User talk:Sjakkalle/June, July and August 2006

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. Personal attacks against me will stay, such comments say a lot more about the person making them than the person who is targeted.

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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Possibility of censorship on the Grove School(Madison,CT) article
I just want you to take a look at the Grove School article.I think Grove School administration might be looking at this article.As a Grove School Student graduating in August 2006 from NYS,I can tell you that Grove School has lost its Emergency Placement entitlement from NYS.I can also tell you that it is true that a student did commit suicide named Brandon (I don't know how to spell his last name) in January 2005.If you get a chance to read the article,please consider putting an indication that their's Censorship going on.72.225.134.243 13:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Work
Just a note to say congratulations on your anti-vandalism work. You were very quick off the mark on 205.174.123.82.--TDE 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC
Hello Sjakkalle, do you use IRC? Here's something for you:

''With your fanstastic work of voting and closing AFDs, TFDs, the efficiency of fighting vandals and reverting pages within minutes, I award you the Working Man's Barnstar. --Ter e nce Ong 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)''

Do keep up the good work and I hope to see you more often. ;) --Ter e nce Ong 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I am not on IRC because I have trouble in getting my webbrowser to accept it. I keep getting "is not a registered protocol" messages. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in cricket
hello !

sorry about the vandalism that has went on. the IP 142.227.251.130 is shared by a couple of students of this High School and unfortunatly, some kids have nothing to do better than that.

i will have a talk with those who use this computer.

thank you and excuse their behavior again.

Help
Good evening Sjakkalle, I have asked User:AmiDaniel to help me with this. But would also like you to look at it, if you could please read my post on AmiDaniel's talk page. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 15:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image removal
Yes, as per the edit summary, I am orphaning an image which has been obsoleted by a more up-to-date version; rather than updating the image I am removing it where it is used in a signature which is now contrary to WP:SIG. Unfortunately because of a limitation in MediaWiki I cannot grab the whole list in one gulp, I have to keep refreshing to get the next tranche, hence my second try at it after your reversion (sorry about that). Would you rather your archive had the replacement image, or just a red-link? I can try to remember to skip your archive next time it comes up if you really want… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! I have replaced the image with the updated one since that seems to be the one which will leave the archive intact as well as possible. Thanks also for your efforts in the image cleanup. I won't try to add further burdens to your workload by telling you to remember to skip my talkpages, so if this situation happens again, just do what looks right. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers…I always try to do what looks right from where I'm standing: however I'm also aware that others might be standing somewhere entirely different. You are the only person who has commented so far, thank you for being so reasonable[[Image:Face-glasses.svg|20px]]. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've replaced the same image in another archive: I think that's all of your pages covered, I don't see any more on the list (which is now down to almost manageable proportions!). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

myg0t article deletion
Hi, I left this message on your talk page a while back, but I think I did it incorrectly, I was informed I should have put it in as a new message, rather than a reply to an old one;

Anyways, reguarding the myg0t DrV you closed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Myg0t_%28second%29), there are a few issues with the deletion process of the article:
 * First of all, you said "A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t shows a strong consensus to delete and will therefore declare this deletion as endorsed", however this AfD was performed "in secret", as none of the regular contributors to the article were notified, and no notification was left on the article until hours before the AfD started.
 * Second of all, this AfD took place in the timespan of a few hours, rather than the several weeks it took for the DrV to complete.
 * Due to these two circumstances, I'm obligated to insist that the AfD was unfair. Were the contributors given proper notification, and were the AfD given more time to take place, and were the AfD not closed prematurely, I can assure you it would have turned out differently.  A vote where only assenters are invited, and the dissenters not given enough time to even notice it, is hardly a fair vote.  Even if the article didn't survive it's SECOND DrV, I think that it should have been given a fair AfD.  It makes sense to base a closing decision off an AfD, but only if the AfD was properly executed - this one was not.


 * Lastly, I don't see why an AfD can be held just a month after a fair DrV was held. The DrV took about a month to complete, and just a month later, there is already an AfD.  Does this not defeat the purpose of the DrV?  If the wikipedia general public clearly voted to reinstate the article, why can the dissenters appeal immediately afterwards?

