User talk:Themindset/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

First Warning
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

discuss - reach consensus - THEN edit
Look, I dont want to have an edit war. I dont think youve done anything but be selfish so far. my ICQ number is 200663115. I am at least trying to contact and sort this shit out with you guys. (and yes my apostrophe key is fucked today).. =P tactik 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not unilaterally remove photographs
If you disagree with the pics of notable DJs and musicians contributed by Alkivar, please refer to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. Do not unilaterally remove photographs from articles. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have, and I've gotten a third opinion, which is clearly in favor of me. Not only that, but I have NO DOUBT that the broad majority of wikipedians would agree with my assessment of those pics. They are awful. Themindset 22:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your "third opinion" would sure hold more weight if it came from someone with more than 4 edits to Wikipedia. Sorry.  The reason that these photographs are beneficial is that they depict a musician at a musical festival and are released as GFDL or Public Domain by the author.   There are no rights issues for Wikipedia to be concerned about down the road with these photos; the same cannot be said for something which might better suit your personal tastes pulled off the internet as "fair use".  Move along.   &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You do not have the right to unilaterally judge someone's "worthiness" to give a third opinion. I have followed procedure. Additionally, I have contacts with most of these artists from my days as a promoter and have contacted them for pics to be released for use on Wikipedia. You cannot unilaterally decide to go against THIRD OPINION. You need to make an RFC. Themindset 17:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the picture issue, Alkivar has mentioned that he wouldn't be averse to you photoshopping him out of the picture. Other people have done it in other pictures and he was fine with it. CryptoDerk 00:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Although the presence of the poster in the pics is the worst part, there's also the significant fact that the pics themselves are terrible, not "encyclopedic" quality by any stretch. Themindset 04:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * To compromise, I am leaving some of your changes as-is, with the exception (for now) of AK1200. Generally speaking, it is much better to use images from the Public Domain rather than something copyrighted, especially when baring in mind that there may/will be an English Wikipedia DVD released soon (just as hard copies of the German Wikipedia  are already available on Amazon.de), giving special consideration to potential licensing issues.  I hope you understand.   &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

i receive those pics from their respective agents. we have permission. i'm changing AK1200 back, it is more appropriate. i don't understand you, i really really don't. Themindset 06:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

additionally, i find your entire attitude distinctly distasteful. you indirectly insult me with terms like "sockpuppet", and you use passive aggressive phrasing like "I am leaving some of your changes as-is"... the changes i have made are all clearly better pictures, pictures that both fans and the artists would prefer to see. why oh why, mr radman, do you insist so consistently on promoting mediocrity? Themindset 06:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That the AK1200 image you've uploaded is "clearly better" is a matter of personal opinion, one which I disagree with. The one you have uploaded is fuzzy, the one that Alkivar uploaded is crisp and sharp in detail.  The one that you uploaded is verifiably copyrighted, the one that Alkivar uploaded is released into the public domain.  The choice is pretty clear.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this is a disagreement. We have a wikipedian who has put a picture of himself in at least a dozen articles (incidentily, mostly articles that relate to a style of music and community that I'm affiliated with) - this is not acceptable. But not only that, but you've insisted in the past that I find better pics. WELL I GOT THESE PICS FROM THE ARTISTS AND THEIR AGENTS. The copyright has been released for promotional purposes! Do you think that other wikipedians in other styles of music, or even other areas of interest, would tolerate someone putting themselves in all kinds of pictures? Why don't I go take a picture of myself standing in front of the eifel tower and put that on the Eiffel Tower page? Why don't I take a picture of myself next to Céline Dion and put that on the Céline Dion page? Those pics wouldn't last long - for the same reasons why these pics of Alkivar with all these drum n bass DJs have to go. They are not in the spirit of Wiki. Themindset 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say that though I don't much care for Themindset's attitude, I agree with this point. I have myself removed Alkivar's photograph with DJ Dimitri from the "Deee-Lite" article and replaced it with a CD cover. When discussing this with Alkivar I explained to him that the photograph was not a photo of Deee-Lite, but a photo of "User Alkivar with DJ Dimitri of Deee-Lite". It is not appropriate for photographs to be posted where 50% of the subject of the photo is not relevant to the article topic. And though he seems a nice enough fellow, it seems like a bit of braggary and self promotion for him to keep doing so. I think that he should be cropping HIMSELF out of these photographs before posting them, if he really wants them included on wikipedia. Bless his heart for trying, but that's just how I feel. You would never look up "apple" in an encyclopedia and have a big giant picture of some woman holding an apple, right? Pacian 10:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I do not know any of the users involved in this dispute, I would like to work to raise the quality of the drum and bass entries on the Wikipedia. Regarding the pictures, the frequent inclusion of one user in so many of the pictures looks like self-promotion, whether it is or not, and should therefore be jettisoned in favour of the promotional photos of the artists available from their websites.

