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you X 100
T hank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm
It is ok to love where you are from, but there is no need to lie about your place in order to make your city appear larger or more important then what it is. I am from CT and I am here to tell you for the last time, we are in the New York City area and Boston/New England has nothing to do with us. We are like Missouri, they are not in the south or the mid-west, but some people from different parts of the nation may think of them as either. CT is not as New England as you think and your trying to force yourselves on us does not change our NYC perspective or geography. It is better to be concerned about YOUR area and leave our area out of yours. I hope this ends it. Boston is Boston, not CT, which is in the New York CIty Tri-state area.--71.235.81.32 15:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA Withdrawal
Thank BH - I appreciated your support and your time in commenting about the withdrawal. I think the time wasn't right, and Ryan highlighted a bit of policy I clearly had missed. Although I expected it to be a rougher ride, I was delighted with the Support comments. The only thing that did grind was the "popularity contest" opposes. I've not seen that as an argument at RFA before and I actually felt it a bit of insult - not to me - but to the editors who supported me. It implied they wern't supporting based on my contributions which I think was a bit out of line. Still, back to the pit face and hope to see your round the 'pedia soon! Cheers. Pedro | Chat  15:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

blanking -- thanks
hey, good call, i just wrote on the talk page for the guy who pointed it out to me. i'm a little out of it and need some sleep. i apologized and explained, but i agree that was pretty uncalled for. thanks for making a note of it. as for enc, i may be paid, but not to write for wikipedia, trust me. it's something i do on my own time, and for fun (the interesting issue of being an alumnus AND a staff member)Aepoutre 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * hey i just read that tag. good point and very interesting. i can keep off from now on, i suppose. muchas gracias! i've had some mentoring from a couple different users, including those that've tagged enc as an ad, so i've changed a lot per their advice. if you have any other advice, please let me know! take care! Aepoutre 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check ENC's talk I mentioned that I don't think anything you did on that article was wrong, its just listed for procedural purposes. Its just that it might be a good idea for someone to take a look at the page, to see if any POV things are going on. Many of your edits appear to be simply cleaning up the page, so I wouldn't worry editing it.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, if you get a chance to check it out and make some necessary changes, let me know. that guideline makes sense, it's just unfortunate that i'm both someone who knows the school and has a newfound interest in wikipedia. you're welcome to fix things up a bit (please do, i feel like johnny-one-source sometimes). if you want to check some of what i've done with the other Church of the Nazarene colleges and Gordon College (Massachusetts) and what not to make sure i'm going about it the right way, please do! most of what i've done for each is taken what i've seen about contact info and usnews stuff out, added some infoboxes and pictures, but i wish i had time for more research on each of them to contribute there as much as i have to my alma mater's article. Aepoutre 17:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunkin' Donuts
Yes, other articles have 'em. We've been working hard enough to find and remove 'em all! :-) Don't put it back in and point me at others you found, please--  they are all fake and added en masse by the same spammer (who is now blocked).  Coren 12:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't realize that the person who added them was a spammer. Had I known this, I wouldn't have restored the ssection, because it seemed like a legitimate thing to have.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries-- he's (he was) a subtle one; that same legitimate-looking crap had been inserted in some 40-50 articles about franchises.  Unless you saw the pattern or tracked the contributions of his many socks, the changes look okay in isolation.  Take a peek at Suspected sock puppets/VladimirGotShot if you want to see what happened.  Coren 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA's
Hey Black Harry!

I thought this would be a bit more appropriate to post this directly to you.

I want to apologize for the my "Protest..." at the RfA last night. I had not intention of making Pointy comments, being uncivil, or offending you in any way. I'm afraid you (and most of the community, egg on my face) misinterpreted my comment. Simply, I was in complete disagreement with you rationale, but set that aside. I never intended to upset you (using "upset" for lack of a better term), but I probably chose the wrong words in summarizing my support.

Once again, I'm sorry for the mess and everything that has happened since last night.

-- Evilclown93 (talk)  13:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest with you, I wasn't really upset by the comment. I switched to neutral on your RFA after you left this messae, and wouldn't have switched to oppose in the first had another user not taken issue with the comment.  And to be honest with you, having someone issue a "protest vote" against me was slightly empowering.   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Harry, I think a large number of editors are frustrated with edit counting on RfAs. The response to your comment is a manifestation of that frustration. The RfA page says, "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting." A straight-up edit count provides no information to the candidate for what to improve on, other than making lots more small edits.  Leebo  T /C  14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While some editors may become frustrated by the use of edits counts, I've never seen the candidate become frustrated. If one asked for extra, I would give it.  However, I try not oppose for alot of reasons, since some people consideer that biting.  A think a more important question though, is if edits counts aren't fair game in an RFA, why is a link to an editing counting tool provided?   Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's not just an edit count, it shows the area's the candidate specialises in. It allows you to see how many AIV contribs the candidates had, how much experience in wikipedia talk space, the main focus of their article editing. Edit count in itself shows nothing, unless they have a ridiculously low count.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, the edit count tool contains links to the articles and pages they contribute most to, allowing the viewer to get a good feel for their areas of expertise by following those links and seeing how the user spends their time.  Leebo  T /C  14:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I want to let you know that it is a complete misunderstanding. I did not try to block the user indef. What had happened was that the user had been blocked indef by a admin. Yet the blocking admin did not leave any evidence of the block. So, for clarification, I left the block template on his page and talk page. On his talk page, I even left a note stating that I didn't place the block, but I am just informing the user about it. The User then was able to get unblocked, and the admin gave him a second chance. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that I didn't know at the time that I shoul dhave contacted the blocking admin about it, and it was all done in good faith. Upon that, I wish that you would reconsider your opposition, considering that it is based on a simple misunderstanding. Karrmann 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)