I feel that your decision was just, based on the facts you were given, but, with all due respect, you were not given all the facts.

Thanks for listening, cacophony 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! Yes, I am not at all satisfied with the way this thing was handled either, and if this things starts happening often, it will seriously undermine the integrity of the DRV/AFD processes. I would favor some discussion on policy change if this method becomes widespread. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong (talk 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Sjakkelle, I just wanted to say hello and thank you again for nominating me for adminship. :) --Fang Aili talk 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, no problem whatsoever. If I hadn't nominated you, I think it would just be a question of time before somebody else would. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Dear , Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Article has been kept..."
FYI, have you considered using oldafdfull? If you're choosing not to intentionally, my apologies, but I just wanted to let you know we have that. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! I know that this template is used by many, and the fact that it is somewhat eyecatching counts in its favor. But, in general, I don't use it because it takes some time to work out the parametres on that template, and occasionally I need to add some further comments which don't fit well into it. What people need to find on the talkpage is the link to the AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Sjakkalle, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! --Bhadani 08:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * -) Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Another smile (2 in one day?) Re: AfD/ZOMG


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Hi there, just a smile for you, for your closing of this AfD - not because I agree with your decision, that's coincidental, but because you wrote such a nice little explanation on your decision... not something I often see. (Ever, actually). Keep up the good work! -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help.

With the song articles I have made, I have simply made new articles and labelled them stubs for now. I have information here that I am about to expand on several of the articles while I leave the remainder as stubs for other to people to expand. I won't leave these articles stubs. I intend to write good articles for them all, then other people can do what they please with them. --Borgarde 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Logan Ramsey
Thanks for adding the cats and catching the typo :-)-Bri 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Need admin help
Hey there Sjakkalle! You were one of the first fellow admins I could spot on the recent changes list as being active right now. Could you respond to my WP:AN/I request? Thanks in advance if you can. Harr o 5 09:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my User page after it was vandalized. First time I've been vandalized and it wasn't even very interesting. :-) -- Gogo Dodo 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks, believe it or not
Thank you, Sjakkalle, for giving of your time to take part in my RfA. While I am happy that wikipedia as a whole reached a consensus to allow me to perform administrative tasks, I will keep in mind everything I have learned through the process, of which you were a part. Please feel free to provide constructive criticism. Thanks again, -- Avi 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chess
Hi! As you're interested in chess, maybe you can help out and give the article Marko Klasinc some context? Thanks, Punkmorten 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Andrejj has already done so. :-) I'll look more at it some time. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops
Very sorry about that, I was fiddling with comment inputboxes, that was supposed to go into my sandbox. Appears I accidentally used a creation inputbox (now fixed). You deleted before I even managed to get a db-author onto it. So, um, thanks and sorry! Luna Santin 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Can happen with all of us. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to User:Luna Santin/Sandbox, so that you can continue the testing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, I'm gonna stop fiddling with inputboxes. Will find another method. Regards, Luna Santin 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just wonmdering why everyone is so uptight about my template. Is there some userbox law that I am unaware of? And don't say that it's because only I use it; I have about 6 other users I created the template for who haven't had enough time to do so. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is meant as a joke; I do not personally subscribe to using the Scourge at all. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 10:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have responded here. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion/Current events in Hong Kong and Macau
Hi consider applying the same threatment to the residual redirect of Current events in Hong Kong and Macao, unless we need to go through a formal nomination and voting process all over again? Thank you in advance! ;)--Huaiwei 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It's done. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :D--Huaiwei 13:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Continued
Cool. Understood. The reason I reacted with "dickhead deletionist" to the first guy who deleted it was because he didn't actually provide any reason for its deletion. Thanks for your assistance.

Happy Wikiing.

Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 11:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Current events in Hong Kong and Macao
Re - Considering the fact that there has never been unanimous support to rename the project, or to exclude Macao, I'm afraid the better way was to merge history back to where it was originally located, i.e., current events in Hong Kong and Macao. The project did have content about Macao, but it was deleted by other users. Even worse, by changing it to another title after merging history, archived pages (e.g. March 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao) are cut off from the project. Even if there were a consensus to split the project into two, it's not a good thing for Hong Kong to "inherit" the past of the project. &mdash; Instantnood 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Even if there were a consensus to split the project into two, it's not a good thing for Hong Kong to "inherit" the past of the project." By that theory, no article in wikipedia will ever get split off.--Huaiwei 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand both views pretty well. The point with that close was that there was a move done through copy-paste, and that needed to be fixed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. But it should be merged under it's original title. Renaming is another thing to be dealt with via WP:RM. &mdash; Instantnood 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The chief reason why Instantnood goes to this extent is because inherently, he did not agree with the renaming of the article, against the views of others Talk:Current events in Hong Kong. Granted the process to rename the article is not perfect, the request for renaming is a done deal, which he refuse to accept, and attempted to revert based on nothing but technical flaws in the renaming procedures as above. I think it should be fair for other wikipedians, Sjakkalle included, to be liberated from this kind of underhanded tactics, especially in their talkpages. I hope he may bring all discussions back to Talk:Current events in Hong Kong, and dont antagonise individual wikipedians further.--Huaiwei 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The original article and the fork should be merged under its original title. No matter I agree or disagree with the renaming, the article should be merged under its original title. &mdash; Instantnood 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, I have moved the page back. IMHO, a separate move request should be filed. &mdash; Instantnood 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And with all due respect, I have taken the liberty to move it back again given past consensus in discussions in the talkpage.--Huaiwei 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at Talk:Current events in Hong Kong, and discovered the existance of a RM too late. Sjakkalle, could you assist in moving it once more back to Current events in Hong Kong and Macao just for the sake of respect for wikipedia procedures? Thanks and sorry for the trouble.--Huaiwei 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be noted of this null edit that prevents the page to be moved back, presumably an attempt to avoid the matter be solved through proper Wikipedia procedures. Thanks for your attention. &mdash; Instantnood 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear your explanation on how the above should be "an attempt to avoid the matter be solved through proper Wikipedia procedures."--Huaiwei 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An RM was already in place. Yet you disregarded it, and you made a null edit to prevent the article from being moved back to its original title. &mdash; Instantnood 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For RM, see below. I kindof found it hilarious that you used the exact same reasoning as an excuse in . As for that purported null edit, I removed a irrelevant spacing. If you have an issue with null edits, then perhaps you may wish to review your own editing practises? It probably gives clues as to why you would assume bad faith in my edits.--Huaiwei 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of null edits to stop page moves has been prohibited by the arbitration comitee (Requests for arbitration/AndriyK), so I will delete that one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To Instantnood, don't move war over this, I did not delete the redirect to allow move wars to continue. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sjakkalle. Since the original article and the fork should be merge under its original title, and AfD is not the place to decide page moves, please kindly help move the article back to its original title. Thanks in advance. &mdash; Instantnood 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry about the belated response, I have been a lot off lately. I think it might be better to open an article RFC on the article's scope. I think I will do so, but it will take a few minutes to set up. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Thanks for filing the RfC. They are two projects from August 1, 2006 onwards. &mdash; Instantnood 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement
"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], [ Phr ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

