User talk:Sjakkalle/July 2007-2008

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.
 * If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
 * I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/March and April 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/May and June 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/July and August 2005


 * User talk:Sjakkalle/September and October 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/November and December 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/January and February 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/June, July and August 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/September, October, November and December 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/January-June 2007

Note that I am not an administrator, although I used to be one until November 2006, and will therefore be unable to aid in any business which requires such tools. There may be a cases where you have a complaint about an admin action I made previously, if this is so just post it here and we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am now an administrator again, but will probably not be very active with them. If you need help with something which needs admin access, feel free to ask me. If it's uncontroversial I'll probably help you as soon as possible, if not I'll direct you to a suitable discussion forum. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

=7:21, 14 November 2008 Sjakkalle (Talk | contribs) deleted "CG Noir" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)= CG Noir is a new term that was coined to bescribe a new genre of CG Animated Film, the film is not buddy films but are fully animated cgi films that takes a new direction in the media, it is not advertising, I did not mention the film only the place date and people it descibes. please relist the site or tell me how to write it in the propper form. CG Noir like Film Noir are is a term that will describe the new type of Genre. --75.36.233.218 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)--75.36.233.218 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5
Hi,

I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orientacion (Prison Break episode)
The article is proposed for deletion because it does not follow the guidelines of Notability. The episode has not been aired nor has any official information (i.e. press release from FOX) of the episode been released. Aside from the premiere date, the article cites the source from a fan site for its summary. There were no additional information (on production etc.) other than the summary. Had the source been reliable, the summary still does not warrant the standalone article for the episode as the short summary should be then merged into the List of Prison Break episodes article. That is why the article is proposed for deletion. Regards, Ladida 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I have no strong opinion about this particular article. I removed the prod tag because someone else had already removed it in good faith, and it should therefore not have been reinstated. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butte County High School
You may want to revisit Butte County High School. Alansohn has done a very nice job expanding and adding sources to the article since you !voted to delete. -- DS1953 talk 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Songs about Drugs
Hi! Where is the current version of the List of Song about Drugs? I was quite upset to see that somebody deleted it. --AStanhope 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of songs about drugs (2nd nomination) ended with a fair consensus to delete the article. To some degree you can look at an older version of the article on the web archive. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer on Mig Greengard
Just to let you know that I have answered your question on my talk page... SyG 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridicule
Regarding the AfD at Articles for deletion/Überplay:
 * Keep per Starblind. A company that has produced award-winning games has certainly gained some glory and notability for itself as well, "WP:NOTINHERITED" refers to relations which are not very relevant to the context. Also, the nominator should know better than making this kind of edits, soapboxing for the deletion of the article in the article itself, in an utterly ridiculous self-referencing fashion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, you should really pay more attention to things before you call them "ridiculous". It's bad karma, if nothing else.  By now it's fair to say I have figured out that the article is going to get kept, so to publicly conclude I'm "soapboxing for its deletion" is sort of ridiculous itself is it not?  Do you realize that in your haste to revert the comment you didn't like added, you also reverted other unrelated changes to the rest of the article? Reswobslc 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL
Hi there; my understanding of this principal is that authors posting to this website specifically forgo their copyright, allowing wikipedia to copy, amend, move or otherwise change the wording without permission or acknowledgement. If my understanding is faulty, I would be grateful if you point me to the appropriate source.

The article has had, as you will have seen, a complex history, having survived three previous AfD discussions. I took this popint on board in assessing consensus, which in my view was on this occasion overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. While merge was mentioned, there was no consensus to do so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

London Underground trivia
I restored the old edits of London Underground trivia and Talk:London Underground trivia. London Underground trivia's latest edit still redirects to London Underground statistics. Anthony Appleyard 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Metros
I appreciate your concern and posting the comment on my user page. But if you studied closely, Metros has nominated every article for AfD.--NightRider63 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and other people have agreed with said nominations. It wasn't me unilaterally deleting anything.  It was me nominating and other people agreeing with what I believed.  Metros 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, he is following me everywhere i go. He watches My Contributions and goes to every page. I shall do the same.--NightRider63 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Human chemistry
Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [Previous comment removed - didn't notice that Tim had already suggested this.] Yes, ditto. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, a merge has been completed with material from Human molecule, but strong concerns remain in the deletion discussion. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the new version and see what you think? All the best Tim Vickers 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard
Don't know if you've seen my reform ideas, but if you've any comments, let me know on my talk page. --Solumeiras talk 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Betty (porn star)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Betty (porn star), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Betty (porn star) (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my only contribution was closing the first AFD debate as a "no consensus", and that was ages ago. I have no opinion on the article myself. Thanks for your note. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar
Why have you moved Myanmar back to its unconstitutional name? Evlekis 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is one which I joined late. User:Duja took the liberty of switching it very recently. I often visited the page but never consulted the talk page (I never thought there was a reason, I mean looking at the article, how is one to know that there is a naming dispute happening behind the scenes?). Even so, it has been difficult to follow, and I did not have the chance to put my own vote in; the pattern is to submit messages and publish them upward rather than down. Never the less, believing pasting to be the correct way, I took part in the talk two days ago: I left another message yesterday asking if anyone would oppose a redirect, and nobody replied. What was I to do? Evlekis 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks for the new information. In the meantime, could you tell me the exact way to redirect pages without pasting? Obviously if it interferes with edit history and the like then I don't wish to appear inproper. Thanks. Evlekis 12:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Yeah I did go down that path but as you know, Myanmar was not empty, it was previously occupied with the present-Burma article. Not to worry. Thank you for your help. Regards. Evlekis 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian Variation (C60) of the Ruy Lopez
Hi! Please, look at http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm (C60), http://64squar.es/openings/show/1791 (Bulgarian Variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a5), or http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1357159. Best wishes, Mibelz, 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first source is the Geocities page which was used in the article, and which I feel had reliability problems, and I think the 64squar page looks like it has the same problem. In addition, neither have any history, analysis, or description beyond the defining moves. The chessgames.com page and comment is more interesting, though I again have some concerns over reliabilty (the "kibitz" section is basically a forum where almost anyone can register and start writing what they want although I guess there is some form of moderation). But if you have, or can locate, the Popov article, then there might be something worth having here. I don't think that it is in need of a full and separate article. Except for huge variations such as the Dragon Sicilian, which several books have been devoted to, few variations of openings need separate articles. The 3...a5 Bulgarian variation is very obscure (59 games in the Chessbase database is tiny, especially when almost all of them appear to be amateur [=my level] games), even compared to fairly rare sidelines such as 3...Nge7, 3...Nd4 and 3...g6, but it can perhaps with some reasonability be added to the Ruy Lopez article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nerull
A template has been added to the article Nerull, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Gavin Collins 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

