User talk:Flaming/Archive5
| Archives |
|---|
| 1· 2· 3· 4· 5· 6· 7 |
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
[edit]Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome from the past
[edit]Can you fix the date you put in with this edit please? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just did, but... Why couldn't you do it? Just be bold - it's not taboo or anything... flaminglawyerc 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]You said you'd support my RfA for now, until you saw my answers. Well, here's your chance to change your mind!
CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note: I saw that you added, but later removed, a question about my odd acceptance statement. Because several other users commented on this, I resurrected and answered it. If this bothers you, feel free to strike your name from the question.
**CRGreathouse** (t | c) 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Q8 for RFA:CRGreathouse
[edit]Re: Question 8 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CRGreathouse. Interesting question. If it were me, I'd fire off a note to the bureaucrat mailing list and if I didn't get a reply within a day, to the administrator's mailing list. If I didn't get a reply within a day to that from someone, then something is seriously broken. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice. I'm surprised that you answered that voluntarily. I might start asking it to like every candidate I see, like Xeno did. flaminglawyerc 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, I answered it without being asked. Feel free to ask it should I ever step forward and volunteer for mop duty. Of course, by that time, my answer might have changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you ever do "step forward," I'll be one of the first supports :) flaminglawyerc 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was planning for later this month. To be honest though, some of the excessive drama lately has put me off and I may wait until things cool down. I try to avoid drama and I'd rather edit than wade through more, and my RFA will have enough drama as it is after this historical block and its edit summary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- AH!!! I HAVE A FELON ON MY TALK PAGE!!! GET IT OFF!!! <stands on chair and jumps up and down madly, like a housewife trying to avoid a mouse> I always thought that ArbCom cases were to structured and civilized. It's a weird process that I'll never be able to understand. flaminglawyerc 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was planning for later this month. To be honest though, some of the excessive drama lately has put me off and I may wait until things cool down. I try to avoid drama and I'd rather edit than wade through more, and my RFA will have enough drama as it is after this historical block and its edit summary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you ever do "step forward," I'll be one of the first supports :) flaminglawyerc 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, I answered it without being asked. Feel free to ask it should I ever step forward and volunteer for mop duty. Of course, by that time, my answer might have changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
HD
[edit]did you get the HD working? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
RD regulars
[edit]Hi, thank you for naming me a Reference Desk regular. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Side Q
[edit]Various odds and ends. Makeing a working redirect in the image namespace would be one. An irreversable admin delete would be another.Geni 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith
[edit]Hello. Please forgive the spam but since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is heading toward a very close decision, I'm contacting all editors who were in the "Neutral" section in the hope that they can take a second look at the RfA and make a more explicit recommendation (either way). Thank you, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Flaming for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
My (failed) RfA
[edit]Dear Flaming, thank you very much for participating and for asking me questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
My social security number
[edit]I appreciate your trying to protect me, but I can't see what I did. I went through the history, and unless oversight has taken place, I never posted anything like that.
I checked what I copied from and it's not there. I don't think that information would have any way of being there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was a joke. I wrote <!-- just kidding --> after it, but I guess you didn't see it. flaminglawyerc 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, please do NOT do that sort of thing in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, no problem. flaminglawyerc 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, please do NOT do that sort of thing in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
[edit]
|
|
| Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
[edit]|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
RE: Speedy deletion
[edit]Hello!
I have just come to say that I expanded the Hawkin's Bazaar article in the best way possible. Would you mind checking it for me please? Thanks. Calvinps (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite yet... What it needs more than anything right now is a reference. Find a reference to/about it in a reliable source, then put the reference on the article. Without it, the topic isn't notable, and can't be included on Wikipedia. flaminglawyer 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again! I tried to add a citation to my Hawkin's Bazaar page. Can you verify it please? Thanks! Calvinps (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- That helps a bunch :) . But it's still not enough. It needs an external reference - a reference from a source unrelated to the topic. i.e., a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. After that it should be fine, and should be able to stand on its own. flaminglawyer 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I have cited an article from BBC News on the Hawkin's Bazaar page, giving a bit of detail about expansion. It is dated 02/01/2006 - is that OK or is it out of date? Calvinps (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect! I'm removing the CSD tag. Good job, you just made your first article :) flaminglawyer 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is for helping me to successfully create my first article! Calvinps (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect! I'm removing the CSD tag. Good job, you just made your first article :) flaminglawyer 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I have cited an article from BBC News on the Hawkin's Bazaar page, giving a bit of detail about expansion. It is dated 02/01/2006 - is that OK or is it out of date? Calvinps (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- That helps a bunch :) . But it's still not enough. It needs an external reference - a reference from a source unrelated to the topic. i.e., a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. After that it should be fine, and should be able to stand on its own. flaminglawyer 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again! I tried to add a citation to my Hawkin's Bazaar page. Can you verify it please? Thanks! Calvinps (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Ultimate ciara
