User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 7

The history of this archive begins at this diff and ends at this diff.

Hey
So much for the break then! I wasn't going to leave on in case it tempted you back but ... Thanks for the previous info. Hope the break (such as it is) is good for you and means that life continues to be an enjoyable adventure - Nigel (Talk) 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * you're not supposed to be here! Applied for semi protection on both pages & got it - hope that is ok - take care --Nigel  (Talk) 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem & glad you are ok (?). Think I acquired your troll for a while but it went away (talk page if you are interested).  Bit tied up with some ext links stuff at pres - ongoing disputes, still we live & learn (maybe!) - take care --Nigel  (Talk) 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trace (artist)
Hi, this is the original author of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_%28artist%29. I apologise for using copyrighted material, but today I was actually talking to the subject of the article in question (ie, the copyright holder of the source information) and he said that everything looked fine, if I were to get this in email from him would it be acceptable to re-add that information given that I post a copy of the email in the discussion page? or how should I go about this? oh, and my email address is [email address removed], thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepwnz (talk • contribs)

Protections
No problem. They're unprotected now. -- Steel 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Spectra vs Dyneema
Spectra and Dyneema are not the same product as any chemist can tell you. The Dyneema page is more promotional than any I've seen. Also Spectra developed much of the technology going into military vests including the Shield which is not reflected on this page. There is a full page on Kevlar a full page on Dyneema and nothing on Spectra? Makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.133.34 (talk • contribs).

Stop abusing Wikipedia for diffamation campaigns
I urge you to revert the pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Schilling

to the non-diffamting text that has been present before you did abuse Wikipdia.

Your action has been reported to webmaster@en.wikipedia.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schily (talk • contribs).


 * Responded on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You did relace my corrected neutral text by an offensive text with many false claims.

This makes you definitely _not_ a part of the Wikipedia community. It seems that you are just arbitrary cracker that hides behind a nickname.

If you like to have a discussion on content, you first need to restore the named pages to their neutral and free of false claims content I did set up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.190.246.181 (talk • contribs).


 * Responding at User talk:Schily since you're obviously the same person. Please log in when you post and sign your posts on talk pages so that it is clear who is speaking. Surely you can handle that modest level of technical effort. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A view?
Hi - ok I've actually placed this one now but I honestly would be glad to hear any opinion you have of the posting. No problem with criticism just trying to learn as I go - some of it is from you! Take care, regards --Nigel (Talk) 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * for clarity - my posting not the reply tho it appears to have gone down ok --Nigel (Talk) 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Appreciated --Nigel (Talk) 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - me again
I really am not trying to involve you (may need you later ) but personal guidance on tone and handling (if you can be bothered) would be appreciated - I am not out of my depth but the water is quite high! The transparency of some editors is lacking as I see it. Hope you are not fed up --Nigel (Talk) 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice you left the discussion on Discuss dont vote
There may be no other choice because of the nature of the discussion. Anyway I have provided a comment on the Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote that I think supports your view. --Blue Tie 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to stop deleting notable content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exact_Software —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boul22435 (talk • contribs).


 * Please refer to Deletion review if you believe there has been a mistake. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alan au
Hi Saxifrage. There seems to be some user (User:Alan au) impersonating me, as I discovered when checking my watchlist today. I don't suppose you're an admin, are you? --Alan Au 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, this has been cleared up now. --Alan Au 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Judgenot77 on logo
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that the reason this new user is so incensed is that Jsmorse47 just lost this sockpuppetry case. So his solution is simple: create a new sockpuppet. Cheers and keep on your good work.Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou!
I must have lost my head, thankyou very much for letting me know i put that note on the wrong talk page :D --Carterhawk 03:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw person
I am a professor of rhetoric. Current peer reviewed articles in the field refer to the fallacy as "straw person." In fact, most universities have a policy of using gender neutral language that prohibits the use of the phrase "straw man" in their publications. Please undo your vandalism.

