User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 1

Regarding your edit to Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg:
Your recent edit to Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Communist Dissidents
You have removed two articles from the category named "Dissedents". In light of this I have proposed that the category should be renamed "Communist dissidents" 87.194.35.230 05:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RK
Actually I'm not particularly bothered by GA status. Its good to fix things up, but the rest is just window dressing. But I'm not trying to take anything away from your work. Thats just my personal take. Frelke 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi WJBscribe,

thanks for your kind remarks regarding the Ruth Kelly article.

After seeing your editing work over the last days I apologize for my comment on the Ruth Kelly talk page suggesting bad faith editing in the Fathers for Justice section of the article. The days before I had seen several obvious bad faith edits by other users (not in the RK article), but I shouldn't have extrapolated. --Túrelio 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD
They definitely should be put up for AfD. I will put them up. --Ineffable3000 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate List of famous tall men, List of famous tall women. I am about to leave. --Ineffable3000 05:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rafikilives' block
Thanks for your message. I suppose it depends on one's assumptions about human nature. When I see someone register an account and immediately make more than one unambiguous vandalistic edit on a high-profile article, I am inclined to do as I did. If the user wanted to post something on his talk page (which he can still edit), indicating an intention to improve their behaviour, I might reconsider. But I think it might be easier in this case for them just to start a new account. --Guinnog 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_bisexual_people
I've replied to your note at the above-referenced page.

Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ... and you replied to my reply about sixty seconds before I posted here. I should pay more attention :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to worry -- you did quite the right thing; it's important to be able to support this sort of statement. Thanks for your prompt replies and willingness to help keep Wikipedia accurate and useful! :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Random suggestion -- you might find it helpful to other users to include a link to your talk page in your signature. It simplifies replying to your posts, and in this modern, goofy, mixed-up world, we need all the simplicity we can get :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it back. People are always griping about technical aspects of my .sig, and I always say to heck with 'em. Do it any 'ol way you want :P
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

unhelpful
Yes, I do think you are unhelpful to everyone. Too many people on wikipedia like being 'the police' or the run around frightened doing what they think the police want. TerriNunn 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of LGB
Thank you. I have been watching your efforts via my watch list, and commend you for your own work. It's terrible how many people are being wrongly tagged, or aren't at all - I wasn't expecting, when I first took on this task, to find literally hundreds of people who are not on the list: I'm working my way through all the LGBT categories just to find the categorised ones.

If you're planning to do this for some time, would you interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean Terrinunn, just ignore her, she's convinced that everyone who has ever been rumoured ever to be bisexual ever should be listed, regardless of whether its true or not, and accuses anyone who reminds her of actual Wikipedia policy of being restrictive, vindictive tightwads. NNDB is not a reliable reference, just as IMDB is not - which is why every bisexual I have added to A-E from that list, if they were referenced by NNDB, I found a new one. Same mainly goes for Clublez, though if they referenced where they got their information from, I sometimes use it. If someone is bisexual, it shouldn't be a problem to find a reliable reference - though Clea Duvall has given me such a headache. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMDb is a fairly reliable reference in my estimation, though not as a sole source. If we set our bars too high, every reference is unreliable :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says no wikis may be used - IMDB is written by users sending content in, and is therefore unreliable. I saw IMDB more explicitly rules out somewhere else (I used to quote IMDB all the time, and got slammed for it), so I really wouldn't use it for anything other than films. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything, everywhere, is written by users sending content in, be they journalists or hobos :) IMDb vets and verifies submissions, and includes such factors as verifiable references and editorial "karma" -- good submissions by a member in the past. Please don't overwiki the definition of "wiki" :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They vet for libellous or defamatory stuff - but that's as far as it goes. Their quotes are generally abysmal, because no-one at IMDB checks them, and I would imagine that's the same for every thing sent in by users. IMDB simply can't be relied upon for anything other than hard data. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) What's your reference in re. IMDb's content scrubbing process? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuals
No, go for it. I was going to do it after I finished the list of LGB people, but I think that's going to take waaaay too long... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this girl is determined. Utterly misguided, but determined. I wonder what she will do when it gets deleted (you're right, so I won't vote). Come back and harrass us, I suppose. Oh well, if we develop a guideline by consensus and get the WikiProject involved, there's not a lot she can do about it. :) And with her incivility, it's a matter of time before she gets blocked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom
Hi there. If you're involved in this article, perhaps you'd like to try to discuss the rating further with Joel on the SOL, either on the article's talk page, or his own. He's pretty exercised about the whole thing. Jeffpw 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you on NerriTunn (and everyone else seems to be ignoring her by mutual agreement as well). I've never intended to improve Civil Partnerships in the UK, I've only ever wanted to rate it and get on with my life, and it's fairly obvious that Chris the Anonymous IP is Joel in another guise. Basically, he's going to let the rating go, and so the matter now rests. Pour oil on troubled waters if you like, but I'm going to go have my university interview today and forget about it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Thanks for your help soothing the bruised egos on the Civil Unions page. your suggestions there are constructive and should help to improve the article. I agree that Dev could have expressed herself a bit better, but the rating was made in good faith. I sincerely hope you and the others involved will be able to get this to GA standard or higher. Best. Jeffpw 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I'm such a meanie. : ) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism on the featured article.
What's causing it? I am baffled. I thought it was the template but I can't figure it out. Made of people 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Try deleting the section on Fundamental Duties and then previewing the article as a whole, the picture will disappear. The answer lies in that subsection. Made of people 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template
That template was part of the problem; I reverted an edit and indefinitely blocked a user, but I am still looking into it. Something is not quite right. --HappyCamper 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as sick of his presence
I find it massively ironic that someone who threw a massive temper tantrum over a rating called me a silly little girl. If the best he can do is throw hissy fits and personal attacks, he's best off Wikipedia, and his meatpuppet too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, his contributions to the Civil Partnership article itself were good- and I am a little overstretched with other projects to give it as much attention. I have to say I'm not overly comfortable with the spead with which the words sockpuppet and meatpuppet were used. As far as I know checkuser was not used to see if they shared an IP address and think WP:AGF suggests we give them the benefit of the doubt. I would haved like to convince Chris and Tom to stay, I think we could have gotten over the fight over the rating. Still as you say the bickering off the page won't be missed.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I use the term meatpuppet because that's what MrDarcy wrote on the AN/I - but I think they are the same person (One is not expected to assume good faith where there is good evidence to suggest otherwise). They edited exactly the same articles. They both got extremely defensive and irrational at exactly the same things, and edited in the same way, even their writing style is virtually identical. If you were to look at their comments without looking at their signatures, I don't think you could tell the difference. While that user may have made good contributions to the article, ultimately without references its as good as worthless and his touchiness about us pointing that out, and his bizarre insistence that three links to BBC articles was "of the highest calibre" seemed strange. This guy owned this article far too much. If he comes back, I think he should try and stay calm and willing to listen, rather than throw around wild accusations because his work has been indirectly criticised. I think I might involve myself in the article after all, if only to demonstrate how an article above a B grade should be written. But I'll do that somewhat latter - after I've dealt with this list mess. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

