User talk:CJ/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CJ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Organized Labour

Hi cj, you said to let you know when this was up and running. WikiProject Organized Labour. It's about 3 hours old, so running would be a bit of an optimistic word, but it's a start. It would be great if you were interested in having a look. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

East End, Adelaide

I have done some in-depth study into this area and so have some things to contribute about this area but was wondering what you were thinking would go on this page compared to what goes on Rundle Street, Adelaide. Rundle street is really the main street in the East End in terms of retail but i guess other parts of East End are increasing in residential and office use. Is this the kind of thing you where thinking? If i was going to put a bit in about the Garden East development where should this go? Maelgwn 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There may well be duplication, but as I understand it, the East End is broader than just Rundle St (although it is undoubtedly centred upon it). I think there should be an article for it anyway, along with a corresponding one for the West End. I'm not sure exactly what I'd cover in either, however. Happy editing, --cj | talk 11:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Please don't solicit votes for RfA.--cj | talk 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Railway stations

Hi cj. The simple way that the stations have been done in Adelaide would probably more suit Brisbane/Sydney and perhaps vice versa the more complicated way could be better for Adelaide. I think that because Brisbane/Sydney have criss-crossing and split/merging lines that means that some stations are on two or three different tracks, which without a map is harder to follow. The pages on Sydney's individual lines also says stuff like, ...after Central station, this line goes to this segment, until Liverpool, etc,etc and then it merges with some other line, so that the reader has to go and consult a number of different lines to get the full detail on one line. Perhaps in Sydney's case, it would be best, for each line to list out all the stations linearly, rather than referring them to different line-segments and piecing together the sequence. In Adelaide the lines are pretty simple and just branch out, so doing an adjacency box for adjoining stations would look more colourful and skillful (someone would have to explain how the code works, but I have done some of the basic stuff on the succession boxes for tour de France and Giro d'Italia winners: Lance Armstrong and Paolo Savoldelli for the starting point) than the suburb-style box with hyphens to indicate the sequence, but it would force the reader to scroll through the whole set of articles to know where they are going. The more global approach is less complicated, probably looks more barbarian/uncivilized, more visually cumbersome, but I think would look more convenient to a reader. As for the lines themselves, they are the same in that they have a semi-sequential dsecription of the stations and have a box showing the other lines in the network (except with colour).Blnguyen 07:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetups

Are there going to be any in Adelaide? I saw that there were some discussions on this last year, but it appeared to fall through. It seems to have occurred in Melbourne and Sydney, and I wonder if it would be sustainable in Adelaide. It would appear that most of the wikipedians here are at or close to a university.Blnguyen 07:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A favour

I just dropped a note on the WikiProject Adelaide talk page asking for a bit of offline assistance in finishing one of the electorate articles I'm planning to work on. Is there any chance you'd be able to take a look? I could really use the help. Ambi 08:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can find out tomorrow. So, specifically, you need to know who were members for Frome between 1884 and 1902?--cj | talk 08:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems to be the only gap in the electorate histories on the SEO's website, which is quite odd. Thanks muchly, anyway - I really appreciate the help with this, because I'm too pedantic to let a gap like that lie for long. :) Ambi 08:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you have a chance to chase this up? :) Ambi 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Fortunately, they're currently sorting through data from the late 1800s. In rather crude table form, here it is:

Member	Party	Term
Ebenezer Ward & William Copley	no party	1884–1887
Ebenezer Ward & Clement Giles	no party	1887–1890
Clement Giles & Laurence O'Loughan	Conservative & Liberal (respectively)	1890–1893
Clement Giles & Laurence O'Loughan	Conservative & Liberal (respectively)	1893–1896
Clement Giles & Laurence O'Loughan	Conservative/National Defence League & Liberal (respectively)	1896–1899
Clement Giles & Laurence O'Loughan	National Defence League & Liberal (respectively)	1899–1902

