User talk:Tothwolf/Archive 1

Your Edits on Eggdrop
Great job! --BarkerJr (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009. SoxBot X (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

template:IRC clients edit
Hi,

Can you provide a test case for the problem you were trying to fix here? Navbox templates shouldn't need blank lines (or comments) to fix formatting errors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I had the same problem with all the IRC nav footer type templates. I also put all the templates into the Internet Relay Chat templates category so you can see all 4 of the nav templates there. The problem that kept popping up is the nav templates would have no whitespace below the last section 's text and the top of the navbox. If you included two newlines in the article, it would display with whitespace between the section text and infobox. Wikibots kept eating the extra whitespace and replacing the two newlines with a single newline. The workaround had been to include a comment between the two empty lines in the article. Adding an empty comment to the top of the navigational templates and removing the extra newline from the article body accomplished the exact same thing. I'm currently still working on these and plan to do some major cleanups and merge the IRC footer type templates, so if there is a better way to work around this display bug let me know so I can merge it into the templates. Tothwolf (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I see you've removed the comment that I added that fixed the problem. Look at mIRC and look at XChat. I'll wait on putting the comment back and removing the extra newline from XChat until after you've looked at these. I'll finish cleaning up the formatting on the other articles in the meantime though. Tothwolf (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge this is by design; adding newlines to the template itself causes whitespace when navboxen are stacked on top of each other. If you'd personally prefer a bigger top margin on navbox then you could add something to your skin preferences which would tweak that; however, "fixing" this on a case-by-case basis is obviously suboptimal. Let me know if you ahve any questions / suggestions. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I tested this case it didn't cause problems for stacked infoboxes. I'm well aware of how templates work and what unintentional whitespace will do to stacked infoboxs. I fixed a number of those last week. In this case, empty comments are stripped, it works around the problem quite nicely. I wish I could claim credit for the idea but I can't. Try it for yourself:   Tothwolf (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. This definitely isn't right. At any rate, it needs to be fixed centrally in navbox rather than once per template. I'll try pinging someone who might be able to help. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you see how it "fixes" it? There is definitely a problem in a template somewhere. Tons of navboxs use the comment workaround exactly how I did in these. I'll leave comments in the IRC navboxes for now since they fix the problem and don't hurt anything else. When I go to unify the IRC navboxes I'll probably keep a comment at the top of the template for other purposes anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've pinged the main contributors to the navbox base logic. While I can't argue that "tons" of navboxen don't use this workaround, it's far more practical to get this fixed centrally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (←) The reason the comment line seems to fix the problem is simply because it adds an extra white line in addition to the whiteline in the article; and two whitelines force a &lt;P> into the code (while one whiteline is ignored). That is indeed by design and not a bug in navbox. We could put the witheline in navbox itself, but that would potentially break stacking in derivative templates that already have such a comment, either intentional or not.


