User talk:One/Archive 3

'''Before Archive 3: Archive 2 '''After Archive 3: Archive 4

'''These are the next fifty messages after Archive 2 that appeared on my user talk page. If you'd like to respond to any of these messages, please do so on my current talk page.

Sanger's page
According to the Arbitration Committee, the restrictions on what user pages may contain "should not be construed to bar reasonable criticism of the project." That page clearly qualifies as such. Also, the neutral point of view policy applies to encyclopedia articles, not to other areas like user or talk pages. As a result, there was no basis in policy for requesting deletion, and it really doesn't matter if two people voted to delete anyway. It's not like continuing the discussion will change the outcome at all. --Michael Snow 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!
Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

London, England
Look at List of metropolitan areas by population, the only two in the top 40 following the format you are advocating for London are: Los Angeles, California and Chicago, Illinois. Both are cities in the United States. Do you think that the other 38 should be changed to match the style of USA cities? Edward 11:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Because most of them were created by a bot which imported census data and used the state suffix to avoid clashes. There has been little effort to correct this because so many American cities share names with other places, and because in every day use Americans tend to use names like "New York, New York", even when dropping the state would not cause confusion. It would make sense to move Cincinnati, Ohio to Cincinnati, but you'll notice that even so, in the case of major cities we do not put the disambiguation as the primary page as you did with London, but redirect the primary page to the primary use. Outside of the US cities are rarely, if ever, disambiguated without reason. Joe D (t) 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young Wonderlic
While you can argue that Vince Young's score as "6 or 16" is correct, I wouldn't say it's obvious. Although it's widely accepted that he did receive the 6 on his first try, it's also widely accepted, or at least the semi-official word is, that the score was an error. So for the purposes of the article, it is incorrect. The controversy might be worth mentioning, but a "6 or 16" without explanation is misleading, I think. We can talk about this in the discussion, but it certainly wasn't "obvious" that the changes were correct. In any case, I think your correction is fine. Ytny 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But as I said before, I have no problem with your latest edit. It wasn't so much the absence of a source as it was the wording, which I found to be misleading. Ytny 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Elections
Hi SushiGeek! Thanks for your vote in the Esperanza Elections! Please let me or any of the other advisory board members know if there's anything we can do for you! --Joann e B 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Spectie's RfA
G'day SushiGeek,

I'd guess you didn't notice that the RfA on which you left your comment closed two months ago. If you want to fight with Karmafist, please don't do it on the main page of another person's RfA; if possible, take it off Wikipedia. I know a good place well-hidden by trees where the teachers can't see you, if it helps ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You did? How odd.  All closed RfAs (including, I assume, your own) have a bit of text at the top of them, which reads "... please do not modify it".  fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not being nasty, and I'm certainly not losing my temper (a good thing, too ... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry ;-)). You made an inappropriate edit, and I reverted it &mdash; I'm letting you know about it because a) it's more polite for me to do so than not, and b) I'd really rather not see the edit, or others like it, reappear in the near future.  Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mildly sarcastic, nothing more ... you know me better than this. Can we both just take it as read that you understand my point about adding comments to two-month-old RfA archives so's I can go away and work out what's been happening on Wikipedia over the past week?  Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

AKGhetto's RfA
Hi,

Just to let you know, you appear to have voted twice at this RfA, so I have stricken your second vote for you. It's no problem; I usually forget and do it about once a month myself. :) Do be careful, though!  Best wishes, Xoloz 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bryanbarker.jpg
Hi SushiGeek. Never in the past have we allowed nfl.com (& similar) portraits to be used under the narrow publicity photos definition, nor under any other fair use rationale. They're routinely deleted, in fact. I though I would give you a heads-up instead of just tagging it a copyvio. At the very least, we should list at WP:CP. What do you think? ×Meegs 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We're really in the desert when it comes to football & baseball player images. The only possibilities seem to be personal photographs released under a compatible license, U.S. Gov't works, real publicity photos from a handful of retired players, and, very very debatably, magazine covers & screen caps.  It's a sad situation if you like pictures. ×Meegs 02:31, 11 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 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Roblefko
The comment by on your talk page was reverted/removed because that particular user has been engaging in an extensive linkspamming campaign to promote his web site. His only contributions to Wikipedia have been to create (nearly two hundred) links on user talk pages pointing back to his site. In addition, he has been operating a sockpuppet account,, which he used to spam nearly two hundred additional pages.