Thanks

PStrait 06:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied in detail at your talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A google search of the phrase "straw person" yields over 20,000 hits. Are you convinced that this phrase is only used in academic circles?  It is clearly used less often than "straw man," but there are ethical reasons to prefer its use (e.g., it avoids being offensively sexist).  I am new to wikipedia editing, so I don't know, but do the WP guidelines ever take ethical concerns into account vis-a-vis common usage? PStrait 06:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments on my talk page. Thanks!PStrait 11:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dhanks' talk page
left a note on WP:AIV, asking for administrator intervention for your repeated "vandalism" of his talk page. I have left a message explaining to him that it is not an issue for WP:AIV and encouraged him to take up the issue on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The community is currently divided about how to address the removal of talk page warnings. In this case, I feel it is acceptable for Dhanks to remove the warning. However, I have cautioned him not to revert the page with incivil comments as he has been doing. I would like to ask you to hold off on reverting his talk page until community consensus can be reached. (It's a frequent topic on WP:AN/I, and will likely be addressed soon.) Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. -- Merope Talk 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. I will be monitoring the situation, but it does seem that the easiest thing to do for right now is to just let the talk page be blank.  If the personal attacks and hostility continue, then we can think about a block.  Thank you for being so reasonable!  -- Merope Talk 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

mediation cabal
Hello Saxifrage,

My application for mediation was initially flatly rejected, but after further discussion, the mediator reinserted my content. S/he did not notice sources I was relying on for evidence, and changed it. See the article "mung."

PStrait 06:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anchor Blue Clothing Company
Thanks for the sensible mediation on this article. --Marriedtofilm 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I'm fascinated by the interest of one user who really doesn't like this article. It's been nominated for afd (Articles for deletion/Anchor Blue Clothing Company )and as I know you're unbiased and sensible, I'd like to know your vote on this. I promise not to be offended if your opinion differs from mine. --Marriedtofilm 04:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

straw man
Thanks for the edit, still trying to get the hang of things. PStrait 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse
And you Saxifrage would do well to explain why my msg is incivil and the one it is a comment to is not. I have removed your comment as I beleive yours is far more incivil than mine.--84.9.193.208 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced my comment and replied to you here: User talk:84.9.193.208. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you can fuck off you pompous ass. I have singlked you out for some education in respect and honesty. You aren't fit to talk to me please stop untill you have an education and understand the full requirments for Civility and non abuse.--84.9.193.208 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I am User:Irate you don't think I'm going to listen to you or be stopped by you do you?--84.9.193.208 08:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you are being so very kind, inoffensive, and gentle, or rather the complete opposite, I do believe that it will not be surprising if you get blocked from editing, possibly banned, should I ask an administrator to review your behaviour. It doesn't seem like you have a temperament that is fit for being an editor at Wikipedia. Besides, if you're telling the truth and you are User:Irate, then you are already banned and all I have to do is point out that you're editing again from IPs. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Grrr.
I've restored Dhanks' talk page history. I try to be respectful of people who wish to leave the project since it is frustrating that you can't delete your account. But claiming you're going to leave the project and then editing not even a few days later really gets my goat. I'll keep an eye on him. Thanks for letting me know.

In response to your previous comment, I know exactly what you mean. It's kinda sad, but whenever a user responds politely to a message or warning, I'm always surprised. I'm so used to vandalism and rudeness that when someone is, y'know, reasonable, it just makes me really happy. So thanks again for being so nice. Please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. -- Merope Talk 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Potomac Senior High School
Hello I have been working on my page and I feel that it looks good. I have a question someone keeps putting up information about individual state champions and is doing vandalism now. I feel that team state champions should be there but not individual state champions. Is there anything wrong with that. John R G 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

84.9.193.208
I noticed that we both had a run-in with this user yesterday. I've looked into the situation--his style and knowledge of policy (and his knowledge of banned users) seems so suggest his claim is possible. His IP matches one of the ranges known to be used by Irate. I've left a note on Blnguyen's talk page asking for his input, but, I gotta admit, I don't really know how to handle this. (I'm still a baby admin; not even a week old!) I'll keep you posted, though! -- Merope Talk 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Barangay Health Volunteers, Philippines
Thank you for your edit notes (NPOV) on the article we (a bunch of professionals) are currently collaborating on. This is the first wiki I have ever posted and it is less than a day old.

I don't know if we are building the article in the manner acceptable to Wiki and your edit notes help us understand the process better.

Rest assured, that if you allow us a little more time to gather the contributions of the professionals involved in the process, the article will meet your standards.

Thank you and God bless!

