User talk:Splash/Archive1

STOP VANDALIZING the List of Motion Picture Company Parent Companies!! You do not know what you are doing; if you cannot have the decency to contact me about this list, then do not act on an ignorant impulse. Spend your time better on the Open Tasks at the Village pump which no one bother with, instead of harrassing me while I am actively working a project. Rich Wannen (aka 12.73.194.204) 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh, my first comment. I feel valued, now. I've replied on your talk page.-Splash 03:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has since been speedied, so I wasn't vandalizing. -Splash 14:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

VFD
Hello Splash, you forgot to sign your comment on Votes for deletion/Neary. Leithp 15:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done.


 * Vanity articles have to go through VfD at present. If you disagree with this policy - and I'm guessing you obviously do - see the current discussion about expanding the speedy delete criteria. Thanks. Harro5 July 2, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
 * I also moan and groan when I see this stuff and know it should just go straight away, but unfortunately policy is policy when it comes to CSD. Oh well, at least the articles get deleted eventually. Harro5 July 2, 2005 00:17 (UTC)

page Steve Thomas
plees give this page a chace to be grate!! you can add mor imformation to this page from This old House web site good place 69.115.115.236to stert is http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tvprograms/tohclassics/bios/article/0,16528,420214,00.html

I was making this page and you just jup in that is not plite, plees give peaple a chace to make a page.

by user 69.115.115.236
 * v'Ie reeplyed on ur tlka egap.-Splash 17:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has since been speedied. -Splash 14:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

More vandalism
I also ask that you stop vandalizing Anti-Elvis. It is a legitimate concept and is discussed at length in Mojo Nixon's popular song "Elvis is Everywhere". Kurt Weber 01:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page.-Splash 01:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since both of the above pages have been speedied, they weren't vandalism, but Kurt Weber seems reluctant to admit so.-Splash 14:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Anti-Elvis was eventually deleted (almost unanimously) via VfD.-Splash July 1, 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-other
Based upon your comments, I believe that you meant to vote "keep," but inadvertently typed "delete." &mdash;Lifeisunfair 18:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction! :-) &mdash;Lifeisunfair 21:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up!-Splash 21:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

VFD Yale Marching Band
Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to vote twice. --GrandCru 00:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my talk page :-) Will => talk 10:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -Splash 13:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

thanck you for helping me with redirect 69.115.115.236 01:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I left a message on your talk page about registering if you'd like to. But do ignore the earlier messages there - they aren't directed at you. -Splash 01:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Branch Davidian
Going ahead with the proposed change will speed up the process of achieving a consense whether or not to sanction it. My experience with other proposals is that, especially on this article, there wasn't really much discussion going on once a comment had been posted. So long, Husalov

Please don't undo admin speedy deletions (Christian Sillyman Mayer article)
Hi,

You undeleted Christian Sillyman Mayer and put a speedy deletion tag on the article after I already speedily deleted it. Please read up on Wikipedia speedy deletion policy before doing such actions. The policy page states that Sysops may immediately delete a page, so long as it satisfies one of the following criteria. In this case, the criteria was "1. No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters). See patent nonsense." Thanks for you understanding. Bumm13 01:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This was just that thing that happens when a page is speedied by an admin while someone's sticking a speedy tag on it. Sorry - I don't want that kind of thing around any more than any one else and am quite happy that you speedied it. -Splash 01:23, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for you vigilance :-) Bumm13 01:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cfd:People by surname
I have added all the child categories to the Cfd, in case you wish to adjust your vote or comment. Cfd People by surname. I have also added two exceptions to be considered. Thanks. <> Who ? &iquest; ? 3 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
 * Thanks &mdash; and thanks for the hard work digging out those two exceptions. I've extended my vote, but think the Howard family should still go for the reasons I've given in the CfD.-Splash July 3, 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Analog stuff
Hi, I wasn't aware that I was creating redlinks. Where do they occur? I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply here.--Smack (talk) 4 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)


 * In the version of Modulation just after you disambig'd it (I've changed it since): here; you had digital modulation and analog modulation.
 * In 2G you have analog data
 * In In-band on-channel you have analog radio

