User talk:Redvers/Archive07

Barnstar
Sure, make me feel even worse by being understanding and decorous... In all sincerity, thanks kindly for the barnstar and for your understanding; one doesn't always appreciate nuance when corresponding over the Internet, and I'm sorry for having (partially and temporarily) misunderstood. Typically I wouldn't have given your comment a second thought, but I didn't want you to get the wrong idea about me, inasmuch as you're a contributor from whom I've seen many great things (although, looking back, and contrary to a previous comment, I apparently didn't vote in your RfA; to be sure, I supported you, but I suppose by the time I got to the page you were already well on your way and I was disinclined to pile on--I suppose if my 94 sockpuppets shh, don't tell and I had voted for you, you could appear on WP:200, but you may save that for your WP:RfB [or, you know, WP:RfDA :) ]). Have a nice day... Joe 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Denys Rayner vandalised
Dear Redvers. You have assisted me in the past. I have found that an article on Denys Rayner that i have worked on a lot has twice been blanked out with obscene words in the last 24 hours. i have read the Revert Guide and think I have successfully reverted. Can you check that i have followed procedure and is there anything else I can do to prevent this in future such as reporting the vandal? Sibadd 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Denys Rayner vandalism
Dear Redvers. I am impressed - both by the speed with which I could access "revert" instructions and by the quality of the monitoring. Thank you for your instructive and reassuring reply. I was angry and depressed when I discovered this after a friend with whom I am writing a biography said the article had disappeared to be replaced by one rude word but I suspect these occurences are to some extent a measure of the standing of Wikipedia. It attracts this kind of behaviour like bears to honey. It is not that I do not understand disagreement and the way passionate clashes of principle can produce strong reactions, but vandalism is typically cowardly and anonymous. Such anonymity might be understandable if someone posting a piece of refutatory grafitti risked death or injury but the person who deleted the article in question faced no danger Sibadd 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

Your support means a lot to me, and I really appreicate all your positive comments that you gave about soothing troubles and good answers. Thanks again.

-- Nataly a 04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! thanks for the precious!!!!-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 11:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, I have no lovely generic template for you, but please accept this [[Image:Crystal Clear app package favourite.png|16px]] as a token of my thanks. Your new color scheme looks great, by the way. :D Cheers,  Sango  123   21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:The JPS/FUR
Hey, Just to let you know I've created User:The JPS/FUR because I'm tired of explaining what it is. The idea is to keep this basic and brief enough so that people are more likely to read it. If this doesn't work, I might create a specific one for TV. The JPS talk to me  00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just popped by!
Hi Redvers, hv been busy in real life but keep logging in atleast once in a day. I've looked at your contribs many a time after you became an admin and remain impressed. It also gave me the confidence to nominate someone else as well; so, just thought I'll thank you, --Gurubrahma 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 5th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

New CSD category for neologisms?
Hi Redvers, I thought you might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category. Regards, Accurizer 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve Stanley page
Hi Redvers,

Can you please tell me how I should provide further proof of my notability? I'm confused as to how I can further proove this... And your instructions on my page state that I should "Remove this template after wikifying," yet I seem to have been punished for doing so? (You can see my allmusic.com credits.) Please provide further explanation.

Best Regards, Steve

adding links
Which links do you mean? The video links or the internet links. I feel as if I should add these links as on the HTV & LWT pages, there are links to other websites with the same kind of content. I did start adding the videos again but then I stopped doing this because: A) It would be much easier to add one simple link at the bottom of the page to all the videos concerned. B) The videos would get deleted off the pages anyway. I will delete the videos on the ITV pages as soon as i get round to them. I'm going through the ITV companies alphabetically you see. If you have any more problems with what I am doing, then feel free to contact me (insults will be ignored). Just tell me what is troubling you about what I have done & I will correct it.
 * Yes, it was me who deleted the links to the direct video files, I suggested that he link to the website see here. Most of these pages, ITV franchises, contain links to other websites with presentation, another one is not really needed. Another problem with the site you are linking to is that it uses frames, so by linking to a specific page you are not loading the navigation frame.   theKeith    Talk to me    13:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, sorry for hijacking your talk page Redevers ;)   theKeith    Talk to me    13:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ann Furedi
I was wondering if you could reword your hatnote on this stub to imply less ownership? I don't want to presume to change your words, but the prohibition about listing it for AfD/speedying without talking to you seems out of place (and I know you're in discussion with Ros about it, I mean more for newly arrived editors). Thanks. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I figured it was something that simple. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi! Thanks for the barnstar! Looks terrific on my talk page. --Edcolins 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

re: inuse
Ah, my mistake... I didn't realize its purpose. However, I do suggest eventually making that page a template, as you expect those to be used for subst'ing (and therefore, templates like inuse can be left on them perpetually). --W.marsh 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Um...
I know it's a little late, but I didn't read it all until now. I wasn't actually the one making those additional POV and attacking edits... they weren't my meat-puppets, I in fact theorise that they were one of the other captains of 2004 mentioned.