Sloan elected to USCF Executive board
I added some paragraphs to his biography (Sam Sloan) about his success in the recent USCF special election. This addition includes a long and unflattering quote from Susan Polgar about Sloan's election result. Polgar is a very respected chess person and so I think it's appropriate that her views be included, but maybe the quote that I used is too long (I wasn't sure what parts to trim). Please take a look at it and edit as you see appropriate. Phr (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I will say that I am not a member of the USCF, but of the far more peaceful Norwegian Chess Federation (which with only 2000 members is so peaceful that there only once has been two candidates in the election for the job as president and where the loser was given a large round of applause and an award for his services.) My opinion on whether Sloan's election to the USCF board was a good thing or a bad thing probably won't count for much.
 * Nonetheless, wearing my "Wikipedian" hat, I think that only adding quotes critical of Sloan's success, without adding anything about who supported his election is unbalanced and therefore dubious under the neutral point of view policy. In general I don't think that a master or strong player means that ones voice should count that much more than an enthusiastic amateur. However, I agree that Susan Polgar is a very respected and famous chess personality, and that respect comes from more than just her playing strength at the board, and her efforts in chess organization make her a more significant voice than an average grandmaster. Even with that in mind, I don't think that I would add such a large chunk of her opinion into the article, because it makes the commentary on the election result unbalanced. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You looked at it just now?  Several hours ago I replaced a long Polgar quote with a shorter one, and added some stuff from Sloan's candidates' statement (published in Chess Life magazine and sent to all USCF members), so I want to make sure you saw the current version.  I might expand the part from Sloan's statement.  There's something of an uproar in the USCF right now, sort of as if Willy on Wheels had been elected to the Wikipedia Arbcom based on an uncontested candidates' statement, and then users who had previously never heard of Willy's history started finding out about it afterwards and demanding to know what the heck happened.  My own attitude is that USCF has traditionally been run by a useless bureaucracy and Sloan will at least stir things up, so I'm less upset than some other people are.  I'm trying to find some verifiable statement from a Sloan supporter to add, but those are hard to come by. Phr (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, sorry for the belated response (my contributions are very sparse and intermittent right now so I was offline when you posted the last message). It was the updated version I looked at, and I felt that Polgar's view was given too much space in the article, giving that much space (a few paragraphs) to the opinion of a single person who opposed Sloan's candidacy is a bit dodgy when looking at WP:NPOV, but that is just my opinion. From looking at Sloan's activity, I do think he is sincere about his opinions, so I don't think he will do anything to ruin the USCF. At best, a stir up might be what a large organization needs now and then. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Technology College Redirect
Hi, you recently added a redirect to Technology College. I believe that it shouldn't redirect to Institute of Technology, as they are not synonymous. There are various UK education links pointing at this page, which refer to Specialist Schools, and they should not be redirected in this way. See Specialist_school for further info. Thanks --192.85.50.2 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You know, I think you are right, and putting the redirect there was a mistake. I added the redirect because somnebody kept adding nonsense at the article site ("GAYGAYGAYGAYGAY"), so after deleting the nonsense, I added a redirect in order to discourage recreation there. I apologise if the redirect discourages the creation of a legitimate article on what is certainly a real topic. It is possible to create an article form a redirect, but since redirects which might be confusing are bad, I will delete it now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey slap
Hi, I have changed your plain text about it surviving AfD, into the appropriate header. Take a look at Talk:Turkey slap --Deon555|talk| e | Review Me! :D 05:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalist vil ha tak i deg
Det er en journalist som vil ha tak i deg. Jeg sendte en mail, men vet ikke om du har fått den. Kunne du maile meg på Chris(dot)Nyborg(at)online(dot)no; hvis du ikke vil snakke med ham hadde det vært fint om jeg i det minste kan si det til ham, så kan han se seg om etter en annen vinkling. Cnyborg 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Grove school
my teen may be attending the grove school this fall...i'd like to talk with you about your experience there. pls contact me at ariel0@yahoo.com. thanks
 * Sorry, but I think there is a bit of confusion. I have not attended the Grove School in Connecticut (I have in fact never been in CT). The elementary schools I have attended in the U.S. are Franklin in Madison, WI (I was five then) and Graham Hill in Seattle, WA (I was nine then). Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith
Could I please ask you to have a look at Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles as it's getting out of hand, people add new articles to it in the middle of voting, and most of the voters simply state gamecruft. One even said "People who don't play, don't care about it." which is an extremly biased attitude to have. The whole nomination is bad faith, and should be made void. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like A Man in Black has already declared it a mistrial. Considering how that debate has broken down, I can only commend AMiB for a good call. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. Havok (T/C/c) 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference
Hi Stifle. Hope this reference will do, for now at least. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. You didn't need to run it by me, but thanks for getting in touch. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)