It was a multi-member electorate during this period, and they were no parties until 1890. I'm not sure how best to show this with a table, so you'll have to arrange it as you see fit. I hope it helps, ;-)--cj | talk 05:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're a legend. Thanks heaps. :) Ambi 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I just found out that this was more widespread than I thought - Flinders dates to 1856, but only has members from the introduction of single-member constituencies in 1938. I guess I'll have to create partial lists for the rest and hit the National Library when I get back to Canberra next week and try and fill the holes. Ambi 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

art page

Hello, Cyberjunkie. Last month, you removed my contribution to the 'Art' page without explanation. For the second time, could I ask you now to provide that explanation on the discussion section of that page -- so that the issues which concern you can be discussed ? Thankyou.Mountshang 14:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mountshag. Looking back, your version of the introduction was not as bad as I must have thought at the time. However, I still don't think it was better than the existing version. It lacked a coherent description and overview of art. I do like that you attempted to outline the changing conceptions of the term, but I feel that this could be made clearer and more concise. I found the third paragraph particularly unclear. I also think that some mention should be given to the forms of art and variations of the term. (Aside from content, it contained minor misspellings and poorly integrated text). Happy editing, --cj | talk 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response, Cyberjunkie.

Regarding: " It lacked a coherent description and overview of art"

I propose that there's no-such-thing as a coherent description of all the things that have and can be called 'art' --- and the ongoing evidence for that proposal is the un-answerable challenges to attempts here to provide such descriptions.

Regarding: " I feel that this could be made clearer and more concise"

I propose that clarity and concision can only be achieved in discussing the history of art as a concept --not 'art' as a category of things or activitees. So far, I've only presented an introduction to that discussion --- but if you find it un-clear -- could you tell me how ? If that un-clarity means ambiguous -- could you tell me the alternative meanings that my prose has presented ?

Regarding: " I also think that some mention should be given to the forms of art and variations of the term"

What "forms of art" and "variations of the term" need mentioning ? . I mention a wide variety of 'arts' in the first paragraph -- and I think that "objects or performances, current or historical" is all-inclusive.

Regarding: "it contained minor misspellings and poorly integrated text"

I ran the text through a spell-checker and couldn't find any errors -- and I'm not sure what you mean by "poorly integrated". Could you tell me which parts fail to integrate with each other ?

(I posted this discussion over on the Art:Discussion page so that others can participate if they wish)

Mountshang 15:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

images to be checked for legal status

Hello, Cyberjunkie. Today I fly back to New Zealand from Brisbane, after 2 months up here in the tropical heat and humidity. I wanted to ask a favour; can you either check, or let me know how I can check further, the validity of two images that I have found, and that I decided were not actually legally able to be used? I dug as far as I could and cross checked but can not locate any supporting evidence that the images are what the say they are, and who they were taken by. There is a self appointed article owner who insists on using them to replace legal images that I had in place before he came along. I just dont think anyone cared enough to check in the past, they seem ok at first glance. Who knows? I'm flying south in the dark tonight i might just get some more images of the aurora australis myself to gift again...

Image:Polarlicht.jpg and Image:AuroraB.jpg

cheers!! (cant wait til i get back to Australia) Mozasaur 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mozasaur. I cannot sure of the validity of those images either, but I assume they are valid. That both are found on Commons suggests they are legal (as Commons does not allow fair use), however they might be falsely tagged. The first, although I couldn't find it on Air Force Link, apparently comes from there, and if so, would be coverable under {{PD-USGov}}. The second's quality indicates it was taken by an amateur and probably does belong to the person who uploaded it. But this is just conjecture on my part – I'm probably not the best person to be asked this; if you have further questions, you might like to ask Petaholmes instead, as she's more involved with ensuring image legality. Happy editing, --cj | talk 00:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect Template:browsebar

