User talk:Wizardman/Archive20

RfC closure
Oh dear. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The thread is now at my talk. I've flagged it up to Ncmvocalist too. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

United States congressional apportionment
There's what looks to be the start of an edit war over this article and an anonymous editor's original research. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. United States congressional apportionment. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Woodhouse
Hey, thanks for taking the time and trouble to review and then pass Curtis Woodhouse for GA. You mentioned you'd like to see the two redlinked boxing stadiums turn blue. The Metrodome Leisure Centre already had an article at Barnsley Metrodome, which I've now linked. The Sheffield United Academy is the facility where Sheffield United F.C. youth players train, isn't mentioned explicitly either in the SUFC article or in Sport in Sheffield, and according to BoxRec, the card on which Woodhouse fought is the only boxing event they've hosted. Do you have a view on whether it would be sensible to link it to Sheff Utd FC, or to delink it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

King's School, Ely
Looks like you can fail this; nommer hasn't edited since September and no editing has taken place. Wizardman 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to do that, and then edit it myself and resubmit for someone else to review. Then I noticed in the guidelines as I was about to Fail it this advice: "If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself." And I thought I would do that. I have, however, been held up by heavy work and social commitments over the past couple of weeks. If I can't get to the article in the next couple of days I will fail it and work on it later as per my original intention. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 14:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Wizardman. Glad to be back. Jus tin (Gmail?)(u) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Spot me a clue pls
It occurred to me that I've pontificated in a bazillion RfAs, but I've never actually nominated anyone. But you're a repeat offender when it comes into luring suckers into RfA finding volunteers. Is there anything not-so-obvious I need to know? I'm thinking of nominating editors who probably won't be hyperactive admins, just dabblers. Apart from making sure they answer "optional" question one clearly, does that matter? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bank Street (stadium) GA review
Hi there, I notice you've had Bank Street (stadium) tagged as under review for a couple of days now, and I wondered how the review was going. Any chance of a progress report? Cheers. – PeeJay 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, dude. I appreciate you reviewing it at all. – PeeJay 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: To be blunt
Nah, I don't think I'll be going back there for a while. I just had this same discussion yesterday; basically, I don't think I am ready. I've been doing a fair amount of RPP, AIV, and CSD, but I'd like to get a few more Featured Articles at the very least before going back there. And Wikipedia already has enough administrators as it is. Gary King ( talk ) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your nine thousand featured lists should suffice. :-) In any event, I'm going to respond to your comment with a big ol' o rly and leave it at that... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1993 Independence Bowl GA
Thanks for the review and the pass! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson GAN
I've put Jackie Robinson up if you still want to review it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputing a deleted article "Goblins"
Hello, I am the creator of Goblins (the webcomic) and I feel that it meets the notability guildlines necessary to be an article on Wiki. Here is a quick list...

~ Received the respected "Most Outstanding New Webcartoonist" award from Dragoncon in 2006.

~ Is published (Goblins Book One) in paper form and is available in any gaming or hobby store throughout North America (distributed by Alliance Games, the largest game distributors in North America) and Europe (distributed by Esdevium Games, Europe's largest game distributor).

~ Goblins Book one includes a foreword by Monte Cook, one of the chief creators of Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition and writer of the D&D Player's handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual.

~ Goblins Book Two is to launch in the near future.

~ The downloadable, PDF formats of Book One and Book Two have both been #1 bestsellers over at drivethrucomics.com, the largest online comic store in the world.

All of these facts can be proved, if necessary. I enjoy Wikipedia and I would like to continue being a part of it.

Thanks you for your time, ~Tarol Hunt whep@show.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greythumb9 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

^ 5!
You go, backlog eliminator! :D delldot   &nabla;.  02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing the ANI thread on Yannis
I want to congratulate you for the impeccable way you handled the closing of this painful thread at ANI and for your remarkably insightful closing comments. Your actions are deeply appreciated. Thank you. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Re: Admin
Hi. I would be more than happy and honored if you nominate me. I followed some of your advice by participating more in janitorial stuff like closing xfDs. I keep reverting and reporting vandalisms, etc. If you have any other advice of how to improve my contribution to Wikipedia, I would be glad to read it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Early history of Turkmenistan
I'm curious as to how to attribute copypasted sources. Please inform me. ~  one of many editorofthewikis ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow!
Hi! I just wanted to say I like your user page! =) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725
Hello again, Wizardman. Thanks very much indeed for doing a thorough and painstaking review of this article. It has been an enormous help to us and has enabled us to do a lot of necessary finetuning. It is now a far better article than it was before the review. All the best. BlackJack | talk page 08:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA time
I have (of course) accepted your nomination, answered the questions, and transcluded the page. Let the "fun" begin. *deep breath* JPG-GR (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And, now thanks again for the nomination as it was successful! :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done!
Thanks for closing Requests for comment/Elonka. That took a lot of hard work, and I think you did a good job. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A request
Wizardman, I wanted to let you know about a situation that's arisen with Lenticel, whom you conominated for adminship. (I'm posting this same message to Bibliomaniac, the other nominator.) If you have a moment, would you take a look at Talk:Chocolate Hills, and then at the note I left on Lenticel's talk page?