List of historic rail accidents
I was sorry to see that the article on list of rail accidents of major historic significance was deleted - I had missed the discussion. The reason for having this was that the current list of accidents is impossibly long (even when broken into sections) and you can't see the wood for the trees. There is, I am sure, a distinction to be made between major disasters killing 50+ people, or which led to a major change in operating practices, and the hundreds and thousands of more minor accidents. I can't agree that most fatal accidents lead to major changes; usually the result is a small tweaking of the rules, or recommendations for a specific location. It's difficult to see what the best way round this is, but the present list is far too long and uncategorised to help someone new to the subject looking for key points. Any ideas for improvement? It was correct that the information was a subset of the main list (obviously anything in this list should also be in the overall list!) Hyperman 42 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I continue to stand by the opinion I wrote in the AFD nomination statement. The problem is that "major accident" is a subjective term which leads to all sorts of trouble regarding original research and neutrality, because, what does "major" mean? Although this page is an essay the point about clear and unambiguous criteria is one which reflects an essential part of a list. Using the death toll as a measure is objective in one sense, but it is also arbitrary. I disagree that the current list of accidents is so long than comprehending it is difficult. I find the list to be well-structured, and it is easy to see at a glance both where and when the accident occured. Each entry is brief, and navigating the encyclopedia is eased by links to separate articles when appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chess Opening Move
Hey man,

I noticed that you wrote several of the articles for the chess opening moves. In them, you often allude to how often that particular opening is played by the masters, based on statistics you garnered from a program. For example, in the article on Benko's Opening, it is cited as the 5th most popular. Could you do me a big favor and look up the complete list real quick and post it here? I haven't been able to find it on the Internet, and I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.

--68.181.235.37 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Chessgames.com has an easily accesible list here, but the database is a bit limited in size. The full ChessBase database however has a larger sample, and is more reliable. The database is here and selecting the "moves" tab on the right of the window should list the moves by popularity (you may need to fiddle a bit with the board to get the list up) if you click the heading marked "N". For the very rare moves the popularity ranks are perhaps not quite as certain. The only other possible problem is with the moves 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, which are vying for the third place, both databases above put 1.Nf3 ahead, but the Oxford Companion to Chess, under "English Opening" (I think), listed 1.c4 ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nodlandsvatnet
Can you include the references and points of notability you mentioned at Articles for deletion/Nodlandsvatnet in the article Nodlandsvatnet? The community may decide that the references you mention define notability for the article, if they are included in the article. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the reference mentioning reservoir capacity, and two others which mention the recreation. Hope that helps, although I still consider merging as a viable option. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, we will see what happens. Jeepday (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful  with a vote of 33/7/4. Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help. I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success!
  Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Assertion
Please withdraw the claim that I have made an "assertion" that DGG and AnonEMouse are anything less than respected editors. This is both false and hurtful; it also fails to assume good faith about my actions. Thank you. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that my wording was a... testy way of saying that people should have taken a more careful look at the AFD before declaring that all the keeps ought to be null and void. For the record, I don't think that you consider DGG and AnonEMouse to be SPAs, etc., and I have posted on the DRV again to clarify that. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No offence, but your "clarification" doesn't help. You haven't withdrawn the slur against me, and you have added a new false accusation, saying I have dismissed "each and every keep argument as having been made from" sockpuppets, meatpuppets or SPAs. This is a complete lie, and I must ask that you withdraw this as well. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote in the nomination that you had counted "4 "keeps" - of which 3 are: the author (who is also the subject of the article), one SPA or sock and one person who it doesn't appear has read the article or debate and is basing their views on a different article." You clarified now who the three "bad" votes are. That leaves you with one "keep" which I assume you consider valid, yet DGG and AnonEMouse are two people, so your mathematics don't add up here. The "each and every keep argument as having been made from sockpuppets, meatpuppets or SPAs." refers to Coren's vote that "keeps were at best in conflict of interest and at worst WP:SPAs." Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AnonEMouse's "vote" is a "weak keep" rather than a "keep", which I haven't addressed just as I haven't addressed MisterHand's merge (there is no requirement to address every single "vote", obviously). However, this is ignoring the substantive point: At the present moment, your remark that you claim is aimed at Coren continues to look like an outright lie aimed at me. I again request that you withdraw this hurtful and untrue remark (or properly attribute it; but withdrawing it would obviously be better). ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When you decide that the "weak keep" is not a "keep" as any other, then I feel that your nomination statement is misleading. You are then arguing on technicalities (was it "keep" or "weak keep"?) and not substance (were there any reasonable arguments presented for keeping?). I stand by the basic substance of my statement: that you and some of the others who called for overturning the decision were too quick to dismiss the arguments presented by the "keep" side. People can read the debate and make their own decision on who is right. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic
Very good advice as always.--MONGO 14:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
That was remarkably quick of you. I copied the article before redirecting, & then pasted it into its new name. Unless you've reverted it extremely quickly again, it should be OK now. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did once try the complicated page renaming procedure, but couldn't get it to work, so I've generally been doing what I did here. I should perhaps make clear that there's no reason why there shouldn't be 2 articles, abhidharma & abhidhamma. The correct title for the one that exists at present is abhidharma. Maybe I'll write the other one some time. In some other cases the title is simply wrong, eg Brahmajala Sutta (Mahayana), which I redirected in a similar way. Perhaps I should have done that differently. I think I put an explanation in either the edit summary or the talk page, or both. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for your help and the removing of the deletion tag here Olle Åkerlund. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Sjakkalle, I was wondering if you would like rollback rights on your account. You revert vandalism, occasionally but correctly, and you're a former administrator, and therefore I assume that you know both how to use rollback, and understand it's for vandalism-reversion. Acalamari 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollback granted. :) Acalamari 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Hey man, apologizing on behalf of the idiot that has hacked into my computer, he posts lots of nonsense and is almost getting me cut off from editing anything. If you have to suspend the IP address, let ME know first, so I can try and keep MY good faith going. Write me back if you have any questions.

Thanks! User:Snuffereet —Preceding comment was added at 08:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Chess and unusual opening moves.
As you seem to have this book, can you let me know which of the following, if any, it covers.
 * 1. d3 Mieses Opening


 * 1.e4 Na6 Lemming Defense
 * 1.e4 f5 Fred Defense
 * 1.e4 f6 Barnes Defense
 * 1.e4 g5 Borg Defense
 * 1.e4 h5 Goldsmith Defense
 * 1.e4 h6 Carr Defense
 * 1.e4 Nh6 Adams Defense

Thanks ChessCreator (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.d4 Nc6 Queen's Knight Defense
 * 1.d4 d6 Name unknown - Would be most interest in it's name if 1.d4 d6 is covered!
 * Let's see, I'll need to find the book before I can come with a definitive answer, but 1.d3 and 1.d4 Nc6 are definitely covered. I will need to look into what 1.d4 d6 is called. I'll come back to that... Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the 1984 first edition. I think there is a more recent (1992?) edition, which I don't have. In the 1984 edition, YES to the Mieses Opening, NO to all the rest -- the Lemming Defense; Fred Defense; Barnes Defense (1.e4 f6) -- there is an unrelated Barnes Defence to the Ruy Lopez mentioned, and in discussing the Barnes Opening (1.f3?), the authors note that Barnes sometimes played 1.e4 f6; Borg Defense; Goldsmith Defense; Carr Defense; Adams Defense; Queen's Knight Defense. This edition lists "only" 701 openings and variations.  I believe that Quale, who has the newer edition, said that it had over 1000. 1.d4 d6, as I've said elsewhere, is listed in tOCtC as the Pillsbury Defence. They refer to 1.d4 Nc6 by the cumbersome name of "Nimzowitsch Queen Pawn Defence" rather than Queen's Knight Defense. That is actually a perfectly reasonable opening, by the way, unlike all the above-listed zany defenses to 1.e4. Krakatoa (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Krakatoa is right. The exotic responses to 1.e4 are not covered in Oxford at all. 1.d4 d6 is called the Pillsbury defense, and the entry is short, saying that it usually leads to the Pirc Defense. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! ChessCreator (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: Must newspapers cite their sources to be a reliable source?
Many thanks for your helpful and detailed reply at the village pump. Pgr94 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lotto
I'm willing to bow to your superior knowledge of Norwegian culture in this one. I will point out that I cannot read Norwegian, and I can't even get into that "online entry" page to see how substantial the entry there is. With that said, I still think that an omnibus article for all the lotteries run by Norsk Tipping is the way to go (a la Lotteries in Australia).

Good work on the rewrite by the way, it does look rather better than what it was when I first looked at it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