Also, the quality of some of these articles reflects badly on the scene as a whole (this is not directed at any particular user) - Wikipedia does not function as a reference tool if articles on major musical figures omit biographical details in favour of assessment of their performances. The Grooverider article was lacking in this area.Will Lakeman 16:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

note: after 3 people, plus one more on the Ron Jeremy page have expressed their opinion against Alkivar's self-inclusion, Rad Man continues to revert the AK1200 article to the Alkivar picture. Themindset 00:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Radman might have got a bit offended by the tone of some of the discussion - although his first post here could also do with being a bit lighter on the dos and do nots. Either way though, a promotional picture featuring solely the artist in question is not a good idea for the Wikipedia. As he seems to obejct to the quality of the AK1200 picture, can anybody find another promotional picture (featuring ak1200 only) to add to the page? illWill 20:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

jungle music
Nice one. I might add a few little bits to it (maybe about the supposed racist connotations of the world jungle, and the word junglist), but otherwise I think shorter is better. Did you see stevekeiretsu's comments on my talk page? I think some of the suggestions are really good. illWill 21:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I already posted about it on your talk page, the motivation to finally edit Jungle music came from his comment... for sake of continuity, just respond on your talk page, i'm watching it. Themindset 21:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Debate over photos
User: Radman1 seem to be quite offended about the removal of Alkivar from the drum and bass photos. However, people keep talking about how bad it is that all the dnb articles contain shots of this guy, so i think they need to be replaced. I would propose soliciting a higher-quality shot of AK1200 from a photographer and replacing the shot with that - presumably Radman will have no objection then. I may then contact Alkivar if Radman1 keeps reverting the articles. Also, I don't quite see the precedent for public domain shots - all of the otehr musician pics are 'fair use' although there may just be a section of the Wikipedia discussion that I haven't found yet. illWill 02:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov Game 6
I edited the page yesterday because it is misleading to suggest that White had a better position in this game. It APPEARED to be a better position. I encourage you to do some more research on this game, you'll find that it was a drawn position. I'll update the page once more with the changes I made last night - Anon

It was not a drawn game. Do some basic analysis with any chess engine, and let it analize for 15 to 20 minutes. Also, try playing through the lines i mentioned. Themindset 20:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kinsella entry
I have simplified my entry Stephan Kinsella and made it more objective. I would appreciate any further input. I really do NOT want to aggrandize myself. Anyone who knows me knows that is not my style. The original entry that was unfairly deleted was more objective, but unfortunately it is lost. Nskinsella 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup: TheMindset: Thanks, you are right; I have now edited my entry Stephan Kinsella, to have less sentences start with "he" and "his". I aslo shortened it and cleaned it up somewhat, tried to make it more objective; but someone else in the meantime also added some comments, which increased the length slightly; I edited this as well as it was somewhat sloppy. Nskinsella 03:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your vote is still delete; I believe I have modified the page to satisfy your concerns. Can you please consider changing your vote to keep, as you mentioned previously? Thanks, SK --Stephan Kinsella 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been changed to weak keep. I still think that your entry is marginal at best, but I am an inclusionist and I respect your effort at rewritting. If you could clean it up even better, I would change my vote to keep or even strong keep.
 * Hmm, I may have shot my wad at the clean-up. Others with better skills hopefully will improve it. How about you, hmm? :) Stephan Kinsella 19:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Note
I had read your note on my talk page and then removed it - please don't repost. I didn't see any need to respond. :) A curate's egg 07:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Administrators
I'm glad you found my edit amusing. It wasn't intended to be. Could you tell me which statements in this paragraph you believe to be incorrect, and why?


 * If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you have no effective redress. There is no formal complaint mechanism or process for having such a grievance dealt with. You can express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible, but they can ignore you if they choose. In this case, you must resort to the notoriously slow and only occasionally effective Dispute resolution.

