I was not calling the user rubbish I was calling the RFA rubbish, for goodness sake an RFA for a user who had an RFA less than a week ago, in my opinion deserves to be called rubbish, I woudn't be offended if when I had just had an RFA and only 167 contributions and masses of opposes, someone called the RA a wast of time or Rubbish I would take in that that was probably true, maybe I should have not said that but the truth hurts sometimes. Harland1 (t/c)10:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Invitation
Hello there
I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.
At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars
If you are interested by all means feel free to join
Actually to be honest I have no idea what Life on Mars is... I've only done one edit (a revert) to it; back in April of last year. Please do not excessively post this message to anyone who has edited the article, it may be viewed as disruption. — DarkFallstalk00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
invalid speedy
You seem to have speedied How to live with a senior dog? under "non notable..." It does not seem to fir under any of the categories in WP:CSD A7. Agreed, its not a good article, but just leaving it on Prod would have gotten rid of it soon enough. It seems a little quixotic to go to Deletion Review for such a low quality article, but I think we admins should follow the rules to avoid confusing newbies. DGG (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't assert any notability, which is under the criteria of A7. The main point of the article was to instruct people on how to care for a dog, it doesn't state why and how that has any sense of notability. — DarkFallstalk00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But A7 is limited to articles about people, companies, bands, organisations, and web content. Not to articles in general. Please re-read WP:CSD A7. It's a junky article, but we should get rid of it according to policy, not IAR. DGG (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my logic is flawed. It shouldn't be speedy deleted, but it seems to be pointless to restore it as it is, obviously, going to be deleted as a prod. — DarkFallstalk05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has now been locked since October, despite general agreement that there are still many faults in it. Would it be possible to unlock it? PRtalk13:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008
The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I've made quite a few additions to the article but could do with some clarification per your talk comments on Stalin and the SU, specifically examples? Take a look at the talk page if you have time. Getting the article to FA will happen somewhen! Thank you! LordHarris20:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls, just a thank you for all the edits and responses you have made to Awadewits review. I will attempt to respond to some myself but she has raised a lot of concerns and your continued efforts to address her comments would be most honoured by me! Thank you! LordHarris08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you are editing the article at the moment. I will go away for a while and come back later so as to avoid edit conflicts. LordHarris09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it... I'm currently editing only one section "relation with Soviet Union" and reading a 20 page source so it's not likely there'll be edit conflicts now... — DarkFallstalk09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for posting my stuff but whats the point? It just gets reverted by people who dont care and dont read. its enough to make me wish I hadnt started. And the stupid part is nothing is lost, its all on my new page- which I intend to expand. Any suggestions on how to deal with this Backnumber1662 (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help with both the main article and with my attempts at the 1900-1939 sub article, you are right your title is much better. There are some problems though -see the talk page there. Backnumber1662 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally posted this on the page where the discussion was taking place, but ran into an edit conflict.
I'm not sure if I can present some clarification here and if not I apologize. TTN has been vandal editing (see the 3RR rfc, ani, and I believe an rfar, cases against him), and because of this I have stepped back from many of the issues surrounding him. I went and read the rules pertaining to the privilege of this feature before I used the few times I had, and I want to state that I would not use it on an established editor. The TTN issue goes way back and probably requires more time than you all have to review it. However, if you all deem it necessary to revoke this privilege, I will (not because I have to) accept that. Please reconsider my edits overall and not just the issue of TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was fair to just base the decision on this one case. The issues surrounding TTN are vast, but again, I would not use it on him or another user. And my history will show that to be the case. I have made mistakes early on in my editing, but like any editor, I have grown and will continue to do so. Please reconsider if you will the decision. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been classifying his edits as vandalism and revert-warring with him a few hours before the request. I an unsure how you would behave with the rollback. Please submit your request in a few weeks, and it may be reconsidered. — DarkFallstalk01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware what the criteria for speedy deletion is, Ali'i, so please do not cite that to me. I do not appreciate being the subject of threats, so watch your language.(I request that you undelete the page, so we don't have to escalate the issue as an abuse of the administrative tools). For the point issue, the community should know that the rollback tools are not a so-called RFAlite and it is disruptive to create such a redirect without community consensus. I agree that speedy deletion does not apply here, but since when was Wikipedia a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor is it a place where "law" or "rules" dictate its every moment. If you disagree with the deletion, take it to deletion review. — DarkFallstalk23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this deletion and would have done it myself had Darkfalls not got to it sooner. I realise this was likely created in good spirits/as a joke, but people have strong feelings about the process surrounding non-admin rollback, i.e. that it doesn't become RfA-lite. Such a redirect is only going mislead some people and aggravate others, neither of which Wikipedia really needs right now. Deletion review it if you want but I don't see it being revived. – Steel00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no threat, it was a note of reminder about abusing the tools (and what happens to those who do abuse them). But, okay. It was deleted out of process. I've listed at deletion review. Mahalo. --Ali'i14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudget!
