User talk:Vacuum/Archive 3

For old talk, please see archives: 1 2. Subpages: User:Vacuum/sig User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC. This page is archived every 17 topics.

Note: I came across Xlsc/0001 shortly after the departure of User:Xiong. I like this page, and have adopted it as my own at User:Vacuum/Xiong's stats. It made me realize that though I wouldn't go as far as Xiong to say we are one, we are definitely becoming a community of bureaucrats and politicians, rather than one of article-makers and barn-raisers. I fully admit to being a part of this unhappy transformation, and am thus taking a break from the Wikipedia: namespace and engagements with PoV pushers and trolls. Please feel free to enforce this by reverting any such edits I might make. Vacuum c 00:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Phi Sigma Pi
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your response and I'll look into editing the page differently.

Re: Phi Sigma Pi
I'm not removing content as a form of vandalism. I clearly stated what I was doing on the Phi Sigma Pi Talk page. The list of collegiate chapters that was posted is already outdated, and I replaced the intrusive list with a link to our organization's official page that is always up to date. I made the change and it was twice reverted. Why?

--spin2cool

User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC
Hi, Vacuum, thanks for your note. I agree about not wanting to escalate matters. The status of the page is not up to me. It's Amgine's page and was made independent of me. But if you think it's unlikely to be speedy deleted, I'll lay off. Maurreen 03:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Because I mostly agree with him. Sorry if that upsets you. You may have personal history with Netoholic, but don't drag me into it, thanks. You may note that I voted against Neutrality and Netoholic for Guanaco's 2nd RfA. Not that I expect you to believe anything but nefarious intentions on my part. Way to assume good faith. --Mrfixter 17:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now see that there are sockpuppet allegations against you. It is unfortunate when these allegations start to get bandied around, and I look forward to the time when it is made clear that I am, after all, NOT Netoholics sockpuppet. I hope your allegations get sorted out as well. --Mrfixter 21:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Focus on the Family
Nice work with focus on the family. I've been wondering how long quasi-addiction would remain. =D The edits you made suit it nicely. Good work! -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned, unsectioned comment by User:69.111.91.169
Scine this is the first time we have met I will be polite despite the fact I really don't like people doing full blown reverts.

1) The Klan has at times been a religious group, a political group and a fraternal group.

2) The Klan page has gotten so big I thought it would be best if if was split into three pages (plus the original) one for each of the three Klans.

3) I am going to do this.

closed vfd
Hi - I noticed you added the vt for Votes_for_deletion/Investigations_%28Voyager_episode%29 after the article name header. I just closed my first vfd (been an admin since yesterday) and as far as I can tell, the usual style (and the example in Deletion_process) is to put the vt before the header. Is this an important distinction? Do you add the vt after the header deliberately? I noticed that when clicking the edit link on the vfd log page, if the vt is added before it's not visible (the edit link ends up with section=1 rather than section=0). On the other hand, the blue background on the vfd log page ends up continuous (article to article) which probably makes it easier to tell when all the day's discussions are closed. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make the point that the way you did it is actually better (regarding the link), but worse (regarding the continuous blue background). Sounds like it was an accident anyway.  BTW - seems like you're also supposed to subst: in the template, rather than just transclude it (or, is this a case of WP:IAR?).  Thanks for the reply. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiDefcon
I'm wondering a little why you decided to userfy this while the debate is still progressing and the user has made clear that they don't want it usefied? -Splash 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion_reform/Brainstorming
Posted this as a response to something you wrote, thought you might be interested:

How about a "speed-up VfD" proposal like this: for "obvious" deletes -- vanity bios/bands/schools/etc. (your scenario (b)) -- the window for deletion is 2 or 3 days by default. But any admin who looks at such an article and decides that the 2-day limit is too short for whatever reason can add a tag/template that marks the article as requiring the normal 5-day limit before a delete. This prevents (b) articles from staying around for too long but allows controversial deletes to hang around a lot longer as long as any one admin notices they are controversial. Colin M. 09:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA
I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)