User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 2

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Allusions and illusions
Hi, WJB, I know what allusion means, as well as what illusion means, which is why I was changing it. It makes little (some but little) sense to me to use a word meaning references to in that context. Perhaps we need to reword the sentence altogether? :) Aleta 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No apology needed. Your comment was made politely.  :)  I do like the way you've restructured the sentence - issue resolved!  (Now we need some references, but that's a separate problem.) Aleta 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras
Yes, it is ironic that we are trying to get the block rescinded, but it is just so damn unfair! To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been raised in WP:AN or WP:ANI. If you do so, please let me know so I can support an unblock. If you'd rather I raise it, let me know that, too. I want this handled in the next day or so, one way or another. Jeffpw 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the unblock request a few minutes ago here. Jeffpw 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: what would happen if I......just sort of unblocked him, myself????????? Jeffpw 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn! The button didn't say it was limited (though I thought it might be). I just tried it and got a Permission error. Bah humbug :-( Jeffpw 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied from my talk page: I've reverted your unblock request on User talk:Nkras. I have no familiarity with the situation but neither I nor any other admin would seriously consider unblocking Nkras if he/she doesn't make the actual request. If you feel the block was made against policy, I would advise discussing it with the admin who did it, and if that doesn't resolve things, use WP:RFC. But without a request from Nkras himself, this whole thing is moot. Mangojuicetalk 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just. Wow. I can't believe how that all played out. I've looked through Nkras' edits since his unblock, and they are smart ones. Maybe he has indeed learned a little something. Let's hope. And let's hope we don't cross paths with him again! Jeffpw 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My reevaluating
It's not just users in general, but blockheaded administrators in the specific. The last straw for me was when that lamebrain Mangojuice reverted my edit to Nkras' block tag, in order to make it look like there was consensus of administrators up to and including James Wales himself (I refuse to use that childish nickname he prefers). That sort of revisionism is not allowed in articles here, so why should it be allowed by administrators on a power trip. Anyway, I will probably not leave entirely, but am severely limiting my participation to things that *I* enjoy, and not necessarily what I think will improve the project. And I value my Wikifriends, too :-). Now I am off to bed--it's almost 2am here. Jeffpw 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in his defense, he did delete that section after he calmed down, and it was reverted by an admin. I do understand your feeling, though, and I agree he is his own worst enemy. This whole situation has been very stressful. I shall continue to argue for his block being lifted/reduced, because it is the right thing to do procedurally, not because I think he will ever be a great editor. And I do wish I was fighting for the rights of someone completely innocent. But perhaps this is where the real character tests come in: fighting for the rights of people you dislike on a personal level, purely for the sake of justice. Jeffpw 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course...but he was still being a dick! Jeffpw 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yummy!
Thanks so much for the cookie! It was just what I needed to lower my wikistress a good 30 degrees! I am honored to have you as a wikifriend. Jeffpw 06:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod
Firstly, thanks for AfD-ing that article I prodded and was unprodded. I was just wondering, how do you identify when prods are deprodded? Is it a category (I dunno how that'd work, but meh), RC patrol, or watchlisting pages you come across that are prodded and noticing if they are removed? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On further thoughts, after reviewing the contribs of that IP, it seems to ring a bell with an AN/ANI/etc. discussion about this user - I vaguely remember a discussion about a 6*.**... IP removing templates from articles with no edit summary, and although I can't find it, I suspect it was this IP. Anyways, if you found it from that discussion, wherever it was, don't worry, but if you found it from another way, I'd love to know :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

erection
i'm sorry, i don't necessarily disagree with the bot's decision, but could you please point to where in that talk page it refers to the photo of my penis? i'm sorry, i just couldn't find it. thanks. Djy9302 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL--and I thought I was going to get to eavesdrop on something really interesting for a change! (PS, glad to have been of a little assistance). Jeffpw 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Changes made by your Bot to archives of WP:V

 * WJBscribe wrote : Hi, I was archiving the rather lengthy talk page at WP:V when I realised that your Bot had moved the original archives from the format 'archive1' et seq to 'Archive 1' et seq. Obviously I followed the format suggested by the Bot. Instead of also creating a redirect to the new archives, it seemed easier to correct Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/toc to link to the archives and not the redirects. Presumably the redirects at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive1 through to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive14 can now be deleted? There doesn't seem to be a suitable tag at WP:CSD however. I presume they don't require listing at WP:RfD. Can you just delete them and should there be a tag for future occasions when this arises in future? Thanks, WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you're wondering why the format changed, the bot was moving all numbered archive pages (except for user talk pages) to fit the naming convention for such archives suggested at How to archive a talk page, which has been in place for a while – "Archive 1", with a capital "A" and a space before the number. Redirects from the old names are necessary where other pages link to the archive, to prevent broken links. Changing the table of contents to link directly to the archives is helpful, as it removes some of the links, but in many cases other pages link directly to the archives. Where this is the case, removing the redirects would break the links on these other pages, so is probably not a good idea.

See for example, Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive2, which shows another four pages linking to that redirect. If you really want the redirects deleted, you can go through "What links here" for every redirect and change all the incoming links to point directly to the archive's new name. They still wouldn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, however with the archives renamed nobody would link to that page again, so it would probably be safe to remove them. But unless a double redirect has been left somewhere (the bot checked for these after every move and I fixed them, so there shouldn't be any), having a few links go through redirects is fine – there are thousands of redirects lying around as the result of page moves, most of which are doing no harm – Gurch 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Ruth Kelly
Hi WJBscribe,

as you may have seen, this morning two IP users inserted a new section "Private schooling" in the article about Ruth Kelly based on news articles of today in The Guardian and Mirror.co.uk (is that really identical to The Daily Mirror?). Though Kelly's or Labour's opponents obviously rejoice to exploit the issue and even members from her own party seem not to be above suggesting she should sacrifice the childs' welfare to party principles (see Mirror article), covering this in our article in my opinion violates the privacy of Mrs. Kelly and of the child involved, not least the derogatory label "It is understood the child has learning difficulties", and eventually also our own WP:BLP-policy. Before taking any action I would like hear your opinion as a decent compatriot of Kelly. --Túrelio 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

actioned
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've researched it and registered my thoughts.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-08 20:35Z 

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne
In your closure summery you state "Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination withdrawn. No other delete votes."

There is one other delete vote, could you change the summery to reflect, or remove the "no other del..." portion? Thanks in advance. Regards, Navou   banter  14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the template, thanks, cause it was kicking my ass. :P  Navou   banter  23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hazel Blears and associated constituency
Thanks for helping me keep these two under control... I think it must be coming up to election time soon or something, sigh. --Firi e n § 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked in #wikipedia what the criteria for sprotection were - in case it would be possible to put one on - and it seemed to be a borderline case that might be too infrequent, though there wasn't really any handy solution available due to the IP mixing, especially as many of the other edits from those IPs are valid and useful. Slow reply from having been on holiday, but thanks for finding someone happier to add the sprotect :] --Firi e n § 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal
Yes, the idea is that you have primary responsibility for finding out what's going on (like checking an LGBT news website every day or something) and if you miss anything, someone else can add it for you. I'm so glad you're doing news: now we just need to find someone to do the picture and we're almost set! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been removing news items that have been up for a month, but that isn't really practical if it's going to be updated regularly. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest setting it at a maximum of ten, though I'd be more flexible if a lot of very important news happens in a few days. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard III
Wow, thanks for the message. I think what happened occured in going through the IP, 75...,'s contributions and reverting them that got mixed in where I reverted to what he had done after AntiVandalBot. Good catch, thanks for the heads up. Teke ( talk ) 02:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Userbox
Thanks for working on this. What about the torch on the front page- could it be used? Where are you finding the icons? Thanks and welcome! NinaOdell | Talk 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it! NinaOdell | Talk 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the blue of the first one. Definitely some shade of blue - it's calming.:)NinaOdell | Talk 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the powder blue is a winner. No, the group isn't very active at the moment, but I'm hoping to change that soon. NinaOdell | Talk 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the advice
I took your advice. Thanks for the note.--Riferimento 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been multiple edits today I think the dispute tag is justified. It lets people know that reasonable editors have serious questions about the marriage page.--Riferimento 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My view on the tag is that the dispute is relatively minor to label the whole article in that way. Unless all mention of same sex marriage gets taken out of the introduction again, I don't think any NPOV violation is too severe. But if you think it necessary I won't remove it again given the last few edits to the page. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage
You know as well as I do that it is going to end up in Arbcom eventually. Neither side will back down. Why don't you submit a request for mediation? At least it is a step forward from all this constant reverting. And just so you know, if it gets reverted again to "one man, one woman", I will be slapping a {world}} tag on it. Jeffpw 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been removed from the "limited geographic scope"category, my dear. you are many things, but limited is certainly not one of them. Good luck with mediating. I would offer to help, but would probably end up making things worse than they were before. That said, if it does become the subject of formal mediation/arbitration, I definitely want to be listed as a party. Jeffpw 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
Sorry, I went beddy-bye. The color is lovely, and kudos to you for making the torch darker. Believe me, it looks like like a torch. My only concern now is that it remain upright (neither left, nor right, but neutral). Once again, thank you so much. :)NinaOdell | Talk 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's perfect - you are AWESOME!:)NinaOdell | Talk 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage & Types of marriage

 * There is concensus on Talkpage that this topic covers all types of marriage and variations should be outline in the intro.

I am unaware of any "consensus" that marriage should include "types of marriage". Let's discuss this at talk:Marriage. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also Sexless marriage and Spiritual marriage. NinaOdell | Talk 16:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

- It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. – Where 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remove this template from my talkpage. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are completely correct in that this was not vandalism. I am so sorry about any inconvenience this may have caused. I must have forgotten to look at the edit summary. Once again, sorry. – Where 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
The LGBT Barnstar was created by Ouro, it might be nice to ask him to do it. Otherwise, I'm happy to. I was planning to get an account there anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

HI, WJB, no your post didn't offend me. Just the idea of using nazi medals offended me. I think this is quite different than using a pink triangle. That is a political act, to take back our power from a group that tried to exterminate us. This is more of a case of saying "well, it's pretty, even if it is from the nazis". That's quite different in my mind. Anyway, don't worry. I know you are someone who would not deliberately set out to offend anybody. Jeffpw 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon up for Afd now
Please see the discussion (you can get there via the ugly tag that has been slapped on the front of it. 6 hours work, possibly for nothing. I am massively pissed off. Jeffpw 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. There was no attempt at vote-stacking--I merely messaged everyone who was on my talk page I thought the article would interest. And I was massively pissed off. You'd be too, had you worked 6 solid hours on an article you didn't even like in the first place, only to return from a smoke break and see a delete tag plastered on it. Enough said. Jeffpw 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Better give up smoking then. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Seconded, aren't you a nurse Jeff? :-) WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * not amused in the least. Drop it. Now. Jeffpw 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dropped. Forget it was mentioned. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalproof. I guess it was a good thing that I caught such an egregious abuse, rather than the usual run of the mill borderline asshattery. It appears to be a fine tool, when it's handed out properly. I'd apply for it myself if I was still in the vandal-fighting mood, but I've backed off from that lately. One of the quotes on my user page, from "K42", was from a vandal I began hunting after attacks on Bob Brown. That's one of the last things the user said before indef block. Fun times, but I'm really not in the mood for that particular pile of steamin' bs these days. Anyway, thanks for the good words. =) — coe l acan t a lk  — 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review
Wow. Nice review man. This is one I really wanted, to my knowledge we haven't interacted much and thus it gives me a good neutral opinion. So, to reply point by point to you; yeah, I'm trying to get away from MFDs, my experience has only shown they are bad for me to take part in. I agree that Esperanza has probably earned me good and bad views, and I'm okay with that. The civility issue; yes, it was very, very bad on my part sometimes, especially the one made in the EA DRV. I did cross that out and apologize, however, if it helps. I think a lot of problems then were stubbornness and basically taking every vote against me as a personal insult. WP:FUCK, to me, doesn't me not caring in the sense that "you can pretty much do what you like" but it means just laying back and accepting it when things don't go my way. Deletionism; my definition of deletionism isn't that I'd always go into a XFD wanting it to be deleted, it's just that I think I have a stricter view of what's appropriate or not. I mean, there are times when articles blatantly need to be deleted, and there are times when they really ought be kept. I have voted keep sometimes. I think basically it means that there's more content I'd like to see deleted rather than kept; certain people might toe the line on policies, and I'd want them deleted, whereas others would like them kept. But I'll stay away from the label, I think. Thanks for the mainspace comments, good to know you enjoyed Dragons of Autumn Twilight, it was my first big novel undertaking. Pretty much all the novel articles I write come up as B-class, recent assessments have shown that, and considering the massive amount of Dragonlance novels out there (over 100), and there are about twenty "core" novels, I want to get them all out there and then go back, improve references, and dig up reviews and hopefully bump up to GA. I'm not sure if they can ever get to FA, critical reviews are very hard to find for the subject matter, you know. Thanks for the sig compliments :). As for Fair Use in Portals, it's dormant now, so I don't think it's much of an issue.

All in all, thanks a lot, and I'm going to give at least a few months breadth between myself and Esperanza.  Dooms Day349  18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List
AWB can work with the table, so that's OK. I would still prefer a normal list, though that's just personal preference, and I'm willing to bow to consensus on this. The table would be OK, but it looks terrible with all the broken (Talk |Contribs) - can you fix that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean most of the cells have


 * User (talk|
 * contribs)

which looks broken and unaesthetically pleasing. Can you fix that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks OK now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkdw
Hi WJB, I noticed your reviews on the Editor review. I was hoping, seeing that I'm up for my own review, you'd be willing to leave some comments and advice for me. Mkdw talk 04:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I will take it along with me on my travels through Wikipedia. I may misinterpreted one purpose of the Editor Review, which would be the prerequisite 'assessment' for adminship. I've always thought that the possibility of becoming an admin was so far away, but it looks like I'm on the right path – someday. I noticed your comment about the article Julius Soubise and I'm not sure if factored in the major revamp of the article minutes after I voted. The version I voted 'speedy delete' was Edit 101002060 which did not say he founded an academy, but rather he attended one. I was wondering if I was still right to vote 'speedy delete' on that verison? Mkdw talk 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - Thank you for fixing some of my articles. I sometimes feel overwhelmed with the programming aspect of Wikipedia as I had no background in it before Oct 2006.
 * lol, it totally does, my mistake. As I said on my review, its a lession learned in reading things more closely. Also, the Portal:Vancouver, I'm happy to say, became a featured portal on January 8, 2006. Mkdw talk 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-link
A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Deletion review. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important).

And don't worry about wp:canvas. =) I'm alerting both sides; see User talk:Freder1ck for instance. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty astonishing how some people can appear to be entirely blind to their own biases. The article looks safe though, from the number of keeps, with good arguments behind them. My comments on Abe's AFD are practically "Coelacan boilerplate" by now. *grin* See User:Coelacan/Help Desk POV and AfD if you ever need this stuff. — coe l acan t a lk  — 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FFS. I cannot believe that this Catholic-link thing is still going on. Probably for another yet week now. At least I can cut and paste my old arguments at this point. Have you ever seen anything so tedious? — coe l acan t a lk  — 10:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Halloween producers
Hi. I added some information about the producers to the talk page. This is the official listing on IMDB. TheQuandry 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wanted to be sure. TheQuandry 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use
should do the trick. ed g2s &bull; talk 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. ed g2s &bull; talk 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

British English
I was thinking about it last night and figured the use of "are" probably was correct based on British English. Thanks for the follow up.--Fresh 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Using English
Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Project
First off, thank you for the welcome. About the member lists, I was more amused than anything else, really. That, and I almost missed the subpage. I've noticed that there's a discussion on the project talk page, so I think I might chime in there, but it's getting a little late tonight for me to actually be communicating. ;) — Mi ra  11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about what is appropriate for the Wikipedia
A while back on the incident board I pointed out a problem about a user adding hundreds of templates to the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE). You pointed out the TfD (which didn't go through at first), but looks like it will this time.

However, the user has modified his behavior and seems to be working on a project to adding direct links to the CE to all 10k+ corresponding articles. I'm not sure what the appropriate action or wikipedia policy is. It just doesn't seem right to me. I didn't want to report it on the incident board because I'm not as experienced as you and thought I would ask you first. Jeff Carr 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your reply on Jeff's page. The template he is adding is very much future-directed. I have looked at a few of the articles, which all seem to be one-line stubs he added (from the CE)in the summer of very obscure Catholic figures (all of which would now be strangled at birth on grounds of notability I imagine). If he restricts himself to these, that's ok I suppose - I am basically an inclusionist - but if as before he starts adding them en masse to articles on artists, historical figures etc, that would not be ok. But perhaps the reaction of editors to the last template has taught him that. Johnbod 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. As for your comment that I "should have had an RfA months ago," I guess I figured better to take a chance on a little too late rather than too soon; in any event, it's done now. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT templates
So we have to add every article we can think of under each heading?!? Oy vey! This is gonna be a major task. I congratulate you for beginning it--when I got Dev's message I became paralysed. I will start to help this afternoon and evening. And sorry I have been so crabby the last couple of weeks. I am still recovering from acute bronchitis, and have been for over 2 weeks. Cheers, Jeffpw 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Existence of our homophobia article
You asked a darn good question, one which requires more than a 5-minute answer. So please don't take my hesitation the wrong way. I will provide a comprehensive answer next chance I get. Please bear with me. :-) --Uncle Ed 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
See my user page for an explanation about my IP edits. Hopefully this should make you worry less. --SunStar Nettalk 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –m y s i d ☎ 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your taking the time to take up for me! Some people...well Jenny Holzer said it best: "Abuse of power comes as no surprise". Jeffpw 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw
It is no more appropriate on the Talk page than it is on the User page. I have requested a review of my actions at WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What good Wiki friends I have here!
You three (Coelacan, Dev920 and WJBScribe, in alphabetical order) are the best friends one could hope for! I feel just like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz! Jeffpw 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your pictures of the Chinese communists cancel out the dreadful republican images, in my book, and the sexy photo of Tim Henman absolves you of any wrongdoing whatsoever! Jeffpw 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking out for me, WJB. I'll keep your words in mind if I ehar any more about that. Jeffpw 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! I started a trend! If I was cynical, I'd say I hope it translated into future votes, but I'm not, so I'll just say it's a cute pic, and she looks fabulous blown up to 1000 px! Jeffpw 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

IP 208.62.42.226
FYI: You warned this user, but (s)he's still at it - and messing with bios. Maybe a block is warranted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ATren (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the tips on my talk page... I'm new to vandalism patrol. :-) ATren 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Atheists attack on Important American Historical Figures
Thank you for supporting the quote I contributed to the Abraham Lincoln article relating to his view on religion. Excuse my not-so-polite words against particular Wiki editors. I have faced huge opposition from several Wiki editors on the subject of the religious views of several American historical figures. These editors do all they can to portray these men as atheists and delete and prevent any mention of these men's own words detailing their own view of religion. I am very tired of disputing and reverting edits with them. I guess I am not sure what to do in order to formally put a stop to their POV (yet they have the audacity to call my edits POV!). Slowly, I have been able to keep many of my edits on these articles. But whenever I try to add new material on religion to another American Founding Father it starts all over again, against the same atheistic Wiki editors. Gaytan 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Record RfAs
Thank you for the updates to the record RfA list. And you've been good at catching all the redundancies there :). NoSeptember  15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

*cries*
It seems strange to think that I've only known you both for three months, and I'm probably never going to meet you, and yet you can reduce me to tears with a few sentences. Thank you so much for your support - you can certainly count on mine for anything you do. Gratefully yours, Sarah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Alain Prost page
Hi. I did not intend to vandalise the Prost page. My edit to the Jenkinson quote was to make it consistent with the source. If you know that the current source is incorrect you could replace it with a correct source.

My edit to the para under the heading "1980: McLaren" was to avoid repetition of the words debut and achievement. 81.151.212.80 11:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:81.151.212.80- surprisingly, changing the word hyperbole in an article to bullshit was a valid edit... WJBscribe 13:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image help
Thanks for that, WJB. I was at a loss as to how to respond. I have tagged it now. BY the way, are you ever on IRC? Jeffpw 11:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw your problems with Cyberanth
Several of us have noticed this as well. See. I also opened a case on WP:ANI but got shockingly little support from the Admins there. I can't believe this policy misinterpretation is going to stand, and if this is just a stunt to force people to start looking up and citing harmless paragraphs, it is a transparent case of WP:POINT 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caper13 (talk • contribs)

Re: vandalism to David Cameron
I didn't do it, I was trying to revert the Cameron page back but just clicked the wrong thing. I would recommned you check the log again, as I have neither the wherewithal nor inclination to vandalise an encyclopaedic website; I teach Politics at the LSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.96.152 (talk • contribs)
 * Replied at User talk:86.133.96.152. No vandalism present prior to revert to previous vandalism, but accept this was a mistake made in good faith. WJBscribe 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re
Yes, you are welcome to inform other users of the article's new location. Also, any user can edit the article while it is in my userspace, since it was moved from the main namespace. John254 04:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FAM thanks
Thanks for the medal! I confess, I should have added Peter Sarsgaard to the pile this month, but I've been working too hard on WP:LGBT and real life stuff. Hopefully February will prove more laid-back. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok! I should warn though, I'm planning on eventually overtaking Emsworth, so you may be giving me a lot of medals. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Somerville
Hey WJBScribe - just wondered if Category:Fellows_of_Somerville_College%2C_Oxford is supposed to look like that. Hope all is well, see you soon Chrislintott 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Later in the week, perhaps? Will be in touch offline Chrislintott 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Youtr comments to Cyberanth regarding his recent WP:BLP work
I have to say that's definatly one of the more sensible suggestions Ilve heard on the subject, and would definatly make the difference between reasonable steps towards making sure material is factual and what can easily be percieved as a form of procedural vandalism. Would it be worth suggesting as an addition to the WP:BLP policy page? Artw 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'd like to wait to see what CyberAnth's response is before taking it any further. The process would be much smoother if everyone thinks it a good idea than if some object. WJBscribe 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck on that, though I suspect it will be a long wait.
 * For whatever it's worth (and I suspect it's not much) I have decided to give up on editing articles for no, primarily because I object to how WP:BLP is being implimented in it's current form and the apparent endorsement of rampant assholism. I suspect others may end up feeling the smae way soon. Minor modifications to the WP:BLP page along the lines of your suggestion, with the intent of encouraging more responisble use, would do a lot to prevent that so I'd really encourage you to chase it up.
 * Cheers,
 * Artw 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Juan
Thank you for adding my sig to the IP vandle talk page.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFC proposal
Thanks for your interest in my RFC/User clerk proposal. The response from folks who have commented has been generally indicating that there was no need for such an addition; I'm guessing that I and a couple of other folks who had talked about it either misread the need for it, or there's no interest at this point. I've withdrawn the proposal on the Village Pump. I might take some comments to the RFC discussion area on potential improvements, but we'll see how it goes. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Juan
No problem on that discussion, I must say I found that a bit odd, all you need do is take a diff avoiding the vandals and the changes are obvious. As for a landfall animation, unfortunately that is impossible for Juan. The data source for them is American NEXRAD radar sites, and the coverage of the nearest one in Maine doesn't reach to Halifax (I've tried before). The Canadians have their own radar of course, but I haven't found the raw data and any images from a Canadian government site would be protected by Crown Copyright. Its a nice idea though--Nilfanion (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it again...
The person you recently warned has vandalised again. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me  §   Contributions ♣ 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)