If you're interested in Roblefko's link, it is available in your talk page history here:. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I just got your message. Glad we're all cleared up. :) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Could I speak to you in IRC, Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 21 March 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 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey
It's really confusing if you vote saying nothing but 'as per last time' in an RFA, when you used a different user ID. In future RFAs, could you try and bear that in mind? Maybe port a diff or something, I dunno. Thanks for participating. Proto ||   type   06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You created Mousie Dung in October 2005
Was that an attempt of sick humor? Is there anyone besides you to call Mao Zedong this way? --194.226.235.185 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No real need to apologize
But I'll accept it anyways. I have enough experience to realize that apologies are a good thing :) -- Tawker 04:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, SushiGeek! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving University of Wisconsin Page
Howdy. Were you originally the user who moved University of Wisconsin-Madison to University of Wisconsin? Were you part of the (any?) discussion to move it back? Madmaxmarchhare 07:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The person who has done it appears to be quickly making himself known for doing this (see Stanford Uni). Personally, I'd like to move it back, but I don't want to up and do it without some support. Madmaxmarchhare 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sushi, I'm not quite sure what your last message means, but I was trying to say that the UW page was one of many that was recently moved by a particular individual (if you want to look at the history pages and discussion for UW and Stanford University, you can see who). It's just annoying, and I wanted to see if there had been any recent discussion on this. Madmaxmarchhare 01:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that, and I was wanting to know if you were involved to move it back (now it's back again.. so..) Madmaxmarchhare 02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

.. yeah, I get that, and I've been agreeing this whole time... nevermind.. communication breaks down in 3...2...1... 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to weigh in, there's a discussion about this issue ongoing. Madmaxmarchhare 06:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice
This is a notification reminding you all, especially councillors, that we are having a meeting where we will try to review progress so far and make a few decisions.

This meeting will be held on a wikipage, and well end on Saturday 15th April.

You can partake in the meeting here.

Thank you,

Computerjoe 's talk 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (Chairman of WP:CJ.)

Message delivered through AWB.

AFD
Hey there, I just saw you moved April 7th to the old discussion list on AFD. As it was just brought to my attention aswell, it isn't to be moved there until tomorrow. All AFD discussions are supposed to be listed for 5 days, so a discussion added on 23:00 hasn't gotten it's full exposure yet. I looked back at how AFD Bot did things, and it listed 6 at a time too, so I've modified LDBot to do the same. If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers! -- light darkness (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, this was just brought to my attention earlier tonight by Flowerparty. -- light darkness (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

T14 AFD

 * I don't understand your stated vote count. You referred to an "actual count of 2 deletes and one keep". I count 3 deletes by registered users with reasonable edit histories -- myself, User:Brian G. Crawford and User:Captaintruth. Is there some reason for the disparity in our counts? Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I came over to ask about this AfD as well. Added to the three votes above, wouldn't mine make 4? Actually, I didn't come to complain about the count, but instead with a friendly inquiry as to why you thought there wasn't rough consensus, at 3 to 1. While I'm over here, I'd also like to ask if you'd care to comment on my proposed revision to the neologism guideline. You can find the link over at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point -- I just went back and recounted and the vote was 4-1...why wasn't this a consensus for deletion? Interestingstuffadder 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently nobody here is very good at math. The votes were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article and the evidence presented was more than sufficient.  It was ridiculous enough to claim there was "no consensus" on the basis of a few clearly uninformed people, but to then go back and delete the article afterwards is disgraceful.Cheapestcostavoider 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion of this article is pathetic. As I understand it, Wikipedia does not advocate completely disregarding the opinions of newcomers, in fact it suggests the exact opposite. The Keep votes on this article were not mere trolling but were supported by substantial evidence from various sources. The proposed deletion was based on the nominators disdain for a particular message board where the term is used heavily (although it is by no means the exclusive place where the term is in use). This deletion only serves to help this person carry out his vendetta, rather than to make Wikipedia a more useful resource.
 * Ummm...what evidence do you have that I have disdain for any message board? I am familiar with the message board and noticed the coordinated effort coming from it, which put me on alert for sockpuppetry. But I have no "vendetta" against the message board. In fact, I found it a quite useful resource when I was applying to law school myself (yes, one of the "T14" schools). I just don't think the term meets wikipedia notability standards, that's all. Interestingstuffadder 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help me to delete User:Yaohua2000/monobook.js
I added delete tag there, but it seems not in speedy deletion category.
 * thank you.

Maxim (saying)
Please see Talk:Maxim (saying), whose AfD you recently closed. I don't understand your rationale for converting a unanimous (4 out of 4) delete vote into keep, no consensus. --Quuxplusone 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Math obviously isn't this person's strong suit, but don't worry; there's always a chance he'll go back and delete it in the dead of night now that debate has closed.Cheapestcostavoider 00:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

afd
Why was Articles for deletion/Divorced for the third time 2 closed after 2 days ?! --Striver 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin
Hello. Since you were involved in moving University of Wisconsin back to where it is, I was wondering if you'd like to put in your two cents about it at Talk:University of Wisconsin. Cheers --BaronLarf 01:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD Dis-Connection
I don't have much of an opinion one way or another, but why was the result Delete rather than No consensus. I counted 13 votes for delete, 11 for keep, and 3 roughly neutral? Amcfreely 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dis-Connection
On deletetion discussion we had 13-11, so that is no census and you deleted anyway. I think you should restore the article. Regards! Luka Jačov 08:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vivipary
No need to apologize; it's not all that important one way or the other. You closed the discussion properly, although IMO the eds who commented did not support their positions very well. So, a year or two from now the stubby little thing will be back on AfD. This is a wiki. John Reid 14:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice/Elections
As Community Justice have over 30 members, we are beginning the elections process.