reporting vandalism
when reporting anonymous vandals (from IP's instead of users) use the template instead of the  template. This allows admins to more easily do research on who owns the IP and what action is appropriate. Cheers! /Blaxthos 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * no problem at all. keep up the good work finding and reporting vandals! /Blaxthos 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH, I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! C-ya Normanjones 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree
Hiya, I agree with the message you left for Dev on her talk page. We actually got into an edit clash, as I was writing the same thing when you were messaging her, too. I asked that she have another look at both articles and perhaps reassess them. They both look like "B"s to me, based on inline cites, if nothing else. Jeffpw 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me! I DID NOT RATE those articles! I am opposed to the ratings they now have, that others rated as "A"class. hope this clears up any confusion. Jeffpw 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well, it does need more cites, in my opinion. If you wish, however, I will remove my comment and add it to the GA discussion page. Jeffpw 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I agree with you that Wiki does have some impossible standards in that regard. Look at Talk:James Robert Baker for an example of what I went through. That article was almost FAR'd because I hadn't formatted the references correctly. But I learned that editors here demand at least one reference per paragraph, and more if there are assertions that can be challenged. I didn't make the rules, I just live with them and try to adhere to them. It's nothing personal, I assure you. Jeffpw 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)



Jeff has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

No offense taken! May we enjoy years of collegial editing! Jeffpw 15:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He had sex with young men, as documented in an academic book. That seems clear enough to me. As for the rating, I have explained my rationale on the article talkpage: just because neither of you thinks it should be an A does not mean it shouldn't be. We've all been rating at approximately the same time, so it might be wisest to haul in someone who's been doing it for some time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm
The short answer would be no. The longer answer is the reference is not even usable, since if you click on it, it takes you to Usenet posts, which are inadmissible as references. Now the next question is: are we so hard up for articles in this project that we want to slap our name on anything even tangentially related, and even if the only verifiability is internet gossip? Jeffpw 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think canvassing is needed. If you don't feel comfortable deleting the template, I will do so. And yes, the sentence (one line, no less) is just a repetition of gossip with nothing to back it up. While one cannot libel the dead, one can make oneself look foolish, and Wiki doesn't need that. Jeffpw 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea!
WJBscribe, you are brilliant! PLEASE post that in the gay lisp discussion. I bet nobody has even thought of how homophobic it looks to have this with none of the other articles. I sure didn't. Please keep me posted. If we need to work on the article, and not simply merge it, then we cna at least make it much better than it now is. Jeffpw 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: debate
You didn't come across as too intransigent at all trust me. Once you've seen people have a fit because somebody made a template compatible with older browsers, it takes a lot for someone to be intransigent to you. People like you are exactly what Wikipedia needs to be a community project - able to make an argument but willing to change their mind. Koweja 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well.......
I did say I would nominate for Afd, myself, but would help if he wanted to fix it. If it survives AFd, I am still certainly willing to help! Jeffpw 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Edit Conflict
Now that I think about it(because it was such a hard choice ;) )I think I prefer the supports instead of my answer ;). Cheers. Canadian -Bacon 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Harsh tone
Why the harsh tone on the alternate ranks article? I was just answering your question. One of the reasons I retired from this site is this kind of thing- getting bashed and beaten over edits when you're just providing an honest answer to something. I am not actively editing that article so you can make whatever changes you want. I was just putting in my two cents worth. Happy editing. -Husnock 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add, I have something of a problem with you posting: ""you put your own views above the whole basis for these articles". That is commenting on the contributor and not the contributions and could be seen as a personal attack.  Please retract this as I was simply trying to answer your question and don't need something like that posted about me. -Husnock 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rest of conversation from Husnock's Talk page (for clarity)