Adam 00:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You must be kidding, right? That's hardly the phrasing of wikipedia policy. Although I now regret not copying your paragraph to the talk page, which I will go do now. Themindset 03:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When I am kidding I will ring a bell so you know when to laugh. In the meantime, I asked you which statements in the paragraph you believe to be incorrect, and why. Can you answer this question? Adam 04:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone at all. To answer your question: "you have no effective redress" is not true, not in my experience. I find it somewhat distasteful that problems with a particular admin have led to this kind of vigilante editing of wikipedia project pages. But what I find much more distasteful is the way in which someone has come onto my talk page on the full offensive. And I do mean offensive in both senses of the term. Themindset 04:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was being mildly ironic - you should see me when I want to be offensive. Anyway, I guess we will agree to disagree on the administator issue. Adam 05:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Please wait until completion of VfD before inserting links to Chess Opening Theory Table other chess articles.
"Please wait until completion of VfD before inserting links to Chess Opening Theory Table other chess articles, it is only appropriate. Themindset 19:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)"

I disagree with you -- the VfD is no reason for me to stop editing per Wikipedia deletion policy. ThreeE 21:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

'idiotic googling' as a personal attack
Re: Votes for deletion/Chess Opening Theory Table

Not very becoming. If you had read my reasons, or even looked at my profile, you would understand how off the mark you were. I am an inclusionist, and my objections were that it was a misleading title. Your comment was offensive. Themindset 16:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Calm down, that's probably the mildest 'personal attack' you'll ever come across, even before the  ers ing change. I've read your profile, and now enlightened by the fact you like Drum n Bass... er... I mean label yourself as an 'inclusionist', have decided that my original reasoning was correct - the issue once again one of nomenclature and not original research. I accept the fact my comment should have been aimed specifically at the act of relying on literal string searches on internet pages as criteria for deletion (reason: ...only one google hit..., immediate response: I'd expected far more than just one google hit. Delete unless sourced). I certainly apologize if you felt that was a direct attack on you, but the method is common in VfD and the comment was certainly not aimed at individuals. In my mind the correct response to finding nothing on a web search on a specialist topic is to query on the talk page (which you did), or even the user talk page when it's obviously a pet project of a particular editor like in this case, and then wait a reasonable amount of time for a response - you put a VfD notice up a whole four minutes after asking. There's no rush to delete articles, and when it's not a clear cut case and the article is being actively edited, it does no harm to ask. Seeing as you've now changed your vote from delete, I hope you're open to this suggestion - even if an article is poorly named, it doesn't need to go through the VfD system to find that out. --zippedmartin 17:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sms.ac
>> we can use all the help we can get with 'Mr Anonymous', heh. Themindset 18:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * true, and that won't be difficult. in a way, our anon friend did us a favour by duplicating your entry on RFC ;-) Greenleaf 01:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Back again,

68.101.166.109 has changed wording of several of posts in the talk page, and had done the stupid childish kind of vandalism to the article page. I reverted the article page, unfortunately, I have to run, so could not take time to check individual changes to the talk pages. I reverted the most recent changes, but apparently there are some more around 4th September - you may want to have a look if your comments are intact after his changes on those days. Thanks. Greenleaf 06:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

SuperShadow VfD
Greetings: pawing through the SuperShadow edit history, I noticed you've edited the page in question before. I thought you'd want to know it is now the subject of a Vote for Deletion, at Articles for deletion/SuperShadow. If you want, you could stop in there and cast a vote. --Maru 22:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Christine Chubbuck
Are you the one who removed the photo of Ms. Chubbuck from the article?

If so, why???

64.167.31.148 00:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Christine Chubbuck
Ok, thanks for the info. 64.167.31.148 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

7800 GTX 512
I see you have reverted my edit on the Gefore 7 series page (due to the table). Instead of reverting my entire edit, why don't you "*add* the info"? I'm a nice guy, but this kind of blanket reverting is exactly what pisses a lot of people off. More importantly, the table is a comparison of the best cards from each generation, and hence the 512MB version should be included. Next time, try to improve the article, umkay? Thanks.the1physicist 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did post responsibly. Like I said before, the table compares the best cards from each generation, not the first cards from each generation.  Since the 512MB version is now the most powerful 7 series card, it should replace the regular GTX in the table.the1physicist 04:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the anonymous user who blanked the section about the 7800 GS most likely did it because nVidia just announced there would be no *PCI-E* 7800 GS. It's not vandalism, but an edit summary was in order.the1physicist 04:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome templates
There's &#123;{anon}} which you might find useful for your work too! --HappyCamper 02:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming on talk pages.
Oh no, I did it twice? Shoot. And I thought I was following the "talk" link from the newuser log, too. Well, thanks for reminding me to be more careful about that sort of sloppiness. The Literate Engineer 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