Have a nice day. -Ranting Martian Ranting Martian 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I say what
Oh my! I must say I do love barnstars, have a great weakness for them actually...Thank you very much! Ta --  Bane s  08:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-abortion/Pro-choice
Redvers, I saw your comment on Ros' page, and would prefer that everyone uses "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to designate both parties. I've noticed that quite a few pro-choice people tend to use only "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion/choice". What it comes down to is that we have to be consistent. Chooserr 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Redvers, sorry I didn't make it clear. I wasn't talking about you in my above comment. I was just saying that while you made it clear that substituting "pro-abortion" for "pro-choice" is wrong the same sort of practice has been done to the pro-life side (changing "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" when the former was correct term). This was (and is) done to portray the pro-life cause as a single issue, reactionary movement instead of a movement based on multiple issues. I'm telling you this just to make you aware, and in hopes that while you are changing "pro-abortion" back to "pro-choice" you'll also change "anti-abortion" back to "pro-life". Chooserr 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More Esperanza congrats


Really a lot of thanks, Redvers. That was truly fantastic. Just perfect. -- Nataly a 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I feel that you put some worries of ours at peace. If only more of us could give such a calming, definitive definition of the events set before us.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So where is it?
Don't you think it would be good encyclopedic practise to tell us where Image:Offices of the South Eastern Railway in London - Redvers.jpg is? -- RHaworth 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping that you could have pinpointed them more precisely than just "Tooley Street" (which is a mile long) but I have now fixed that. In fact you can just about make out "84" in your image (if you know what you are looking for). You managed to get your picture before "they" erected a battery of traffic surveillance cameras right outside. -- RHaworth 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitol Cigar Store
Actually, User:King of Hearts deleted it because the original editor had blanked the page, then the original editor came back and recreated the page (without the AfD tag, of course), so I speedied it then. Seems like a sneaky way to avoid an afd on your article - blank the whole thing so an admin will delete it, then recreate it minus the afd tag. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

True, I didn't explain my reasons, but usually the content explains itself. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
Just as a note, please don't close things via WP:SNOW. It's not a policy, it's not really anything, and the Brandt AfD should have been closed as a WP:POINT violation. Don't give credance to poor essays. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The precedent is without merit, and, in fact, we have a policy against binding precedents. Snow is not policy or guideline, and should be avoided as it's often divisive and inflammatory.  Please consider using a different rationale if you feel the need to ignore the processes in place.  The Brandt AfDs have been POINT violations, not snow closes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I already have. It didn't work, unfortunately.  It was kept for historical value, since it's not a policy or guideline.  Since there are better reasons to close it, it would be preferable that admins use existing policy to close AfDs instead of divisive essays which have no basis in the workings of WP.  You could have done so too, that's all.  I'm sorry you're offended by my telling you that your invoking of a divisive essay was wrong and out of process, but it unfortunately was, as Brandt Afds are closed because they're point violations, not due to the nonsense that is WP:SNOW.  Please reconsider your closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you could, but i understand you won't, and tht's fine. I hope that you'll consider not using WP:SNOW as a reason in the future, as it's grossly out of process and not widely accepted.  Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning message
Hi

Is there a shortcut template for the rather groovy message you just placed at User talk:Caspo?

Very cool. --Dweller 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Redvers, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sad day
Quel dommage! And only a few days after you so eloquently explained what Esperanza was really about, too!

