User:Bookofjude/Archives/June 2006-July 2006
 This is an archive discussion page, please leave new messages here. Alternately, you may email me. I will leave any replies on your talk page. A complete list of archived pages can be found here.
|
DYK catch
[edit]Nice catch on my DYK update; I really appreciate it. Gotta be more careful when dealing with that main page... --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
[edit]Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user page! -- TBadger 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your monobook.js
[edit]Hi. This is Andy123. I just had a change of username. I also copied your monobook.js for a change. Could you enlighten me as to the function of Whitelist and Blacklist? Thanks. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I must congratulate and thank you for the cool monobook though. However, I'd like to find out how the here, busy, away, fish feature works. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 5th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 23 | 5 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Evil!
[edit]
Fair Use
[edit]An image from Carlson Twins was deleted with a comment about fair use & legal considerations. I'd reviewed the image and the article & don't understand the fair use issue with this image, since it seems to fit the USC definition of fair use. Is there something I'm not seeing, or someone else I should ask?--Ssbohio 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Jude, don't make it bad, but I made a couple of changes to your block template. I added in a 3RR option and tweaked a couple of things. If you don't like my changes, then please take a sad song and make it better by reverting. K? (Sorry about all the lame Jude puns.) AmiDaniel (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Need to discuss something with you, if/when you have a moment. Is there any IRC/messenger/more interactve way to get in touch?
Love, Blaxthos 14:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Cite journal:
[edit]You recently protected[1] this page but did not put in a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, article talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Please be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 13:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much!
[edit]
|
Thanks for wishing me luck with that problem, I appreciate the thought! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
In Soviet Russia, Barnstar Awards YOU!
[edit]| File:SovietUnionsmall.png | In Soviet Russia... | |
| Awarded to Bookofjude for (ab)use of Soviet Russia jokes while on IRC. |
~Kylu (u|t) 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
[edit]Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bookofjude! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 12th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 24 | 12 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Message delivered by Ralbot 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Your block template
[edit]Your block template User:Bookofjude/block is so cool I've moved it into template space. {{block-reason}} and the redirect {{b-r}}. The syntax is a little confusing at first, but it's a great template! --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Couldn't help but eavesdrop. Do you mind if I merge the history into the template? I'm kinda' OCD about broken page histories and cnp moves =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
NEW MESASAG#!
[edit]You have an new message, as requested. Kevin_b_er 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to Knox Grammar School
[edit]Hi there! During your attempted revert of some vandalism on the Knox Grammar School article, you accidentally replaced it with more vandalism. VandalProof can be confusing at times (see the history of the page and you'll know what I mean ;)), but please make sure that you actually revert the vandalism instead of inadvertently placing more vandalism on the page. Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still figuring out VandalProof myself. I first used .js to do reverts and VP is taking some getting used to. Try contacting AmiDaniel on his VP page if you need help with getting it to work on your system. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
AFD
[edit]Help save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity
I find unexplained reverts impolite. Socafan 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- To quote User:Megaman Zero from [this diff]:
- Any edit constructed outside of the user talk whilst blocked is innapropriate. The point of being blocked is not being permitted to edit.
- In fact, it says right above your edit in that article:
- While blocked, a user is not permitted to edit Wikipedia except his own talk page.
- Therefore, your edit contradicted the rest of the policy as stated. If you had followed the edits further on, you would have seen Megaman Zero's edit, though since the reasoning for the original wording of the policy was in the edited paragraph, the reasoning for the reversion is obvious and needed no specific message.
- Please note, at the top of the Policy Page that you edited, it clearly says: When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. You have not gained consensus at this time, so any edits made without consultation are entitled to be immediately reverted.
- Hope that clears things up! :)
- ~Kylu (u|t) 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure there is consensus that correction of typos even by blocked users should not be reverted. When reverting there should always be a summary explaining why it was done. Thanks to Bookofjude for his kind reply on my page. Socafan 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Jude's a good guy like that, if only everyone were! Would you agree that consensus (and policy) state to not edit policy pages without first obtaining consensus? (I'm afraid you can't assume consensus, by definition, you have to start a discussion to do so.) Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The editor who started with the changes had not discussed it before either. In some cases one should just be bold. In a wiki, mistakes that do not hurt anyone can be corrected. Socafan 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's what happened, don't you? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bookofjude agreed that correcting the possible mistake he should have summarized why he did so. I still think that the policy should indicate the helpful edits by blocked editors should not be reverted, but I do not care that much. Socafan 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's what happened, don't you? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The editor who started with the changes had not discussed it before either. In some cases one should just be bold. In a wiki, mistakes that do not hurt anyone can be corrected. Socafan 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Jude's a good guy like that, if only everyone were! Would you agree that consensus (and policy) state to not edit policy pages without first obtaining consensus? (I'm afraid you can't assume consensus, by definition, you have to start a discussion to do so.) Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure there is consensus that correction of typos even by blocked users should not be reverted. When reverting there should always be a summary explaining why it was done. Thanks to Bookofjude for his kind reply on my page. Socafan 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue of a lack of summary in a revert, I think, has been solved. It does us no more good to consider this at this time. My question was whether you think that your edit accurately reflected the wishes of the community (consensus) as has already been expressed by them in discussion. As I fail to find a discussion of the matter, I can only feel that the policy change was unilateral. There are Wikipedia policies that I do not agree with (perhaps because of lack of understanding? I still consider myself a "newbie" somewhat.) but I haven't gone and changed the policy because I don't agree with it, or feel that other people may feel the same way. I simply ask that in the case of policy pages like that, that you try to start a discussion on the respective talk page and let the community determine what its wishes are before changing them. Take care! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
David Rowell
[edit]Why did you delete David Rowell's article? Did you delete that of Richard Stallabrass also? Did you go through the correct proceedures to delete other people's work? Sussexman 19:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- From Jude's deletion logs:
- 06:56, 12 June 2006 Bookofjude deleted "David Rowell" (5 day old, undisputed prod)
- Please review the policy at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If a {{prod}} tag stays on an article and is undisputed on the associated talkpage, (section "Procedure for admins"), the admin reviewing the list of prod'd articles may delete it unless he feels that there is a reason not to, at which point he may contest the deletion the same as any other user.
- Jude followed official Wikipedia policy and deleted the article due to its proposed deletion being uncontested by any party on the article's talkpage.
- To answer your other question:
- 07:02, 12 June 2006 Bookofjude deleted "Richard Stallabrass" (5 day old, undisputed prod)
- Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletions, they were valid deletions through Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Snoutwood (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I still do not understand why the David Rowell and Richard Stallabrass articles were (1) nominated and (2) deleted. I have seen pop stars, and one line entries on Wikipedia for people. I would like to know where I can see the explained reasons for (1) and (2). I thought there was a proper procedure for deletions but I now see that it can be done by sneak attack. Unless one regularly passes by the articles concerned how would one know that people's work was being wantonly deleted? Sussexman 07:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most grateful for your response on my Talk Page. If you did not nominate them, who did? Where can I see the discussion you have quoted from? It is unlikely Stallabrass is retired and both of these people played an active role in right-wing British conservative politics for at least a decade, and contributed many essays etc. So the citation is incorrect. Sussexman 10:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- The comments are from the deleted edit summaries, which as the articles are deleted, are not available for perusal by non-admins I'm afraid. When an article is deleted, the edit summaries, article page, history, and talkpage are all also deleted by the same process. Please feel free to bring your concerns to Deletion Review, as there is little more that Jude can do here, sorry. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
--Bhadani 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks!
[edit]| Thanks for voting! Hello Bookofjude/Archives/June 2006-July 2006, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care. |
--Pilot|guy 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) And your support was needed :)
Signpost updated for June 19th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
New Zealand statutes
[edit]Hi Jude, I noticed that you recently removed all the unnecessary google links from the List of Statutes of New Zealand (1980-present). The reason I split List of Statutes of New Zealand into one pre-1980 and one after 1980 was because it was listed as the longest (Kb-wise) page on wikipedia. Was that why the page was so long? And if so, was my splitting completely unnecessary? Are the page sizes determined by the display of the page, or by the amount written in the code for the page? Jdcooper 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of Nedir.Net (5 day old, undisputed prod)
[edit]First of all, I haven't accessed to Wikipedia for some time due to my problems of internet access, so that I couldn't comply with the procedure of removing the message concerning the deletion issue within 5 days. I really would like that article to be existing in Wikipedia, so what should we do after this. Shall I write that all over again (adding some other things to meet the guidelines), or can we access the old article to be edited and resurrected again?
Thank you, and looking forward to your answer Ulashima 12:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deletes you would like undeleted are typically taken to Deletion Review. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, that's the formal process. Note that often the article needs improvement to be worth keeping, and note that if you want to work on the article to improve notability, verifiability, etc and try again to see if the article is suitable for WP later, and you are a user in good standing, you can ask any admin to have the article undeleted and userified to your userspace where you can work on it. My personal guideline: You should have a contribution record that shows you edit more than just that one article, and not have been subject to blocks etc, or other evidence of bad behaviour. But I'm always happy to receive such requests and usually comply unless the material itself is objectionable or copyvio, etc. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers guys, and thanks to Bookofjude for restoring it. For first effort, I've entered an internet stub template, because I think that one of the reasons that the article was removed was it was too short for a Website article. For the time being, until I expand that to the point that meeting the guidelines. Thank you again Ulashima 09:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Editing issue, The Tenth Doctor
[edit]Thank you, now we can discuss the issue on the page itself. I am very willing to be reasonable.66.252.250.251 08:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that I'm asking about edits, Jude, I'm getting no comment. However, if I made them, there'd be erasure instantly. See the rock and hard place here? My feeling regarding the wiki is that quality is enhanced when the wiki is added to, vandalism occurs when relevant information is removed. If the information is relevant, but controversial, add that too. But letting one or two bullies write the article, and browbeat other editors will only lead to a poor wiki indeed.66.252.250.251 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Ronnie Coleman:
[edit]You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. VoABot will list such protected pages only if there is a summary (part of the deleted pages filter). Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
A short Esperanzial update
[edit]As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
[edit]Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bookofjude! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael / 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
[edit]Jude, thanks for your support and your speedy congratulations!! I've decided not to spam people with "RfA Thanks" messages, so please get yourself a bite of my thanks message - it's self-service. ;) Cheers, Tangotango 11:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 26th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
im confused
[edit]ive never changed or deleted or added anything to or from wikipedia and i have messages saying i am blocked. please explain! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.135 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
HIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!
[edit]I have internet access, wheeee! :D--§hanel 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 3rd.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Removal of GotNext entry
[edit]Hello Bookofjude,
I recently spoke with NickelShoe on this Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NickelShoe#Removal_of_GotNext_entry) who said that you could be of help to me.
Awhile ago, I discoverd that my entry for GotNext was removed. What especially bothered me was the reasoning that the site, in you opinion, isn't "notable enough". With all due respect, I found this a bit unfair. Are there tools that you utilize to measure which websites are notable and which are not? Is there official guidelines that you can direct me to?
If not, then I take this as an arbitary decision made on your part which was totally unfair against an author that contributed material that was neither offensive, controversial... nor was it created to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. GotNext has been recognized on several websites, acknowledged in multiple press releases since its debut in August 2005, we're also recognized nationwide as an affiliate of Hardcore Gamer Magazine and get plenty of hits per month. Saying that our site isn't "notable enough" really is a slap in the face.
I don't wish to create any arguments or trouble -- but I don't feel that you were justified to remove a site. All I'm asking is for the entry to be restored because I feel that I've taken great care to follow Wikipedia's guidlines. Thanks in advance for your time and look forward to a response.
--Definit 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! Jude's away for the moment, so I'm answering the question for you. The article in question was tagged {{prod}} (PROposed Deletion). When an article tagged in this manner has no arguments against its deletion for a week, it is deleted by the next visiting admin (in this case Bookofjude), therefore Jude correctly followed deletion procedure. The user who tagged the article was Koffieyahoo on June 12, 2006, with the reason in the prod being "Link Spam". If you would like to have the deletion reviewed, please see Deletion Review. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Protecting citation templates
[edit]Good call on {{cite book}}. Please also protect {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and the rest. Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if this wouldn't be necessery. But I understand if you do so on {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}}. Seems like the nice times are over now :(. I would recommend to move the descriptions back to the talk pages, so that we can at least edit the docs without calling an admin. --Ligulem 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Happy birthday!!!!
[edit]Happy birthday Jude! Wishing you the best on your special day.
Some birthday wikiTreats:
-- Where 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- ...ooh, icecream. o.o;;; If you need help getting rid of that, you let me know. Happy Birthday, Jude! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday! Have a good one :P --Ali K 07:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 10th
[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 28 | 10 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
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.
Still on break
[edit]Thought I'd drop by and say hi. I have a lot of Real Life stuff going on still but will be back soon.
- -- That Guy, From That Show! 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]
For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.
PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Jude! You closed the AfD discussion for economic totalitarianism on the basis that it should rather be listed as a copyvio. As shown, that was a mistake, however the result was to keep the article, although most thought it should be deleted! The debate has thus been by-passed, and the article remains, being only a quote from Milton Friedman. I'm not sure that the appearance of this neologism in Friedman's book justify a whole Wikipedia article on it. Shouldn't we redirect it to Friedman? Thanks for your feedback, best Tazmaniacs 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Gamebox contents
[edit]Hi, a few days ago you protected Template:Gamebox contents because it is a high-use template. However, it is actually the to-do list for Wikipedia: WikiProject Computer and video games and thus needs to be edited every few days by users. Would you mind unprotecting it? --SevereTireDamage 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 17th
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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. Treebark (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Bright Pink Support Thanks
[edit]
|
Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA! | |
| To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
- I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to tell you it was up earlier, though! Aiee!
Signpost updated for July 24th
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 30 | 24 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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. --Michael Snow 04:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)