SusanLarson
Thanks for the tips earlier. I did not know about responding on their talk page. I do now :) I generally check back my last 50-100 or so edits every few days is how I was keeping up. Oh I borrowed something from ya. I hope you don't mind gave you credit the same way you gave Linuxbeak credit :) I also joined the Counter Vandalism Unit As it's what I concentrate on anyway :) See ya in the trenches -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Drum and bass merge
Hi, thanks for the message. I've been away for a while because I spent three 90-hour weeks writing my MA dissertation on the Wikipedia, and consequently didn't want to look at a computer for about two months. I'll check out the discussion on the dnb merge. Cheers illWill 12:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

''I will not reply to messages on my page that are not signed. Secondly, please do not post messages into sections that they are not relevant to. Thank you for your understanding on this matter. Themindset 08:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)''

And... yet you did. I'm sorry, but there is no tilde key on this laptop, and I sometimes forget to get one and copy and paste four of them. As for posting things in sections they don't belong.. uh, well I clicked the "Click here to leave me a new message" button you provided. I don't know what you want. Dan 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok then.

barnstar
Lol thanks for the message :D take it sleazy mang --Frantik 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (feel free to delete this message once you've read it)

Image:Djak1200.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Djak1200.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nv8200p talk 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You had replaced a free image (Image:Me & AK1200.jpg) with this fair use one. I understand why you did that but not sure it is the right course of action. I have listed other images at that you may have replaced such as Image:Me & Andy C.jpg at Images and media for deletion. Please join in the discussion. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please add your thoughts to the WP:IFD page. I lean toward that Wikipedia should not use a copyrighted image when a free one is available, but maybe this is an exceptional case. Just trying to get a consensus. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Latex
If the links come back we'll take it with the posters on the talk page. I'll keep it on my watchlist. Now I'll just have to clear out two dozen other articles that ended up on it after the massive revert I did due to the link spammer. :-P --J-Star 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball Stars
Your reasoning that baseball is an American sport therefore should use American spelling does not hold water. Hockey is a canadian sport and there are dozens upon dozens of articles in hockey wikipedia that use American spelling. Also, your reasoning that baseball is American therefore should use American spelling doesn't hold water in this case because Baseball Stars is Japanese. The only valid point you made is that in the game is spells it defense, not defence. The MoS is clear that the spelling and grammar used in the original, non-stub article is to be used (there are exceptions of course). In this case, it is Commonwealth spelling. But I really don't want to get into a revert war with you over this trival matter, so I am leaving it alone. Masterhatch 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, I just don't care enough. I was following the MoS on the idea that the orginal, non-stub article's spelling and grammar usage prevails. I also reverted because of your flawed reasoning. I also reverted because find it pointless (and a waste) when someone edits just to change from one form of spelling to another. But whatever. Masterhatch 20:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism
How to post photo and new articles? Counter vandalism on this site is good and bad, many times people who get stereotyped get screwed and their articles reversed, I see you wrong on chessgames, but they are not a good site. Anyways Wikipedia is owned by one person? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.87.66.101 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * I honestly have no idea what you're saying. I don't think wikipedia is owned by one person, although it does get significant direction from one of it's founders. You can learn more about this experiement by clicking: wikipedia. Themindset 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Misspellings
But if you don't make it any more difficult for people who misspell stuff to access the real pages, you're not encouraging them to use the correct spelling. It would be better to delete that page than to make it a redirect. Redirecting wrong spellings to correct pages only encourgaes incorrect spellings and acknowledges that they are normal. -- infinity 0 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Be Consistent
Many companies promote themselves on this site. Don't single out one because you don't like them. Be consistent in your application of Wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.116.140 (talk • contribs)

Vancouver neighbourhood maps
Sorry to orphan some of your maps, but I've made new ones, available from Commons. :) --→ Buchanan-H e  rmit™ .. Talk to Big Brother  06:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I used pink because of the white neighbourhood boundaries. I wanted to use light blue but the boundaries didn't show up too well (and the magic wand tool had trouble differentiating between the two colours). And a dark colour wouldn't work either because then the highlighted neighbourhood wouldn't stand out. Eventually I had to compromise and use pink, a colour I never intended to use to begin with. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / !?  18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

MDG Computers
Themindset,

I can't understand why you are up in arms about the MDG Computers article on Wikipedia. Have you read other corporate pages? What was so fundamentally wrong with the MDG Computers page? Neither configurations nor advetised specials were ever published. It was a general overview on MDG Computers. Please clarify your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.102.147 (talk • contribs)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Djshadow.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Djshadow.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Genidealingwithfairuse 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

mdg article
You keep on citing the use of pop-ups as the reason why the article/stub is reverted. This is very odd considered that you were the one that added the complaints.com link. Each and every time anyone tries to remove link(s) you revert the article back, citing the usual reason.

Please explain your actions.

Bodnarchuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodnarchuck (talk • contribs)

Confrontational tone
Can you direct me to the confrontational tone on my RfA that you are referring to in your oppose vote? Thanks, --ScienceApologist 20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you link to a specific instance of this? --ScienceApologist 08:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the evidence you point to was a perfectly reasonable, civil, and amiable discussion with a user who voiced legitimate concerns and an oppose vote based in part about whether I knew what recent change patrolling entailed. We had an exchange that was friendly, short, and informative. Now that's apparently viewed by you to be passive aggressive. How is having a discussion about the basis of a user's vote "passive aggressive"? After all, the dictum is to explain one's votes.


 * I also find your advice to me a tad quixotic. Basically you seem to be telling me to act like I don't want to be an administrator. Ironically, the majority of oppose votes are because, they claim, I'm not acting in a way that indicates that I want to be an administrator. So which is it? I just want to understand where you (and the rest of the usual suspects crowd at RfA) are coming from as I really can't seem to figure it out.


 * --ScienceApologist 08:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously trying to tell me that asking for clarification is off-putting? I'm trying to understand your criticism and now you're claiming that I'm "off-putting". --ScienceApologist 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you might have to re-evaluate what the difference is between stylistic turns-of-phrase and incivility. In particular, you could do with a healthy dose of assuming good faith. I am, frankly, aghast by the poor quality of your evidence, and was "seriously" worried with how you were interpreting exchanges. --ScienceApologist 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your civil comments and attempts to offer the olive branch. We will just have to differ on what qualifies as high-quality evidence, won't we? --ScienceApologist 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts
Hello Themindset. I want to offer you my observations about your exchange with ScienceApologist. It is possible that I have misinterpreted the situation and my comment is wrong. If that is the case then I do apologize.

Seems to me that you want ScienceApologist to sit still while users misrepresent the type and quality of his participation at Wikipedia. That is a concern because ill-informed people making off-the-cuff comments are a major problem in RFAs. Frankly, I'm pleased that SA has the gumption to correct any misconceptions. I see nothing overly aggressive about the comments. Please consider this comment as it is intended; an attempt to better communication between users not a personal attack on you. Take care, FloNight   talk  18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a given that the world is filled with people with different perceptions. Communication is the bridge across those troubled waters, right? FloNight   talk  18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is usually better to ignore that type of stuff. Why make a big deal about it since it is mostly a style issue. Some people write in a more description manner than others. We need all different types of people working together if we are going to achieve our goal of collecting encyclopedic quality knowledge and making it available free to the world. Why let something like this be a bump in the path towards our most important goal. Much better to look past such small differences. SA has been a steady Wikipedia editor for long enough to have shown that no damage will occur if given the extra admin tools. What else really matters? FloNight   talk  18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Drum and bass edits
Hi themindset AlexandertheP here. Though not from Chicago (my edits reflect no geographical preference in that regard) I was in the are in the early to mid 90s, and can personally attest to the strength and influence of the scene there. There were raves specifically tailored to jungle that had thousands of people at them (such as the Brockout parties) - as far as my knowledge goes, during the '93 and '94 period those numbers were only matched by Toronto and New York, no? Being a rather new Wikipedian (just signed up today, though I have been an avid voyeur for a while now), I'm not too familiar with the verfication policies on here - do know, however, that my edit was simply a matter of personal experience and not some sort of political move. I don't have quite the personal experience with the Chicago djs from that time (as I was a fan, not a dj - yet), and though I have met and spoken to and played with some of them in the years after, I don't know if I could be counted on to create fair and accurate pages for them. Is this an absolute requirement? Aside from that, I did find the dnb article as a whole to be pretty damn good. A few persnickety details here and there might be debatable, but for the most part I tried to restrain myself. I can't imagine how many people must have gone over and over this damn thing... and if "the scene" is anywhere near as political as it was around the century's close, things could easily get out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandertheP (talk • contribs)