Dear DarkFalls, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.
...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.
In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.
By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.
Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.
This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).
I've restored it per my rationale here - hoping that a week's cool-off is sufficient that he will not use the tool inappropriately in future. Just a heads-up, take care. ~ Riana ⁂13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool.21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939
I would appreciate your comments on the first two sections as they are now. Are they too long, are they unclear? Should I add something on how contemporaries saw Churchill at that stage (his early Liberal phase?)- there's heaps of material from the Webbs, Lady Asquith &c &c) I will get to the next sections (Admiralty, Dardanelles) shortly Backnumber1662 (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, DarkFalls/Archive January 2008 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask!
I can see why you want consistency and respect that. It's your opinion to do with as you wish. However, there is no way I can possibly show you I have not canvassed for an RfA...except by doing another RfA. I also explained my ALL CAPS comment pretty substantially in the last RfA with no response from you. As for the image, it was not uploaded recently as you asserted, but when I was a new user. I hereby renounce such actions and resolve to do everything in my power to not do so in the future. As for the location of IfDs, I simply asked because I couldn't remember the wikipedia shortcut to it (WP:IfD). I'm not against your opinion per se, but I would like clarification in order to improve either this or future RfAs. — BQZip01 —talk03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested to know that the page you have protected because of edit warring has been deleted within not even 6 hours since its nomination where the nominator himself had a conflict of interest and the only people voting delete were only able to justify their votes by personal insults and flaming attacks, even against the admins because they didn't vote for delete. Not a single admin voted for delete, in fact most of them voted keep or speedy keep due to bad faith nomination. The Deletion Review is taking place here. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I know Squeak, he wasn't referring to this MfD but to another issue a few days ago where within pretty much the same minute he and one admin warned me for canvassing and reverted my notifications, then another admin referred to this admin's behavior as "very unusual" and restored all or most of my "canvassing". --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DarkFalls, previously in the past year you had blocked User:Thamarih for personal attacks, harrassment and unfounded accusations. It was the second time he was blocked for such accusations, which are quite anti-Baha'i in tone. He was inactive for a while, and while he has not been generally uncivil, his edits on both the article namespace and the talk page are generally unproductive. On one page (Subh-i-Azal) he has constantly placed a {{tl:POV}} tag. This tag, was originally placed sometime this past year, and was left there for four months. After he had made no comments about why it was POV, and no effort on his part to fix the problem, the tag was taken down. Since then he constantly places the tag back up. I've constantly asked for reasons for the tag, and after many many requests he indiciated six points, of which I've now addressed. But he has a hatred of Baha'is, and keeps placing the POV tag back up, and now with no additional reasons other than it's POV. The article is predominantly sourced from articles by Dennis MacEoin, who is a critic of the Baha'i Faith, and follows the organization of his articles on the subject of the article. The user has also deleted cited content on other pages, which users including myself, and others have reverted.
I was wondering if you have any guidance on how to proceed. It seems like he will never be interested in actually improving the article, but just placing the tag, and ranting on the talk page. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have the time currently (at least not for a few weeks) to look into this matter throughly. I strongly suggest you use the dispute resolution process if he continues to revert/add his favored addition of the article, or ask another administrator on this matter. Some helpful admins are located here if you wish to go for the latter option. Sorry if I'm not very helpful, but I am busy with personal issues lately. — DarkFallstalk06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above archive is a past discussion. Please direct all new discussion to the current talk page. Thank you.