 * Ultimately, the best fix would be to add a whiteline in only the top navbox, but there is no way to tell wether a navbox is on top. It could be done in javascript, adding a margin in only the top navbox. But such a change needs consensus in WP:VPT or Mediawiki talk:common.js and I'm not a bog fan of adding javascript for such a trivial problem. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it better to let templates which have pre-compensated for this by adding their own newlines "break" while fixing the core problem? I imagine the vast majority of navboxen do not currently attempt to work around this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like most navbox templates don't work around it actually. I've been going over some that I thought did and it turned out they were transcluded after other templates used in the External links section in articles. Those other templates must have included one newline, which combined with the newline in the body of the article then forced the &lt;P&gt;. Tothwolf (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to msg.
Thanks for letting me know. It wasn't really important; I just needed to take out some trivial/biased info (which I easily redid). :) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick notice
Sorry for editing. Ribeka&Presario —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribeka&Presario (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hi there. I think I've seen your name pop up in AfD's and/or COI discussions. If you have a second can you please give me a hand with an active incident involving multiple Gliese IT SPAs? -- samj in out 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what I could do. I noticed the photo changes myself last night but wasn't really sure if I could be objective in determining if they were COI/Spam or not. I saw that Gliese IT had been edited by a number of users, including one brand new user, so it didn't seem too unusual that those editors might be trying to link that article into more of the existing articles. It looked like people were actively trying to build a new article (which with the way things seem to work now, is very difficult). I decided I'd see what others did with the photos and if no one changed them back I was thinking about changing the acer one back later this afternoon. The new photo just didn't seem to do as good of a job showing a netbook because of the camera angle. The acer photo shows the keyboard so you can get more of a feel for how small the laptop really is. Tothwolf (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, never mind - I'm dealing with it. Cheers. -- samj in out 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You were out of line today on Nottingham Forest AfD
My nomination of the article for AfD first of all did not do anything to disrupt Wikipedia, nor was it an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, nor was it an attempt to prove a point. There was sound rationale for my nomination, as plenty of other editors noted - specifically see JohnCD's reference to precedent. Yes, I have had a negative opinion of Wikipedia, but I blanked my thoughts on that because my opinion, while not completely changed, is changing, and I have continued to make constructive edits, what's more I have demonstrated collaborate spirit even in dissent (see the log for Poe Elementary School, Houston as well as my interaction with Whisper to Me) and have cheerfully accepted and learned from others' comments (see my response to Post Oak on the Nottingham Forest Talk page). Your comment referring me to WP:POINT was not only not relevent, it was uncalled-for, and dredging up an old deleted comment of mine from my own User Page is a biased attempt to discredit me and smacks of wikistalking. I respectfully but firmly request that you edit your comments to make them more neutral. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, because of the incivility issues, I have opened a Civility Complaint at WP:WQA, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham Forest, Houston. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SPA
I added the SPA template to his statement because it is a single purpose account. Look at the user contribution as you did mine. If you like to link to edits of mine you want backed up fill free. 16x9 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw his edit history. That doesn't mean that user is a SPA out to spam wiki. Many users start out editing on one or two articles they feel strongly about before branching out to work on other things. A better question might be do his edits add anything constructive to the article? From what I see, he slowly build the article up. Most spammers don't take the time to do that, they are interested in getting their link out there and that's it. Some might create an elaborate page offline and post it in one go (although normal editors sometimes do this as well). Tothwolf (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I read the template and not make up my own mean. I understnd the template to mean the user has not edited in other topics besides the one being discuss which is in the case.  I didn't call him a spammer by including the template.  But make what you will by googleing the username and ucoz, seems fishy. 16x9 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting quotes around his username to prevent google from matching random words, I get 22 hits, many of them Wikipedia content or sites using wiki feeds. Tothwolf (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference I missed
Which article and reference are you referring too? 16x9 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC) by Brad Hill ISBN 0471770841 It has been out quite awhile so you should be able to find either a remainder or used copy really cheap. That book alone covers a good number of CMS options and they even included a chart on the back cover listing features/benefits of different CMS software. There are other books too, but I know some of the CMS software/platform articles that went though AfD are listed in that book. Tothwolf (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For starters, grab a copy of Blogging for Dummies

Wild claim

 * You could have sourced this material yourself and I consider the way you treated Meskalyto to be very inappropriate.

