User talk:Wizardman/Archive6

Morlon Wiley
I went with this one anyway over the objection of Rigadoun. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and there's a transfer deadline, so I think a lot of people will get the concept. --  howcheng  {chat} 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK update help offer...
... I saw you just updated Template:Did you know. Would you like help with the "Credits" task part of the Template:Did you know/Next update page? To be fair I should probably not, however, credit for the (2) on there that involve myself, but I could lessen the workload for you for the other (6), with your permission? Smee 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Looks like others also helped out with this, and it was completed rather quickly this time. Smee 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * To answer your question, I am not an admin, no. However, I fear that it is possible I would face stiff opposition from certain individual editors more prone to violating, shall we say, the spirit of the WP:NPA policies, which is one of my pet peeves, and others who are more defensive of groups that some call cults, and others call new religious movements.  Those that label them the latter term may be opposed.  I am curious, why do you ask about my Admin status?  Smee 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Why, in particular though, made you think of this in regards to me? Smee 04:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * (Let's keep this thread on your page, so it's not confusing). I am conflicted here.  Another editor whom I respect, Anynobody, also wished to nominate me.  Though I would be flattered by a nomination, I am afraid of the potential personal attacks I might have to endure, during a potential nomination process.  Smee 04:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, personal attacks can be a problem, but they're rarer then it seems. I mean, the few editors who you might have problems with, just be civil with them, don't make any false moves, and you may get additional support from handling it properly. 5/12 of my noms have had zero complaints/have been unanimous, so that hasn't been common for me.-- Wizardman 04:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure what else to say further, as I said above, I am a bit leery about potential personal attacks, but I respect your opinions, and respect that you will do what you feel is best. Smee 05:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I know what you mean, I'm just saying that RFA's pretty good about personal attacks; if someone does attack there will be others coming to your defense. Just as long as you don't mean that you're doign personal attacks, then that'd be bad.-- Wizardman 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, the only thing that could be construed as such, would be when I point others to the WP:NPA policy myself, which they seem not to appreciate. Smee 05:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, keep me posted, whatever you decide. I am flattered either way.  Smee 09:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Wizardman, Smee is concerned that editors like Justanother will turn up to turn the WP:RFA into a forum to vent their various frustrations with her and kill any chances of actually becoming a sysop. I've tried to explain that since she edits correctly any venting by these editors would be seen for exactly what it is, bitter editors causing trouble.


 * She has more than 23,000 edits and I believe more supporters than detractors, I'll co-nominate her for sysop with you. (We need more admins, especially like Smee). Anynobody 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very flattered, but I am going to respectfully decline at this point in time, though this discussion may be interesting to bring up at a later point in time... Thank you again for the support.  I will continue to help out at DYK and elsewhere.  Yours, Smee 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

DYK addition
I think you forgot to purge the cache after the addition of the DYK that I nominated. Just thought I'd also let you know as per rule 3 of WP:DYK, the DYK page is usually updated with 5 to 8 entries at a time, not just one. Also, as per WP:DYK, updates first go to Did You Know Next Update page instead of the actual T:DYK page. --Novelty 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussions
Thanks for helping me with my RfA.

Please where are the info pages re:? Anthony Appleyard 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Procedure when closing the various sorts of discussions.
 * Procedure when closing an AfD.