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Ultimate ciara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. roleplayer 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am now aware that you didn't post the above article, it's just an automatic thing... -- roleplayer 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeh, Twinkle does crap like this all the time. flaminglawyer 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Commenting out Conoms
[edit]In future you'll want to be careful about jumping to conclusions and striking things without checking with folk first. As you saw, your commenting out my conom was not needed (a note on my talk would also have been a way to find that out). But even if the conom was an undesired one, you need to be cautious... an RfA I was involved in, long ago, that had perhaps more conoms than needed or desired by the nominiee engendered some rather bad feelings because some of the conoms took umbrage at being removed, to the point of switching to oppose. It ended up all working out in the end but it's something to watch out for. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
RegentsPark's RFA
[edit]- ) Well, the nominator's support is usually implied, isn't it? The RFA is not a vote, so I don't see if adding an extra support will make much of a difference. For now, I prefer to challenge and nip fallacious oppose statements in the RFA to avoid a swing of the tide. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you
[edit]| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
[edit]Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocking Jimbo
[edit]Re: Your neutral in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Graymornings:
I think it would be a nice symbolic gesture if once a year, perhaps on Wikipedia Day, a newly-minted administrator was chosen to block Jimbo on some "minor incivility" or other obviously symbolic charge for 1 hour. The symbolism is that even Jimbo is subject to the same rules as everyone else. It would be sort of like how the King or Queen of England is summoned to Parliament. Now, of course, this won't ever happen without Jimbo's going along with it, but it would be a good symbolic gesture if he did.
Of course, it would be nicer and IMHO healthier for the project if he really was just like everyone else, with the only "extra" powers being: 1) the substantial moral authority that comes with being a still-active co-founder, and 2a) the same extended access as current holders of non-time-limited roles like admins, 'crats, and if he wanted it, bot, and 2b) the same extended access as former or if applicable at the time current holders of time-limited roles like arbcom, steward, foundation board member, and soon, checkuser. He would have to formally give up some of his authority, like the authority to formally appoint arbitrators. I'm sure I left out a few roles but you get the idea: Drop the founder bit and drop any formal roles that currently belong to him and him alone, and return them to the community or groups drawn from the community. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
[edit]
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
RasterFaAye's unnecessary removals of PRODs
[edit]Hi flaming, I'm sure you know me, calvinps!
I am a bit concerned about RasterFaAye's removal of Proposed Deletion tags from pages without giving good summaries, etc.
Can you please have a look at his contributions and see if any action needs to be taken (I'm only asking you because I'm not an admin). If you feel something needs done, reply to this message and post {{Talkback}} on my talk page please. Thanks.
-calvinps- (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll leave a stern message telling him what he's doing wrong (although he already knows) and tell him to stop. I know the policy on this, and he does too; he just doesn't want to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with him. (btw, sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not an admin :[ ) flaminglawyer 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually... I think I'll leave him be. He's fulfilling the other side of PROD: He's being the user that opposes the deletion, which by definition makes the deletion "controversial." His reasons may not be the best in the world, but at least he's not going around blanking pages... :) I'm not going to say I advocate reasonless removing of PRODs, but it's not going to kill anyone (probably); the worst that could happen is that an article gets sent to an AFD. The success of that AFD determines the fate of the article; if it's a SNOW keep, then removing the PROD was a lifesaver for that article. If it's a close call, then removing the PROD still did its job. If it's a SNOW delete, then removing the PROD wasn't such a good call, but it's not the end of the world. flaminglawyer 00:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Redirect of Two lights theatre
[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Two lights theatre, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Two lights theatre is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Two lights theatre, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Quick note: On AFD's the header should be included in the tags you use to close the debate. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I just learned that from an answer on the HD. flaminglawyer 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
[edit]This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Account Creation
[edit]the request for ACC is here - sometimes it takes a couple days, first an admin here has to approve it - then an sysop there has to add you to the database. good luck ;) — Ched (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that that page was for the WP rights entry for if you're being stopped by the 6-accounts-per-day limit — can't you get access to the interface here? That's what I was trying to do. I got turned down a while back, and I still want to help with the ACC process. flaminglawyer 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- When I went through everything a couple weeks ago, I did the ACC request thing first after reading the guide, a wikipedia admin switched a bit on which allowed me to request access to the tools, I signed up to login with a different login password there (at the tool interface), and shortly after that another person left me a note that I could now login. I believe that there is a different group of admins, possibly wikimedia admins, that setup the users who do the acc. I hope I explained that the way I meant to ... lol. — Ched (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Prodego talk 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- When I went through everything a couple weeks ago, I did the ACC request thing first after reading the guide, a wikipedia admin switched a bit on which allowed me to request access to the tools, I signed up to login with a different login password there (at the tool interface), and shortly after that another person left me a note that I could now login. I believe that there is a different group of admins, possibly wikimedia admins, that setup the users who do the acc. I hope I explained that the way I meant to ... lol. — Ched (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)