Somebody protected Template:browsebar. I've been refining it on an ongoing basis, and now I can't get to it because an admin protected it after a single vandalism. I'm watching it for vandalism, so that really isn't a problem. Please unprotect the browsebar. --Go for it! 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Sorry that was me. I thought you had already finished it, and considering how widely used it is, I didn't want to risk further vandalism. It's semi-protected from editing and moves by anons and newbies. Thanks, --cj | talk 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit of Clarendon Weir article is incorrect

Hello Cyberjunkie! A recent edit states that the Clarendon Weir directs water to both the Mount Bold and Happy Valley Reservoirs. In fact the weir is downstream from the Mount Bold Reservoir and is used as a means of transferring water from Mount Bold Reservoir, which is in the Onkaparinga valley, to Happy Valley which is in the Field River catchment below Aberfoyle Park. I'd edit it myself but I'm not too sure how to word it...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughano (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 January 2006 (ACST)

sorry cj, ive gone and changed it. Maelgwn 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to be sorry! Thank you for doing that. The sources I was working from weren't particularly clear. Happy editing, --cj | talk 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Film portal

Hi, no, I won't mind at all, it looks better that way. And thanks for removing the caption from under the picture, I changed it for the february article but then forgot to change the other one :(. - Bobet 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Comments

Thank you for your advice regarding personal remarks. Did you offer the same advice to Mr Carr? ("I am never gratuitously rude. My rudeness is carefully calibrated to the stupidity and obtuseness of the people I am dealing with" was the comment that occasioned the riposte of mine to which you take exception.) Masalai 19:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So far as I could see, unlike your comment here, Adam was not attacking you personally. Thanks,--cj | talk 02:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne edit

Hi Cyberjunkie. I reverted your edit at Melbourne, because there were a lot of degenerative changes in there for some reason, and I couldn't find which change you actually intended. JPD (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I was browsing archived revisions to find the links I needed to dab and obviously forgot to return to the current version before editing. Sorry, --cj | talk 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Helen Clark edit

Hi, I was wondering what is wrong with adding "However evidence was given in court that Clark was looking around and appeared to be enjoying the trip." to the statement that she "distanced herself, saying that she was busy working in the back seat and had no influence or role in the decision to speed and did not know the vehicle was speeding". Essentially it is allowing a statement by the Prime Minister to stand unrebutted when there is evidence (and I can provide links to verify that, if that is your issue) that PM did know she was speeding and indeed enjoyed it. It seems awfully biased to not allow the inclusion of comments given under oath by one of the drivers which rebut her claims, but accept the contents of her press statements. Ham21 09:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ham. I reverted its addition because it is relatively controversial (it makes an assertion) without a reference. If you can provide a source, then I'd not object. I let the sentence previous stand because it's not controversial - that is, as with any pollie, Clark of course distanced herself. I don't think the sentence attributes any truth to her claims; it simply notes them. --cj | talk 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think anyone really believed that she didn't notice her car going 170, but you can't really write that! I guess the whole tone of the article implied the correctness of her statement... But anyway I have added a reference. Ham21 09:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Outback

Thanks for the fix! The article is really bad - a poor reflection on wikipedia, and as if written by a lower high school kid (yup even with my small edits) I do hope someone has the time and energy to pull it out of the doldrums. As for The Bush, god it got hijacked, so life is interesting! Trust all is well with you. SatuSuro 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Health portal needs your magic touch

Feel free to change it however you like, and please help to complete it as well. --Go for it! 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Browse

I noticed you deleted my comments form Portal talk:Browse. Why? Portal:Browse is involved with "a thematic organization of Wikipedia". Organization of topics and portals certainly is relevant, and I'd like to let people working on Portal:Browse know about ongoing discussions. I'm not sure that Wikipedia talk:Portal is the best place for this discussion, but think we should instead use a subpage of WikiProject Usability (like the main page redesign does). We could place a template on top of Portal talk:Browse and Wikipedia talk:Portals that points to Usability (a central discussion place). --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you're duplicating the discussion on several pages without clearly directing users to the right place. Portal talk:Browse is for discussion about the appearance and function of Portal:Browse, not for discussion on portals generally. Wikipedia talk:Portal is where such discussion takes place. A sub-page of WikiProject Usability would not do because a) it is not involved with portals, and b) WPT:P is already a known discussion place for portals (see {{portaltalk}}).--cj | talk 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the links to discussions on Portal:Medicine rather than totally deleting my comments. I think that works okay, though I re-added a brief summary of what the discussion concerns.