Editing of Barangay Health Volunteers
Many thanks for the editing. It does have a better wiki feel and look now. And I see that it really should be more in the style of journalism, or research rather than a feature article.

Many thanks again, I will learn fast, promise!

History Files
Is there a way to delete permanetly not a particular page but something that was put a particular page that is still in the history files that I would like to be deleted. I hope that makes sense. John R G 08:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Potomac Senior High School
Here is the history file I would like removed.

(cur) (last) 13:51, 11 October 2006 205.174.125.54 (Talk) (→State Champions)

It has somethings in there that I do not like. If you remove that history file I would appreciate it. Thanks. John R G 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"copyrighted" matial
hi on home equity you edited out the links, but from the site they were from i am pretty sure you can redistribute them - it is under the gnu license (see bottom of the page) what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbath (talk • contribs)

DDV
Ownership has nothing to do with it; indeed, if you would read the talk page you would find about a dozen high-profile admins agreeing with me. Contrary to what you say, having DDV marked as an essay does cause problems and has steadily been causing problems over the past months, in that it encourages people to arbitrarily invoke straw polls for no good reason, instead of using debate, compromise and consensus. Note that I have asked Nedscott on his talk page what exactly his problems are with the guideline; he has so far declined to respond.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I quoted you
I quoted you here and thought you should know. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought
I have noticed that your objection to someone who unilaterally stops a straw poll. What, then, do you think of somebody who unilaterally starts a straw poll?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think nothing in particular because I don't see starting a poll as being meaningful. A poll is only meaningful once those discussing agree that it has meaning. The correct and Wiki Way of responding to an unwisely-started or badly-constructed poll is to continue the discussion, of course. Polls aren't binding, no matter how loudly someone squawks about the numbers. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, this occurred to me. It seems to me that you are trying to convince me that your view of polls and voting is right. You may be, but your persuasive method is wrong. Most of your leading questions ("leading" not being a bad thing, just a technique) rely on me working from the same paradigm you are using, and so they rely on me seeing things as you do already. Let me suggest a more fruitful approach then. The trouble I have with the paradigm you express is that I think the problems it poses for accountability and free flow of discussion are greater than the benefits garnered from economising discussions by avoiding distracting elements. To convince me that your approach is right, you'll have to address the shortcomings of your approach as well as the benefits, so that I might be converted to seeing how they balance the same way you do. Does that make sense? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how accountability factors into this (please elaborate). However, free flow of discussion is precisely why I do not like (unwise) polls. In a discussion, you can pretty much think freely, say what you mean, and compromise sensibly. In a poll, you are forced to "think in the box" and reduce your opinion to one of (few) specifically stated phrases. Often, when a dichotomy between two choices exist (e.g. for or against a proposal as currently worded), there is a third choice that works best (e.g. editing the proposal to address objections) - and an (unwise) poll will only list the first two.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But, of course, discussion doesn't magically get sucked into the confines of a poll when it appears, right? Discussion can continue regardless of the existence of the poll. I do agree with you about educating new users, since if people somehow think polls are "special" or a "priviledged" thing during a discussion (which they are apt to do coming from societies where votes are A Big Deal), then they can be guilty of giving the poll greater attention than the surrounding discussion. But, that is a failing of individual users, not the fault of the poll. Assuming that all editors involved understand the status of polls (as in, they're just another way of discussing), then how they allot their attention to plain discussion and to polls must be respected as an expression of their position and contribution to the discussion. To try to channel how other editors focus their attention in a discussion is to assume that one knows better and to take action in disregard of them. The proper way to do this (in my view) is to keep to the core principles of consensus and discussion: convince other people that their attention needs to go in a particular direction, not force it. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just realised I didn't adress accountability. It follows from what I said above. If one is attempting to channel other editors' attention, whether this works or not very much depends on how much perceived authority the attemptor has. If you were running a poll for what you thought were good reasons and an IP who's been part of the discussion removed it, very few people would consider the IP to have acted with any authority. However, if an IP started a poll for what they thought were good reasons and an admin who's been part of the discussion removed it, then people are likely to consider that the admin has acted with authority. As you said, this is a clutocracy, and people tend to assume that admins know what they're doing. However, those with authority (whether real or perceived, because here it's the same thing) need to be careful about using that authority in situations like this. Because it is necessarily a judgement call, it can be mistaken. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but it is precisely because the judgement is about discussion and because discussion (and thus consensus) is the only way to reveal mistakes at Wikipedia, admin actions that can inhibit discussion also inhibit the community's ability to correct for admins' mistakes. It's about conflict of interest, essentially. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's the crux of the problem. I do not assume that all editors involved understand the status of polls; in my experience, in many cases polls do detract from, or even take the place of, discussion. Part of it is cognitive laziness; it's easier for people to go "support, sign" than to write up a meaningful argument; part of it is that polls in most places outside Wikipedia are binding and official, so novice users tend to assume the same here.
 * If a poll is (1) not helpful to the issue at hand, and (2) potentially distracting, then it's a net detriment to encyclopedia building. Mind you, I do not believe that all polls by definition are not helpful and distracting. As you say, this is a judgment call. However, I believe your argument about accountability is flawed, because no attempt was made to stifle the discussion (rather, the action was to encourage discussion). There have been instances of people not responding to queries, or protecting talk pages to prevent dialogue; that would be dodging accountability, but that clearly has not been the case here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what it comes down to is the relative weight we each give a single editor's judgement versus the collective judgement of a bunch of people interacting. I believe that the wiki way works even when a large number of people are operating from flawed concepts: essentially, that it comes out in the wash. For instance, in the case of the discussion at WP:NNOT (or where-ever, I've not investigated it enough to say precisely), the discussion didn't need to be "saved" by having the poll removed because if the discussion came to a conclusion that was at odds with the rest of Wikipedia, then nobody outside the discussion would have accepted the conclusions. This is part of "consensus changes". I think that the process works well enough that "bad" things in the process can be ironed out. Think of this: really, was there ever any danger of that conversation actually creating new policy when you consider the weight of everyone else's opinion outside that conversation? I doubt so. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Change to EL
It seemed that without those words some may want to exclude a website that has a collection of articles, therefore I limited that to a collection of websites. Therefore I clarified it. If you feel differntly, feel free to change. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system
Thanks for the harmonious editing session, even with us stepping on each other.. - JohnPritchard 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem! My talent lies in tweaking the work of others, so thanks for giving me something to tweak. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 05:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind an analytical tone on the wos:talk page. So many thanks for your help! - JohnPritchard 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deadbath
It's only a joke man :) 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbath (talk • contribs)