Lenticel hasn't responded in any way to my note, though he's edited since I left it. I prefer to try to resolve issues on Wikipedia through direct interaction with acquaintances, where possible, since that seems more personal and more likely to be friendly (and successful). If you agree with me that Lenticel should consider saying something conciliatory to Malleus, would you post something to that effect on Lenticel's talk page? I've never interacted with him, and he may consider me a busybody; he knows you and might pay more heed to a note from you.

If you don't think any response from Lenticel is warranted, that's fine, though I'd be interested to get your take on it. Malleus hasn't retired, but he's stated he'll be pulling back from volunteer work as a result of this incident (which he indicated was just the last straw, rather than the entire reason for his disillusionment). Malleus is a top-flight editor, and I'd like to give him hope that problems can be successfully resolved in a friendly way here on Wikipedia.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much -- that's exactly what I was hoping for. Let's hope it works out well.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Naomi Westerman
Would this fall under G10, as the person in the article has requested deletion in light of WP:BLP and WP:STALKing (see diff)? If so, this should be deleted poste haste. I didn't want to tag it for G10 myself because I'm not exactly sure this falls under the criterion.

P.S. Thank you for the closure on the RFC/U. I agree with the conclusion. MuZemike ( talk ) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger J
Thank goodness. Thanks for your close and I hope it will strengthen the precedent. People arguing that there was notability, in the face of the complete lack of notability made it seem to me that the Keeps were more in disagreement with the principle of the thing than looking at the actual sources etc. Plenty of people do silly things in their youth but some people might not have experienced/realised that. Sticky Parkin 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have opened a case at the Arbitration Committee regarding your close of the Ginger Jolie debate, noting both procedural and substantive errors, and focusing on the substitution of individual opinion for consensus community determination. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentThis is a reaction to arbitration request of the closed Ginger Jolie article. First, I would like to express my gratitude to wiki admin for this intelligent decision.  Taking away all the social gargons used in the resulting decision, the best defense was that quoted by forum participant Durova: "The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous."  Such statement embodies the humane consideration by which the article should be, and was, thankfully, removed.


 * As emphasized by many, she is unknown (notably unknown, relatively unknown, virtual unknown, it does not matter) and that is a strong reason enough, very simple yet it is the esense in fact, to warrant removal of the article since it will not affect search on the part of the wiki community, and conversely, the move will bring something positive to her life. McCain, Obama, Paris Hilton are different cases.  With or without wiki, they are there along with their juicy personal details.  Ms. Ginger is not that level famous.  Paris and her league are public properties, Ms. Ginger is not, obviously.    She is in fact trying to live a private life and whoever interested in her life can get the details straight from her.


 * By requesting to delete that article, she is not trying to delete details of her life, or alter them, or come off as holier-than-though. She is simly not a public property, and with that, posting the very brief and even insubstantial bio just to pad the list of adult industry players,just makes her a "random item" in this search category, depriving her of the respect that private, semi-private and wanting to be private individuals are all entitled to.


 * What is it to you, Ms. Enchantress, that her supposed bio is posted, nothing, right? It is just a name add-on.  What is it for her that her bio is posted, or not posted? A lot.  Her life and future, and even those of her loved ones, may actually depend on that.  Community consensus does not only mean the actual forum participants, but think deeply, it is the greater voice that advocates for what is right, humane and uncruel.  Thank you, wiki.

Ginger Jolie
Moved.