As for WikiProject Usability... I wonder how the main page redesign effort would have happened on Talk:Main page? Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability has been working on the main page redesign for many months, as a subpage of WikiProject Usability. The discussion of topics I think is beginning to fork into a related, but separate issue than the design of the main page. There are other aspects of Usability besides design, such as the ease of browsing and finding topics. If we're to make the main page redesign a true success at improved usability, it needs to be accompanied by a coordinated effort at improving the overall organization of the portals. As I already said, we could add a template to the top of Wikipedia talk:Portal, directing users to Usability discussion concerning organization and usability of topics. This proposed effort is broader than Portals, also involving categorization, so it wouldn't make sense to just have the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Portals

Changes to the randomn help pages do not impact on the portals; changing the hierachy does. The reason I reverted was because there is no apparent consensus to broaden the hierarchy, but there have been concerns that the existing was already too large at Template:MainPageIntro. --cj | talk 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't increase the size much: "Math | Health" = 13 characters. "Mathematics" = 11 characters. I increased the size by two characters, but because of the way kerning works on the screen and that the pipe character takes up nearly no room at all (it separates 2 spaces and therefore doesn't have any kerning space assigned to it), I only added one character in width.

And was the expenditure of one more character's width of space worth putting Health on the bar? Isn't Health one of the biggest issues and biggest problems of society today? Is there a more central issue than the health of Earth's citizens? Will readers be better off for it being there? Think about it. It's a good choice for the front page, and the browse bar. I didn't come to this conclusion lightly, and nor should you.

As for the discussion you mentioned, a consensus was not reached there and did not apply to the browsebar anyways, which had already been expanded. The issue was whether or not to add Art and Philosophy to MainPageIntro, and the consensus was 3 for and 2 against, with everybody else meandering off into hierarchical debates and musings. We never did find anyone bold enough to make the changes again. Sigh.

We didn't chop down the browsebar due to that discussion then, and that discussion applies to no greater extent to the browsebar now. The size of the "bar" on the main page wasn't even the issue exactly, as it pertained to the number of topics included rather than how much space they took up. The only real conclusion that could be drawn from that discussion was that the heirarchy makes little sense. And that's true, it makes little sense as a strict hierarchy, because of the overlaps. But we're looking at the wrong function here. The big question is, how can we make the main page, and the browsebar, of the most use to readers? The precise hierarchy is irrelevant, for that is the beauty of hypertext: however much overlap there is in the hierarchy, we can easily accomodate it. Topic coverage is the key issue here.

The health of the world is in your hands. What do you say?

--Go for it! 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: On Saturday we'll be pulling a lot more people in on the discussion, when Draft 6 goes up for critiquing. That's what that project is for, to generate feedback, and it is a much wider venue and gets a lot more participation than any of the browse pages. We should take advantage of that and gather as much feedback as we can get!

IE Blank-Line-Next-To-Picture Glitch - I found the bug

The bug which causes the text to drop a line is in the transcluded files themselves. IE is interpretting an extra line in there if you don't follow the picture directly with the text, with no intervening carriage returns. I've fixed the browsebar portals, and a couple others.