Thank you!
A lot of flak is an understatement--I've regularly had to remove personal attacks and vitriol from my talk page, something I've not really done before. (This in particular will likely amuse or enrage you.) I really appreciate it -- my stress level from editing WP has increased tenfold in the past couple of weeks. Shiny blue stars make things a little bit better, though. Thanks. -- Merope  18:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my... What a narrow view that is. (And it took me six tries to write that without incivility.) The hypocrisy of misogyny is amazing: I took a minute to point out the utter lack of logic inherent in the message he left. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny; I used to complain that everyone here thought I was a male. (Since, as you know, only men use the internet.)  So I slapped a big pinkish userbox on my page to indicate my idenitifcation as a woman, and pow!  Misogyny ho!  I can't win.  But at least I'm laughing about it now.  Kinda.  -- Merope  21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I don't think that it's because "only men user the webbernets!", but the consolation is probably cold comfort: it's been said that the gender of a person is assumed to be male by default until six contrary indicators are detected. Online is an interesting venue in that regard, because none of the traditional gender-markers employed by society are evident. Anyway, that's sufficiently off-topic... &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pat8722
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Pat8722.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 22:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Europe talk thread
Hi Saxifrage, I think we need many more than the three voices currently engaged in the above if any semblance of a consensus is to be found. I've posted requests to a couple of the Village Pump's corners, but perhaps you know somewhere else or some other users to ask...? Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Good, the Village Pump should get a few more voices. Another place to post it would be at WP:RfC. As far as I know there may be very good reasons to leave the name alone...
 * Thanks for your prompt response. I don't feel WP:RfC is needed yet; hopefully not at all. If so, however, I'd wish to propose something more general, e.g. that &amp;nbsp;s are welcomed as the means to handle linewrapping, that unaligned flags (in templates such as Turkic-speaking that I've seen recently; Turkic-speaking what – persons? nations? (rhetorical)) are either aligned or removed, etc. Since posting the above, I had a brainwave and posted a request to the WP:WPC talk page; activity there, however, looks uneven... Regards, David (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Hopefully RfC won't be necessary, though reading through tasc's Talk page makes me worried...
 * Yes... You probably noticed I tried something more terse and assertive (more "tasc-like"?) but, as I feared, no joy. I'm logging off for a while now and will return to a more circumspect approach if/when it's required.
 * ''...If consensus for using results-oriented code in templates really needs to be demonstrated, then you certainly can count my voice in support.
 * You put it in a nutshell – thanks! Best wishes, David (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It was an old convo
That conversation is pretty old and I apologized to her, so quit trying to look good by criticizing me thinking you will get laid or something as women are going to think you're such an honorable man. Women like to be dominated