If you are interested in becoming the chairman, the chief executive or councillor please add yourslef, and a statement, to Community Justice/Elections.

Voting shall begin on April 24th, and end on May 1st. To see if you are eligible for a vote, please see Community Justice/Elections.

Thank you,

Computerjoe 's talk 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CJ election reminder
Hi SushiGeek I noticed that you are not registered for voting or nomination in the CJ elections, and would like to remind everyone that '''all Candidates Must Submit Their Statement By April 23rd. Voting will begin April 24th, and end May 1st'''. More details on how to nominate yourself can be found HERE. I hope to see you at the elections!  • The Giant Puffin •  20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back.....
We missed you :) -- Tawker 21:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rollback
Please do NOT use admin rollback to revert another admin.. It is for easy use in removing vandalism, not for edit warring. Continue like that, you'll end up de-sysopped. --Doc ask?  18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Notable people who were once a cheerleader
Um, were you joking around when you deleted this article, or what? You honestly treated the move votes as invalid once the article was moved? There is no such thing as a "move and delete" vote- that would be pointless. A move vote is a keep vote. Why move it if you have no opinion on whether it should be kept after it is moved? There was very obviously no consensus here. Are you twisting the debate to reach the outcome you want? Undelete it please, or it will be listed at Deletion review. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I could care less about an article about cheerleaders. I was a little less pleased to find myself and a few others inexplicably and arbitrarily disenfranchised despite all our services to Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack Berman
I was preparing to list the deletion of this article at DRV, but I thought I ought first to write you, in order that I might ask you to undelete or might, in any case, appraise you of my intention. DRV is likely an inappropriate disposition, inasmuch as, at least cursorily, your decision to close as "delete" would seem to be appropriately discretionary, if open to sincere debate. Notably, the discussion focused on whether the biographical was notable irrespective of his involvement in 101 California Street shootings or was notable only in view of his involvement with that event; the latter proposition garnered support, and a new article concerning the shootings was created. Information from the Berman article was, though, merged (via cut-and-paste) into the shootings article; the deletion of the Berman article, then, resulted in the loss of contribution history, in general contravention of the GFDL (with which I'm not particularly concerned as a contributor but with which we all must be generally concerned, lest WP should open itself to criticism). In the meanwhile, not having realized that the text was merged, I recreated Jack Berman as a redirect to the shootings article. The appropriate resolution, I think, then, is the deletion of the current Berman article and the undeletion of the former Berman article, with the article's then being blanked and kept as a redirection to the shootings article. If you don't concur in/with my summary and proposed disposition, I'd appreciate your leaving me a message on my talk page, in order that I might list at DRV. Thanks much for your help... Joe 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have any interest in Template:MLB
please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Off-wiki personal attacks poll
Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!


 * Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks

Strom 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice Newsletter
 Community Justice Newsletter

Yep
It is me on Freenode. :-) Jude (talk,email) 07:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dictators
Hi SushiGreek,

I'm proposing Category:Dictators for deletion. I feel that it violates NPOV, among other problems. See the talk page for more details on my reasoning. You can cast your vote here. Cheers! -- Yossarian  12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again,


 * I noticed you added some articles to the category. We're actually not supposed to add/remove articles while the category is up for deletion (if it gets deleted then they'll just end up dead links, and if it gets kept they'll have to be re-applied). I actually removed a few before I put it up for deletion, and before I knew that rule, so I'm not completely without guilt myself! ;) Anyway, just thought you should know. Cheers! -- Yossarian [[Image:Soviet Canuckistan Flag.PNG|30px|]] 10:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If he did indeed make that vote for only that reason, it wasn't a good vote, and you should take it up with him rather than me. I did indeed make a mistake in the way I went about this, but I was not the only one removing articles from that category that day, nor had I planned to put it up for deletion at the time...nor had I even known that rule, unfortunately. I was merely removing the references for what I saw as POV violations, unrelated to the category proper. Getting angry over the deletion of one category, let alone a vote you don't think was fair, isn't going to help your case. Please keep a civil tone. I hope I you felt I've been polite in my messages, but if not, my apologies. The previous comment was merely intended for your information so no admin with a twitchy trigger finger would come along. If you wish to reply in length to what I said (rather than the Civil War analogy) I'm very happy to hear. Hopefully we can find common ground. Cheers. -- Yossarian [[Image:Soviet Canuckistan Flag.PNG|30px|]] 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)