The rest we can either do ourselves, or finish placing your notice template at the top of all portal talk pages, and put an announcement in there. That way, if there are ever more portal-wide problems or issues in the future, the announcement templates will already be in place to accomodate them. I'll start placing them as I find the time. As far as I can tell, the bug doesn't occur in Portals set up as a table. --Go for it! 09:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! Now we just need to make sure maintainers remember this. I don't like the appearance of the current edit link though. It'd look better if it were understated like the previous one (only in the header). Something like this.--cj | talk 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Check it now. (You can adjust the font-size in the line of code I used). --Go for it! 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Adelaide Railway Station

You replaced the line information I added to Adelaide Railway Station with adjacent station information. I would like to have both as used in Tokyo Station and other Japanese train stations (and the ja wikipedia for Tokyo Station as an example) Softgrow 07:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Having each template is excessive, which is why I intend to replace them with station adjacency templates. The complete line information could be retained for use in each line article.--cj | talk 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy this discussion to Talk:Adelaide_Railway_Station and continue there. Softgrow 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

G'day

Could you look at snotty's msg to ambi re the g b art, and let me know what u think? I've challenged vellie, but thought I'd just try another admin folk on this issue before I go for the other fish... :) it could be healthy paranoia in the ole goldfishbowl, or it might not :) Best Wishes SatuSuro 13:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Very very very weird, my talk msg to vellie dosnt exist, maybe someone got rid of it? SatuSuro 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Sports and games

Thanks for pointing me to Portal:Sports and games. I've copied the subportals section from Portal Art. Cheers, Jaco plane 16:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

I'm an AOL user on a dynamic address, so I get blocked all the time, usually for much longer than the 15 minutes recommended for the AOL range. Fortunately, I can unblock myself, but it is irritating. However, thank you for your proactive response, which is much appreciated. jimfbleak 06:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian English

Cunt is used alot, by alot of Australians. It's used in a way that isn't typical in the United States (but does seem to have alot in common with some other commonwealth countries). It's used to refer to people, objects, genitalia, as an expletive, as a misogynistic term for women.

It can be both a common noun (for vaginas, or as a misogynistic term for women, or obnoxoius males or females) or as a pronoun (people, objects, any subject of a sentence) and finally as an expletive (I had a cunt of a day!).

The latter two uses (pronoun, and expletive) seperate it's usage from what we see in North America. The paragraphy started by saying "Spoken Australian English is generally more tolerant of offensive and/or abusive language than other variants.". This is an example of spoken english being more tolerant etc, and this isn't the first swear word in the section being preceeded by "arse-licking".

The arguements that have been used against it's inclusion, thus far, are "offensive language" or that it was a new edit. Neither are a legitimate basis of objection. I understand that all australians do not use the word cunt as a pronoun, but nearly all Australians would understand it's usage (I'm trying to write in American English, I guess it's the standard for wikipedia) as such. It is also quite likely that more Australians use cunt liberally, than speak with a cultivated accent.

I might cut and paste this into the Australian English discussion later, since I'm pretty lazy about re-typing it.

I guess what I'm asking is : why did you revert over the changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by R0m (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 January 2006

I guess my obvious answer would be to profess an engrained suspicion of anonymous editors inserting obscenities. I apologise for treating your edit as vandalism. Upon further review of you edits to Wikipedia, I see that you were trying to document a perceived peculiar Australian usage of the the word. I don't necessary think this argument is valid, but it's not easily discounted. Perhaps you could leave a comment at Talk:Australian English explaining your edits. Thanks, --cj | talk 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and American English is not standard for Wikipedia in the slightest. See our guidelines on the use of national varieties in the Manual of Style.--cj | talk 06:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Subjects on the browsebar

You keep citing "the Top 10" as some kind of policy or gospel or something. The "Top 8" became the "Top 10" when 2 random blokes came along and added Art and Philosophy. I was the guy who added Philosophy. Actually, I've made most of the improvements to the browsebar over the past two or three months, and put it on most of the pages it's on today. I added Almanac, Glossaries, Lists, Overviews, combined Wikipedia FAQs and Ask a Question into Questions, and changed A-Z to Index'. I'm also the one who created and filled the Top 10 category, and the one who blanked the Top 8 (I was planning on keeping my category-related efforts separate on a different user account because it looked like it would clog my contribution history, but logging off and on got to be a bit tedious, so I don't use that account anymore.) Therefore, the only real precedent here is that the browsebar keeps improving and getting refined over time.