Pile on
Meh, was coming here to give you a barnstar for a fantastic close, but I've been beaten to it. So rather than a barnstar, I dedicate my essay to you. I wrote WP:BBio some time ago and I hoped people might heed it - and you just did (in spirit). Well done. Common sense > process. Common decency > ideological inclusionism. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the result but found the reasoning to be very good. Now if only all courtesy BLPs had this level of thought going into the closes... JoshuaZ (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job Wizardman. Up until the end, I was fairly torn on whether or not I really wanted the article deleted, I could definitely appreciate the merits of both arguments. Your rationale for deletion was exemplary. Your judgment was, as it usually is, excellent. Trusilver 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I'd like to thank everyone for the comments after the close. I'd thank you all personally, but I can't seem to find time these days to edit much. Wizardman 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Afd: Ginger Jolie
Thanks for taking the time to explain your rationale for the way you closed the AfD. A question, however, if I may:

The implication of your decision appears to be that there is a class of people - borderline notable, as it were - for whom a flattering article, or one which brushes over unsavoury details of their past, will now be allowed to stand, but who will be able to request removal of any article which does not meet with the subject's approval. I think that may be a dangerous prec3edent, especially in a case where the person is not making a wholesale life change. (Someone who's now a known charity worker, but who once shoplifted, bah, who cares. But, say, a professional sportsman who was once suspended in school/college for dubious sporting practices, even in a different sport - hard to see why that isn't valid). Just thoughts. (Incidentally, Ginger Jolie's name still appears, albeit redlinked I guess, in the List of Penthouse Pets. I hope we aren't going to excise that reference too.) MadScot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wizardman, for a thoughtful and well-reasoned close. I would be thanking you for a rationle of that quality whether or not you concluded to delete: it was a difficult undertaking you took on, and you did it with grace and respect. Kudos. And as a comment to MadScot, when I first formulated my own standards more than a year ago those were concerns that came to mind. I've done my best do establish a fair and equal threshhold, and contact with several article subjects has shed a perspective on the matter. Rand Fishkin expressed it best--and although there was nothing particularly negative in his biography, he realized that at any time something inappropriate might be added. In particular he was concerned that business competitors might vandalize the biography strategically while he was seeking new contracts. Hope that sheds a better light on things. Regards, Durova Charge! 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification? Wizardman, thanks for your reply. I've thought about the AfD some more and have realised that there was an issue you left unclear in your closing. I think there are some very significant consequences to this closure for policy (If I were Mr Rick Ross I'd be very interested to observe differences between my AfD and the Ginger Jolie one, for example). What I think needs clarifying is this: You identified four camps:
 * 1. Not notable - delete
 * 2. Delete per subject's request and BLP (no opinion on notable)
 * 3. Keep despite subject request (no opinion on notable)
 * 4. Keep per notability overturning subject request.

You also stated that (1) and (3) were minor (and I agree there) and ruled that 2 would prevail. This however leaves in doubt whether Ginger Jolie is, in fact, notable. Thus it's unclear to me whether this was a deletion of a notable person, per BLP, or of a non-notable person. In other words, had some third party put this up for AfD, and the debate had been purely on notability, what would be the result? The reason I ask for this clarification is it really changes the impact for future policy as to whether we are deleting notable biographies at the request of the subject. Thanks for your time, and apologies for the longish question. MadScot (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. For anyone following along and not seeing the reply, the answer is that the AfD was considered not to have determined yea or nay for notability, and the delete was on the basis of BLP only. I think that's enough info to go to DRV; not because I believe Wizardman acted necessarily wrongly, but because I think there are larger issues embedded in the deletion, and I honestly don't know where else this would go next....
 * To lay out the concerns I think need to be raised at DRV:
 * With the closing admin having stated that there was no consensus on notability, it's unclear at what stage notability would trump the BLP deletion request (where it's not a request to delete inaccurate/defamatory material, but material the subject does not like)
 * It's unclear what the implications are for policy regarding requested deletions where the subject objects to part of an article only. Suppose, for example, that 'Ginger Jolie' succeeds in her career change, and attains 'supermodel' levels of notoriety. Is her past still off-limits, or does later notability trump the BLP request. This would apply even with a name change, depending on it being known (I think it's safe to say her pseudonym would become known if she achieved that level of fame. But there is also the non-pseudonym cases - are we, in effect, advocating a statute of limitations on bad decisions?
 * At a minimum I'd like to at least settle the notability issue independent of the BLP one; if her bio is NN then we're really tightening up the PORNBIO criteria, but it makes the BLP delete a lot less fraught. If, however, we conclude that the BLP request does indeed trump Notability (and implicitly, not just PORNBIO but BIO in general) then there are things I think need to be really thought through.
 * As I said, I'm open to suggestions for an alternate to DRV, but I think ArbCom isn't it, since I don't think the closure was in bad faith. Any suggestions other than DRV?MadScot (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Close of Ginger Jolie AFD