 * Fair enough. I think one major problem is that a lot of those early Chicago djs, while significant contributors at the time, have kind of dropped out of the scene. I myself have as well, for the most part, though I do take a sniff around now and then. I'll guess that Phantom and Danny are still around, maybe Dj 3D as well? Anyways, trust me, it was kind of crazy back then - but isolated. If I find the energy, maybe I'll take up the research or try to point the right direction out. Nothing more annoying than undocumented history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandertheP (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Will do. AlexandertheP

Oops. I mean AlexandertheP 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

re:real sources
... one's a blog and the other one's the result of a Google search. Can you find a credible news source that explicitly states what you're saying? JDoorj a m    Talk 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well
And here I thought you wouldn't mind me telling Tony Sidaway where to put a sock; that's who my comment was directed to, since he's the one who's been defending using USENET posts as a source in Lumber Cartel. Did me saying that to Tony really offend (I'm sorry if it did), or did you misunderstand my meaning? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I can see the confusion. I agree with his arguments but not his civility in that thread, and was agreeing with Aaron Brenneman that he was arguing on two different sides of the reliable sources fence, depending on how he personally felt about the source. See Administrators noticeboard/Incidents for the referenced conversation. Of course, I probably shouldn't have been rude to Tony Sidaway either, but turning the phrase back on him seemed mild enough. Sorry about the misunderstanding! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sms.ac
(I copied this from Nagle's userpage because I think it is important to spread the word far and wide. Quality matters, and demanding quality is never an overreaction.)--Jimbo Wales 02:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the recent Jimbo-intervention at this article? Themindset 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Overreaction, I think. Sms.ac has sent out similar threatening letters in the past, and they haven't actually sued anybody yet. --John Nagle 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is absolutely not an overreaction to see an article with completely unsourced claims like that. QUALITY means something. --Jimbo Wales 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

was this comment on my talk page directed towards me?
Is this comment directed towards me? If so, I'm confused. I've made maximum effort to source all new material added to the article SMS.ac. Themindset 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, no, it was aimed at Nagle, and it was a total error on my part. I posted a big sloppy apology to him on the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit is one I would like you to study, and then discuss with me. I went to the source article to try to find direct textual support for the claim that "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." I did not find that evidence, because the article nowhere makes that claim. I did find evidence that the edit by the SMS.ac ip number was accurate and fair, i.e., it was a direct quote of the core negative statement on that matter in the article.

This is exactly the sort of sloppiness that I think Wikipedians should avoid.--Jimbo Wales 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks


User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup
Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.

Happy Editing!

Sean Black RFA
Moving this here to prevent gumming up the RFA page ...

Oppose. I'm opposing for the simple fact that I believe new users should wait a minimum of 6 months before applying to be an admin, and I believe it's only fair ask that de-admined (for whatever reason) users should wait the same amount of time. If I had to give a better reason, I would say that some of the language used by SB in the evidence seems a little harsh, and I would probably be upset if I was on the wrong side of those edits. Themindset 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that reasoning quite ridiculous. Sean Black isn't a new user and he has been around for a lot more than six months. He gave up the mop voluntarily and now he wants to continue doing good work with it; why should he arbitrarily have to wait six months? It doesn't make any sense. The situation with him isn't remotely comparable to the situation with a new user. Also, I disagree with your six month figure in general anyway. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you characterizing my reasoning as ridiculous - I believe what you meant to say was that you didn't agree with it. Many many users use the 6 month rule, and I believe that I'm entitled to my opinion without you making uncivil remarks about it. Also, I did supply an alternate reasoning for users just like you, so in the future please take such discussion to my talk page, as your comment did not even serve to "discount" my opinion. Themindset 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what I meant to say was "I find that reasoning quite ridiculous", and that's exactly what I said. I'm entitled to my opinions without you attempting to discount everything I say as being uncivil.  -- Cyde↔Weys  18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this made me laugh! All in all, I can see where you're coming from. I am surprised that others are not sympathetic to this rationale, even if they don't agree. Especially given that there are no real guidelines governing how oppose or support votes should be cast. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)