But we're coming up on a natural limit: size. But the addition of Health only took up about one character's worth of extra space, because Mathematics became Math, and pipes take almost no room at all. "Mathematics" is 11 characters long, while "Health | Math" is 13 characters, but since the pipe sits between two spaces, no kerning space is assigned to it, so it's almost nothing and so it's more like 12 characters long. One character difference in increase.

An analysis of the subjects on the browsebar will show that it's not a true hierarchy. It's more of a cross between the section titles of a newspaper ("Culture", "Health", "People", "Society", "Technology") and the departments of a University ("Art", "History", "Mathematics", "Philosophy", "Science"), with Geography (a branch and sub-department of science and a major section of most almanacs and encyclopedias) thrown in at the top for good measure. This system gives pretty good coverage, without being too sophisticated (which would take up far too much space anyways -- "Social Sciences" for instance, is not a good choice for the browsebar because of its length.

So Health fits into the system quite well (and having only 6 letters is a better choice than Medicine which has 8 and which is a subtopic of Health anyways). Health is a very central issue, which is why it is given its own section in newspapers: it is one of the daily concerns of people, and has become a central component of lifestyles these days, which are often chosen or critiqued by how healthy or unhealthy they are for you.

So, I didn't choose "Health" lightly. A lot of thought went into it. And because of the central importance of health (and health information), if we can improve access to that by putting the word Health front and center, then that's a good thing. The health of the world is in your hands. What do you say?--Go for it! 07:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop with the silly rhetoric (eg, "the health of the world is in your hands"?). Secondly, whilst you ought to be congratulated on your implementation of the browse bars, you by no means have ownership over them. I cite the top ten because they are to a certain extent logical - all are somehow justifiable. "Health", however, is not. It is not an important enough topic for it to be noted in the browsebar. Furthermore, using abbreviations is unacceptable. Please comment at WPT:P rather than my talk page to keep discussion centralised.--cj | talk 08:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of items fom Australian to do list

Can you explain your logic for removing items from the to do list at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/to do? -- Paul foord 09:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I'm working on a new version of AWNB and I was trying to reformat the table. I removed items that were long or not significant (which was subjective, I admit). The list is intended to be selective and should show a variety of topics.--cj | talk 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro

Hi Cyberjunkie. Batzarro has been banned indefinitely, because of his actions to your userpage. He's done so much negative to Wikipedia, and these most recent edits were the last straw, that allows me to permanently block him. -- user:zanimum

Great. Apparently you weren't the only one to permaban him – both Curps and I had too. I put {{Indefblockeduser}} on his user page. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good show, thanks. I'll be able to relax my nerves a bit now, as he's essentially gone. So much of what he was doing was bad, but no "the line must be drawn here" type bad. I do have to be vigilant... he has 6 sockpuppets and at least 16 IP addresses, so I can only imagine how many other usernames he's already created. -- user:zanimum

OUCA

Why have you replaced offensive and wildly inaccurate content placed by people who see Wikipedia as a forum to discredit people of other opinions in a frankly cheap and pathetic manner?

Ah, I see. Do accept my apologies. One of the unfortunate hazards of computer-assisted RC patrol is that it mistakes good edits for bad. It brought your removal of inappropriate material to my attention as potential blanking, and I assumed the section legitimate and reverted you. Sorry again, --cj | talk 07:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Junk files for deletion

I ran across these while researching Main Page designs. They're all junk files, and should be deleted. It would take me hours to nominate them all for deletion, so I thought you might have a more efficient way to deal with them. --Go for it! 04:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

These are redirects:

These are old and abandoned markup projects: