User talk:Fran Rogers/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fran Rogers. 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Fran Rogers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Will (Talk - contribs) 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to the Bugs Bunny page
I noticed you removed a full section in this page, this should have been disscused first, however it would have been kept, why? every major character has a section listing references on other TV programs , video games and other media, this one is actually very short just look at the one in the Superman page it has photos and all and it's not lke Seinfield is relevant to it in simpler words it's part of page desing, I however noticed the title of the section is incomplete so I will change it to "References in other media" , anyway you are new so you won't get a report or anything-Dark Dragon Flame | talk
- I was {{toomuchtrivia}} tagging, pruning, and removing a large amount of trivia and "cultural references" sections from articles at the time as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Official_policy_on_.22Cultural_references.22_sections_in_articles, where an administrator confirmed that despite the fact that "cultural references" lists are widespread, they are mostly against WP:TRIV. These references are already more concisely described at E. Peterbus Unum and Gex (video game series), which are probably the best place to discuss those references.
- I will admit though that I may have been too hasty with deleting it altogether. Looking at the article again, a paragraph near the end of the "After the war" section would probably be a good place to add a short paragraph mentioning Bugs Bunny's influences on other media, and maybe give a couple consise examples. Krimpet 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I see, I will shorten it and move it tomorrow until then I will leave it there so I can have an idea of what is important about it when I'm making a summary-Dark Dragon Flame 07:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is it, I made a summary of the two paragraphs and fused them together in a somewhat small one, I also removed the "References in Popular Culture" section-Dark Dragon Flame 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Multiplex
Thank you for your efforts to eliminate this neologism. I have been thinking of doing the same thing for a while, but never got around to it. --NE2 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, yes it's something that's kind of irked me for a while particularly because of the clumsy way the term is often used. Unfortunately it seems that this is going to be an enormously massive undertaking, much much bigger than I originally thought, as it seems hundreds of state and interstate route articles use the terms "duplex" and "triplex" in their (automatically-generated?) route logs. Krimpet 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please try to be more careful... I don't think "concurrencyed" is a word. Maybe "overlapped" would be better? --NE2 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize, I've been trying to automate the process somewhat by finding-and-replacing different conjugations of multiplex/duplex/triplex (see the bottom of User:Krimpet/monobook.js for my current criteria); I've been working on the PA routes one-by-one and trying to review the results and refine my search terms as I go along, but that one slipped through the cracks, I promise I'll try not to let that happen again. Krimpet 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just want to add my thanks on eliminating "duplex," et al. To my mind, a "duplex" is a house divided horizontally into two dwellings. Coemgenus 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Gooey
my friend, i agree with you, Gooey can be proposed for deletion, do you want to do it, or do you want me to submit it? Pernambuco 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can do it if you want, I'll admit I'm kind of lazy and didn't do it right away =P Krimpet 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have added List of burrito fillings to this AFD (as suggested by one of the voters); you may wish to add a comment or reconsider your vote. Brianyoumans 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Krimpet,
I just wanted to contact you because of your vote to keep with major cleanup at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Anti-Iranianism. There is a movement on the article's talk page to do just that but it is being met by some fierce resistance by the creators of the article. Would you mind taking a look?
Thanks, GabrielF 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh, at least this message spurred me to look for the opt out procedure for this unbelievably annoying bot, it's a PITA to go back and add forgotten tildes a few seconds later only to find the bot has "helpfully" done it for me. Krimpet 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Your vendetta against "multiplex"
Where's your consensus for this? I have found no serious discussion of this change over at WP:USRD and there is nothing in the Manual of style (AFAIK) that says we can't use neologisms in the actual article text (we just can't create articles about neologisms, or rather protologisms).
I know one user (SPUI) has said "concurrency" is the preferred official term (if so, someone better tell NYSDOT to get in line as they seem to use "overlap" a lot), but there's been no consensus on using that in articles.
You seem to have been here for only a month and a half. Behavior like this can, if and when it annoys enough people, get you on Requests for Comment. I strongly recommend you go to the roads project talk page and try to get consensus for this. I reverted your edits to New York State Route 55 since you removed a link to the actual concurrency article in the process. Is that really what you wanted to do? It seems counterproductive unless you believe policing the language as used on Wikipedia should come at the expense of the project's effectiveness as an information resource. I would venture the same has happened in some other articles. This would bolster a complaint against you that you have disrupted Wikipedia to make a point.
I really would prefer this be settled on a project talk page, as it should be, rather than through a multifront edit war. Just a friendly warning, but a warning nonetheless. Daniel Case 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Avoiding neologisms is indeed a style guideline, as per WP:NEO: Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people.
- That's "generally speaking", of course. And in the strict sense of the word, it's not a neologism, just a new usage of a word that's been in English since the 16th century.[1]. I don't find its usage in road articles to have too many of the problems that neologisms are supposed to have ... engineers, being resourceful people, brought it over from its "communicates two or more signals over a common channel" usage, and I don't find its application to roads to be stretching that too much. It's a testament to the adapatability of the English language IMO.
If an established dictionary starts listing that use as such, will we have to go back and re-edit all these articles.
- That's "generally speaking", of course. And in the strict sense of the word, it's not a neologism, just a new usage of a word that's been in English since the 16th century.[1]. I don't find its usage in road articles to have too many of the problems that neologisms are supposed to have ... engineers, being resourceful people, brought it over from its "communicates two or more signals over a common channel" usage, and I don't find its application to roads to be stretching that too much. It's a testament to the adapatability of the English language IMO.
- "Multiplex" and its related terms in the context of roads are neologisms, being used almost exclusively in the "road geek" community, and can be highly confusing to the uninitiated; to the layman, a "duplex" is a type of house.
- I think most laypeople today are not that thick. We all know that "full duplex" is about our Internet service. I think that most people may be a little jarred when they see "multiplex" in a Wikipedia road article, but they'll quickly figure it out from the context; especially when "duplex" and "triplex" are in the mix.
- (Having to link to the Concurrency (road) article just to explain what a "multiplex" is, is illustrative of how confusing the term is.)
- Then why did you delink that article here? That makes no sense if it's about understanding (non-road people think "concurrency" has something to do with prison sentences, and then there's this). We have an article; it should be linked to from every applicable road article because even when people understand what it means, they might want a little more background.
That's what I meant about disrupting to make a point. Your methods seem a little ham-handed.
And while you're at it, could you consider going around and, per my example here, use "double-route" or "triple-route" to modify "concurrency" where the same article had previously referred to duplexes and triplexes? If you want to avoid readers getting confused, it's essential to make that distinction.
- Then why did you delink that article here? That makes no sense if it's about understanding (non-road people think "concurrency" has something to do with prison sentences, and then there's this). We have an article; it should be linked to from every applicable road article because even when people understand what it means, they might want a little more background.
- Replacing arcane neologisms makes the information more accessible to a wider audience, which is exactly the goal of Wikipedia; how is this "at the expense of the project's effectiveness as an information resource"?
- See above.
- I announced my intentions to replace this neologism at Talk:Concurrency (road) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways a couple weeks ago, and I waited until receiving support from others (see my talk page above...), with only support and no opposition until now, before replacing things on a larger scale. How am I "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"? Krimpet 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is too typical of this place lately. Just like the whole fair-use publicity-photo jihad, not enough outreach was made. I think I'm typical of a lot of road-article editors in that I tend to spend time working on articles about one or several states' road systems, and rarely check any of the high-level project pages, least of all WP:HWY. Your support seems to be largely NE2.
Had you reposted your proposal on all subproject pages, particularly the individual states, I think you would have gotten more feedback and been on firmer ground. As of right now, I don't consider this to have adequate consensus. Daniel Case 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is too typical of this place lately. Just like the whole fair-use publicity-photo jihad, not enough outreach was made. I think I'm typical of a lot of road-article editors in that I tend to spend time working on articles about one or several states' road systems, and rarely check any of the high-level project pages, least of all WP:HWY. Your support seems to be largely NE2.
- I tried to build consensus by posting it in a more general forum where I figured more people would see it; had I known that editors didn't generally check higher-up projects, OK, I would have posted it on the more specific state projects. But as WP:CON says, "silence equals consent", and nobody had objected until now; I had no intention of working against consensus. I will discuss this in some of the more specific forums before I continue, if you feel I should.
- Some discussion is underway already at WT:USRD. Seems to be running about even.
People are a bit paranoid because, as the newsletter below this notes, there is an effort (not likely to succeed IMO) underway to delete all road articles, and some people wondered if this was part of that. Daniel Case 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Some discussion is underway already at WT:USRD. Seems to be running about even.
- I'll also admit that one instance of de-linking to Concurrency (road) was a mistake, yes, it was not my intention and I apologize. Nevertheless, I stand by my position that "multiplex" and "duplex" et al. are unacceptable neologisms (and I did mention that they are only neologisms in the context of roads). While you are right that most people will eventually figure it out from the context, ideally they should not be "jarred" by any terms even on the first read. In addition to being the terms used by state DOTs, "concurrent", "overlap", etc. already carry the dictionary definition of "convergent" or "meeting at the same point". (Another problem is that "multiplex", "duplex", etc. are often used in inconsistent, ad hoc forms, such as "has a multiplex", "multiplexes", "A and B multiplex", "the C/D multiplex", which seem to contribute to a rather unprofessional, jarring tone.) Krimpet 06:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to live with "concurrency" for now while I write letters to the major dictionary publishers urging them to include this meaning. (I've already made the appropriate wiktionary edits to multiplex, duplex and triplex, but since we don't consider Wiktionary acceptable as a source for non-neologism status (although it would pass its criteria for inclusion), it won't have any affect. Still, lexicographical reform has to start somewhere.
It's always nice to be getting out of the weekend with that sense of collegiality returning. Daniel Case 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to live with "concurrency" for now while I write letters to the major dictionary publishers urging them to include this meaning. (I've already made the appropriate wiktionary edits to multiplex, duplex and triplex, but since we don't consider Wiktionary acceptable as a source for non-neologism status (although it would pass its criteria for inclusion), it won't have any affect. Still, lexicographical reform has to start somewhere.
- Looking at the discussion at WT:USRD, I would say there does appear to be a clear consensus that "multiplex" should be avoided. While I am going to wait a day or two to make sure, I don't really see anyone else objecting to my replacement efforts. Krimpet 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you're getting a reasonable consensus (I think you make a better case by pointing to it as jargon, which we are supposed to avoid.
It occurs to me we ought to follow the examples set by the American, British and New Zealand railfan communities and have some sort of List of roadfan jargon. Daniel Case 04:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you're getting a reasonable consensus (I think you make a better case by pointing to it as jargon, which we are supposed to avoid.
Oh, one more
See this edit. The image (very crucial to the article) disappeared for a while. We can't rename images, so we have to keep their names. Daniel Case 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, a small mistake, you easily fixed it... what point was there in pointing this out to me on my talk page? Please don't start henpecking. Krimpet 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
   The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 1 | 10 February 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 20:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
AfD Global Warming
I just wanted to clarify something. You wrote, "Controversy is not a valid reason for deletion; deleting this article - even as bad as it is now - or any other controversial article would lessen Wikipedia's value as an information resource."
The issue is not that because there is controversy the article should be deleted. The issue is that, based on the edits, deletions, reverts, etc by the administrators, there is no controversy and thus the article is irrelevant. Thanks for your time. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about the edit war enough to know completely what's going on, but what I meant is that an edit war is no excuse for deletion, no matter how hopeless it may seem. The controversy over global warming is a very prominent subject, and should be detailed in Wikipedia in an NPOV manner, as hopeless reaching that goal may seem. Krimpet 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 2
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Editing as revenge?
I find it interesting that within a minute of disagreeing with me about the Cyrus Farivar article, you have chosen to question my own biographical page's relevance. Hopefully those members of the Macintosh community who know me will find citations to my relevance! Jsnell 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I happened to come across the article on you, created by Cyrus himself, when I was looking at Cyrus's edit history and noticed it was unsourced. If I were acting "vengeful," I could have instantly added it to AfD, or worse I could have assumed you and your coworker Cyrus were in cahoots and accused you of a conflict of interest at DRV. But did I? No, I assumed good faith and simply tagged your article with the {{notability}} tag, inviting you or anyone else to add sources to back up its notability. WP:AGF is one of the primary guiding principles of Wikipedia; I suggest you bone up on it yourself. Krimpet 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it time ?
Don't you think its time to let I-476 become a good article? It's been 8 days since the tag and i haven't seen many changes. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I too feel it meets GA criteria now, but we need an impartial third-party reviewer to make that determination as per the WP:GAC process. Krimpet 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, good luck with the WP:GAC process. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions
Hi, I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 3
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 3 | 10 March 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Active user verification
Hello, Fran Rogers. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The "webcomic" section of Pigs Is Pigs (1937 film)
You wrote:
- I deleted this section because this webcomic does not appear to meet our web notability guidelines; I can't find any sources that vouch for its notability, and it reads like a review or advertisement for "Willix," whose work is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, suggesting his work may not meet our notability standards.
- Also, Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, and this large section was basically just a retelling of the comic. Krimpet 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you for the input. I entered the original posting of the webcomic on account of the fact that it is based on the cartoon. Willix, himself, was not the subject. There are other examples on the web, such as Paige's Story. But you are right about one thing -- the section is way too long and detailed ploting. I did not create the extensive plot summary of that section; that was input by someone else who was also aware of the comic. I let it stand because this is primarily a group endevour and the person had put some effort into it. However, with your message, I am going to revert the section to it's earlier breif version. -- Jason Palpatine 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)
Editor review
Just letting you know I've reviewed you at your editor review. I hope my comments were helpful- if not, please ask for clarification! Happy editing- CattleGirl talk | sign! 09:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for your helpful feedback! I will definitely strive to use edit summaries more consistently, and also start participating in the other xFDs and some of the other backlogged areas. Krimpet 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ridge Route
Can you please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1 about the coordinates template? Thank you. --NE2 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I went to Commons to see if it was there but nothing. Is it under a different name? -- Stbalbach 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure what happened, I remember uploading it; I still have it on my hard drive from when I copied it over. Either way I re-uploaded it and it looks OK now. — Krimpet (talk/review) 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Another Notability Debate
I imagine you'll be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Menachem_Z._Rosensaft, given your position on Timothy Noah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumanji123 (talk • contribs)
- The two debates are quite different, I voted Delete on Noah because he was not the subject of any independent sources. Rosensaft, on the other hand, has plenty of independent, reliable sources asserting his notability. — Krimpet (talk/review) 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 4
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 4 | 24 March 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Krimpet! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Interstate 95 (Pennsylvania)
This article is ready to be nominated. I think you should nominate it to become a good article just like the Schuylkill. -- 172.132.220.9 5:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, nominated. (I was waiting for it to be reassessed as B-class, didn't notice it was reassessed a few days ago, thanks!) Krimpet (talk/review) 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of good articles, would you be nice enough to review Pennsylvania Route 145, since the tag has been there for more than 13 days. Thanks. -- 172.132.220.9 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Dime (slang) AfD
AfDs often have a momentum quality. I have made some changes and will continue to revise this article over the next few days. I would hope you would take into account what I have done so far and consider supporting either a listify or keep given the direction I am headed. I am hoping for a change in your vote before there is too much momentum for Xwiki. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 5
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 5 | 5-8 April 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery, TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: nominating WP:WPMOVIE
Okay, great! I was planning on nominating it later today (as a procedural motion), but you beat me to it. Cheers, GracenotesT § 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
List of songs containing covert references to real musicians
Given the obvious level of concern I had raised about the possible deletion of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians and the fact that the wording of your nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (2nd nomination) indicates that you were obviously familiar with the first nomination for deletion, can I ask why you did not alert me to the re-nomination?
Please reply on my user talk page, or ping my user talk page to let me know if you reply here. - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the wake of that incident I had cut my Wikipedia time roughly in half. I am about three weeks behind on my watchlist, so a notice on the article did not draw my attention. And, if you look at the previous debate, most of the people who defended the article were probably not people who had it watchlisted: they were people who disagreed over the principles under which it was being deleted, and who raised arguments that were not addressed at all in the new discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- May I presume that you would object to undeletion, and that if I want that I should take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review? - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15. I'll be informing the other people who have expressed opinions either way, but I may not get to that in the next couple of days. Since this should be open for five days, that should not be a problem. - Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the links. - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Earth Charter
I am hoping to get back my User:Jeffrey Newman name - but that's another matter. In the meantime, I am not a frequent Wikipedia user but am heavily involved with EC in the UK and would like to ensure the Wikipedia material is good quality without being just direct advocacy. Could I get editing help with this? If so, how? 85.210.255.81 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit I'm not really familiar with the group you're referring to, though I recommend reading WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest for a good explanation. The basic rule of thumb is to make sure to disclose your involvement, and adhere strictly to NPOV and attribution guidelines. Happy editing! Krimpet (talk/review) 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 6
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 6 | 21 April 2007 | About the Newsletter | |||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Spinning off "In popular culture" sections
[2]: your solution requires an ideal situation, which current Wikipedia is not. Constant war with people who add these references is not a long term working solution. It has been tried and leaf articles has been found the only practical way to avoid burning people.
You may propose strict limitations on pop-culture references as a new Wikipedia policy (with effect on 3RR and blocking). Even then, I predict, this material would generate major wars and alienate many potentially useful people. Pavel Vozenilek
Good luck! anthony[review] 07:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm crossing my fingers! Krimpet (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
hey bro i understand where your coming from and all but my definition of jizz was totally legit and it should not have been reverted...i mean anyone who that word is looking for a straightforward definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmeyer92 (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately in adding this definition you overwrote an extant disambiguation page. As the page explains, "jizz" does not only refer to semen, there is also the term Jizz (birding), among others. I invite you to read Wikipedia:Introduction for an introduction to contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Krimpet (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats man! Well deserved. —Anas talk? 14:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your support! Time for me to start studying WP:ARL =) Krimpet (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
| Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
- Congrats! Real96 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thank you for the official userpage mop! Krimpet (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove this user from AIV?
Harassing usernames include usernames that; "Give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking, spamming, trolling, vandalism, legal threats or computer viruses" It's not about the actions of the editor, regardless of any good faith edits. It's about the clear violation of the username policy. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 20:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that he is making good-faith edits suggests that he probably doesn't intend to spam. I agree that the username is probably unacceptable, but it would be best to kindly but sternly ask him to have it changed first, instead of simply blocking him. Krimpet (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
I'm curious to know how much vandalism is enough vandalism to warrant protection. I find the continual checking of articles I've written exceedingly tedious and a waste of time. --Amandajm 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Generally persistent vandalism from multiple sources over the course of a few days is enough to warrant semi-protection; Sistine Chapel ceiling has only been vandalized five times over the past week. Unfortunately, as stable as an article may be, keep in mind Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by anyone; semi-protection is not intended to be a preventative measure; I understand this can be frustrating. Krimpet (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
Thank you for the AIV attention. MojoTas 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! Krimpet (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Igor21
Hi, Krimpet.
You wrote:
- Igor21's edits do not appear to be a clear case of vandalism. Please do not use the WP:AIV process to attempt to settle content disputes
Fine. Then, could you please explain me what I am supposed to do if a user erases a whole sourced section "manu military"?. Simply to revert him/her until one of us is too tired?.
I am not asking you a rethoric question. I want to know. This Igor21 is a repeated blanker.
Thank you. Randroide 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel he/she is introducing inaccuracies into the article, I suggest using the dispute resolution process. Krimpet (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would never have denounce this guy based on my "feelings". The guy is a repeated blanked of sourced information. We went to Arbitration, but they said us that we had to go first though a RfC. No RfC input until now. Randroide 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you have already initiated an RfC, then that, not AIV, is the proper venue. Krimpet (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- External comment from the Rf il now: Zero. I am simply waiting for input. But Igor21 keeps removing sourced data over, and over again. Am I supposed to simply revert this kind of edits over and over again?. Plase note that I NEVER reverted the addition of sourced information. Randroide 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If this situation continues and the RfC doesn't gather input in the next day or two then I will volunteer to take a look and comment on it. Please leave me a link to the RfC and to some of what you consider the more problematic edits. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. I shall wait. Randroide 07:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Krimpet. Thanks for your help. Randroide always threatens people illegitimately with the wikipedia templates. It is useless with me but is frightening for newbies. I you want to know about Randroide ask jim68sch and mantanmoreland. They can tell you what is all this about, who is Randroide and what is he doing here. He destroyed the article in Christmas and since then we are trying to repair. He thinks Spanish police caused the bombings and is pushing this in the article. --Igor21 16:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Lolcat AFD
Hey, I noticed you closed the AFD 4 (or 6) days early - I don't really think there's consensus to keep it - nearly every ATA for keeping (and some for deletion), and quite a significant proportion of the votes are from IPs, and a large proprtion of those using ILIKEIT. I think you should let the AFD ride out and sprotect. By the way, I voted merge, as I know it's a meme, but I don't think it's notable enough. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD's was running since April 22nd, a total of 7 days; keep in mind AfDs normally run 5 days, it was even relisted to generate more consensus. I agree that there were many unconvincing "keep" arguments, but there were also a lot of legitimate "keep" arguments, particularly near the end after the page was rewritten (several editors even changed from Delete to Keep). Personally I would've voted to Merge as well, but I think the consensus was pretty clear. Krimpet (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Has it been running for seven days? I think it's the votes at the top which confused me. Still, the article looks okay now, so I'm not going to rouge-merge. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I just noticed what you mean, it looks like a bunch of inexperienced editors added their comments to the top, I understand how it can be misleading. (Here's the original nomination from the 22nd.) Krimpet (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Has it been running for seven days? I think it's the votes at the top which confused me. Still, the article looks okay now, so I'm not going to rouge-merge. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Responce to Transit Acticles
First of all, I did not mean to cause you or anybody else any trouble, if that's what you're thinking. - Second, I live in Minnesota, so I do know the up's and down's about Light Rail & Bus Rapid Transit Projects being planned or currently being created at this very moment. - Third, If you think I am vandalising pages, I am only trying to point out the truth, from what I know, and with all of that said, I am sorry if I caused you any trouble, once again, I apologize for my uncalled actions (but that does mean I will keep fixing & editing pages I find at any Wikipedia acticle). I will go back and correct some of my mistakes and once more, I do apologize for the inconvinice.
MegaHL90 (My Talk)
Re:
Which ones? --WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 02:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:Paisleydesign and User:8:45 PM. Krimpet (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two out of the 14 I reported. True, WP:AGF was most likely need however. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not sprotect? We can always re-protect if the vandals arrive...--Cerejota 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, Digg and Wikipedia likely share a huge userbase; many potential vandals will probably have existing accounts, semi-protection would not be much help if this is true. Krimpet (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Peppers/Internet Phenomena
I strongly disagree. The DRV was regarding the Peppers article and had nothing to do with the Internet Phenomena article on which ther is no consensus for noninclusion. DRVs are specific to the related article and aren't all-encompassing to every mention of the subject of the deleted article in other articles. I think Peppers is perfectly acceptable for this article. His photograph was a significant internet phenomenon and I can provide multiple sources that prove it. If you disagree with the inclusion, please discuss on the talk page and form consensus. The Parsnip! 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
AFD closure
Hello. I noticed you closed the AFD for List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation cast members, but wanted to point out that you didn't remove the {{AFD}} template from the top of the article or put the {{oldafdfull}} template on the talk page. Please remember to do that in the future. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see you're a new admin. I've gone through your recent contribs and added the {{oldafd}} template to all the talk pages for articles whose AFDs you have closed as "keep" or "no concensus" in the last week or so. the CSI one was the only one that still had the afd template on it. Again, if I may reiterate, in the future please remember to do that; and congratulations on becoming an admin! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Abaddon protection request
Thank you for your assistance with the Abaddon issue. From your edit summary of User:Ice9Tea's (FDBA User:kljenni) talk page, it appears that you were banning him/her for 48 hours for the 3RR violation. According to the Abaddon history page, a new user, User:Jellofever, reverted the article to the same version favored by Ice9Tea within that 48 hour time period. Further investigation shows that Jellofever has only 2 wikipedia contributions: the one I just mentioned and one immediately before that where he/she blanked Ice9Tea's user page (almost immediately reverted back by User:Gurch.)
It appears to me that Jellofever is an attempt by Ice9Tea to circumvent your 48 hour edit block. Another new user, User:HarvD (one lifetime edit, also reverting Abaddon back to Ice9Tea's favored version today), may be one more sockpuppet in Ice9Tea's arsenal.
My question is: where do we go from here? Since you handled the initial protection request, is it in your purvue to re-evaluate that request as well as Ice9Tea/Jellofever/kljenni/HarvD's behavior or do I need to place another request on the Request for Page Protection page? I would like to make sure I follow proper procedure.
Thank you for your time! 66.177.5.252 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I blocked User:Jellofever as an obvious sockpuppet, and extended User:Ice9Tea's block by an additional week for evading her block. User:HarvD is a little too close to call since he/she only made one edit, but you can file a request for checkuser on Ice9Tea if you'd like. Krimpet (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
banning me for a personal attack
on my talk page, you told me that if i made "another" personal attack, you would ban me. what the hell was my first personal attack? my god, all i've tried to do is defend wikipedia's actions, and for this, i'm going to get banned?
people, on Talk:Digg are accusing wikipedia of censorship. i think there may well be some censorship going on in the Digg article, but i think it's reasonable, giving the circumstances. but you're going to ban me, anyway, to do what? prove to nay-sayers that you because you censor indiscriminately that no censorship is taking place, even though it obviously is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.214.5 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:209.209.214.5 is repeatedly trolling Talk:Digg and has sent invalid 3rr warnings to myself and User:Android Mouse, a newcomer. Thanks for your help. --LEKI (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see a single reversion in your recent edit history, let alone three reversions in a 24-hour period. It's become pretty clear that this user is only here to disrupt; he is now blocked for a month. Krimpet (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- thank you for unblocking me. in case Leki checks this, i apologize for my addition to your talk page 209.209.214.5 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see a single reversion in your recent edit history, let alone three reversions in a 24-hour period. It's become pretty clear that this user is only here to disrupt; he is now blocked for a month. Krimpet (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Offtopic comments
What action should be taken if a user continously posts or creates offtopic sections on a talk page, after being informed about the talkpage guidelines? Is there any circumstance in which it would be ok to remove such comments if the start to become disruptive? --Android Mouse 03:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain your closure of the second Jocelyne Couture-Nowak AfD? The deletion arguements made it quite clear that incidental sources don't confer notability, and at least a half of the keeps were made from newly created accounts. Michaelas10 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- There were plenty of valid arguments on both sides, with no clear consensus either way; hence, no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to counter the above statement, the keep arguements made it very clear that this person passes WP:N and WP:BIO and that the coverage was not "incidental" and with two sides equally entrenched, in the end you were level headed and made the comon-sense decision. --Oakshade 16:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)