Good idea
Your BLP idea is much much better than Opt Out. I think it has potential to work, if only we can convince people its the easiest of all the methods (mine included).  MBisanz  talk 07:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try looking at WT:BLP and WP:BLPN. There might be a place there to squeeze it in.  And on either WP:AN or WP:ANI there is a thread on Opt Out, it could be attached to as a subheading.  MBisanz  talk 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please help me with a move?
Hi. Per the discussion here, I attempted to move the article First move advantage in chess, together with its associated talk page, to the better-punctuated First-move advantage in chess (same name, but with a hyphen added between the first two words). Not being an experienced "mover," I cut and pasted the article and talk page into the new locations. I promptly got messages from assorted humans and bots advising me that that was not how one effectuates a move, since it messes up the history. Having now learned of the existence of the "move" button, I restored the old article and talk page, blanked the new ones, and attempted to move the article and its talk page that way. Since the new location(s) now had/have a history, that didn't work either. Could you please help me do this move? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, that kind of fix-up needs admin access, and I resigned my bit in 2006. I have made a request for my adminship to to be restored, but if the bureaucrat declines it, we'll just need to ask another one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, didn't realize. If you want me to ask someone else, let me know. Thanks again. Krakatoa (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving it, and for your kind comments about the article. I nominated it for A-class, and it looks like a shoo-in at this point: four yeas, no nays. One other thing -- could you please move the talk page, too? Right now, the article is kind of schizo, in that the talk page for the (moved) First-move advantage in chess (hyphen between first two words), i.e. Talk:First-move advantage in chess redirects to Talk:First move advantage in chess (no hyphen). Thanks again! Krakatoa (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on the Dario Poggi article and it being saved from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD
Why did you close this as keep? Only one good source was found so it still fails WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the basic reason is that after reviewing the debate, I found that consensus was for keeping the article, and that some of the reasons given by those calling for deletion was rather superficial (for example "another non-notable wiki" is sometimes OK in a nothing discussion where everyone agrees, but when there are serious arguments presented for keeping, such a contribution becomes rather useless.) I also think there were at least two sources mentioning the website in question. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put information on all sources at User:Otterathome/Sandbox, if you still feel it should be kept I shall be putting it through WP:DRV.--Otterathome (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I maintain that my close of this AFD was correct, but if you want to bring it to DRV I cannot prevent you from doing so. But remember to overturn an AFD to "delete", you will almost certainly need to demonstrate that consensus was actually for deletion, or that some policy is breached in a serious manner by the article. Also consider that just because there is only one major source cited in the article, that does not mean that that there don't exist more sources. Especially for English Wikipedians, sources on foreign topics are difficult to hunt down but that does not mean the topic is not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Inciclopedia‎. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otterathome (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit taken aback
I'm surprised that you would take my civil contributions to the discussions on notability and try to make it appear that I go around describing people's edits as vandalism. On an individual level, I'm very careful to avoid using that word. At a policy discussion level, it's the appropriate word.Kww (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The full quote of the paragraph in question is I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case. Articles on things like Bulbasaur may be a common practice, as is asserting that every actor on the Disney Channel is gay, or substituting "penis" for the noun of the author's choice. Doesn't make them acceptable or desirable.
 * Quite frankly, if you think that a contribution like that is "civil", and "appropriate", then you should read WP:VAND and WP:CIVIL before you make any more contributions to any discussion. When I started to contribute to Wikipedia, many of the articles were on various fictional spacecraft (most of these have since been merged and redirected). I have also contributed several hours on RC patrol in order to stop vandals and block those committing it. Let me tell you: seeing an editor like yourself, in all seriousness write that he would happily treat contributors like myself as vandals is extraordinarily insulting. It demonstrates a complete and utter contempt for people who sincerely believe that Wikipedia should cover fiction in great detail, and make a good faith effort to provide this. You may disagree with such people as much as you want to, but you should have the decency and respect to avoid labeling them as vandals. Someone who is creating and contributing to Bulbasaur is here in good faith, someone who asserts that Disney Channel is gay or throwing about "penis" all over the place are not, and comparing the two is like comparing everyone on the left-wing in politics with Stalinists. Vandals are people who have no regard whatsoever for the website, and deliberately make edits which they know are wrong, harmful, and whose only motive is creating a nuisance for themselves. You should only use that term for vandals. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you create those articles without any sources at all (the context of the above discussion)? When the article was redirected or deleted because it failed to meet WP:N and WP:V, did you recreate it time and time again without making any effort at all to correct the deficiencies? I've given up on Bulbasaur, but it stands as an excellent example: four pages of text, without a single third-party independent source. People have looked for years to find sourcing, and have found that there are none: Bulbasaur simply has never been examined as an entity by a third-party, independent source. Yet, the article remains, and efforts to get rid of it are met with resistance by editors that do not have any intention of meeting sourcing standards.Kww (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Were they unsourced? Yes they were. Did I recreate them time and time again? No, I didn't since there are other battles to fight than whether or not to keep fictional spacecraft in the encyclopedia. (Also, the fact that the person who redirected them was someone who also had a genuine interest in the subject, and also made contributions like article writing and source-finding, and not just "article policing" by adding various maintenance tags makes me much more inclined to accept and trust their judgment.) But all that is fairly irrelevant, because someone recreating such articles may be edit-warring, and may (or may not) be making wrong edits, but they are not doing so in a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Therefore it is so crucial that you don't call, or treat them as, vandals. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is why I don't use the word in edit summaries in these cases (with one notable exclusion: VivianDarkbloom, an editor whose article recreation was in notable bad faith, a part of a campaign to promote her own work). I quite strongly feel that the presence of unsourced articles does damage to the encyclopedia, and knowing recreation of an article that cannot be adequately sourced is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

