This is an archive of past discussions about User:Foregone conclusion. 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.
I responded to your question on WT:CVG. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-6 15:51
Thanks for the guidance! If you'd like to check out what I have so far, feel free to check out User:Bwowen/Suikoden for the shell of what I want to get done. If you'd like to join, please feel free to add yourself as a contributor. Thanks again. bwowentalk.contribs17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you did know that the current revision of WP:NOT that says explicitly not to split off plot summary articles (which is generally true) was added a mere 3 days ago, right? (Indeed, it's the newest revision present. [1]) Prior to that, it said simply that plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, which a large number of us were reading as "follow WP:LENGTH". --tjstrftalk04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of this policy revision; however, the issue you raise is not the one at hand in the Les Mis Plot AFD. Here is the full text of WP:NOT#PLOT without the "new" text: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The issue here is NOT that the plot summary is a separate article; rather, it is that the plot summary is both too detailed and the only focus of that article. In order for an article to be encyclopedic, it needs to be neither entirely made up of exhaustive plot summary nor devoid of any details beyond said summary. At least, that is my opinion of the policy as it stands. Thank you again. bwowentalk.contribs05:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians in the District of Columbia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I see your userpage says that you're sometimes in Ri, so hopefully I've caught you at a good time... if not, there will always be a future meeting. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices (like this one), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page. --Gmaxwell16:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the advice
Please don't read irony into anything I say here: Funny you should bring that up because this is actually the calmest I've been all week (well, almost), and I made efforts in this discussion to start out calm and remain calm (the whole discussion here is certainly calmer than the original AfD). I guess that's not coming across. Some of my recent comments containing "shouts" were meant to be brief and were rhetorical devices that I was pretty cool in considering whether to use, I thought. I really wanted to grab attention with them and spark some people into thinking about their assumptions. But I think it's easy to misconstrue how you're coming across online when you type in an argument, so I'm going to think twice abuot doing any of that again. Thank you for bringing it up.
I'm making a lot of responses not because I'm angry -- believe me, I'm not -- but because I want individuals to think again about what they wrote here. If you look at those indented responses, I think you'll find even cooler language than was even in the opening statement. Some of the replies I'm getting to my responses are some of the best arguments I've heard here, and they're helping me to think about the issue (Maclean24 and corpx have made some good points).
This is important to me, although in this case the process is to me more important than this particular article. I think what may be worse than whether or not Kurykh acted wrongly is that it appeared he acted wrongly, and that appearance is ugly. And it's something he and/or others can fix by providing an explanation for that closing. Believe it or not, if I got a good rationale for his actions, either from him or from someone else, I could be convinced. I take being open minded very seriously and I've reversed positions before. Perhaps the problem here is that I like arguing a bit too much. Anyway, I'll take a short break after a little while and hope the discussion percolates. I'm going to assume you're perceiving things that I'm not. Thanks for the note. Noroton23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Jmlk1722:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey buddy. In answer to your question, you honestly did nothing wrong, per se. It's your first shot at AIV, so no worries. We admins usually would prefer to have current warnings (not ones that occurred a while ago), and usually it helps if the vandal is currently vandalizing. Keep in mind that the rules aren't really set in stone, but they are usually pretty good guidelines to abide by. But keep up the good work, and we'll get your reporting down pat eventually :). Jmlk1722:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response and for the encouragement! My only other question would be why this diff that I reverted doesn't count as "currently vandalizing." Or maybe you were just giving an example? Just wanted to clarify. Again, thank you very much for your help and kind words, and for not biting me!Being bold can be scary! =] bwowentalk•contribs22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh man no worries at all! I was a newcomer once, and I am a very strong believer in not biting at all! I believe that as an admin, biting a newbie is the worst thing I could do! As for your question, I agree that the difference you gave me is/was vandalism, and your revert was perfect. But (and especially with IPs), it is a little bit better if there are current final warning(s), and a couple of current/recent vandalisms. I hope this helps, and, as always, if you ever need anything, give just me a holler! Jmlk1723:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
No problem. The guy vandalized another user's page, which was on my watchlist for some reason, (I think I reverted vandalism there before) which I saw and reverted. It was kinda blatant, so I kept a tab open to watch on his contributions (standard procedure for me). And... he vandalized yours. Which I reverted. Gscshoyru18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. :) Sorry for the late reply. I have yet to review you, mostly because this will be my first time reviewing an editor, and first I'd like to read up and read some of the other reviews given to other editors. Familiarize myself so I can give something worthwhile. I shall review soon (which won't be as long as my late reply.) ^_^; -WarthogDemon04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism to Usertalk Lebo?
I haven't made any comments to a User named "Lebo". What are you referring to?
The only edit I've made recently was to remove a reference to the Delphi Oracle in an article about smoking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.117.37 (talk • contribs) 23:39, July 26, 2007 (UTC)
You are editing anonymously from the IP address 69.152.117.37. An edit was made from that IP address to my talk page that was vandalism, though it may not have been you specifically if it's a shared IP address. Are you at a library or other public location? Click here to see the edits that have come from your IP address.
Thanks for the "get well soon" message, and I'm sorry if I haven't gotten back to you. So I can actually make sense and adequately review you after I'm not on heavy doses of Percocet and Valium, haha. I'm waiting to make any real edits for a few weeks, as well. Cheers! hmwith talk02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Recent edits.
My edits to Alec Baldwin were not meant to be vandalism. I was trying to revert prior vandalism at the same time as you and subsequently reverted your revert by mistake. └and-rew┘┌talk┐03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I got your messages. I've never reviewed an editor before, so I'm not quite sure what to do. I can offer something brief, perhaps not as detailed as Shalom; if that's alright, I'll try to do it as soon as possible. EikaKou06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
fair call on the Ethan Group tag. Was fairly new to this and still learning the ropes. I've done some research now and have added a Australian company stub instead that is very watered down Samarillo10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello Bwowen, I just realised you started up a Suikoden Task Force, sorry if I'm bringing this to the wrong place, but I've just completed an over-haul of the Suikoden article found here Suikoden (video game) since you're on the task force and as I've only limited experience editing I was hoping you could perhaps let me know if you think that the re-write/edit is a step in the right direction? I'm also curious as to your views regarding Suikoden 2, the talk page there has a list of proposed changes for the entire article, I'm thinking of taking it up since the discussion started in 2005 and ended in 2006 but with no real action taken to cleanup/expand that particular section.
If you could perhaps let me know of these issues, I'd greatly appreciate it and I'd be glad to collaborate with the task-force on the Suikoden series in whatever way I can, you may find me at my talkpage of course, thanks in advance RBlowes03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi RBlowes! Thanks for your work on the Suikoden article, you really made some great additions with those sources. I did some grammar and punctuation copyediting, but other than that, you did great! Thanks! bwowentalk•contribs•review me please!20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
August 2007
I appreciate your message, and I hope you enjoy your upcoming vacation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duerring (talk • contribs)
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman(talk)22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delaware Gazette article
Hello, I am working on an article about OWU's online resources,. Specifically, I am interested in doing some research on the OWU Wikiproject. Please contact me if you're interested in helping me with this article. Thank you. Xwoodandwater14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's alright. You are still more than welcome to write on the editor review, I've just given up on actively recruiting people with the banners and being listed as active. If you were planning on doing it, please do! You can find my review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Bwowen. Thanks, WarthogDemon! bwowentalk•contribs18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright. :) I shall try to do so this week (most likely I shall). There is one thing of note that you'd probably like to know, The link you left on my talk page will only work as long as this section hasn't been archived. Once it has, it's moot. Best thing to do is to go in the history and show change made, like this: [2]. And that way even after you archive the link will still be good. Cheers. :) -WarthogDemon18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, excellent! Thank you for the advice; I started doing it after interacting with you, so it would help to do it right. Thanks for the heads up and for the review! bwowentalk•contribs18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Foregone conclusion. 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.
Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Jmlk17 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
