User talk:Spaully/Archive 2

NOR
I responded on Slimvirgins talk page, but she has twice archived my responses.

Here is my response on NOR...I am not presently engaged at the NOR page even though smear has been spread by the above user..because I made a promise to another editor two wait it out two weeks. I keep my word, so I am doing nothing there at the moment. Below is again my response after your post and the genesis of the problem...Now this user wishes to change the rules so that her edits in the future can't be challenged. How nice.

"If consensus forming was followed in the first place on April 10th by this user Slimvirigin, there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is really moot. Limiting this to admins is interesting but also wrong. Policy is not set in stone; it changes with Wikipedia and consensus. However it should not change on the whim of the few and changes should not occur without proper procedure. Procedure was not followed, people objected, they were called names and mistreated rather than have their objections treated in good faith. My proposal, for Arbcom to decide disputes or for a special committee to be electd by the community to decide them when they arise was removed by Slimvirgin to her archives. I think that is far better than allow any admin to edit policy changing it at their whim to suit their needs as this user here has be charged as doing by other editors. --Northmeister 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28" --Northmeister 23:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Northmeister, I've not been following this well enough to fully understand the cause of the current problem, and while there are undoubtedly some people to blame I don't want to get involved in dishing it out.
 * I think using Arbcom might be useful for problems that really cannot be solved any other way, but perhaps is not ideal for less difficult decisions. I also think that this being an even smaller number of individuals, there is even more opportunity for their consensus not being the same as everyone else's. This might also be a problem for select committees, which would neccessarily only involve a small number of people also.
 * Anyway it's another decent proposal and I'll keep a look out for people trying to set such a system up. If I can understand the issues over at WP:NOR(as the talk page is a mess) I might have a look there also. Thanks. |→ Spaully°τ 16:04, 15 April 2006 (GMT)

In re 168.170.203.60
seems to be back to vandalism. I see you have already warned him/her many times. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Peace. gunslotsofguns 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to have been a single offence this time, but thanks for letting me know. If in the future you notice a repeat vandal back for more I recommend you look at WP:AIV and if appropriate post them there so they can be blocked. I'll be sure to watch out for 168.. causing trouble! |→ Spaully°τ 16:40, 27 April 2006 (GMT)

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

 * Well done Spaully! Valuable mates in the Wikipedia community. I kind of feel left out... --Masud 23:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your advice?
Hello Spaully. Its been a while since i have seen any of your excellent contributions, i hope you are still around. If so and, as per your interest in animal experimentation issues, I wonder if you would mind having a look at a related mini project i'm embarking on? Your opinion would be most welcome. Thanks.  Rockpock e  t  07:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal
Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and WikiProject/List of proposed projects. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Coral GA
That's a great clean-up, the article's now looking much better!

However, whilst it's very nearly there, I still think there's room for improvement in the style. The lead could probably be cut down still further (I'd try to make it contain at most one or two short points for each section or paragraph - if there's anything in there that's not adding new and key information, cut it!); there are lots of other small niggling things (like grammar associated with occurrences of 'however') that would also benefit from a bit of re-writing. I appreciate that this is slightly tedious stuff, but a few well-executed re-wordings could improve the article no end. I'll take a look myself once I get the chance and make a few small edits; in the mean time, I'll look forward to seeing what you can come up with!

Verisimilus 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment again. I have trimmed a very little bit more from the lead, and TimVickers has changed the grammar somewhat.  I am not keen on removing more info as I think it would start to lose value as a summary of the article.
 * The 'however' usage is something I'm guilty of often, but as is the way I don't usually notice it. When you do get the chance to look perhaps this is something you could look out for as fresh eyes and a clearer sense of grammar would be good.  |→ Spaully₪† 22:02, 10 April 2007 (GMT)


 * If you ever want to expand the environmental threats section a bit, I've done a good bit of slightly-related work on the Great Barrier Reef article that could be used as a case study. -Malkinann 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That looks like a very good article.  If/When I get round to it that should provide lots of info. |→ Spaully₪† 21:58, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey Spaully. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Template for 3D computer graphics‎
The image you added to the Template:3D computer graphics‎ article was a nice touch for the series. However, the 3D rendering article has the same image with a caption. This leaves two of the same images on the one page. It doesn't bother me, but I'm sure someone else will probably want to remove it eventually. If the one from the article is removed, it raises the question of if the caption is needed and what to do with it. Someone else may change the image and the template for this reason. Just letting you know so you have the option of pre-emting an undesirable change. Oicumayberight 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I hadn't seen it in the other article.  I don't think that in itself is a problem, but will wait to see what it is replaced with.  I was very impressed when that came through featured pictures, one of the most realistic and complex scenes I've seen. |→ Spaully₪† 21:06, 5 May 2007 (GMT)

Welcome
Many thanks for the kind comment - as a newbie here it's good to know the pages are being seen and especially nice to know they are appreciated! Any constructive criticism would be really appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo2222 (talk • contribs)

Abortion article
There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:PRO-test_25_02_06.JPG has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.


 * Yesterday you tagged and speedily-deleted an image I uploaded probably over 18 months ago. I don't think speedy deletion is appropriate in such a situation where the uploader cannot reasonably expected to review the image and correct any problems - the main issue being the time of the upload.  This means that you cannot expect the uploader to remember the specifics of the image, and that it may have been uploaded when rules deemed it appropriate.


 * In this case I think a more appropriate tag and reason for deletion is that it is not in use, not has it been for a while. I write this as your message confused me - I didn't remember the image, your templated message seems quite similar to a warning(!), and is not at all specific to the file.  Maybe a better catch-all message could be written to stop this, especially in cases of long-forgotten images.


 * Thanks, |→ Spaully₪† 23:36, 1 November 2007 (GMT)

Coral reproduction
Thanks for helping clean that up. I had wanted to put something back into that section for a while but hadn't gotten around to it until yesterday. Again, thanks for the help. Esox id t 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I don't edit here much now so didn't notice the large deletion that crept in. I quickly amalgamated our texts and looks pretty good, though probably could do with better integration.  I might take another look when there is time but it might be a while.  Thanks for the descriptions.  |→ Spaully₪† 19:57, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

Image wanted
Hi. I noticed you commented on this engine image. You may like to comment on the planned new image here Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy the bubble tea!


 - down  load  |   sign!  has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

San check
I'm in the argument that will never end with ferrylodge, but I could proably use the application of a cluestick. Where, and how much have I fallen off the beaten track?--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have. Everyone is becoming increasingly irritated with the whole argument, and ferrylodge's incessant pressure, which is in danger of degenerating.  It seems a very good idea to try to bring this back to constructive discussion which it seems you have focussed on.  One of the problems is that the RFC is so large that no clear consensus can be seen, along with ferrylodge responding to every counter-point which devalues the whole process as it becomes a contest of who shouts the loudest.
 * Anyway, I think moving on as with New Sections is a very good plan. If you wanted comment on other aspects of the discussion let me know.  For my sanity I've tried to pull back from it largely and only comment when I feel it will be of use, I remember how this article drags you in... Thanks, |→ Spaully₪† 10:25, 7 April 2009 (GMT)

diff?
for this, I mean. -- SB_Johnny | talk  21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've clarified it on the talk page, I was referring to this edit by ferrylodge not that by TruthIIPower. |→ Spaully₪† 21:14, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

Thanks for the revert!
Thanks for reverting my change to attributed US deaths! I went to edit the US flu page, and it already had both the notice of the two pneumonia deaths, and also a link to the coroner's later determination that the deaths were not due to the swine flu. I should have checked Wikipedia first before updating it based on the web site of some radio station! Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion and abortion
I'm quite likely going to get permanently banned in the near future, so I'd like to encourage you to continue your efforts to keep the article properly neutral. Best of luck. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the charts
Hey I just want you to thank for your work with the charts. Me recent excel sheets with detailed figures is here:. Keep up the work! -- Grochim (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, impressive detail in the new sheets. I had just uploaded my excel file to allow others to create the graphs.  It's here.  I will link it from the image pages also, then anyone can see our info and help out.  Nice work. |→ Spaully₪† 13:22, 13 May 2009 (GMT)

Influenza-2009-cases
Can you please create an update to File:Influenza-2009-cases.png, it's two days out of date now. Thx, ike9898 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Further queries
Last update was 22nd May, this will not be updated again until the 26th. Due to website problems there is only an old version of the excel file is available for others to use (here). Apologies. |→ Spaully₪† 13:27, 24 May 2009 (GMT)

Swine flu vaccine straw genetics poll
I rewrote the vaccine genetics section. You can view it at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak. Since you said "remove or simplify", I was wondering if that is a simplified version that you would accept.  hmwith τ   21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Bihar
This user: User talk:Bihar 2010 seems to either not be reading his talk page or is just creating these articles with no info for the fun of it? Possible block is needed?Calaka (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so. I will report it probably on WP:AIV - it doesn't completely fit the bill but nothing quite does. |→ Spaully τ 12:01, 21 June 2009 (GMT)
 * It would have made things a whole lot easier if he said something. His complete lack of communication and continual creation of empty articles confuses me. But yeah, perhaps watchlist the talk page and if one more speedy comes out soon, block him for a month? Calaka (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:AdjustShift has just blocked him for a week, hopefully he will heed the warnings. It is pretty confusing, especially looking back through his edits as they are largely constructive if bordering on not being notable.  Seems pretty fair, hopefully he'll come back and edit constructively.  |→ Spaully τ 14:12, 21 June 2009 (GMT)
 * Let's hope!Calaka (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

warnings
Hurricane articles have them because people mistakenly come to WP to see where the storm is. Similarly, may the Washington metro collision might have one. It's a bit less important than a hurricane warning. User F203 (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I've seen them used more during the July 2005 London bombings, it might be of some use to people now. Anyway I don't care much for ZStoler's form of discussion so whatever.  You might find it better to post your comment on the talk page there though.  |→ Spaully τ 00:28, 23 June 2009 (GMT)

Flu charts
Hi, I see you have updated File:Influenza-2009-cases-logarithmic.png a number of times. Could you please tell me where the data is from? (In the image it says the WHO site, but I fail to find the data there). Thanks a lot, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I was updating the graph the WHO was the main source. Now I think it has stopped publishing specific figures for the H1N1 outbreak, you may be best looking at the sources used currently in the articles referring to it here as I've not really been following it much for a few months.  There must be archives of the data around though.  If you want the data file itself I can look around for it. |→ Spaully τ 17:03, 29 March 2010 (GMT)

POV tag
I have listed several specific reasons why Circumcision is pro-circ propaganda. Do you believe the current HIV paragraph belongs in the introduction?

Jakew "owns" the article by his obsessive actions, and controls it with a team of other conflicted interest editors (religious goals). Many editors have tried to fix the article, but give up. Please also see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 53, because there are several problems in the article warrenting those additional tags. The vote came out in favor of the tag.

Please note that one of my edits was to install the properly based and recently discussed POV tag (not a revert). The next was to reinstate the POV tag post Jakew's improper (he should bring his objections to discussion, as I did) removal of the tag (a revert). The third edit I made today in circ was to fix the intro as discussed, which is a new edit and not subject to the 3RR rule (an edit, not a revert).Zinbarg (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Alveolar type II cell.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Alveolar type II cell.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Marine life/Talk box
WikiProject Marine life/Talk box, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine life/Talk box and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Marine life/Talk box during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)