more thanks!
Just a quick thank-you for deleting the Audi Allroad Quattro Concept article. If we can work on getting rid of these misleading articles, then Wiki will be a better place! -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice of deletion debate for Instant-runoff voting controversies
You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Ok thanks, even if the user blindly removes information time and time again to insert his/her personal view on the subject? Thanks againMeander ₪ 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much once again, ill try to reason it out Meander ₪ 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking further up may be in order
TTN's edit marked "Setting up basic table" was just that. Perhaps if you looked at TTN's work in progress, you would have a different opinion. Kww (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the present version of the article when formulating my opinion. At present, 73 out of the 78 episode descriptions are gone. If TTN wanted to make a wholesale change in the format of the article, and that required a temporary removal of so much content, then using the user-subspace as a temporary sandbox to build a new version should have been done, rather than removing over half the article from public view. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Thompson (athlete)
Fair enough. There was nothing in the article to indicate that the time was this year's 2nd best. And failure at qtr final would have indicated a ranking somewhere 30th - 130th best, definitely not notable. Cheers Bazj (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps time to start on ... 2008 in athletics (track and field) if it's being referred to already? ;-) Bazj (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page "Ton Roosendaal"
Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the page Ton Roosendaal? The notice simply said "copyright infringement"; what sort of copyright infringement? Thanks for any help, Joeedh (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the version I looked at was a copy of this webpage and clearly a violation of copyright, but when I am looking through the deleted archives, I see that there are older versions which are not infringements. I'll need to sort through this and will restore the good versions. Thanks for notifying me. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help on this, Joeedh (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation Please
Could you please explain the deletion of List of occult writers? As far as I can tell, there was never a deletion proposal, even for a speedy delete, and no opportunity for anyone to addresss any problems you might have had with the article. Also, as the creator of the article, I was never informed of any such issues. Rosencomet (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking myself the same question. Redirect cleanup gone awry from the deleted Sollog article is the best excuse I can offer. Sorry about that. I have restored the list, and will go through my deletion log to see if I made more mistakes. Thanks for the note. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick attention. No harm done.Rosencomet (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

moving stub to make what the RfD said
Please check Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_29, could you move User:Sjakkalle/Suicide mission to the redirect current location? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I've gone ahead and moved it. Just be aware that the reason I put it in userspace instead of overwriting the redirect immediately is that I considered the stub to be too underdeveloped for mainspace. Hope someone will take the time it needs to develop it further. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Four degrees of Anand
That's really cool - I thought I was one of the only people who did that. I have four with Kasparov, but my win was not in a rated game. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fotios" article deletion
I would like to draw your attention to the deletion of the "Fotios" article (Articles_for_deletion/Fotios) and its effective redirection to "Photios I".

There are several reasons why I intend to ask for a "Deletion Review".

There is a bunch of other similar Greek names already listed in wikipedia, along with their histories and etymologies. If you can't be persuaded that names like "Michael" are pretty much the same type of entry then please tell me what is so different than "Fotios" when it comes to these names: Zechariah_%28given_name%29 Panagiotis Spyridon Anthimus Helene_%28name%29 Stavros Spyridon

Please note that "Photios I" is just one of the guys named "Fotios" or "Photios". People who are named "Fotios" today are not named after him, which is not the case with say Alexander. However, the latter redirects to a "given name" type of entry instead of the entry for Alexander the great.

Also note that 'F' and 'Ph' are just different phonological transliterations of the same Greek letter Phi_%28letter%29

My feeling is that at the very least there should be a disambiguation page that comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.191.42.92 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, and good question! In general, articles on given names are in the realm of Wiktionary, unless the name is very common and there is more to write about the name than just the etymology. Another reason to have a non-redirecting page at a given name is, as you mention, to provide a disambiguation article. We can see from the articles you listed that many of them are such pages. When I closed the AFD debate, I was not aware of any other people with this name, and making a disambiguation which points to just one article is a bit superfluous. If there are more articles which the page could point to, then I agree with you; Fotios (and perhaps Photios) should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. If that is your feeling, there is no need to go through DRV process or anything, just go ahead and overwrite the redirect (edit box here) with the your version which can be a disambiguation. Thanks for your efforts! Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope you like the result: Fotios. I have redirected to it "Photios", "Photius" and "Photis". "Fotis" should be redirected as well but it is admin modifiable only. Lonwolve (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Travelling Cari has re-deleted my edit. See here. Lonwolve (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry I wasn't aware of this discussion and have restored however I disagree with the article as it stands as: a) there's still no evidence the name is notable and b) it is a pseudo-disambig page and does not go along with the guidelines of creation of such which say, in part, Partial title matches, Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. And the fact that other name articles do this doesn't give this one a license to do so.
 * I still think this re-creation is no different from the article that was at AfD with the same lack of notability and reliable sources that do not establish an encyclopedic article. There is no need for the dab and no need for this article really to exist. Sjakkle, thoughts on this? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see Cari's point as well, but some sort of disambiguation between Photios I and Photios II is definitely in order. Generally we don't disambiguate between people who just happen to share the first name however, unless they are formally known by their first name, as is the case with royalty and popes. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see Cari's point as well. Overall, this debate helped me understand better the essence of what may constitute a wikipedia article. My effort to find people by the name of "Fotios" has revealed the existence of a second Patriarch by that name - a fact I was unaware of - and although that was only incidental, it does now mandate the disambiguation page (I agree with Sjakkle on this). Bear in mind that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the Eastern equivalent of the Pope. What about the "Fotis" redirection? Cheers! Lonwolve (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I saw this, didn't have time to get into it today, will do so tomorrow. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion, and this is my opinion as an editor, not as an administrator with any special authority, is that the disambiguation should be between Photios I and Photios II and placed at Photios, rather than "Fotios". Fotios should redirect to Photios as an alternate spelling, but not the spelling which the linked articles use. The etymological information on Photios should be at Wiktionary, and linked to from our disambiguation with a wiktionary template, ensuring that that information is easily available to the readers. Lists of people who share a first name are bound to be somewhat arbitrary, and are in fact made redundant by Special:Allpages, such lists are therefore not usual on Wikipedia, and I don't see any compelling reason to make an exception here. Thanks to both of you for your efforts here; also, my apologies for being so slow in replying, I'm not logged on very much these days I'm afraid. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sjakkalle here, this is not encyclopedic content and the nature of the content (not the article, Lonwolve you've done a very good job writing it) is that it won't ever be. I'd agree with that redirect and transwiki as it seems to be the appropriate home for the information. I don't believe in acting by fiat, what are your thoughts on this Lonwolve? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sjakkalle's proposal as well. Thank you also Cari. So, who does this editing and redirections? I would not mind doing it but I am also curious as to whether there are established norms in these situations. Lonwolve (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You/I anyone can do the edits. I have no idea how to transwiki to Wiktionary but can ask someone who does. I'm happy to do the redirect, or you can do so yourself. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure how to move things over to Wiktionary either, but I have done so; probably in the completely wrong manner and in a way which will see me banned for life from that website :-). Photios is now a disambiguation between the two patriarches, with a pointer to Wiktionary. Thanks again to both of you for the good discussion here. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First attempt didn't go to well. Plan B (Ask someone else to do it ) underway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great stuff!Lonwolve (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, seems the Wiktionary folks have brought it in, greek spelling and all, so disambig is what Wikipedia will present. Apparently spelled with a "Z" (or "Zeta") at the end. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sjakkalle - I will be adding my Fotios background stuff there. A question however: shouldn't the disambiguation text be something more like: "Photios is a Greek name that notably refers to two patriarchs of Constantinople." instead of just "Photios can refer to two patriarches of Constantinople"? Cheers Lonwolve (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea! So implemented. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent for the sake of legibility) looks good, thanks both for your help TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you guys. See ya'round! Lonwolve (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Encyclopedia Dramatica
I have nominated Encyclopedia Dramatica, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Alex<b style="color:red;">fusco</b><sup style="color:green;">5 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 08:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like your opinion on this. Please let me know. Mike H. Fierce! 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding (I first noticed this on August 7, and since I had lost a five-hour long chess game the night before I was feeling rather down, and not in the mood to respond, and after that I must confess that I simply forgot your message). I'm afraid that I cannot help you much here, since I am not intending to attend any Wikimania whether it's in Stockholm or further away, so I have no opinion on this matter. Sorry about that. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. You're one of the most active Norwegians on the English Wikipedia and it would have been nice to have your support in some fashion or another. Mike H. Fierce! 08:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oslo rush hour subway line segment
I've checked your information which is sound. Now, I am doubtful that the correct thig to do is simply reinstate the Line 1 information for the stations Brynseng through Bergkrystallen. I would prefer that some distinction was made from the regular lines. Do you have any input on this? Perhaps the light blue bar could have a horizontal white bar added at the rush hour stations? Or a dotted frame? __meco (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">BONK! 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics and RfC on Kainaw
I see you agree that Kainaw's comments are a smear on the whole of Wikiproject Chess. Would you be willing to sign the RfC I've raised about Kainaws' conduct? -- Philcha (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I have not engaged Kainaw in an attempt to resolve the dispute, I am not in a position to sign the "certify" section. However, once I see the RFC properly certified (that requires two signatures there), I will sign in the "endorse" section. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaogouli County
I have taken the liberty of redirecting this article to Xuantu Commandery. Gaogouli Prefecture(75 BC - 12 AD) was one of the short-lived prefectures of Xuantu Commandery, which itself is one of Four Commanderies of Han. The article on Xuantu Commandery has more than enough room for more information on its prefectures, so I thought it would be appropriate to make Gaogouli County a redirect. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that is acceptable. When I saw it tagged for speedy deletion, I couldn't quite figure out the rationale, so I was reduced to simply removing the speedy tag. Merging and redirecting are of course editorial processes and left to the discretion of the knowledgeable contributor, and from what I can see, I think you are in a much better position to make these decisions than I am. Thanks for your efforts! Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC
There are two ways to look at the entire situation. From my point of view... A user found an article that had nothing supporting notabtility. Any respectable user would have added a reference for notability to the article and removed the deletion tag. Instead, Philch went on an attack against the user who dared question notability and provided, only in the discussion page, a link to an article that in no way supported notability of the topic. I fired back that Philch's attack and claim of notability were wrong and that the way he was going about doing things gave me the impression that he is either the author of the page or closely related to the author of the page - because I've dealt with many people who do not like having their pages altered or deleted. Then, all the chess people chimed in with a lot of random garbage and completely failed to miss the point - notability is supported by adding a reference to the page. After a few screens of this, I commented that all those chess people were missing the point. They wanted articles to stay without notability referenced in the page because they simply wanted it - nothing more. One user, Peter, got the point and added references to the page and everything was great - then Philch felt his ego was bruised too badly and decided that he deserved an apology for being told that he needed to add a reference of notability to the page. Then, from Philch's point of view, I assume he sees himself as the greatest editor in Wikipedia and anyone who disagrees with him owes him an apology. I don't know which view you agree with. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 12:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you seem to think that the problem here is whether or not you're "right", not about whether or not your comments were within the acceptable bounds of civility. My impression that you haven't gotten it is compounded by your description of good faith comments from good faith contributors as "random garbage". I have moved to certify the RFC. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, your move is to remove a good faith editor from Wikipedia. Feel free to look at my edit history - that is what will be lost. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 16:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I must note that both of my comments here were made before I noticed that you added to the RFC. I wrote these when the RFC was nothing more than a demand that I apologize to Philca for saying that his actions gave me the impression that he was either the author of the article or closely related to the author.  I already pointed out in the Chessmetrics talk page that my comments about the chess community were obviously wrong. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not certify the RFC as an attempt to remove you from Wikipedia. It is an attempt to make you understand that you need to be careful about firing off harsh allegations about other contributors, and express your disagreement in a less polemical way. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully understand in reference to my comment about the chess community - as I have stated. However, my comment about Philcha was a verifiable fact.  His actions gave me the impression that he was trying to subvert any discussion of deletion.  I still find it as a silly joke that anyone thinks I should apologize for stating that his actions gave me the impression that he was trying to subvert any discussion of deletion - basically apologizing for his failure to recognize that notability was missing from the article.  In the end, I feel as though I've been slighted.  An RFC was created to have be apologize to Philcha.  I responded to that RFC and then it was changed to cover a completely different topic in which I already admitted I was obviously wrong.  That makes my comments about the Philcha RFC appear to be directed at the other RFC, which is not the case at all.  It makes me wonder about the policies of editing an RFC that is still in discussion, especially when one of the people involved already demonstrated a refusal to acknowledge the policies of notability. -- <font color='#ff0000'>k <font color='#cc0033'>a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 00:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed RFC
Sorry for the error. Checked the logs, and fixed the entry.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ted & Ralph
I'm sort of confused by your comment. Do you think that I literally mean that every single sentence of the article is either part of the plot or a line of original research? I believe that most people are able to understand that I mean it's bulk of the content I'm talking about. Obviously, factual statements don't fit into that category. TTN (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you say "nothing but", then that means what it means. If it is "mostly" you mean, write "mostly". What is then not part of the "mostly" is often salvageable, perhaps as part of a merge, so the difference between "nothing but" and "mostly" is not a mere technicality. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Bertsch
Since you closed the AFD discussion for the article way back in 2006, I think that you might be interested in the deletion discussion here. Schuy m 1 (<font style="color:green">talk ) 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica/Draft
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sirocolor
That is perfectly fine, I did the undeletion so that it won't be deleted in the future for copyright violation. (note that the log message mentions why I undeleted). If it fails some other criteria, that is fine with me. ——  nix eagle 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: adminship
Hi Sjakkalle ! You left a message on my Talk page proposing to nominate me for adminship. Well, many many thanks for your proposal, it really pleases me to see you appreciate some aspects of my Wikipedia contribution ! I do not think, however, adminship would be good for me. What I like on Wikipedia is trying to make chess articles better and promoting the chess coverage, and I do not think adminship would help me to do that. Tell me if I am wrong, but I feel becoming an administrator is mostly to get access to some specific tools, and for the moment I do not see these tools as useful for the work that I do. So regretfuly I will have to decline your kind proposal. Thanks again ! SyG (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sjakkalle. I accidentally "overheard" your suggestion that SyG would be a good admin (must clean up my watchlist). If he is ever seriously nominated, please let me know and I'll support it instantly - SyG has good attention to detail plus tons of patience, is an excellent diplomat and not at all power-hungry. -- Philcha (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Philcha, thanks very much for these kind words ! SyG (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up to old ANI thread
My final (rather long) post here (now archived) didn't get any response there, so as I said there I am following up on people's talk pages to try and clarify what will happen in future cases. In particular, at the ANI thread, you said "For the John R. Smith case, the evidence proves that there is a hoax, the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star award makes the statements in the article impossible." I would hope that what I posted explains the anachronism surrounding the Silver Star claim (putting in doubt your claim that it proves anything), and thus shows that regardless of whether the article is a hoax or not, that leaving the debate open for the full time would have given me time to make my comment there and clear up the medal misunderstanding. Would you agree with that? Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:92.43.64.87
Hi, just a note: it would be great if you used schoolblock when blocking school IPs for long durations :). -- lucasbfr  talk 10:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to keep that in mind. Thanks for the note. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Layland
What is the point of the hangon tag with a detailed explanation if it is irrelevant to those entrusted to uphold the Wikipedia? While the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Layland page may not have met the initial requirements and may have violated the A7 (bio), if you would have merely noted the hangon tag, you would have seen that a final version was to be submitted no later than 21:00 PST. If at that point, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Layland page did not meet any set standards or violated any Wikipedia criteria, it would have been permissible to delete the page. However, this was clearly not the case. It is a shame that a user who is entrusted with the ethical responsibility of upholding the standards of Wikipedia does not respect the very principle of which it was founded upon, a free and user-editable encyclopedia.

With regards,

bjlayland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjlayland (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! I appreciate the time you took to write out your reasoning. Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Chess
Hello Sjakkalle ! As you are an admin, could you please consider to reinstate the semi-protection of Chess ? It was already under semi-protection before, but every time the semi-protection is removed, the vandalism is back again and I am a bit fed up with losing my time every day to remove the vandalism. Could you do something ? Thanks in advance ! SyG (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, SyG! Good to hear from you again! I have a great deal of sympathy with you, vandalism to a high profile article like this is... frustrating. At present, I'm not entirely sure if reinstating semi-protection is needed, but the article is on my watchlist, and semi-protection can be instated at any time if needed. Generally, I prefer to deal with vandalism by blocking the vandals (stopping the perpetrator), rather than semi-protecting the article (stopping everyone), and only if vandalism is coming in rapidly from all corners, from lots of different IPs and accounts, do I want to implement protection. The problem with semi-protection is that we lose the good edits from anons as well as the vandal edits. This and this are the kind of helpful edits from IPs (removing vandalism!) which we would miss out on if semi-protection were implemented. At least one of those vandalisms reverted by an IP came from a logged in user, who unless very new, would not be stopped by semi-protection. But if vandalism increases on this article, and seriously outweighs the good edits coming in from IPs, then reinstating protection will be done of course.
 * Usually, we give a vandal a few warnings before they are blocked, through the test, test2, test3, test4 hierarchy before blocking them at test5, but running through the whole mill of warnings is not needed if their edits are obviously malicious, then I just go bv and block at the next hint of trouble.
 * There is one more thing I can do. If you want it, I'll give you access to the rollback feature, which makes reverting vandalism much easier. Just remember to use it only for reverting vandalism and other test edits. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these detailed explanations ! After reading your reasons, maybe I overreacted somehow (a good reason not to be an admin !). So let's keep it like that for the moment. SyG (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, not an overreaction at all, the decision to semi-protect is made on a rather subjective basis, and where reasonable people can disagree. Regarding rollback, that feature can be implemented independently of adminship. (Sysop access can only be handed down by a bureaucrat or steward, and usually only after an RFA. Rollback access can be handed down by an admin, and is generally handed down liberally to anyone trustworthy, without much bureaucracy.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 296
On the AFD discussion, you wrote: "However, while Ryanair's safety record remains strong, its safety practices have been under scrutiny and that scrutiny is worthy of coverage. This incident is only part of the reason behind that scrutiny."

Bearing in mind that the incident in question happened almost 7 years ago, can you please elaborate on what the safety practices are that they have been under scrutiny for all this time. I can't find any reference to them. 84.9.32.157 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a British documentary ("Dispatches" I think) which made pretty harsh criticisms of Ryanair, including their safety procedures. This is a recent Norwegian article about pilot concerns over the amount of fuel they are flying with. My point was that the scrutiny of Ryanair's safety, as a whole, is worthy of coverage, but that only a little bit of that scrutiny was due to the flight 296 incident. (That is why I voted to remove that as a separate article.) Personally, although I am not at all a big fan of Ryanair, I think there's a good chance that the criticisms of its safety record have been blown out proportion by the media. I don't think a company like Ryanair would be so stupid as to cut corners on safety. The people running that airline may be ruthless businessmen, but I don't think they are indifferent to the safety of their customers, and even if they were indifferent, they are intelligent enough to know that a disaster caused by inadequate safety procedures would devastate their company's image. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

124.181.210.250
I've seen vandals attack WP:ANI before, but not WP:AIV. That's a little like walking into a police station and trying to pull a holdup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Most likely some schoolkid's idea of a joke who has been blocked before and somehow learned of WP:AIV in the process. The IP Resolves to some public service provider in Australia so who this is will probably be never known. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Crikey! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yttrium IP vandal
This vandal seems persistent in trying to post a phone number - I've oversighted it twice so far today. If you're keeping an eye on the article (I see you've been blocking the IPs - thanks :-) ), please let oversight know promptly of further incidents so we can zap them as absolutely quickly as possible. - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Almskog
Hi! His Orkla profile says that he is a member of the board of Orkla, however this page doesn't mention him. One of the two pages are out of date? Punkmorten (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, good catch. I have updated the article (Almskog has definitely been on the Orkla board). The Orkla bio-profile is dated from May this year which I thought was recent enough, but if he is not on the board list, then he is apparently not there any more. The ref I have added (actually duplicated) to the article proves that Almskog was on the board in 2006. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

lol

 * (Deletion log); 14:32 . . Sjakkalle (Talk | contribs) restored "Yttrium" (1,099 revisions restored: Featured article. Which idiot was it that deleted this?)
 * (Deletion log); 14:30 . . Sjakkalle (Talk | contribs) deleted "Yttrium" (rm some revisions until they are oversighted)


 * :) Jessi1989 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism
Hi, a friendly souls left some messages for you at your user page, I tried to report it for admin intervention but may have posted at the wrong place. Anyways, seems (s)he gave up after two rollbacks, but the approach of this user clearly warrants a block anyway I believe. Sukk, ungdommen nå tildags... Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your assistance with my userpage! Regarding the today's youth, I spent this weekend fighting them over the chessboard. They were good kids though. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Covered on paper
Thanks for saving Star Shipping. Not that I wrote the article or anything, but people are often frivolous with the speedy tags. Someone, though, can't get enough of trying to delete articles covered by paper encyclopedias... Punkmorten (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. A "strongest possible keep" is added to the Ellen Hambro, but once the idea that someone is "not notable" gets entrenched, an arsenal of evidence to the contrary can be ignored out of sheer stubbornness. Coverage in a paper encyclopedia ought to be the absolute strictest notability criterion imaginable, and anything stricter than that is ridiculous. I have put a proposal to amend the notability guideline to that effect at WT:N. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport
I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atDeletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've gone ahead and voted on the DRV, and I understand that my stance there is probably not the one you wanted. On an AFD I fell I have some leeway to vote according to my own whims and interpretations of policy; on a DRV I need to evaluate the opinions of others and honor them even when I disagree with them. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of image
Sorry, I did another stupid thing that I'm asking for your help with. I inadvertently gave a stupid name to an uploaded image, thus making it unlikely that anyone looking for it will find it. Specifically, I uploaded an image of Charles Ranken and gave it the name Image:Cn4879 ranken.jpg Now I can't see how to move it to a proper name, say Image:Charles Edward Ranken.jpg Would you be kind enough to move it for me? Thanks again. Krakatoa (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, unfortunately, no "automatic" way to move an image. The best way is to re-upload the image again under a new title. If you do that, I can delete the first upload. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have re-uploaded the image under the new, improved name. Please delete Image:Cn4879 ranken.jpg Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Incidentally, nice work you've done with this article, thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had posted your views in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Salangbato
You were involved in a discussion at Articles for deletion/Salangbato, Philippines regarding this barangay's notability. Currently, there is merge discussion at Talk:Salangbato. Your input would be appreciated.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)