That may be all, but I haven't been right back through your edit history. More generally, though, where you have linked to digital signal, this is a very stubby article and the contextual meaning of the word is dealt with much better at digital (which is not a disambig page). -Splash July 4, 2005 22:17 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've gotten a little loose with my choice of link targets. This is what happens when you don't look before you link.  There's a page on analog television, so I assumed that there would also be one on analog radio.  I'm aware of the sad state of Wikipedia's treatment of signal processing in general, but these days I hardly have time to disambiguate links to Analog, let alone sit down for an hour and write a good article. --Smack (talk) 6 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads ''An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead.'' Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote if not. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 09:54 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Been and voted. -Splash 5 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the reminder! --Isolani 5 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

VfD on The Poppykettle Papers
You VfDed an article that I wrote. I suspect that you did so mistakenly, and I ask you to withdraw your request for the following reasons: Please, I try hard to remain optimistic about my contributions to WP, but if folks like you are going to come along and not contribute, but tear assunder... well, there are more rewarding hobbies. -Harmil 6 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
 * Looking at my work I think you can see that I'm not one to take VfDs lightly. I try to rescue only the articles that I truly feel are deserving (if often horrid spam when they start as Poppykettle was, which is why I voted to redirect it).
 * If you look at my voting record, you'll find that I'm not a soft-touch all-keeper. I vote delete with extreme prejudice when I feel it's called for.
 * My article is pure NPOV
 * I have no relation to the original author of Poppykettle
 * This book is realatively minor, but WIDELY renowned compared to much of the SF and Fantasy literature that is routinely listed in Wikipedia
 * This book was illustrated by a notable illustrator.


 * I've replied on your talk page.-Splash 6 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B
You voted or commented on Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or  Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)

VFD
I've expanded the article Grafton Bus Crash that you voted to delete. Please look again and consider changing your vote. Thanks. --ScottDavis 6 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
 * I've already changed my vote to keep in light of the rewrite. It would need moving to the correct capitalization, though. Thanks for letting me know. -Splash 6 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

LSOL.com
Hmmm... you and I seem to be at odds recently on voting. I hope we can come to an understanding on this one, since you've obviously been mislead by some seemingly simple statistics. As an example, you gave the Alexa ranking of LSOL.com to defend its lack of notability. Clearly, though, we need to look at articles that are specific to a topic or sub-culture from a perspective of their importance to that topic or sub-culture, not in a vacuum.

Given that, please see the Alexa rankings of the other garden train sites. The top Google hit comes up as 2,862,694. The second is 4,861,714. I assume that you listed LSOL.com's rank in order to demonstrate that it was not the most popular of the garden trains sites, but you seem to have demonstrated quite the opposite. Thanks for the help, I guess :) -Harmil 6 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)


 * The VfD was ended the same minute that I added this note to your talk page. Nevermind, and sorry for bothering you. -Harmil 6 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)


 * Regarding your update to my talk page:


 * Hrmm... I see your concern on the first point, and I'll re-word.


 * On the second point... I guess I spread my responses out too much, since I can't find the one I'm thinking of, but I am sure that at one point I said that I was refering to your destructive rather than constructive contribution in the context of one article, not in general. I would never be that harsh in a medium which is already so easily mis-interpreted as hostile.... -Harmil 6 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Schmidlin
Your comments on Votes for deletion/Schmidlin intrigued me. I guess your interpretation is good in the sense that it keeps us from having swelled heads, but ultimately Wikipedia honors a person or topic any time we create an article for them. We should not do so because we feel someone deserves a pat on the back, but to acknowledge their notability is to honor their accomplishments. That's really all I meant. Thanks for your comments and happy voting! -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Michael Lohman
I would ask that you reconsider your vote at Votes for deletion/Michael Lohman. You said "Also had little or no impact outside the immediate locality." - I have changed the article and I believe it now demonstrates the impact that took place. Thanks, Sirmob 7 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've taken a look. But I've decided not to change my vote (for the time being) since locality was not the only grounds for my delete vote. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