I'm sorry you thought I was being harsh. My post was intended to express the confusion I honestly feel on this topic. I am trying to understand the basis for that article and how it fit into Wikipedia, but am genuinely struggling. Thank you for explaining script error. Perhaps I was too blunt- I certainly meant no personal criticism beyond the fact that I worry those editing this article have become rather presonally involved with it and understandably defensive as a result. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very touchy about these things as I was recently accused of making a death threat which has caused me to pretty much stop editing on this site. Thank you for your kind reply. -Husnock 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to your further comment. To clarify "you put your own views above the whole basis for these articles" was meant to suggest a general preference by all editors of the article for fan based commentaries on Star Trek over the show itself. It was not meant as an insult, or a personal reference to you. I apologise if you took it that way. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I have striked (struck?) through the offending words and replaced them with something more neutral that better reflects my point anyway. The edit summary includes an apology. For the record, I will not edit the article as I feel it outside my competence- I am familiar only with the show and not its surrounding works. I merely raise points on the talk page that are of concern to me. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Prince Harry image
Hi, I'm concerned that the person in the picture you uploaded may not be Prince Harry. I've left a couple of comments on the image's talk page. Of course I could easily be wrong, I'm definitely not an expert on the royal family. If so, I apologize in advance. -- Islay Solomon | talk  09:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply from User:Ramadi
Thanks for letting me know that.

Ladner Trunk Road
It wasn't as good as the last version ... it didn't tell me it was a thinner, four-lane road for about 0.8km until 57th Street, or anything! Thanks for the heads up :) Proto ::  ►  13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to subst welcome at User talk:DjChrissyD
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

This includes welcome and welcomeip. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some templates are able to display an error message if you subst them when you should not or vica versa. However, most don't.  If you are interested, it appears that  is non-blank whenever subst isn't used.  However, I have not tried it myself.  I do think more templates where it matters, should use it. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PicBin.net
I am unsure why you marked the picbin page for deletion. It has unbias information and is not advertising. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks --Bradcis 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rt Hon." vs "Rt Hon" vs "Rt. Hon."
In reference to your revert of my change to the Tony Blair article, there isn't and shouldn't be a consensus around using "The Rt Hon." as the standard abbreviation for "The Right Honourable". No Privy Councillor or official organization uses "The Rt Hon." in the UK, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, and there is no official consensus around that use by the community. "Rt Hon" and "Rt. Hon." are both used frequently, though the latter is a little more old fashioned. I know that "Rt Hon." is ubiquitous here, but it is completely incorrect and I've taken to changing it whenever I see it. The only person whose ever tried to defend it to me was Proteus, who said it was logical to not punctuate a contraction ("Rt" like "Mr") and that it was perfectly normal to punctuate an abbreviation ("Hon." like "Rev."). This is logical, but British ceremonial titles and practices don't care much for logic. So, in short, without an official policy concerning the abbreviation or another established, formal consensus, I've decided to engage in a little vigilante punctuating. I hope you don't mind too much. Cheers. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Outstanding. I'll see you around. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the suggestion on Cabinet of the United Kingdom.-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Prince Harry libel
I'm sorry about the lateness of my response. What you did is fine with me. My feelings always were that claims of looking like someone or sharing their hair color did not rise to the level needed to warrant mention in an encyclopedic article. If someone thinks Prince Harry looks like Mr. Hewitt and I think he looks like the Duke of Edinburgh, why shouldn't the latter be included when the former is? The Prince of Wales has never disowned Prince Harry, so the whole thing is rather moot. Keeping the article free of "bastardry" will require more vigilance than I'm willing to give. I've always been bothered by the lack of comment from the Dianics against claiming the Prince is not Harry's father. -Acjelen 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
 

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship  (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion talk 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, WJBscribe! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the Smile. I checked him too - he's got 300 edits, so maybe he'll learn with time. Having said that, he's been on Wikipedia three months longer than me... Oh well, I hope you enjoyed your Christmas. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)