I'd be quite shocked to pass an RfA

 * I've actually looked over RfA a little bit, and from what i've seen, it would surprise me very much were I to actually have a passing RfA. The last time I saw someone go for adminship who had self-declared religious bias on their userpage, it took that person quite a bit of effort to convince people that he would be a relatively neutral administrator, (I can't remember the username, all I know was he was muslim) and even then, I remember it being fairly close. I, on the other hand, actually declare myself not to just have a strong religious bias on my userpage, but a fundamentalist Christian bias, which I actively demonstrate on talk pages when the moment is opportune, though that doesn't happen very much with GA related things. Plus, I don't have really any experience at all with major administrative tasks, I barely know anything about XfD processes, (I've commented on just a few AfD's, and maybe a TfD or two when people were trying to delete GA related things) the only backlog type thing that I would probably know anything about clearing is the speedy deletion category, (I've tagged a few articles for speedying before, but I never really reviewed the criteria in-depth unless I was trying to understand a specific rationale, most of what I tagged was just obvious trash) the only reason I know anything about images is because of my experiences in GA that tell me that Fair Use images must have a special rationale for each image, (So, for instance, I probably couldn't tell you if an image was tagged with the wrong tag if it wasn't just one of those obvious kinds of things) and I don't RC patrol very much.
 * And then, for one of the most important things for RfA, I don't really know how I could defend the need to be an administrator, if I understand how things on RfA work, an admin candidate has to demonstrate a need for administrator tools, and there's nothing in the GA system that needs an admin, and on every other page I edit that I haven't involved myself in due to GA stuff, (Mostly ones related to Christianity in one way or another, or occasionally Creationism related pages) the only possible reason I could see for me to use the tools would be to block any vandalism only accounts I find editing these pages, (A couple wander by every so often) but I don't really know much about blocking policy, or when a vandalism only account can really be called a vandalism only account. I think there's many reasons that people who vote on RfA would have to not want me to be an administrator. Not that I wouldn't think it nice to be able to squash many of the vandalism only accounts that parade around the kinds of pages I watch often, but from what I can tell, people at RfA expect an administrator to do more or at least show competency in something more than just blocking vandals. Homestarmy 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

regarding edits during game - related to soxrock or ksy92003
Hi, you probably don't know me, but I am sure you know User:Ksy92003. I just want to talk to you regarding in game edits. Ksy92003 warns me that my in game edits on NBA playoffs page violate the rule WP:NOT, and that he had warn User:soxrock about the same thing. He claims that he had talked to you about this issue and the you agree that this rule should not be violated.

I just want to tell you that I disagree. On the NBA playoffs talk page, it has been agreed that these edits is ok as long as we only post score after each quarter since constant editing disrupt the history and violated the not publisher rule. Now, i am not saying that this rule is wrong. I am just pointing out to Ksy92003 that I will follow this consensus and only post score after each quarter. But Ksy92003 tells me that consensus don't matter.

Consider the rules WP:IAR and WP:CON. These rules tell me that I have to follow consensus and ignore rules that prevent users from contributing. My edits for game score when the game is nearly ended doesn't violate that rule since I am not constantly posting info like a new report.

I don't know if ksy92003 is going to take administrative actions against me and soxrock. But I will continue to follow the consensus since rules are dead and mean nothing if majority consensus is not followed. Chris 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What should I do?
Hey Wizardman. This time, I'm actually coming to you because of a disagreement between myself and Chrishomingtang. Hopefully, you remember what happened with Soxrock, right? Well, this user did the same thing, but said that there was a "consensus" to do it (at Talk:2007 NBA Playoffs). I told him about what happened with Soxrock, about how he was warned and you came into that little situation. I told him that both he and Soxrock had violated the same exact rule (WP:NOT). However, Chris got all mad at me and started threating me:


 * My talk page :

How dare you warn me like you own wikipedia? Since I have done nothing wrong, do whatever you want.

He made this final edit to my talk page,, after I replied on his talk page: Dude you got this wrong. You are the one who threaten me with admin intervention. And you are just one user here on wikipedia, so don't talk to me like you own wikipedia and don't threaten me with your warning.

Is it possible for you to come help settle our dispute? I don't like being yelled at by another user when I'm telling him that he has violated a rule. I'm trying to help him by warning him, and all he does is yell. Could you please help mediate? Thanks. -- Ksy92003  (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All I does is yell. Get real. You are the one who starts this dispute and yell at me. How can you manipulate the fact like that? You threaten me with admin action in the first place. I didn't even threaten you. All I did is trying to reason with you and your stubbornness is really getting into the way. And I didn't violate any rule, so stop your false accusation. Also, your dictatorial attitude here pretty much violate WP:OWN. He also violates WP:CON by ignore a major consensus on the talk page that allow me to continue my actions.