 * I just read your close of this AfD, and I have to say that it was thoroughly well-reasoned and excellent. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured I'd say something here rather than the RFAR. I saw your close of that AfD and while I would not have closed it the same way I think that it took guts to do so.  Closing debates like that is always hard and the most likely outcome is that everyone will be upset about things.  So good job on a clear, reasoned and incisive close. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am considering asking for a deletion review of her AFD. I might be mistaken (and feel free to point out where my understanding of deletion policy can be updated) but AFD-no consensus defaults to keep under WP:DEL and that there was only discussion about whether we should default no-consensus for BLP to delete. Deletion is the last resort under WP:BLP. Ginger Jolie's adult modeling portfolio and notability under WP:PORNBIO can be verified by reliable sources. Simply because she is modeling mainstream under another name and doesn't want people to associate the two names, does not mean that notability goes away. There was no attempt to connect [name redacted] to Ginger Jolie in the deleted article as that can not be verified by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Morbidthoughts, I took the liberty of redacting her new name from your comment. Although you know, and I know, and hell, half of wiki now knows of the connection by now, we should I guess not spread it around. After all, the only source we have for the connection is various comments in wiki, and we aren't an RS of course ....MadScot (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I also am considering DRV, but first we need to clarify some of the decision process (hence my Q above) since this will be hard enough to discuss anyway, without it being clear exactly what the discussion is about!MadScot (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ginger Jolie
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ginger Jolie. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tabercil (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2000 Sugar Bowl
Just wanted to say thanks again for doing a GA review and pass of 2000 Sugar Bowl. I've incorporated the extra material you suggested, and it's currently a featured article candidate. If you have the time (and I know you're on a semi-Wikibreak, so it's not a big deal if you don't), I'd appreciate any feedback you'd be able to offer for the FAC. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me and supporting my RfA
I would like to thank you for trusting me and nominated for Admin. Thanks for supporting my RfA with a great text. I'll do my best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * == Jackie Robinson ==

Any idea when you might review Jackie Robinson? I happen to have some time to work on it this weekend. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the requested changes and am ready for more ideas on how to meet the GAC. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a Cookie!


RockManQ (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * For all the good stuff you've done for the pedia', and all the admins you've nominated. Cheers, RockManQ  (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Press TV
I'm not really sure why you protected this article. The off-Wiki campaign you mentioned took place last Friday. The discussion on that blog was over by Saturday and the entry is no longer on the front page. There is a content dispute and editors have reverted each other but again, the most heated period seems well past, the pace of editing seems relatively slow and discussion was ongoing on the talk page. --Cherry blossom tree 09:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have requested unprotection. --Cherry blossom tree 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC archiving
You're welcome to archive Davegnz now too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Mighty Boosh List of One-Off Characters
Why was this deleted? I wanted to view this information and it's no longer there, though I can get to what used to be there from deletionpedia.

I can't understand the logic in deleting valid information, if I went to a library to look up an obscure book, would I expect them to say "Nobody read if for a couple of years so we decided to destroy it.." ?

How do I go about re-instating this valid information? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Luther Prentice Bradley
Dear Wizardman, you removed Luther Prentice Bradley from "Did you know". Some of the things posted by User:Mitico were incorrect. See: Talk:Luther Prentice Bradley. I changed text and I think the issue is resolved. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue has been resolved. The response of User:Mitico was good. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U Expeditionradio Thanks and request
Thank you for the concise conclusion. It seems to be the best solution to the problem that existed.

One quick request? Could you add WP:CIVIL to the list of requirements? It seems to me that was Expeditionradio's main problem - and BTW, user is female.

Appreciate it.


 * Thanks again! Manway (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Manway (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Expeditionradio requests more open time extension of at least 1 month for the RFC. There has not been enough time for others to reply and comment, because most other users had no knowledge of it. Also, the conclusions by Wizardman were incorrect. The "WP:OUTING" was actually alleged and confirmed against Manway, and not against Expeditionradio. Best Regards. Expeditionradio (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"I don't get how to do non self-noms"
Hello Wizardman. I noticed this while watching T:DYK/N. Well, all you have to do is use the DYKnom template. Example:, = ,. – RyanCross  ( talk ) 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) – RyanCross  ( talk ) 02:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

re picher stub sorting
see dicussion here. in short changing from when the players were most active (often difficult to narrow down to when the player was born (easy for the vast majority of people, and the way many other stub categories are sorted. New categories will be on the way once I've got the majority of articles tagged. Waacstats (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackson Todd
I noted an issue on the article's DYK nomination.  Royal broil  04:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Miscellany for deletion/Stub proposals and deletions
Hi Wizardman - the case you mention at Miscellany for deletion/Stub proposals and deletions never happens. "Unproposed" is only ever mentioned to indicate that something, if deleted, won't need to be removed from WP:WSS stub type lists. It is never, ever, used as a reason for deletion.Quite the opposite - I have seen nominations where the only reason given was "unproposed" and the stub type has been speedily kept as a result. Grutness...wha?  20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied at MfD, but essentially, what about those cases where I noted initially that something was proposed, such as here? Same holds true in both cases - it is only put there to aid the closing admin. And you still haven't shown any case where "unproposed" is used as any form of reason for deletion. Grutness...wha?  01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, that's the only reason for it. It developed early on in SfD when it was discovered that closing admins would often leave deletions of proposed stub types on various lists of stubs, and they'd need to be cleared up by WP:WSS later. The only reason so many start with "unproposed' or "Proposed" is that that's the easiest place to catch the closer's attention. Grutness...wha?  21:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unified account
Hi,my username on Hindi wikipedia is Debashish and at English one is Debashishc. I wanted to go for the unified login. Can my username at English Wikipedia be changed to "Debashish" (I see that this username has already been taken, but this answer seems to imply I can still change that)? Could you please help or please point me to appropriate Admin? Thanks. --Debashishc (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like you already found the answer to your question. -- Amalthea Talk 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you.--Debashishc (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:EssjayBot II/message
Why did you delete User:EssjayBot II/message? -- Ned Scott 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, this seems to come from updated wording for WP:CSD. However, I believe the intention there was subpages for things like templates. Userspace is another monster altogether. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adminship
I'd be delighted to receive your nomination, but I haven't quite finished admin coaching (User:Dendodge/Admin coaching). After that, I feel I'll be ready and will happily accept. Thank you. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Undelete!
You deleted the article "36 (song)" from Wikipedia. I think the article should be undeleted. If it was a stub, add the stub notice. Thanks, --Encyclopedia77 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia77 (talk • contribs)

Mediation
Hiya Wizardman, any progress on beginning the mediation for the GdS article and dispute? Avruch  T 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you have the chance to get to anything over the weekend? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles (biographies)
Hi, any particular reason why you deleted Jonathan Carr? diff--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Conclusion"?
Who asked you to "conclude" that RfC as if you were the final judge ? Please refactor that. If you want to comment, do it like everybody else, file an "outside view". Your opinions carry no more weight than anybody else's, there's no reason for having them sitting there as if they had a claim of being the final word. It's pretentious and arrogant to assume that role of authority for yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User RfCs don't get "closed" with a final "conclusion", they get simply archived when they've run their course. You wrote something there that very much looks as if you drew some authoritative judgment on the matter. You have no right to do so. If you want to archive the thing, archive it; if you want to comment, comment, but don't assume a special role for that comment. I don't need you to understand what that RfC means, and I doubt anybody else does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are "cautioning" me to do this or that? And you are spamming your "conclusion" to all sorts of people's talk pages to make everybody feel you said the final word and that's it? Who do you think you are? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wizardman is finally a person that realised exactly how bossy, rude and childish you behave. I don't need any diffs to prove that, the RFC has a large collection of your constant breach of civility. I hope more people realise this so you can finally get the kick out of the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.173.171 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah geez ip.. the removal by FP was probably right, if nothing else the above shouldn't be on my talk. As for the RfC, it's unenforceable, obviously. Just ignore it if you don't like it. I've done these closures since July and been met with praise; you're the first so peeved about it. As has been stated, the rfc's over, I'm dropping the matter. Wizardman  00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are dropping it? I'm not. If you won't refactor it, I'll do it for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you weren't aware, this has been brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some of the conclusions and don't have a problem with the practice per se, but it might be more effective if the conclusion took the form of a neutral summary - including presenting the most common or most endorsed points of view, the basic area of contention and any concrete outcomes that arrived as a result of the RfC. That would be handy - it becomes more of a precis and a summary. That is something I would think people could get behind more readily, especially in RfCs where the disputants are long-time editors and admins with entrenched positions. Just a suggestion, anyway. I think this is as actually the second or third time I've seen an RfC conclusion of yours disputed, but even so I think the idea works fine, you don't seem to be involved in any major disputes yourself, and your ability to size up the outcome of a discussion doesn't seem to be in question. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions
Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review

ArbCom Candidate Template
Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template ACE2008Candidate, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey wisard man
Maby we could converse on my chat page I have a few questions for you! Like how you are going for the election and that kind of stuff and how I could maby eventully run also! --PKl777 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Patrick Leput or User pkl777