Source what material? I have found no reliable sources. How did I treat Meskalyto any in way inappropriately as I have NEVER spoken to him. 16x9 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrophobia (game). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MLauba (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
It's ok, no harm done. Acebulf (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Internet Relay Chat games
My mistake. A tool I used brought up that page since it falls in Category:Online games, and I tagged it too quickly. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't mind, I just wasn't sure if it fell within WP:VG's scope. I just created the category the other day so I could categorize a handful of stray articles (but there are probably more of these too). Tothwolf (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: User categories, irssi, mIRC
Replied on my talk page. – ABCD✉ 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, already had it watchlisted (I do that when I leave a message). Tothwolf (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Has there been any updates on this situation? I've periodically checked the talk pages of the parties involved to keep up on what's going on. I've also been watching WP:DRV. So, just wanted to check up on this category stuff. Killiondude (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion on Black Falcon's talk page is pretty much where the discussion left off. VegaDark didn't respond to my last comment there and I'm not sure if he will anyway. Right now it seems like people are waiting to see what MZMcBride wants to do. MZMcBride is currently dealing with ARB stuff so he may want to wait until after that is resolved. As long as these had been in a backlog, there probably isn't much of a reason to rush any of it at this point anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure MZMcBride doesn't wanna deal with it... I've talked to her on IRC about it when you initially contacted me and she doesn't like dealing with these kinds of issues (from what I've gathered). Not to say that she won't, but from what I've gathered I'm not sure she will step into this. I don't know her very well though, and this is the first time I've talk with her. Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Her? (chuckle) Well, with the ARB mess that got stirred up, I don't blame him for wanting to try to avoid this can of worms while that's moving forward. He already has enough to deal with at the moment :/
 * Have you been following the other category DRV that was opened on the 24th? While most of the category stuff is pretty cut and dry, they can occasionally get very controversial. Tothwolf (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um. I thought MZMcBride was a female based of their IRC nickname as "Marybelle". But once I asked another user, I found that you were right in saying "him". I fail. No, I haven't read other discussion on there about categories. I'll check it out in a few minutes. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, rule #1 of IRC, never attempt to pin down a gender-specific pronoun based solely on the person's nickname ;) Tothwolf (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've talked to MZMcBride on IRC, and he doesn't plan on reversing his closure (even once his arbcom case ends), so if you are planning a DRV, you may as well do it now. 2) People aren't going to put off depopulating and deleting these categories indefinitely just because there are discussions about a possible DRV, so don't feel blindsided if these categories get deleted if you continue to wait to file one. 3) I'm fully aware of the differences between IRC clients. A category for users to ask for help about different features on a non-wikipedia computer application is an extremely bad idea as non-encyclopedic, and would set horrible precedent to keep other categories. See here for related precedent to delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(break) I assume that this is a follow up to the discussion on Black Falcon's talk page. 1. I've not heard from MZMcBride myself yet. The courteous thing to do would be to let him deal with his ARB situation before opening another can of worms. (The fact that people are using IRC for discussing this specific issue is both ironic and troubling due to the lack of transparency.) 2. The only person who is pushing for these to be "upmerged" is you. Are you then planning to go after Category:Wikipedians who use XChat too? If it comes down to it, there will be a DRV and although you seem to have already concluded it would go in your favor, I'd suggest you step back and take another view of this situation because you aren't looking at the full picture. Note that if it does take a DRV to deal with this, it will make it crystal clear that you are indeed violating WP:POINT. 3. Clearly you are not familiar with the differences in IRC clients or you would not have continued this line of discussion once things were made clear on Black Falcon's talk page. Wikipedia has no precedents and I can see no reason for a precedent from the list you linked to. In fact, I see no IRC client software in that list at all. (Note that Spamcop isn't even software, they provide a DNSBL service.) Rehash: The Category:Wikipedians who use irssi, Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC (and Category:Wikipedians who use IRC) categories were depopulated and not in use when you originally proposed that they be upmerged/deleted. (Note that right now both categories are smaller than they were due to Userpages already being upmerged into Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.) I've since fixed the userbox templates and added documentation on how to use the categories on the category pages themselves. At the time you proposed they be merged/deleted they were indeed underused and not very helpful. This is no longer the case. This is getting to the point of WP:STICK and it's using up the free time I normally devote to working on articles... --Tothwolf (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on consensus. There was never consensus to merge/delete these categories. The UCFD discussion for these categories had two participants, you and one other person. This is not consensus and WP:SILENCE applies here. What I see in auditing WP:UCFD is you and a handful of others attempting to set a precedent and rid Wikipedia of what you consider to be "useless user categories". Consensus on how to handle most user categories has never been determined, and is not defined in the WP:USERCAT guidelines nor anywhere else. There is even a note to this effect on the USERCAT talk page and WP:UBM. Your actions in this regard are a violation of WP:POINT. Re your 48 hour threat/deadline, I'll give you a courtesy heads up right now that attempting to pursue this in that manner is a quick ticket to an ARB incident report. The overall issue is much larger than just these two categories and if you are going to make threats the larger issue is going to come to light and a lot more people are unfortunately going to be pulled into this. Do you really want to open that can of worms right now? --Tothwolf (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Enacting a closure pursuant to a valid XfD is most certainly not a WP:POINT violation. And yes, I do plan on nominating the XChat category for deletion eventually. As stated before, the fact the category was less populated had the template been working properly (less populated, not unpopulated - else I would have just deleted the categories as C1) has nothing to do with the rationale provided in the deletion debate. Therefore, no circumstances have changed which would make deletion of the categories improper. I'm going to give you a courtesy heads up right now that I will be performing the merge pursuant to the valid UCFD in 48 hours, unless a DRV on this comes up in which case I will hold off to see how that turns out. Once again, this has nothing to do with WP:POINT - I simply want to see categories I nominated for merging, that was closed as merge, be performed in accordance with standard Wikipedia procedures. VegaDark (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the categories were populated at all was due to a handful of users who had substituted (subst:) the templates instead of transcluding them (and this is something that still needs to be fixed, actually, and if someone wants to fix this I'd not mind temporarily removing the new category code from the templates). Had you checked that you'd have noticed that for yourself.

The close was correct and will not be overturned (by me, at least). Though, you're free to try Deletion review. Having individual categories for each IRC client makes no sense, a view that the community agrees with as demonstrated by the debate in December. Either move on or file a deletion review. Threats of Arbitration or any similar silliness will not be tolerated. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I made no threats, I have attempted to point out the obvious for VegaDark as there appears to be a lack of objectivity in this and a number of other category deletion nominations/discussions. Tothwolf (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for following up, I'll move forward with the DRV. I understand your position and I wanted to avoid making any other issues for you right now. I disagree with your view on having these categories, but we can't always agree on everything can we? :)
 * So when exactly were you planning on submitting this DRV? It's been over 3 months since this UCFD was closed, and over 5 days since you agreed to take this to DRV. As mentioned before, there's absolutely no requirement that an XfD closure is put on hold even during a DRV, let alone when someone is merely contemplating filing one. I've given you ample time and notice regarding the enactment of the UCFD closure, and threats of filing an Arbcom incident report against me if I do so aside, This will be the final notice I give you, which has already been much, much more that is required or expected of someone, and I am 100% confident that any such complaint would find me 0% at fault for any wrongdoing. Therefore, I will give you a full week since you originally agreed to bring this to DRV- about a day and a half from now- before I start perfroming the merge in accordance with the closure, if a DRV is not listed by that time (I'll also note at this time that it was innappropriate of you to remove the cfd tags at the top of each category in question). I hope to see one filed before then as to avoid having to repopulate the categories in the unlikely case the closure is overturned, but if not, so be it. VegaDark (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: your threats, I've done nothing wrong. If you feel you need to bring something to AN/I or Arbcom, I certainly can't stop you. I'll note that Arbcom is supposed to be the last step of dispute resolution so I (and I imagine others as well) would find filing any sort of Arbcom complaint highly inappropriate. VegaDark (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I assure you that is in no way a "threat". You do not have consensus for those changes and continuing to assert that you do when you in fact don't doesn't change the fact that you don't. Do you want to invite the ~450 editors who chose to use these templates/categories into the discussion? That would absolutely guarantee consensus. Tothwolf (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One "!vote" and one drive-by "per-nom" vote from an RFA hopeful does not make for "consensus" and re your earlier argument on Dank55's talk page, if you are using UCFD in that manner then you are treating it as an extension of WP:CSD and that is also improper as that is in no way getting true consensus. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC) No, I think its time we move to formal mediation because informal has long since failed. As for your links above, some of those discussions did not initially involve you until you decided to involve yourself. There is nothing wrong in talking to someone you trust, which is something I've often done with MBisanz and DGG in the past. I also knew from past experience both David Eppstein and Dank55 would be impartial give a straight answer. I don't think you realize I was about to move forward in taking this to ARB before I spoke to David Eppstein. Btw, I don't take kindly to wikistalking. I don't follow you around posting wherever you post and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Tothwolf (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To save others from having to dig (and because of your complaining elsewhere), here is a direct link to the UCFD discussion in question.
 * Those are arguments to be making at DRV. I've encouraged you time and time again to file one. VegaDark (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I both know DRV isn't the place for this discussion. It won't get enough traffic to get a real consensus. I have no doubt you would like for it to go to DRV for that very reason. Do you want to go the WP:RFC route and do a poll? Tothwolf (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you don't want to use proper Wikipedia procedures to contest the closure since it is very unlikely to be overturned (since, there was in fact nothing wrong with the closure, either procedurally or substantively. You simply didn't like the result). It sounds like you take issue with the very process of DRV. Can't help you there. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have a problem with DRV, but the way you are trying to force your way even though you know you don't have consensus has left me no choice but to bring someone else into this. Just FYI, you just violated the GFDL in deleting those two categories vs installing the redirect template. Check the edit histories for yourself. Tothwolf (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean someone other than ABCD, Black Falcon, Killiondude, MBisanz, DGG, David Eppstein, Dank55, and myself? Are you going to keep going from person to person until you find someone who agrees with you? VegaDark (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (FYI, one of your links is broken)

I saw this and thought I would give my opinion. I think you should either go to DRV with this one or drop it. DRV is the process designed to review CFD closures and none of the alternatives you have suggested seem appropriate. Just a friendly note, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is likely to be the next step and I've got a draft of a DRV that I've been working on. I'm not sure if you went though the tangled mess of discussion that happened elsewhere but there is much more to this issue than just what was discussed on this talk page. I doubt the larger issue will end with just the DRV for these two categories but for now that will likely be the next step. Tothwolf (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Prosystem help thanks
Thank you for your help with the Prosystem. Jack of All Trades ~Wolf~ (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Books-box
Hey, this is my favorite new box! Don't forget to add these new templates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books :-) RichardF (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ''Love Books? Use Wikipedia-Books --Tothwolf (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:RichardF

RE: Links on Internet Relay Chat Services-Article
I answered on my talk page. Thanks for your initial notice on that issue! Yarcanox (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Layout
OK, you're right. I found another way to prevent for extra lines. thx for that link. mabdul 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Mabdul

Abuse Filter (YouTube)
Hi,

It is likely we are going to do a test run for 2 weeks with the following parameters. (to gather stats and an overall feel of wether this wouls work in general) Sites: Youtube Actions: Warn, tag User Group: Non-Autoconfirmed (New and anonymous users)

We will be removing youtube from the XLinkbot revert list for the duration of the test. If I recall your main quam with a filter was it applying to regulers users, I hope this addresses your concerns. Cheers  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) My original concern was your proposal that links to The Pirate Bay were a problem due to the The Pirate Bay trial and needed some sort of filtering/warning. The regular expression for filter 155 still has not been changed to remove those either. I've mentioned to you a number of times that I won't make a judgement on whether or not Youtube links are a problem as I've simply not had to deal with them too much yet. What I said is if they are being blindly reverted by the bot for all non-autoconfirmed users, then that is a potential problem, particularly if that has not been previously decided on via a consensus means, such as an RFC. Tothwolf (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the relevant pages and discussions on my watchlist and have been keeping up with this from the very beginning.

Rizon
I have blocked the IP that removed the material for a longer period, next time they will get a much longer block. As it is only this one IP this time I am reluctant to semi protect it until and unless that situation changes. I will watch it also and let me know if other IPs start the same pattern of vandalism. Mfield (Oi!) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC) --Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Mfield

About ithildin
You stated at multiple points that ithildin would be still commonly in use. I got interested in that ircd and googled a bit for it and wasn't able to find any other page about it than ithildin.org itself, which seems down. I searched a bit more and came across one server name of darkmyst.org which contained "ithildin", connected and noticed it runs an ithildin server. So this is at least one place where it is still used, but still I think that the net doesn't have any valuable information about this ircd, especially as there is virtually no other site talking about it and the main page down, makes it hard to list it on wikipedia as there are no real sources. I am just attempting to talk to those darkmyst people to find a bit more of the whereabouts of this ircd (Update while writing this text: at least there still seem to be some developers around. I'll ask them if the page will ever be back online). Yarcanox (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I just managed to talk to one of the people involved into it. He assured me it's still maintained and noticed the web page being down (and is probably going to fix it now). So it seems to be pretty clearly still actively developed. Yarcanox (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason their web server seems to be somewhat intermittent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is down. There is also no reason or "rule" where older or unmaintained software should be excluded from Wikipedia, particularly a comparison list article about the different types of IRC server software. Tothwolf (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was also never my point (to get it removed). I was just curious if it should be treated as deprecated or not (as some users claimed this) :-) Yarcanox (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see a reason to treat it any differently. I try to give them all equal weight but it has been tough sorting it all out. Tothwolf (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An article you contributed to maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
This may help you:

Finding sources which mention the topic of this article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Nuvola: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)


 * 3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you edited is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron invitation
moved from user ikip:
 * Thanks for the greeting I was already familiar with ARS, I just tend to work on stuff as it crosses my path and I'm able to spend the time on it. Right now I've got a ton of stuff on my plate though. Tothwolf (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * your welcome. thanks for your work on the novula article Ikip (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File_talk:H1N1_map.svg
Thanks for resolving the situation at File_talk:H1N1_map.svg. I'd issue you a cookie or a barnstar, except I've never looked into how to do that, so I don't know how. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent template edits
Per your recent edit, there is no need to perform this change, as Web-RFC redirects (and never did anything else) to rfcurl. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also no point in changing bare RFC links to the template, as this even increases the server load for no additional benefit. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it does not increase the "server load" to use a template vs the 'RFC xxxx' built-in. It actually might be slightly more efficient because of how the MediaWiki parser works but I'd have to go look at the current version of the MediaWiki code to be certain. Once the page is stored, it doesn't matter anyway because the parsed version is cached. I suggest you read both Don't worry about performance and Ownership of articles as both seem to be applicable here. Tothwolf (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with you performing the changes, just pointing out you may well be wasting your time on edits that have no obvious beneficial effect. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame Award
Congratulations! Notice the little rescue floats at the top of this page now? Ikip (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cluebat
You never had a true clue-bat did you? Certainly not one of the flying mammal kind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine is more of the Lart variety and someone seems to have borrowed it and failed to return it. Tothwolf (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee hee. Wasn't me or the otters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Trout
For the blatantly false accusation that I was "getting revenge" on you for AFD stalking you. Do you really, really think I have some sort of bent against you? I don't do revenge at all, and can't believe that you would make such an accusation, especially behind my back on IRC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! I wasn't sure if it could be turned around after the original TfD but once all the facts were out in the open it seemed to clear up much of the confusion. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Most of these articles still have a long way to go. I'm looking forward to rewriting and expanding many of them. Tothwolf (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note
My comment here. YTCracker's albums clearly lack coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if it were a pointy nomination, it's still legitemate, and the reason we have a deletion discussion is so POINTy noms don't get a free pass. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eggdrop, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)