 * Hey, Wizardman. Don't listen to his manipulation. Listen to facts. Ksy92003 is the one who suddenly comes to me and straight out accuses me for violate a rule when all I did is contribute. He is the one who threaten to block me if my action defied his style. He is the one who threaten to have admin intervention when all I did is trying to reason with him. He is the one who is making a big deal out of minor problems. I assume good faith the whole time, but his unwillingness to compromise with me and false accusation is pushing it. Look here Chris 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guess who's at it again...
Soxrock is currently doing this once again. See these edits to 2007 Stanley Cup Finals:, , ,. -- Ksy92003  (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 08:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship nomination
Hi, you asked to nominate IvoShandor for adminship in April but he declined, he has now accepted a nomination and I'd be grateful if you'd co-nominate. Thanks, James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and transcluded the page, if you want you can still add a co nom, I was being hounded by supporters. : ) IvoShandor 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting commentless templates
Hello Wizardman, sorry if reverting the template seems rude; at least, that isn't my purpose in reverting. Rather, I'm doing a little bit of civil disobedience re. a project that I think is not a good idea, and is creating a certain amount of unhappiness among other editors. Thank you for responding courteously to my revert. Yours sincerely, Opus33 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy
When had an unsuccessful RFA in February, you were the nominator. Would you like to join a conspiracy to draft him (see User talk:Mecu) and add a co-nom to Requests for adminship/Mecu 2? Thanks. --BigDT 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means. I plan to formally accept tomorrow (Sunday), but if you would like more time, I can delay another day or two. MECU Ã¢ÂÂ talk 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the co-nomination. I've formally accepted and posted it. MECU Ã¢ÂÂ talk 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects

 * When I am called on to make a page move, sometimes that leaves several or many double redirects. Do these have to be corrected manually, or can it be relied on that a bot will tidy them up within a day or two? Anthony Appleyard 09:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to start WP:ABF...
...if Opus33 removes the biography template from the Joseph Haydn talk page one more time... Opus even removed it when Carcharoth added comments. See history.

"Removing ratings - you shouldn't rate unless you leave comments"

"These banners serve no useful purpose, please don't post them."

* rips hair out* If you take a look at some of Opus's contributions it looks like many of them have been removing our template and assessment from talk pages. I'll try to make Opus see reason before adding the templates to all those articles... what a waste of time...

Regards from an angry editor, Psych less Type words! 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to direct him to this policy, that serves as the foundation of Wikipedia, but I decided against it. I edited my message on his page, we will be arguing, discussing the topic on my talk page. --Psych less Type words! 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anderson Varejao.jpg

 * (Snipped stupid bot "warning")
 * Thanks for taking care of that. While I wish there was an easier way to "move" things to commons, I rather enjoy doing this sort of work. I get to learn foreign words and phrases [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]]. Oh yeah, tell your friend to register an account, commons needs his help! Ã¢ÂÂ CharlotteWebb 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thanks for your support and co-nom in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. Much appreciated. IvoShandor 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference
I saw your comment here and just wanted to make sure you said what you mean to say. From my understanding, we agree that b-r should be used as an EL. I do not think this prevents it from being used as a cited source. If you did indeed mean that, don't feel obligated to respond. Cheers.//Tecmobowl 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Sir James Paul 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration review case
Please be advised that an arbitration matter on which you commented has been accepted as a review case at Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta/Review. You may present evidence on the case page or additional comments on the talkpage. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Lewis
A "" template has been added to the article Flag of Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MRM 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you X 100
{| style=" background:white; padding:3px; font-family:arial" align=center | T hank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Thanks for the heads up on WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive - I'd already logged over 500 assessed since June 1 anyway! Cheers, Yamara 09:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

C.G-I
No, only arbitrators can comment in that section. Comment and proposals by others should go on the talk page. David Mestel(Talk) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK updating
Hi Wizardman,

On June 24, you updated DYK. I'd like to thank you for your efforts, as it hadn't been updated in twelve hours (it should be updated every six).

But you didn't add the entries to the archives, notify the article creators and nominators, or note the DYK inclusion on the articles' talk pages. This leads editors to wonder what has happened to their nominations, which they won't find out unless they sift through pages and pages of page history. I can understand if you just want help DYK without doing all this. But could you please leave a note on the next update page, if you don't do the notifications, etc so another editor can take care of this?

Thanks,

--Carabinieri 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 08:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments about the William Stacy article
Thank you very much for the welcome, the "pat on the back", and the barnstar! Very much appreciated. I'm glad to have ventured into the land of Wikipedia. Sincerely, ColWilliam 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rollback?
Why did you roll back my changes to 1990 New York Giants season and 2006 Cleveland Browns season? I recommend that you read up on our Non-free content policies before you revert good-faith edits to help bring us in line with our own policies. Also, isn't the rollback supposed to only be used for vandalism? (ESkog)(Talk) 05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stoplight
I believe the article for Stoplight is legitimate and deserves a place in Wikipedia. The AfD debate was flawed to begin with, basing it on a premise that shouldn't apply to the article. I quote this passage of specific importance: "See Kayfabe. That is the closest explanation I can find. You can't deem Stoplight a hoax or nonsense by virtue of his accomplishments simply because the entire idea is that they have been staged, worked, or somehow otherwise choreographed. Thus, I think the entire premise of this AfD debate is faulty to begin with. I will certainly volunteer to rewrite this article in order to better fit the Wikipedia standard, but to delete it completely is showing ignorance and intolerance of other, less mainstream cultures."

Unfortunately, my defense came far after the swift hammer of Wikipedia mob justice came crashing down. It seems that nobody paid any attention to my argument regarding the legitimacy of the Stoplight article. While I appreciate the efforts to keep Wikipedia clean, at the same time, we shouldn't be so blinded by our pursuit that we ignore valuable articles just because they don't conform with our narrow vision of world culture.

As for Stoplight not being notable, how exactly do I go about proving this? I had this discussion once before with another admin. I provided sufficient sources, and yet people are still crying foul simply because they don't like the premise of the article. What more am I supposed to do? Scan the pages of the articles and upload them? Because I certainly can do that.

Please get back to me so we can discuss what steps need to be taken to see Stoplight return to Wikipedia. StreetballazCrunk 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)StreetballazCrunk


 * Well, that's the thing. It didn't fail based on notability, it failed based on WP:Hoax. Here's the relevant section:


 * Delete does make quite the enthralling story but it seems like a WP:HOAX to me. Plm <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">209 <font color="lime" face="arial bold">(talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed, it does seem like a hoax. Too bad actually. I'll give a shot at verifying it, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Most likely a hoax. Too bad. --HAL2008 talk 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. Acalamari 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Obviously a joke. Indef block the creator. --- RockMFR 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedier delete. Hoax, though a bit elaborate. Also move for block of author. Realkyhick 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense Corpx 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Hoax, nonsense, and doesn't cite any references. — <font color="#009900">Wen <font color="#992222">li  (contribs) 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)</Blockquote>


 * So I'm not really 100% sure what I'm supposed to do at this point. It wasn't deleted by virtue of not being notable, it was deleted because everyone thought it was a hoax, despite my defense explaining why all of his "accomplishments" seemed outlandish. Again, I think the biggest problem is that the entire premise of the AfD was flawed, because it forced everyone to look at it from a hoax/not hoax standpoint.StreetballazCrunk 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)StreetballazCrunk


 * Can I have the text of the deleted article uploaded to my UserSpace so that I can edit it to make it even clearer that Stoplight is a real person who is involved in choreographed or "worked" stunts and events pertaining to the Streetball scene in Austin and beyond?

Protect
Can you protect my username page to prevent recreating? A Link to tha Past
 * I meant big-time protection. You know? Is someone there? A Link to tha Past