Edit* I didn't apolagize Merope, it was another woman Crimesone, anyway its the same thing, you apolagize to one woman you've apologized to the whole of womankind. --Street Scholar 10:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied at your Talk page. Assume a side order of bile and vomit accompanied my reply. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Go watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer or what ever you simpleton's do, because I am done using your ego as a urinal. --Street Scholar 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh haha, very witty. I like the fact that you can't spell when you're being all "I'm better than you" at me. You seem to be incapable of civility and refraining from woman-bashing; let's see whether your misbehaviour warrants blocking, because if I was an admin you'd be blocked right now. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am an admin, and he is blocked right now. -- Merope  17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Street Scholar
Just FYI, there is an ANI regarding his insulting and sexist remarks in case you'd like to contribute:

.Hkelkar 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article
Tobacman 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Advanced-planning.eu
Advanced-planning.eu is n o t  a commercial site. It is kept by a university professor mainly to support his students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.74.29 (talk • contribs)


 * Replied on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Inventory-Management.de
Obviously you did not look into the contents of the site. Otherwise you would see that there is educational material and no self-promotion. By the way, what about the consulting page interops, which has the same type of contents as advanced-planning.eu and which has not bben removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.74.107 (talk • contribs)


 * Replied on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 deportation of Georgians from Russia
I was just wondering how can I provide sources for the categories? From the article itself it is obvious that it is a human rights abuse. Just look at this [] article. It has got 64 sources it's more than Holocaust sources. Sosomk 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Business Analysis
Not at all. I added our link to the Business Analysis resources page of our website, which contains many valuable, non-commercial, and very popular white papers relating to Business Analysis. I notice the link to Irise is of the same nature, yet is not deemed inappropriate.. yet their website is also clearly of a commercial nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmtraining (talk • contribs)


 * Replied on your Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA
I hope you don't mind; I created an RfA for you.  PStrait would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact PStrait to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. PStrait 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm honoured! I'm going to have to think about this a little before I accept, but thank you. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've learned so much about wikipedia in the last month from you somewhat inadvertantly, and everything I have read about the qualities that qualify one for an administrator seem to be reflected in your editing. I won't be upset if you don't accept, of course, but in any event I wanted to let you know I appreciated your work.  PStrait 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, before I created the RfA, I accidentally created one for "saxifrage" without the capital S. I hope this doesn't cause any problems. As soon as I saw my mistake I recommended that RfA for speedy deletion and created the correct RfA. PStrait 06:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't cause any difficulty—it looks like the pages created there aren't relevant before a nomination is accepted and the page is linked into the main page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, if you accept this RFA, I will support you. You may have botched up a move, but you did help me with the creation of Requests for feedback, and for some time, you helped respond to feedback requests there. Please continue to respond to feedback requests - RFF is getting backlogged. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it? Damn. I'd gotten a bit burned out on the feedback and my energy has moved elsewhere for a while. I'll see what I can do to get that moving.
 * That's definitely not conditional on your support though. :) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It won't be a Conditional Support; it'd be a Weak Support. If you continue responding to feedback requests, I'll change it to a Strong Support, and may even use MSN Messenger to bribe several Wikifriends to support you.
 * What RFF needs is at least 5 experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to respond to requests promptly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a bit uncomfortable about changing my editing patterns right now with this on the table. Just by me reading that you'll change your vote if I go back now, I'm put into a conflict of interest, or at the least an appearance of one. I do intend on going back to RFF in some capacity now that it's been brought to my attention again, but I think I'm going to have to let my RfA run its course before I do to avoid the appearance of support-buying. If that means that the vote stays a weak one, I'll just have to live with that. I hope that your vote as it stands now is what you would vote if I had firmly stated I wouldn't go back to RFF—if not, you might consider changing it with the assumption that I won't go back.
 * Quite apart from that, I've been thinking about why my RFF activity slacked off and then stopped. I find that when it comes to article quality I do better showing by example—cleaning up the article when I look at it—than by writing advice to the author. I realised that I was tending to go and look at the articles on RFF and do some tidying, leaving a message on the Talk pages about what I did and why, rather than actually giving feedback as the page is designed to do. Since I wasn't really helping beyond what I normally do (article fixing), I didn't feel that I was doing the project any good.
 * On considering my thought process on that now, I realise that I really shouldn't have felt bad for not helping out in the "right" way. What I'm going to try (and see if it works out for my editing talents, 'cause it might not) is to start doing that again—to go and look at pages people post at RFF and tidy them up if I see things I can do. That way I can help by showing how it's done. Besides that though, if I'm looking through RFF for pages to fix, then I will at times see a request for feedback where I can write some useful feedback as well as or instead of just fixing the article. Even if the feedback I give ends up being sparse, it'll make the activity and feedback-given just that much more.
 * Anyway, that's enough rambling musings, so I'll leave it at that. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Saxifrage, I was just joking about the bribing part. My Weak Support was based on your past contributions to RFF and the assumption that you will not return to RFF. If you had continually responded to feedback requests at RFF without my prompting you to, I would have voted Strong Support - hence, I offered to change my vote to Strong Support if you would continue participating in RFF. I hope you are not uncomfortable with the potential conflict of interest, and will continue to participate in RFF.
 * I understand and appreciate that you prefer to fix things yourself instead of offering advice. However, please remember that besides improving articles, RFF is about helping newcomers improve. When fixing problems with an article, point out these problems to the newcomer. This is giving feedback to help them improve. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

142.58.101.27 : a SFU computer
I trust that you are an SFU member (I think I saw your photograph on the tea party) I have a hunch that the IP address, 142.58.101.27, is a SFU computer. While standard practice is block, this may actually be inconvienient, if that's the IP of the proxy server, or even just a public computer (such as the one in CSIL). I know that because I had edited both harmonica and Civilian Astray in SFU/CSIL computer, but my current IP address is not the same, so I am certain it isn't mine. So we have to watch out.
 * EDIT: Yes, I am certain it's a computer in CSIL. I had edited info on MS-VSE, the Gundam profiles, but I didn't edit the bucket sort or earlier stuff, so it is a CSIL computer. It would be the one in the backrow, Windows machine. we should place a lock in Vanessa's User page, so that no more vandalism occur. (I am surprise that the computers in CSIl lab is not through a proxy server, and even have static IP)

Watchlist
Hi, if the actual negative commentaries about specific users were deleted I would withdraw this nomination. --Zeraeph 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I gathered that much, but I'm wondering what you consider qualifies as "negative". Is anything beyond their name too much? For the IPs on the list, some description is strictly necessary to discern between them. For the rest it helps to remember what the details of the trouble have been. Though, having reviewed it just now, I do see a few ill-considered comments. I'm going to remove those now (they don't serve me any purpose and aren't considerate of the editors), so let me think in a few minutes? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Peculiar comment on RfAr
Regarding, I don't know what you mean by anything being bad. Anyone is capable of filing frivolous Requests for Arbitration (Note, see Arbitrators' opening comments on this case) and the case has productively become a discussion about how policies are formed. Also, WP:SNOW, and WP:IAR, are about the outcome, not "shadows of opposition" from an always-present minority of random juveniles. —Centrx→talk • 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied at your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alpha (student politics)
Aha. Thanks for clarifying the difference between deletion and blanking. I guess I'll just wait for it to be reviewed by an admin then. Thanks :) Tjbowen 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy
Hi, []this article can be a source I guess and I think it is also a common sense that 2006 deportation of Georgians from Russia is a human rights abuse. The person was killed awaiting deportation. This, in fcat tells about the treatment that he recieved. Well, do we have to have the confirmation of AI to call the Holocaust a human rights abuse? :) Sosomk 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

image copyright issues
Hi saxifrage, im very interested in the issues of protecting copyright on my pages and other contributions, the image was created by a person i know and i have asked permission for it to be uploaded. If this is ok please tell me how the copyright details should be layed out, if this is not please feel free to delete it. Isaactret 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image to be deleted
The background of the image is unclear as it was created by my friend from an original version from the official band's website. I have realised that this will create further issues so I'ts best not to have it up there.

I realise the issues stated in conflict of interest, the band are not personally known to me, and although i am a fan i think my views are fair and that their is substantial reason for the page to be created. The band are rather big and i think they need a page explaining history and other facts which are not available elsewhere.

Thanks, Isaactret 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sig optimization
Thanks for the tip! I'll change the code to what you suggested right now. Maybe I'll get rid of the cursor thing too. - Mike  |  Happy Thanksgiving  23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint, but the code that you gave me is an invalid raw signature :-(. Thanks anyway though, and good luck on your RfA! - Mike  |  Happy Thanksgiving   23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, I got rid of the cursor change. Hope that's better :-). - Mike |  Happy Thanksgiving  23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yacht Articles - Lists
Hi.

I agree, the lists are questionable. There is a bit of compromise going on here with other editors, and an attempt to keep a level playing field so no individual article is issolated and can be perceived as an advertisment. I like the idea of a central repository for the links to other manufacturers.

On another issue, please Wikipedia talk: Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Precedents. You are half right in what you wrote at the Nelson Marek discussion; I am seeking to protect that style of article not just that article, and my efforts began before today, it just spilled into notability today as a result of discusison at deletion precedents.

I'd like to talk more if you have some time. I can tell that you care.

Sincerely

Kevin Murray 04:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Murray
Hi.

I'm not sure what you mean by listify at the yacht articles, but go for it! We can always discuss.

I'm confused about the "rules" on editing the company issues at notability etc. It seems like other editors are making changes without discussion, but maybe we can work together to do it right. Do you agree that what I propose is appropriate if done correctly?

Kevin

Sailboats
Yes past are no longer in business and curerent are in business today.

Changing your comment at Nelson Marek
Hi.

We've had some good discussion this evening. I think that the tone of you message at Nelson Marek may be misleading; would you consider removing the implication that I tried to change WP:CORP inappropriately?

Comment. Kevin Murray has tried to change WP:CORP to make this article qualify.[2] Also note that WP:CORP is only a special case of Wikipedia:Notability, so the criteria of notability can be applied even if this team is not considered a company. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Kevin Murray 06:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair?
Hi.

I saw your comments. I appreciate the thought, but I think that the entire section will tend to inflame, and serves no purpose to the discussion of Nelson Marek. You can just remove the entire comment using edit. That would be my approach. Regardless, it has beena pleasure to begin the aquaintance and I hope we can work togeher on many projects.

Sincerely,

Kevin

No Problem
Thanks for your explanation.

Kevin Murray 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Well done on passing your RfA with an almost-unanimous vote! I doubt that you will have many questions relating to your new admin responsbilities but please feel free to ask any that do occur to you! Regards and happy editing, (aeropagitica) 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats Saxi! Best of luck with the new tools, and if you ever have admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nish kid  64  17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both! It's a bit premature because I haven't receive the sysop bit quite yet, but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're still getting supports even though it should have been closed many hours ago. Anyway, congrats. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐

German Frers
Well you are right that this article is weak, and needs time to grow. It seems like the time has passed when we can post a small article with the hopes of it growing over time through cooperative editing, which has been my experience at Wikipedia. The development of articles with authors from around the globe has been a fascinating learning experience.

Congratulations! It looks like you will becoming an administrator soon. As a leader in our group, maybe you can come up with some solutions. It seems like the pendulum has swung away from encouragement to discouragement. I don't mean that in a harsh way, but there is a double edge to this sword of efficiency.

Good Luck!

Kevin Murray 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Let me be the first to offer my congratulations! :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to be the first, but now I'll be the second. Do you have any idea who that Oppose !voter was or why he was so upset with you? Newyorkbrad 03:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea. Looking over his contributions I couldn't find any hint of where our activities would have overlapped, even. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats! May you wield the mop and the bucket with grace and equanimity. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you all! — Saxifrage ✎ 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cograts!.. Mustafa Akalp TC 06:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links talk page
Nothing would make me happier than to see Wikipedia talk:External links stop being used as a soapbox. I'm fine with you moving or removing the off-topic discussion as long as you remove the whole discussion and not just one side of it. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

ArtificialMemory
Hello,

you deleted the 'ArtificialMemory' article. ArtificialMemory is a a scientific software project (it is not commercial) creating a new user interface paradigm for the Semantic Web. It has been introduced in the International Semantic Web Conference 2004 and is subject of several scientific papers and publications. Please, don't keep deleting this Article as it is of General interest to the Semantic Web community.

Kind regards,

Lars Ludwig

Sorry, Savifrage, but you are wrong: the 'Guidelines for writing about software' state: 'Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden'. Furthermore, the software was developed in the Knowledge Management team at the Digital Enterprise Research Institute (you can look it up at their research reports). I think you are misunderstanding it's importance to the Semantic Web community as it is one of the few running examples of Semantic Wiki systems. I deleted reference to my person which was anyway only given to answer questions. So. pls., do not continue to delete this article.

Kind regards,

Lars Ludwig

"is a very uncommon thing for people to do, and you have not demonstrated any understanding of the project." I dont think this is a valid argument against the article. Actually, it has nothing to do with it.

"In fact, your only activity at Wikipedia has been the promotion of ArtificialMemory at as many articles as seemed relevant, including inappropriately adding links in parts of articles that should not have links to specific software." This would concern the linking, not the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Ludwig (talk • contribs)

just some final remarks from my side, and I will let the matter rest

"Your understanding of the project is relevant because your lack of understanding of our goals and your self-promotional activity indicate that your goals are self-promotional." let me remark as a psychologist that you are very far from understanding me or any of my goals; your base of information is far too meager for that

"Regardless, it remains that you have self-interest ..." as a psychologist - again - I cannot see any difference between interest and self-interest; think - for a moment - of your activities here which give you some sort of satisfaction and thus are full of 'self-interest'; these categories are weak and useless in judging content

"If it is important, as you say, then it will get written without your involvement." I think you are confusing popularity and importance here. This might even be the central fault of Wikipedia. Generally speaking, often popular things are not important, and important things are not popular.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Ludwig (talk • contribs)


 * Lars - please see, and read thoroughly Wikipedia Notability rules. Your page failed to assert the notability of it's subject.  Generally speaking, any notable project can be verified using a series of independent, reliable sources, such as new outlets, technical journals, and so on.  See also WP:V.  Cheers! -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ps. Hope you don't mind me lending some advice to this user on you page, Saxifrage, thought this is where they'd be looking for responses.
 * Not a problem. I replied substantially on their talk page, but they seem to have since moved on from Wikipedia and blanked it all. If ArtificialMemory pops back up, we'll see... — Saxifrage ✎ 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!
Didn't know this was now official. Have fun with that mop! Pascal.Tesson 19:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congradulations!
Excellent job on winning your RfA. For that, and for everything else you do when you find the time...

Congratulations
On your successful RfA --Blue Tie 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done on passing your RfA! Please ask if you have any admin-related questions, as I am sure that I will be interested in finding the answers out too! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me too – I know you'll wield the mop wisely! Krakatoa  Katie  03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your new and shiny mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Film School
Thanks for helping with the VFS listing, Sax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeye (talk • contribs)

VFS
I'll continue to add more citations to notable alumni as well as include further information on the school over the next little while to ensure that it does not read like a listing but to match the standards set by Wiki for school entries. This is my first attempt at a Wiki entry, so if it takes me a couple tries to get it right, I hope you'll be patient. (For instance, I don't know how to use the talk section yet so I'm replying to you here...) - D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeye (talk • contribs)

sargent slaughter redirect
Damn it, we had the same thought, but you beat me to it. lol Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew it rang a bell from a cartoon, but I'd forgotten about the original wrestler. The search function is great. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 07:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salt?
In response to your question of Centrx, we usually delete salted pages after a few months to prevent them from cluttering up the main encyclopedia page. Most editors who recreate such pages are jokesters who give up after awhile, not really persistent ones; indeed I've unsalted about a hundred pages and only three or so were recreated. A part of WP:SALT says "Nearly all older protected deleted pages should be permanently deleted after a few months." HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)