CSD
You are absolutely right. Each proposal should get two weeks from the moment it was originally posted. I'll make sure the new one does. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 7, 2005 17:55 (UTC)
 * Done. Note that this is not, technically, a CSD proposal, but one for a new mechanism - so I'd be okay to have it run concurrently. It ends several days later, and has been reworded to be totally independent from other votes. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 7, 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Spectrum
Bah. Now this is the third user talk page that this thing has spilled over into. I've moved the bulk of the discussion into Talk:Spectrum (disambiguation). If you don't object, I'll merge the content that's on my page into that page and carry on there. --Smack (talk) 8 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
 * Sounds good &mdash; see you there! -Splash 8 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

Machine Poets
Just dropping in to say thanks for the kind words, re: VfD on Machine Poets. Cnwb 8 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -Splash 02:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

verses
Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

9 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. Hmmmm. I'll go and have a look. But thanks for putting the VfD together! -Splash 9 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I'm a natural dramatic, so please don't take my 'stress' for 'distress', as it were. I've actually been Wikki-ing (that is so not a word!) for quite a while now, just new here. People get a little heated about re-factoring around here, it appears! I'm used to a bit more 'move everything around because everyone is going to end up poring over the revision history anyway'. Oh well, won't make that mistake again. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

Re: Star Wars
Hi Splash, I don't think being an admin necessarily means I have a better grasp of policies, so you're perfectly rigth to point out that I may have overstepped that rule :P I agree that inserting a POV section by itself is not vandalism, but reinserting the section over and over again against an overwhelming consensus from other editors (look at the page history, this has been going on for days) is not what I would call good-faith editing, so it felt morally right to risk a breach of the 3 revert rule...but of course that was a rather fishy move, and if someone wants to report me and I'm blocked for a while, I'll accept that slap on the wrist because I know that the last revert was not the perfect thing to do. The question, of course, is what the perfect thing to do might be - the user in question is a well-known and self-confessed vandal who constantly switches IP addresses, so blocking is not an option (and of course blocking a user for what might be viewed as not being vandalism is also pretty controversial). I guess the only thing we can do is wait until he grows tired of adding that section... -- Ferkelparade &pi; 00:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

thanck you for helping me with redirect 69.115.115.236 01:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Poppykettle Papers
Regarding The Poppykettle Papers, please give Poppykettle Festival a look, and feel free to confirm my research on the Web. You'll note that the festival is not widely discussed on the Web, but that's not shocking for a grade-school festival. It is over 20 years old, has commercial backing, and attracts thousands of participants every year. Would you re-consider your vote regarding the notability of The Poppykettle Papers on this basis?

PS: Oh, I forgot to mention that there's also a fountain that was erected to the mythical landing site of the Poppykettle in Geelong, Victoria. -Harmil 16:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page; I've changed my mind and my vote. -Splash 02:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

WMC's RFAr
Just to let you know, the RFAr was brought against WMC - the result was a ban from editing climate change articles on the person who brought the RFAr, a ban from Wikipedia on another opponent, and a revert parole on WMC - a parole which was instituted by the ArbComm without substantial findings of fact against WMC. If you look at the case, WMC's main "crime" was defending Wikipedia from POV pushers. The wheels of the ArbComm tend to crush all parties. Guettarda 23:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. -Splash 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it does not look good - an anon who was trying to POV push (as I see it) on Michael Mann (scientist) registered to oppose him, among others. I think he has made too many enemies - and I believe that those enemies were made working remarkable hard for the benefit of Wikipedia.  Not to excuse his edit warring, but the ArbComm actually made it worse by threatening anyone else who got involved with inclusion in the ArbComm case - which meant that Vsmith and Marco Krohn, who were editing alongside WMC ended up withdrawing.  When you force the other participants out it tends to make the edit war look more one-sided.
 * I appreciate your replying to me, and your considered response. I think that William is the type of person that Wikipedia badly needs - he plays an important role in helping us avoid the deluge of junk science.  Of course, opposing these people earns him enemies.  Given your background I wonder if you might be willing to lend a hand in some of the areas which earn him enemies - notably things like [Aetherometry]], Autodynamics, Dynamic theory of gravity, Hydrino theory amd the deification of Tesla.  All the best.  Guettarda 02:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Steven Spielberg's films
As the result of a dispute over its previous TFD, the template showing Spielberg's films has been folded into a discussion of similar templates and renominated for deletion. I am contacting everyone who voted on the original TFD so that they will have another chance to make sure their opinion is heard.

The new vote is here.

Dragons flight 01:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, though you have probably noticed, that I have been and voted. Which rhymes ahem . -Splash 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

CFD 2005 news
As someone who voted for the deletion of Category:2005 news and/or Category:2004 news, I'd like to point you to this discussion regarding their deletion. Apart from the "politeness" aspect of my listing the categories without first consulting their original creator (usually I do so, but this time I didn't), I'm wondering if you have any second thoughts given what you read there, or if you wanted to weigh in with your own opinions or questions. - dcljr (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. OK, thanks for letting me know. I think, though, that seeing as the debate appears to have gone cold, I might just leave it there I think as I'm not convinced by the reasonings given. Additionally, I'm not sure of the policy on re-creating a deleted cat; does it go to VfU? -Splash 17:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, since undeleting the category won't put any articles in it. I assume you'd just re-create the category and re-categorize the pages that used to be in there. - dcljr (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Jonadabs
You recently voted on a VFD concerning the above. You may, or may not, have an interest in a related RFC - Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. 22:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on the RfC, but I'm not nearly involved enough in the issues you raise to be useful as it stands. -Splash 02:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

mere userling
You have somewhere between 2000-2500 edits, at a glance they look decent. If you had been here more than a couple months I would have no hesitation voting for you for adminship - all an admin has to prove (IMO) is that they won't go on a vandalism spree... Guettarda 17:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (For posterity's sake, Guettarda was referring (kindly) to a comment I had made on Cecropia's talk page and not to a request from me for a vote or nomination on RfA).-Splash 18:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Glass plate university
Thanks for taking the time to find some references to support keeping this article. I will take a look at them. I'm probably going to wait a day or two more to see what other VfD voters think before placing my vote, but I'm leaning toward "keep" with rename to plate glass. (The "glass plate" vs "plate glass" issue was brought up by someone on the article's talk page some months ago, but no one responded.) Quale 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yeah, I saw that talk-page comment. Renaming seems the thing to do though I think I've heard that terminology even less often than the still-obscure "glass plate".-Splash 18:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vfd on Steve Reich
Thank you!!! Yeah I deleted it. It's in the deletion log. Someone came back and made it into a redirect. So I'll put it on my watchlist as well. I might have to make it so that it cannot be recreated. Thanks for letting me know! I've only been doing vfds for a few days and I've already learned that the "game" with them is trying to get around the votes. No can do. :) Thanks! Btw, if you ever want to look at what has been deleted, go to Special:Log/delete. You can search by my username. --Woohookitty 23:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gray code
Your licencing is still incorrect. You can use only compatible licences together. The licences you've used are not compatible with each other. Read the excerpts from my talk page archive below:


 * is appropriate if you release the image and give up all control over it. is the default license for anything uploaded to Wikipedia (but need not necessarily apply), and  (or SA) are acceptable as well. Any of these are options. So, you can tag PD, or GFDL, or CC, or GFDL and CC. 119 05:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to expand on that a little. All of those options are fine choices -- it's entirely up to you whether to tag your images as GFDL or PD or one of the CC licenses. It depends on how much control you want to keep over the images.
 * Tagging an image PD allows anyone to use it for any purpose. If you don't care what happens to the image, you just want to give it to the world, then PD-self is an excellent choice. But some corporation could use your image in one of their products, and they wouldn't have to acknowlege you or pay you, so not everyone is willing to tag it PD. Tagging an image with PD is the same as giving the image away to the public at large.
 * GFDL is the default. It says that anyone can use your picture for anything they want, BUT if they use your image in a larger work (like an encyclopedia), then that whole encyclopedia has to be also released under the GFDL. (Wikipedia is itself licensed under the GFDL.) It's more complicated, but it (in theory) encourages others to release their own works under a free license, since if they want to use your images, they have to. Also, if a company wants to use the image, but is unwilling to release their product under the GFDL, you still own the copyright, so you could still sell them the right to use your images.
 * CC-by is sort-of like PD, but anyone who uses the image has to credit you. (But they don't have to pay you.) I don't personally care whether I'm credited or not, but some people do.
 * If you release an image under the GFDL, you can also release it under a CC license. But if you release it into the public domain, that's it -- you can't license it in any way, since you don't own the copyright anymore.
 * If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. – Quadell (talk) (help) 16:07, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  05:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for informing me. I've struck out my objection. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine (comics)
Over at Requests for page protection you've changed my request for protection on Wolverine (comics) to a request for unprotection. Is there a reason for that, since the page has yet to be protected? Steve block 07:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, I figured it was some sort of mistake. Cheers. Steve block 12:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Questioning opose votes in RfA
Hi Splash, I wanted to share a few thoughts about our discussion on challenging oppose votes on the request for adminship. I'm kind of surprised by your thoughts that oppose votes shouldn't themselves be opposed. My thoughts are this: Wikipedia works as a forum built around consensus; the RfA is the same. Consensus itself requires discussion and this should be an active part of the RfA process, which it is. However an overall distaste of that process does not seem reasonable. I'm sure it is true that many people over-react to negative votes and take it too personally. I'm sure it is also true that people who vote oppose and are questioned can take it personally. However neither of them should. There is nothing wrong with discussion and I think if you take another objective look at my comments (try not to look at it in the context of me retaliating, keep an open mind). If you still see something that you disapprove of I would actually like to hear it. I'm not going to jump on you, its not a threat or an invitation for aggression or some kind of trap, its a genuine request for information. There are no hidden messages or agendas, just upfront and honest communication. Triddle 20:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. -Splash 15:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Revolution games
I wanted to ask that you comment on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of Nintendo Revolution games, now that I've improved the list to disclude rumors. -- A Link to the Past 05:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, every game except for WarioWare and Camelot RPG I've listed with a source. But those two, are confirmed by NGCFrance. -- A Link to the Past 21:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Glass plate university
Thanks for your work on this - I have changed my vote on the VfD accordingly. 62.253.64.15 11:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. It was hard finding references as you say. -Splash 15:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello Splash, I'd just like to thank you for participating in my vote. Even if it was an oppose vote I don't mind much anymore about if I get admin tools as things going on outside of wiki that I need to pay more atttention to. However I hope you consider voting positively on Essjay and Who, they are fantastic users. I see you as a user are younger than I and yet I see you around quite often, you've earned my respect. Sincerely, Redwolf24 05:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA
Hi, thanks for the support. I noticed in the discussion, that you were not an admin. I need to check the admin list more often, thats twice I've made that misconception. I would nominate you, but have personal reservations about not being an admin and nominations, and discussing it beforehand. However, I would gladly vote for your support when the time comes (note, not because of your vote, but due to your contribs that I have seen, as if you didn't know that :) ). I mainly replied to your comment, incase any other users had any reservations about the nomination, I figured since you did vote support, you were voting for me and not the nomination.  Thanks again.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  06:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The process lasts a week, and you've collected some heavyweight support so far. As Kbdank71 says, there are times and users where conflict avoidance is impossible, it's just unfortunate it had to be now.

Hi, thanks for the note. Yea today was my first official wiki-break day. :o I had some other stuff to do, so figured I would just let everyone have their discussions, I had made my point, and fealt it was pointless to argue further. Thanks for the note, and continued support. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 06:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

RfA

 * I'm going to reply here rather than the RfA; I agree totally about disrupting the RfA's (and I've said so before). I don't want you to think I'm mad at you or anything; I realize that it does look a little odd for both of us to be up for RfA at the same time and to be reciprocal nominations. If I didn't know that all the evidence of good faith was in Red's archive, I would have told him to wait, or let another editor nominate him. He's a good editor, as I think is demonstrated by the number of support votes he received, and I didn't nominate him until it was pretty clear (in other Wikipedian's opinion, not mine) that my RfA would pass. I don't think "if you nominate me, I'll nominate you" is good for Wikipedia, but that is not what happened here. I think the offers for nomination from other editors and that some very well respected users, admins, and bureacrats have voted for us should illustrate that our nominations were well-advised. As for Who's nomination, I was completely uninvolved in it; I wasn't even online at the time of 1) the discussions preceeding the nomination or 2) the nomination itself.


 * I'm not angry over this, nor will I harbor any ill will because of it, but I want you to know that making statements like the one at Who's RfA is likely to cause other editors to become defensive/hostile. Assuming good faith is a very important part of keeping the project moving forwards, and while I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest some sort of conspiracy, I think your comments are open to being interpreted that way. For myself, I think the whole issue should now be dropped, and will say so at the RfA. In the future, you can avoid this kind of misunderstanding by checking with the responsible editors before making comments that could be misinterpreted; if you had asked me about the nominations, I would gladly have explained to you the sequence of events.


 * Finally, this is meant simply at friendly advice; I don't want you to think I'm giving you a tongue-lashing or anything. Now, let's all get back to what we're here to do: write an encyclopedia. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Essjay completely. I've been nothing but polite to you and then you infer we're doing something. Plus what does Essjay even have to do with Who's nomination? >.< Redwolf24 20:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I already replied on Essjay's talk page. He considers the matter closed. -Splash 20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Advert
Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. Please consider if you wish to change your vote on WP:TFD now that the template has changed. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help on New York Navy Yard. I would have had to violate 1RR to remove that hunk o' junk a second time. Kelly Martin 01:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I bet it comes back shortly though. We've each got another 2 reverts, I suppose...-Splash 01:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Margo
I did a light edit and rearrangement of the Margo article. Maybe take a look and compare the versions. Let me know. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Margo
I vacillated awhile on whether it was a worthwile article. I just thought I'd clean up the junk and do some grammatical corrections. But I guess an actress with a few good credits and a relationship with a highly notable actor should be at least a stub here. The last comment posted on Vfd page was by the original author. He seems very cranky on his user page. See you around! Hamster Sandwich 05:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a message.
I've left you a reply on Who's talk page. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 06:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You have another message
I asked KBdank's opinion on an RFC on some frequently occuring CFDs. Please read it and give your opinion. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

TfD
Thanks very much Splash. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good luck with the RfA. -Splash 16:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * One more thing: I have often seen the TfD tag attached to many templates, and I sometimes see the TfD template message in articles. That was why I attached the TfD message to Template:20-cen. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't even know that the template was used in text. I thought it was something like the cleanup or NPOV template. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fooish Thingies
Please visit Categorization/By_country. I've contacted those people from the discussion at KBdank's page now; if everyone agrees on the setup, we can post public notices at WP:RFC and attract attention all over the Wiki. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Ian StJohn VFD
Hi I noted that you voted to delete the article which I am referring to, citing your reasons as him not being listed as an author on Amazon.com. May I therefore refer you to where he is listed as an auhor.

Thank You


 * Hi, please now see Amazon.com as they have been contacted and have since rectified there error. Newmhost 17:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Bosh
Please re-visit the discussion. Uncle G 10:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Have been and revisited and revotes. Thanks. -Splash 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Country cat page name thing
I'm sorry if I came off as making it sound like you were prejudging the issue, I merely meant that the name was a prejudgement since it has yet to be established whether we categorise by country, nation or nationality, and if I had moved to a page Categorisation/by nationality that would have been equally prejudging and POV. I do feel the move unnecessary as well in terms of any discussion getting bogged down. Maybe when that happens it could be looked at again, and a neutral title such as the American question be chosen to move to. Anyway, I apologise. Steve block talk 14:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Image licensing
Hi there, I saw you replaced the original licensing tags on those/that image(s). This message was what persuaded me to delete them. However, my understanding had been that if I multilicense, then people can choose whichever license they like and disregard the ones they don't like. One presumes, however, that they would always choose the PD license over the GFDL (why not to?). The NoRightsReserved tag I added because of the suggestion on the image tags page. I wonder if you can point me somewhere that actually explains this in a way I might understand? -Splash 16:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nichalp is wrong when he says that "You can use only compatible licences together". I suppose there would be no harm in removing the GFDL tag, though no harm in leaving it in either.  Perhaps Multi-licensing is helpful?  dbenbenn | talk 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Kittitians and Nevisians
Aren't they the new monsters on Doctor Who? Cheers, –Hajor 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! I wonder if they've seen any Tardi out there lately... -Splash 19:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

subst:vfd2
''Hi there. Can I just remind you to use rather than just  ? Not using subst: means that the edit links on the right of the screen don't work (though the edit button still does). I see you subst: the other parts of the VfD process which is good. I just went and subst:ed the two: Votes for deletion/Troop 26, Tulsa, OK and Votes for deletion/Troop 144 of Seattle, WA. Cheers!'' -Splash 22:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, somebody else mentioned this today too, thanks for reminding me.... I need to change the AutoVFD script I'm using.  I didn't realize that's why the edit link doesn't work.  Once again, thanks for the heads up.-- BMIComp  (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have an AutoVfD script? It wouldn't happen to open source, would it? -Splash 22:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was written by User:Korath, but I modified it a little to make it work. I also have warning tabs that I can click to automatically add warnings to User pages.  Check out my monobook.js for the script.  Note: the godmode-light/rollback script is broken right now. -- BMIComp  (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just in case you were looking at it a minute ago, I broke it for a second there when fixing the subst. It's fine now though.  -- BMIComp  (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

ignore this section
ignore this section, i'm testing things. -Splash 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No problems
Spalsh - I'm just trying to get something nailed down here, and I won't in the least bit be offended. Thanks for your comments though Manning 05:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sasquatch's RfA
Thanks for not not supporting me on my RfA! =) Cheers! Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 03:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

CSD stuff
Hi there! Now that the last two proposals (P1A/B) also closed, it may be appropriate to contact Jimbo regarding the now-finished policy. I believe the precedent is to request his stamp of approval on official policies. Since I wrote most of the proposal, it may be more appropriate if someone else asks him, from a neutral stance. So I figured I'd ask you and UninvitedCompany to compose and pass him a short message. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to. Admins have no special rights here, just an extra button or two. What counts is that you're a good contributor. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Incontrovertable evidence
Not a legal term. I put my 2 cents in the VfD. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 02:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

TFD
Thanks for your work, I didn't mean to imply you did anything specifically wrong. In the holding cell, you should just make it easy for the admin - removing usages, "dealing with" redlinks that would be left, posting a tally and linking to the tfd discussion/result. This allows them to easily confirm everything with a quick double-check, and then hit the button. Thanks for your work on this. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:BeerBox
Hi,

You recently asked on WikiProject Beer whether you should move the BeerBox template to VfD, as it hasn't been touched in a while. I appreciate your suggestion, and in general it's great that you're cleaning things up when they're unnecessary/obsolete, but I hope you can bear with us, as this template is still in development, and hasn't been touched in a while simply because we're a fairly new WikiProject and are struggling as it is to update a lot of articles/templates/discussions/etc. Also, the Wikipedian who started that template has been busy lately, and we don't all have the expertise required to create templates, but I believe we will get to finishing up and using this template, hopefully fairly soon. Thanks for your patience! --Daniel11 17:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

CSD revert
Why did you revert my CSD on Labrador Adventure Route? It seems to fall under the guidelines of CSD, and even if it did not, it clearly does fall under VfD, so you might have just transfered it. OR do you automatically discriminate against people not logged on? 132.205.94.174 02:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it fit criterion #2 under nonsense. Still, as you apparently read the article, you should have transferred it, because it makes sense as a delete candidate. That's why I thought you automatically reverted anon tagged items, as some are wont to do. As it is, the article was speedied on VfD... showing that not only was it an appropriate article to nominate, it qualified as an almost automatic delete. 132.205.64.154 00:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in the terminated VfD, User:Android79 made pretty clear that he thought it wasn't speediable either. I talked to the speedying admin (who has another message enquiring about strange speedies, but is a respected Wikipedian, User:The Epopt) who offered to restore the article, but I didn't push the issue since it was evidently deletable. I think perhaps the bit about being a Wikipedian's pet phrase managed to not register with me (or was not there) when I first came across the article, and so having followed the Wikilinks, I concluded it was a minor, but not invented, thing/place. Can I encourage to get an account; it make communication much easier! -Splash 00:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering what happens on VfD, I've come to believe an account is elitist, because of the exclusionary practices based on blanket cancelling of anon statements by some registered users, so I wasn't planning on getting an account. 132.205.3.20 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -Splash 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry if I was a little over-zealous. I'm trying to be a good Wikicitizen and I'll study the guidelines before I do any more speedy-deletion labeling. --- Mike 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users
Hi, I am wondering if user:12.73.195.116 and user:12.73.195.155 are in fact user:Rich Wannen who was also user:12.73.194.204. If so, it means he has at least figured out some things about how Wikipedia works. I'm assuming that you are aware of his history. I've archived some of it on my talk page if you are not. If it is Rich, I would suggest not provoking him in the WP:CFD debate. I agree that we should hold off on future chages from movies and cinema to film, and do one at a time. Also, I don't think the motives of whoever posted the request matters. What matters is the merit. -- Samuel Wantman 07:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the note about this note :). I left a comment on Kbdank71's page, I'm going to make a  log of their activities, and get more people involved, Radiant most likely.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  19:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment on the Cfd rv, I was originally doing it to remove the personal attack, but figured might as well do the sockuppet votes. I'll mark them instead. Thanks again.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  00:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

re jonathan downes article
(hope I'm doing this right as i am new to wiki) The article is not a user profile it's an article (I am not jonathan downes but he asked me to put the article up for him as it was related to other wiki articles, Owlman and Centre for Fortean Zoology.

(I am the information director of the centre for fortean zoology not Jon Downes himself)

RC patrol
Jeez, between you and Func, I'm never going to get to tag anything for speedy deletion. ;) --malathion talk 00:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR
But what do I do? He continues to redirect Tibet into Tibet Autonomous Region. Please help revert his edits. --Hottentot

About the article of Tibet
Dear Splash,

The article for Tibet is messed with historic Tibet, not for current Tibet. Officially, Tibet means Tibet Autonomous Region now. Please just look at any contemporary map to verify what I am saying here.

Also, I suspect some people with specific political view is purposely misleading readers to a biased historic Tibet. Refer to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hottentot to get some ideas. How can we expect neutral point of view from such a person !!?? --129.7.248.159 00:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What will I when I am obeying WP:3RR? Hottentot reverted it for more than 4 times already. He got what he want while I am still trying to follow your instructions. Maybe I just do the same thing there if no administor takes action. --129.7.248.159 01:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok 129.7.248.159, first off, my user page just has a list of Tibet-related articles that need to be cleaned up! It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. The historic Tibet article is not biased. --Hottentot

No edits in the last few minutes, may have either been blocked already or given up. If I see any more of that stuff I will block, though. Everyking 02:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.
You're more than welcome. Some folk just need revertin'! :) - Nunh-huh 03:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Just here to express my thanks for disfusing the bomb at Talk:Malaysia. Appreciate it. __earth 18:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope something comes of it. -Splash 17:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Slyder
Thanks for closing the Slyder VfD. I'm sorry to have put that in the wrong space, and also about the WP:NOT bureaucracy part. My question referred to a statics query wherin I would know how many accessed White Castle page through a search for a Slyder. It appears I still have much to learn about Wikipedia, and I thank you for helping me with this. Keep up the good work, and please forgive my appology. -mysekurity 04:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Thx for the message.

Have a good day! --Striver 17:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -Splash 17:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000000000 (number)
Hi, I've put my thoughts on the VfD page. Rich Farmbrough 00:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)