User talk:Caulde/Archive/8

Wikihelp

Hey, I've welcomed you there! Please consider writing some Wikipedia help pages (about anything to help new Wikipedia users), it will be a great help! Cheers, Qst 11:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaji (film)

Sivaji: The Boss was moved to Sivaji(film), the talk page of the article says it failed the GAC. If the talk page info is wrong, please correct it too and revert my edits.--Redtigerxyz 14:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused by "Good Article Nominee: Not Listed". Doesn't that mean it has failed? Isn't Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg (on talk pg of article) used for it? Please correct me if wrong --Redtigerxyz 14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be nominated in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment?? In my opinion, it been nominated in GAN is wrong. A note can be left on article talk page and the nomination withdrawn. Should i raise the issue on GAN talk or article talk page ?? --Redtigerxyz 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Rifenburg

I am not sure if you are new at this, but I think you are suppose to add the latest to the top of the list. I have fixed it though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it matters, but thanks anyway. — Rudget _{contributions} 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Cell phone deletion nomination

I noticed your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG CU500. I think you might be interested in voicing your opinion at the argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Voyager (VX10000) where Mikeblas is arguing for deletion of the LG Voyager (VX10000). --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikihelp

hmm...I don't seem to be able to render it properly either...the backround turns black. We should be able to use it without uploading when Wikihelp gets moved onto the wikimedia servers--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill

WikiThanks!

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I feel very honoured that you appreciate the article. It's taken a lot of work but hopefully it's well on its way to GA and FA. Thank you again! LordHarris 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Mobile, Alabama article

Thank you for taking on the task of reviewing Mobile, Alabama. Please let me know if I may be of any assistance. Altairisfar 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I appreciate your efforts to review and improve the article. Now to get to work on attempting to bring it up to FA status, a herculean task. Cheers! Altairisfar 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adminship

Hi Rudget,

Thank you for your very kind offer to nominate me for adminship. I really appreciate it, and am glad you think I'd make a good administrator! However, I'm going to decline for now -- I'm very busy irl and don't have the energy to devote to a debate about my contribution history, etc. I also have a few reasons for wanting not to be an admin. However, I'm not totally opposed to the idea -- try me again in a few months :) I promise I'll still be around, probably hacking away at the same old things... best, -- phoebe/(talk) 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. out of curiousity, where did you notice my work?

Cheers, Rudget

Thanks for the kind offer, but I'm actually in admin coaching with Ryan Postlethwaite. When the time is right, I hope he'll see fit to nominate me, and if you're still interested, I'd be glad to have you co-nominate me. Thanks again! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December Newsletter, Issue III

Delivered on December 3rd, 2007 by Rudget. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Thanks for the newsletter

Thanks for the newsletter, it's becoming a really good vehicle for reviewing where we are each month.

Just one small point though; I'm not certain that Jza84 will thank you for calling him a "she". Is there something that you or he would like to tell us? :) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG!

Done — Rudget _{contributions} 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. Just one thing though, Salford is in Greater Manchester. Regards, Mr Stephen 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I must have done this too fast. :) — Rudget _{contributions} 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work again - thanks GRB1972 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features and admins

Hello. I noticed while perusing the features and admins section of this week's Signpost that two lists, The Simpsons shorts and List of cast members of The Simpsons were labeled as having acquired featured list status, while they actually were closed prematurely, with a minor incident at WP:FLC over the matter. Their nominations are still currently active. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks for notifying me. — Rudget _{contributions} 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	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. Ralbot 09:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latex

Hi there,

I would like to consider latex code as a normal image. Also, I would like to put some color in my latex symbols.

Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

I added a discussion on the redirect of Robert Hawkins (Killer) on this talk page. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks for the heads up. Gtstricky (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

About the Virginia GA nomination: Thanks for agreeing to review it. The article should be ready. I'm also always ready to do improvements when necessary.--Patrick Ѻ 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalist (album)

Thanks for the GA pass and minor edits :) Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:North West England

Dear Caulde/Archive, you have nominated Portal:North West England at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. I am here to acknowledge that the portal which you nominated is promoted to featured portal status. Congratulations! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom for admin

You're still "quite" new to Wikipedia. But I can feel that you have what it takes to be an admin. Let me know when you are ready and I'll nominate you (preferably after this month) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thank you! Erm.... I guess so. I suppose it is a bit busy at RFA at the moment. Best, — Rudget _speak.work 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad for you. Our RFAs are so common. My previous RfA was shot down as it drops below the 80% threshold in the last 12 hours and it's all because of the "block vs ban" question. -.- OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your major areas in improving Wikipedia? We need more help at Portals (and god knows why...) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The topic still exists: "Cold Feet was a 1997..." implies the subject no longer exists, but as a creative work it will exist forever, unless every single copy of it is destroyed -- an unlikely possibility given the way television and films are archived. Brad (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exmoor GA review

Thanks for all your help with the GA review of Exmoor. If you are bored there are a couple of other "local" articles in the GA queue - South West Coast Path & History of Somerset - but that would be pushing it. Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to rain on anyone's parade, I think that the Exmoor article was listed as a GA prematurely. There were numerous issues with it - none of them show-stoppers admittedly - but the article ought to have been put on hold until they were fixed IMO. I've raised my concerns on the article's talk page. If I'm in a minority of one, then I'm quite happy to take the article to WP:GAR for a range of other opinions. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France Portal - Featured Portal!

I just wanted to thank you and the others who helped improve and get Portal:France "featured portal" status. Thanks - NYArtsnWords (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

To be nice does not necessarily prevent one being forceful. A lot of the time, wikipedia requires both: the ability to resolve conflicts, and make troublesome editors curb their disruptions to wikipedia, whilst at the same time not alienating editors. Michael Sanders 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But being civil usually helps to mediate and look at the situation you are dealing with. And thanks for bringing this to my talk page, as requsted. — Rudget _speak.work 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am civil. I'd be interested to know what you consider an example of my incivility; I'd say that whilst I do at times get into disputes with other editors (which are always on matters of encyclopaedia style/content rather than personal attacks/animus/arrogance, and which consequently are generally resolved by agreements over what is appropriate to an article), I am not uncivil towards them. Furthermore, I do meditate and look at the situation I'm dealing with: you can look at [[1]], where I addressed disagreements User:Srnec and I had been having over features, such as a quote in the lead, to the apparent satisfaction of both. Michael Sanders 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about users in general. — Rudget _speak.work 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about users in general? Michael Sanders 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The civility thing. I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to users in general. — Rudget _speak.work 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But nonetheless, I am able to do both. You can see Talk:Valentinian III, for a start - a sad case of mislabelling remedied without fuss. Michael Sanders 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'll change to weak support based on that, and the fact that the userpage thing was in April. — Rudget _speak.work 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

If I may? I apologize if I have wasted any of your time. I now realise that much more experience is needed to become an admin, which is understandable. Regards, Surplu ^TalkToMe! 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Friends of the Mt. Holyoke Range

Just a heads-up. This article has been proposed for speedy deletion. Rmhermen (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it but make sure to add more references next time. :) Thanks. — Rudget speak.work 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pgagnon999"

Ask (prefferably sans preemptive action) and ye shall receive Friends of the Mt. Holyoke Range. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add on the deletion tag? If not, may apologies. I'd just posted the stub about thirty seconds before it was tagged--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'll be the one to expand the stub or not; depends on whether or not I continue to lack a personal or professional life and spend all my time creating Wiki articles. But I've added two references which should suffice to hold it down until someone does. I'm confident that'll eventually happen. For now the stub supports the existence of the organization in reference to several other articles I've been writing and also encourages Wiki expansion.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you for your taking the time to comment on my RfA - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast. I've added comments that might clarify some of the issues you had concerns with. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Municipal Railway GAN

I've moved the above GAN into the transport section of the GAN page. Just letting you know so you can find it again! Geometry guy 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I spotted another one: Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier. This is a building, which GA lists under "architecture", not "places". There are several here that need moving, which I'll do in a minute. Geometry guy 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAs

Hey, thanks for reviewing Internationalist (album) and Young Modern. I was wondering if you could take another look at them and point out any issues, so I can go for FAC some time in the future. Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no probs. I wasn't asking for anything specific to music articles - just a general look at criterion 1a (prose etc. - see WP:FA?) issues, as that's somewhere I've been let down in all my FACs so far (even successful ones!). So yeah, a look at prose, some notes for unclear sentences, etc. would be awesome, if you have the time. Thanks so much for your help with the GAC backlog, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Rudget - it was really helpful and gave me a good idea of what needs to be done still. I added some audio samples and renamed the section as you suggested - I'm now going to try and find some more sources and stuff - as you can see from the history I wrote most of the body text offline, so I'm sure there's still a bit more out there. Thanks again for your (invaluable) help, and I'll give you a yell if I need more or if I go to FAC. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview :)

Hey Rudget! I noticed that you were very active in WP:GM, and have decided to ask you a few questions about the project for this week's WikiProject Report in the Signpost :)

What is the best way for users unfamiliar with Greater Manchester-related topics, new to Wikipedia, or just interested to get involved in the project?

A:

What do you think about the progress the project has made during its time on Wikipedia?

A:

Are there any ongoing discussions pertaining to project issues or articles in the project's scope?

A:

What is the advantage of having the project's newsletter?

A:

What are some of the project's most recent successes?

A:

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Rudget, I was so surprised and pleased to get your co-nomination. Thanks for doing this and I look forward to {carefully) use the new tools you helped me get.
--A. B. ^(talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is alright

Well...I'll try to plan my next RfA next summer with better quality edits. I'll request deletion of my autograph books, more mainspace edits etc. I'm not really discouraged, and I'm glad you participated at my RfA. PrestonH 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Rudget,

Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day!

Cordially,
— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	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. Ralbot (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the opposers in my RfA

I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction.

In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so.

For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part.

I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature.

Please give me a second chance. Walton^One 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Virginia Pass

Hey Rudget,

Thank you for you kind words and for the feedback and assistance on the Virginia GA review. I especially appreciate the helpful communication, which made the process so much more pleasant to go through.--Kubigula (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Hellomoto

Sure thing. If the guy gets rowdy, let me know and I'll protect his talk page. :) GlassCobra 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award for you!

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar, Rudget for working so hard on the Wikipedia Help Desk, and answering user's questions, even before they load on my computer! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions)} 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Wolf Armoured Vehicle

I didn’t want to enter a comment “out of the blue” on the article’s talk page and the GA nominations page isn’t appropriate for extended conversion, so I apologise if this isn’t where you were expecting the second opinion. I’m not sure that “rewrite” is in order, per se, but there are certainly some serious issues, e.g.:

Content is minimal and should be expanded. For example, the article says the vehicle was needed for mobility in an urban environment, but does not discuss previous situations that precipitated that need. Content addressing operations in which it has been used and opinions of officials, soldiers, etc. on actual or perceived effectiveness would be nice, too. I’m not sure this content exists, however, which leads to the next point.
A chief concern about the article is notability. “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. Four of the five sources are the vehicle’s manufacturer (Hatehof and Rafael) and the reliability of the fifth source, Army Guide, may not be able to be ascertained. Frankly, the article may be eligible for speedy deletion and is certainly eligible for a GA quick-fail. At the very least, the sources provided are inadequate.

Hope this helps. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion

I'd go along with elcobbola; the broadness of the article coverage is problematic, and the tone is rather vague in places. I can't see how this is a "brand-new concept"; these type of wheeled armoured vehicles have been around for ages. There are parts that would also need clarification ("It is a combination of vehicles that have no relationship to each other, except for this vehicle." - eh?; "Most of the original parts were kept, with the only notable changes being, the rear axle and tires." - original to what? This is a new vehicle). I also have doubts about sourcing, though I do think being in service with the IDF confers notability. EyeSerene^TALK 12:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I do think the vehicle itself is notable (or, at least, a borderline case deserving of a chance). However, the article, in its current state, does not assert that notability, as defined in WP:N. Obviously, if the vehicle is indeed notable, additional sources will be easy to provide (and, one hopes, the additional content would come along with those sources). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Good job on the review Rudget ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have email!

Well, or at least you will have in a couple of minutes :) Qst 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. Qst 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there is just one more reply from me there :) Qst 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]