User talk:WilyD/Archives/2007/June

User:Jerryseinfeld
well this user could have been sugested to change his username. you can't block any user without any warning. The admin who blocked should have suggested him to change his username. he contributed wikipedia a lot and that to significantly. i think he should be unblocked. he hadn't vandalised or abused any one. Kindly reply on my talkpage if possible. thanks, 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Administrators' how-to guide and Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Best of luck with those extra buttons. — An as  talk? 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You deserve it, best of luck with the tools! The Sunshine Man 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the mop/bucket!--Isotope23 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't aware of this until now (to support, naturally.) Congratulations.Proabivouac 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * congratulations ^_^ ITAQALLAH   20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats buddy! Use 'em well!  Jmlk  1  7  06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
I'd like to thank you for your help in Articles for deletion/List of frivolous political parties, despite the fact that it was six months ago. Seeing the overuse of NPOV beaten back is always a worthwhile experience, and you definitely deserve an accolade for this line alone:

"like pornography, it's hard to define, but A rhinocerous as party president is one of those giveaways that makes it easy to know when you see it."

--Kizor 19:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is late
sorry this is late but, good luck with adminship Lmc 169 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on becomeing an admin. I know you will do good for Wikipedia!

Politics rule 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Illustrating List of Messier objects
Hey, I see you added some more pics to List of Messier objects. Thanks for finishing what I had started. Some of the pics I found on the corresponding Wikipedia articles weren't very good. Do you think it will be possible to find better ones? Carcharoth 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that some pics, like the one for Messier 70 are in the list but not in the article. Is there a reason for that? If not, someone at some point should put the pics in the articles as well as in the list. What do you think? Carcharoth 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. I also want to congratulate you on your recent successful RfA. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy images
I have a couple of requests: Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please add credit lines whenever the image can be attributed to someone? (You missed one with Messier 81.)
 * When you upload images, could you state the following in the descriptions:
 * The website where the image came from.
 * The telescopes and instruments that were used to take the data. (It would be nice to identify the GALEX images with the telescope.)


 * The links are hard to see. You may want to use the full title or full url of the webpage, and you may want to place the link (along with an image description and credit information) above the licensing.  See, for example, Image:Ngc1672.jpg.  Dr. Submillimeter 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Racism by Country
I am only interested in getting a mediation on articles that attract controversy to settle editorial conflicts. The failure of some users to take these procedures seriously should not impede this process. The fact that admins are avoiding these problems is lamentable.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP
"...maintaining rules because "they've always been there" when they're [in one's opinion] serving no purpose doesn't seem worthwhile." Actually, on policy pages it is worthwhile. Revert first. If you have a relevant talk thread on WT:BLP, point me there. The three points might not hang together perfectly, but the bullet serves a use because it disallows self-published claims about third parties/issues. The list from V could work as well, and might be better for synchronization. Marskell 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At worst, it's redundancy for emphasis. At best it clarifies not using a self-published source to add tangential info. Sorry, if the last was unclear—simply pointing to V might be sufficient, because they ought to be identical anyway. Marskell 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note
That provision is intended to help us avoid cruft and vanity details. Subjects have been known to add a ton of irrelevant personal detail to their websites so they can add it to their Wikipedia article, and you end up with a running commentary on their likes and dislikes, which can change from week to week, as though we were their personal news agency. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about establishing the notability via self-published sources; it's just that SPS material should be strictly on-topic. As always, policies are to be interpreted with common sense. What wording did you have in mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Commentary?
Hello; thanks for your note. I'm unsure if you want to weigh in at all there, but please do if compelled to. Thanks. Corticopia 05:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advocacy and counsel: I am surprised I have even commented as much as I have. ;) TTYL. Corticopia 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What does OR mean?
Just wondering what OR means and what it has to do with why you reverted my edits on the Conservapedia article. MartinJoh00 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So if I write an article with the same informtion and it is published in the New York Times it would be acceptable to mention it? MartinJoh00 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. 14 of the citations for the Conservapedia article refer to Conservapedia entries, many of which are used as the only reference for statements in the article. Why do you remove my entry but not entries such as "The policing of articles is accomplished by Andrew Schlafly himself and 28 additional sysops.[36] Throughout March 2007, this small group had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia, since the majority of the site's dedicated editors disagrees with their goal of censoring non-creationist viewpoints, and edit accordingly.[37]"? MartinJoh00 17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Help
How can you support adding Muhammad picture nude. I hope I am wrong? If they have to add a non-Muslim image then they could remove one Muslim image so that number of pictures remain same. Adding nude picture is so wrong. Will you help in removing the nude picture? --- A. L. M. 08:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Muhammad
You improperly protected Muhammad since you did not change the template from semi-protected to protected. Please fix this. I also believe the burden of proof should have been upon those seeking to censor material. I'm not sure we need to go through this protection charade every time an image is added to the page. Most of the dissent is from those entirely opposed to any image of Muhammad being displayed, and it should be up to them to prove this historical picture merits censorship. Talmage 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wanted to remind you while you're still flexing your new admin muscles. :) Talmage 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK
That's because you ignorant GRINGOS don't know sh*t about the world.

Don't be stupid, be reasonable. I forgive you.

I have a elementary school question for you:

How many continents are there in planet Earth?

I hope the answer is 6, not 7, you naive creature.

America (ONE CONTINENT), Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and Antartica.

I am not saying Central America is a continent.

I am saying that N and S America are not two separate continents. It is one continent!

Define, then, part of which continent is Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, etc? North or South?

Central America!

And what is Central America part of? North? South? None of the above!!!

Oh my God. I can't believe this.

Are you saying I have lived in North America all my life without knowing it? WOW.

And why does it appear as part of South America in many world maps? Because it is also wrong!

And by the way, Toronto.... USA, same sh*t.

Block
No block! However, given Deskana's comments, perhaps this is not a bad thing. At this point I'm more curious than anything, I have been blocked in the past, but my block log special page does not appear to register it. Am I on the correct page? WLU 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, gracias. I think your block time re-defined the expression 'slap on the wrist' but the discussion has clarified things for me as much as an actual block would.  Much obliged.  WLU 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly - public disclosure demonstrates my comprehension of my actions and that it has indeed been dealt with or seen an 'official' response. This is more public disclosure than actual punishment.  Just like this response is.  And now I cease to bother you, thanks for your comments.  WLU

Neanderthals
Whoops, didn't notice I wasn't signed in when I edited the neanderthal page. Anyway, the reference was very helpful, but I can only access the abstract of that paper without an account. Does the main body of the paper specify rodeo clowns? The abstract only says rodeo performers, which most likely refers to the people that actually do ride/rope/etc. the animals. If it doesn't say clowns, the article should be changed to read "rodeo performers" instead of clowns. If it does specify clowns (and it appears that the author was using the term "rodeo clown" correctly), then it should probably say that that's evidence that Neanderthals hunted animals at close range using hand weapons, but not that they jumped on or wrestled them. Riding bulls and clowning are different, though related professions, with distinct injury patterns. Arrkhal 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)