If I might ask (and I don't really mean to pry, so feel free to tell me to bugger off), is there some particular reason for this unfortunate turn of events? Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Skywards Entries
Hi there. I'm wondering if you can look at my additional comments on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skywards_destinations] and add your comments. I really didnt mean it to be a big deal, just wanted to Improve Wikipedia. - Coolmark18 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Moortje
I have merged the Moortje article. what happens next?Neuropean 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that we should 'be bold'.Neuropean 20:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NO!!!
Dear Redvers, I'm really really sorry to see on another's talk page that you left because you thought made me upset, and because I didn't except your apology at first. There really, most definitely was not the slightest hint in my late response, it was a combination of not exactly knowing how to reply to it and being distracted by too many things, like I usually am. Please reconsider coming back?!? My wording in that post was too strong, and much influenced by other things, as I tried to explain on my talk page, and which I'll explain even more if that would help, just let me know. Your post a few days ago (among other things), about what Esperanza was and should be was so strong that I was going to pester you about becoming a candidate for the newly formed assembly. You were only stating your opinions in all those discussion, and we should applaud that and not let those kind of people quietly wander off because of something like this. Again, I'm really sorry for not responding to your apology immediately, it had nothing to do with me having any hard feelings towards you. --JoanneB 20:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. (after reading your post about this again): you were not a source in this case, merely someone in the wrong place at the wrong time - JoanneB 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but a question ?!?!?!
Was it okay to put that page up for deletion? (highly trainable newbie) Ste4k 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Free Slave Labor (I liked that star :)
Are there some other cleanup projects that are higher priority but of a nature more like slave labor that a newbie could handle them? Being unfamiliar with the territory makes all projects look about the same.

Thanks for the heirarchical explanation of Articles, Categories, etc. Seriously, vocabulary is the first thing necessary for the correct induction to any culture.

Ste4k 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All Cats Must Die
No, seriously I have no bias re cats - I have one of my own that I am fattening up. I AfD'd Mortje and got lots of replies that i couldn't do this because there are other cat articles. That seems asilly way of reasoning. each one should be viewed on its own merits. I looked over the 'famous cats' (I can't believe I'd ever hear those 2 words together), some articles are good others aren't. Be bold - improve if possible, otherwise remove the cruft. None of the articles I have afd'd couldn't be contained within their parent articles. I'm sure that somewhere there is a 'whitehouse trivia' page?Neuropean 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do get what you mean about making a point - therefore I have decided to balance things by afd'ing Hitler's dog and Michael Jackson's chimpanzee. Goodnight23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

hello after a long time
Hi, I believe you're enjoying your adminship and it gives me satisfaction to have nominated you. Your acts came under some scrutiny here and I thought I'll drop you a note. A mention abt me as ur nominator had come about in the same context and I pleaded the fifth, ;) which states "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." --Gurubrahma 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re User:Demiurge
Dear Sir:

Why did you delete my request for assistance re Demiurge's vandalism of my edits??

216.194.3.138 10:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Cheers, Mak (talk)  17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Touching....
Dear Redvers, while you call your post a long and boring one, it has opened my eyes to a world that I am unaware of. I'm deeply touched by the great work you have been doing in the real world, apart from your work here. It is also great to know about your roots in the Indian sub-continent. Your acts in commemorating the brave warriors of yesteryears has been inspiring. I think it is time that I appreciated the contributions of those Indians who worked with the government of the day. We typically stop with appreciating the contributions of those Indians who worked against the government of the day. I now realize that it is important to cherish these both. Thanks a lot for helping me in this realization. I could say a lot more, but this is one of those rare occasions (especially on the internet!!) that words fail me. Best wishes, --Gurubrahma 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

LWT
i copied it from the Thames article - whomever put it in must have believed it to be true - and there was bad blood between LWT and Thames over the years

ITV logo

 * Thanks for your comments. My understanding is that if the image in the article is low resolution, then that qualifies as fair use. Additionally the image was created from a low resolution source (the previous logo) and therefore the resolution of the image is the same as the previous image. The logos on the Foxtel, Fox Footy Channel and Microsoft articles are all SVG (as are many other articles I've come across). If you feel the image is poor compared with the previous one, by all means please revert it but I don't believe that because the image is in SVG format it should be reverted. Alexj2002 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As it stands, as far as I can tell from having read Logos there is currently no guidelines on whether to use SVG files or not for logos specifically. Preparing_images_for_upload states "Use SVG over PNG". I believe that my image, was not of a higher resolution, where resolution is defined as "the detail an image holds. The term applies equally to digital images, film images, and other types of images. Higher resolution means more image detail." (from Image resolution). The detail in it was the same as that of the PNG version. The fact that the size of the image could be changed, without distortion, shouldn't matter, as the detail (or lack of in the case of a low-resolution image) doesn't also increase and therefore the resolution remains the same. Either way, this topic needs to be debated and guidelines created to avoid this happening. Alexj2002 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy pile-up
Thanks for the tip. I did wonder if I was helping or hurting when an article had multiple grounds for deletion. I'll follow the maxim of "one bad article, one CSD" in the future :-) Brian 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)btball

Thanks for that deletion and what's that about notability?
Dear Redvers, I gather from the deletion log that you were the duty admin who kindly deleted my useless subpage. Thanks for that, very helpful. Just one question. If "The rules about notability were developed over years, by hundreds of editors coming to a consensus" (User:Redvers/Your article) how come invoking Notability against High Schools is so hard? --Stroika 17:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to say thanks
Just to say. Thanks for your advice. [Philip1992]

New Pages redirect
I agree entirely with the new redirect, I can't believe I didn't consider fixing that when I tagged it. Thank you. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
My dear Redvers, I have just now found this message on Gurubrahma's talk-page. I want to clarify that I never, ever for a moment imagined that you had any bias against India-related pages. That conclusion would be quite uncalled-for, and believe me, I did not even notice that you were the presiding admin in both cases. Please recollect that my main concern had been a comment made by one of the voters, which I interpreted (very wrongly) as being on the lines of "pages about schools ought not to exist, and if we give this page more time, it may grow great and immovable like X page." I was very wrong on that; the poor chap meant exactly the opposite. Point is that I neither implied or felt that you were biased (repeat: I never noticed it was you!) and so I urge you to please put the matter behind you and not feel bad. My very best regards, ImpuMozhi 05:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the repost
Thanks for taking care of the repost and the tip on the use of db-repost. I'm still learning the ropes :-) and appreciate all the help I can get. Brian 10:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)btball

"Votes"
Redverse, what on Earth are you on about in the Byron Smith AFD?? I don't care whether or not you'd like people to remember that "AFD is not a vote", but to tell people their votes (or "opinions") will ignored by the closing admin is absolutely incorrect, and, frankly, not a little bit insulting.

Can I ask why, in the last three days of AFD, you have only chosen this one discussion to start introducing this pointless tagging of people's good-faith opinions, and why you chose only to tag the two "keep" votes and not the delete? The people who argued for the article to be kept did so in good faith, backed-up with arguments, and you go and tell them (one of whom, a newbie, has never seen an AFD before) that the admin is going to callously ignore their opinions?

Whether or not AFD is decided by a tally is absolutely immaterial. People have the right to express their opinions by stating "Keep" or "Delete" as they have in every single other AFD discussion currently proceeding. These opinions are called "votes" both in the formal and informal senses of the words &mdash; if you'd like to change the English language, this is not the place to do it. I don't care if you've got a personal crusade going on to rid AFD of vote-tallying, the correct people to be bringing that up with are the closing admins, not those who, absolutely correctly, make their positions known by preceding their arguments with "Keep" or "Delete." &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes some sense, but let me show you why I got annoyed: Two people expressed an opinion, which they had reasoned out and had explained their reasoning. You replied to each opinion and stated "Comment AfD is not a vote. Do not vote here. "Votes" will discounted by the closing admin." Now when I look much closer, I see that you weren't responding to their opinions, but merely because they had both used the word "vote" somewhere in their comment. The first one, in particular, was aparently an aside: "BTW, mwamsley, are you going to vote?" Now, explaining that it's not a vote is, I guess, laudable, but surely you see, if you re-read your own comments, that it sounds like you were demening their comments as mere "votes" ("Do not vote here.") and suggesting that those two opinions would be ignored? No wonder I got riled up. I think this would have been much clearer with a better choice of words. Perhaps "Please don't use the term "vote", as AFD is not..."? &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion vs AfD vs Prod
Thanks for the advise ... I didn't realise there were so many ways of reporting unsuitable articles !!! Anyway, I'm off to the pub now!!! In future I will follow your helpful guide lines ... Thanks again David Humphreys 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Neal Rowland
This article that you turned into a redirect as a result of the AfD had been vandalized (I of course reverted it.) If you aren't already, maybe you should keep an eye on this page, and either warn or block the user who did this. &mdash;  Ed Gl  21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Email
I know you sent an email. I read it, but at that time was too busy to respond. Later, I did respond, did you get it? If not, I've posted it here:

Please consider returning. You are seriously one of the best Esperanzians that we have currently, and you certainly aren't "one of the problems": you're one of the solutions :D. I mean that. Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 11:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)