User talk:Gator1/Archives/January 2006

Talk about it?

I'm afraid I don't understand your message, talk about what? who are you?--152.163.101.12 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Gator1! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA, and for your generous comments. I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, whats a whosit?

Obviously Nazareth and Nazarene are two different things, per the article, which see. Your constant reversions change nothing. I failed to see any relevent link within the article. Therefore I have placed it back where it belongs. Nuff said bout dat.--Tombombadil 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you need a 5 minute block of instructions on basic Greek? Will do!!--Tombombadil 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA again

Hello Gator, sorry I haven't been getting back to you, but I have been very busy both on WP and off. On WP I have been involved in WP:MEDCAB mediation (as a mediator) and am trying to fix the CoAs on the French Wikipedia. With regards to AMA, I think you should call the vote and I'll just vote. If you'd rather not, you'll just have to wait until I get round to it, but I don't know when that'll be - probably in a few days. IMO it'd be better if you did it now and got it all over with. Our proposal's on the talk page anyway; just archive the talk page and copy-paste the proposal with a support/oppose/neutral section and spam all members. Anyway, Happy New Year; I never told you :-). Izehar 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Gator - should I call the AMA vote now? Izehar 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the hard part is over now; I just spammed all members. Now all we have to do, is sit back and wait for the result. Izehar 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out this nonsense!

I actually found this kinda funny (in a sick sort of way)...sure you want to be an admin? [1]--MONGO 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Gator1. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

US

It seems reasonable to me. The history going all the way back to late last night is nothing but reverted vandalism by anons and new users. My preference would be to leave it semiprotected for a while, a la GWB, but I know it's been a deal on this article, so what I'll do probably is leave it sprotected until this evening, when the kiddies get let out for the weekend. Cheers · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

John Lott page

Is "only a single" really POV? The point of that sentence is that the claim was an unimportant part of JL's work, until JL made it important by repeating it all the time. Hence, the statement that it appeared in only one sentence in his book...but when you delete the "only," the intention of the sentence becomes unclear. Perhaps "exactly one" or something of the sort would do fine, but just saying that it appears in one sentence is puzzling. --Pierremenard 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit - "only one" sounds fine to me. --Pierremenard 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gator, should I start the AMA vote now? Izehar 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanking the Gator

Though you are from Maine, thank you so much for your support of my RfA. I promise to do my best to be an excellent and fair admin, and of good service to Wikipedia. If there is anything I can do to help in any way, please just let me know! Babajobu 00:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gator, I have a feeling that the "AMA revival" we had been working on will fail :-( Izehar 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Currently, there's 60% support for our AMA proposal. Let's hope it stays like that, that's the minimum consensus. I haven't voted yet, as I was planning to be the one to close the poll on Friday. I may have to vote though, if someone else opposes. Izehar 15:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too soon, that "User:Friday" just voted oppose. Izehar 15:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Helping Law Students

You might be interested in the Cyberlaw project where a group of Harvard Law School students are taking a class, where part of their exposure is to Wikipedia. I volunteered to help out. I am somewhat of a Wiki newbie, with fluctuating time availability, but experienced in a diversity of Cyber topics. I got your name from User:TantalumTelluride who says you are both a lawyer and a very active Wikipedian.

It seems to me that the students are intensively studying some topics that the Wiki community could also benefit from knowing better, especially in some contentious areas where the more inexperienced think consensus trumps the law. One of the class assignments was to figure out how Wikipedia could do a better job coping with a variety of issues. Seems to me the students reccommendations ought to have better exposure to the Wikipedian community for general discussion of their merits. There is also the fact that the next Wikimania will be held where these students are located and I wonder if there is good enough cooperation between the different interests intersecting here. User:AlMac|^(talk) 13:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez...

What a mess [2]--MONGO 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the talk page...this thing looks like GWB about last february when I was editwarring with several others. Here's one for ya: and it's a mess, not a big deal but dealing with this guy and or this one where I am dealing with this one, but their both nice folks...I hope.--MONGO 14:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative AMA proposal

Please take a look at and comment on my alternative proposal for the AMA reorganization. Wally 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gator, e-mail? Izehar 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from rogerd

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi Gator1- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Drop Kick

Just to let you know, I've posted my thoughts and logic regarding the inclusion of Bill Belicheck in the Drop Kick talk page. --OntarioQuizzer 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mary Rosh section

You removed some material on the Mary Rosh business as unsupported and vague.

I don't think the material is vague. After all, the section proves that Lott engaged in deliberate cherry-picking of facts, omitting facts from the op-ed that would have disproved his point. He did this even after admitting as Mary Rosh that this was indeed the case. This is a serious ethical lapse.

As for unsupported, you are 100% right. That section needs a lot of specific citations. It was clearly inserted by someone very familiar with the Mary Rosh usenet postings. Wouldn't the right solution be to restore the paragraph and insert {{citeneeded}},tags throughout? --Pierremenard 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Thinking of making this the only approved GWB userbox...[3]--MONGO 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Category talk issues

Hi Gator, I hope I'm not being presumptive, but I feel like there's been a miscommunication. Robchurch's edit summary seemed to be aimed at Kbdank71 rather than you, give the relative 'snarkiness' of your two summaries [4]. It looked like you were just trying to clean things up and got caught in the crossfire... -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I now have a few extra tabs at the top of my Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your support. Banno 07:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 13:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Tos 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

How do you create a disambiguation page? Rmt2m 00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

PR

Will do. Banes 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I leave for class and all hell breaks loose? ;) It looks like you have calmed the matter down, I'll see what I can contribute to the discussion later on. People get worked up about the "truth" about race in so many places...I had a friend who grew up "white" and privileged in Trinidad, and went to Canada and found himself black. People who experience that kind of thing tend to develop strong feelings, and feel the need to educate people "back home" about "the truth". Guettarda 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Level 4

Low to moderate level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

---

2.10 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 09:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Gator, are you aware that this category had a cfd yesterday and Jimbo Wales speedy kept it? Read the category talk page and WP:ANI NoSeptember ^talk 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I removed the tag already. If I missed anything , please feel free to remove it. Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entry from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 20 NoSeptember ^talk 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wdefon

I updated the wdefcon, I hope it meets with your approval. --Cunning Linguist 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

I am very glad that your very active and participing in the Puerto Rico's article, just want to congratulate your great contributions, since it helps solve many POV's, at least for me it did.

Keep up the great work! --70.45.65.85 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Commonsgallery

Please keep a cool head and remain civil, and try to avoid ascribing motives and describing them as 'lame' [5]. It won't get the Commonsgallery template kept, and might cause outside editors to see it as a fork created by mavericks who didn't like what everyone else had decided to use. --Malthusian (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, Gator1. This morning, I received a User_talk:Gflores#Help_needed_from_a_new_user_being_flamed message on my talk page from User:DSYoungEsq/talk requesting help. The user claims he is being flamed by User:Oldwindybear. The dispute is about Battle of Tours regarding POV. Here is the original conversation. However, Oldwindybear modified DSYoungEsq's reply significantly (see diff). Also, Oldwindybear has been blocked before and has been blocked before (see his talk page). I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'd appreciate if you could help this new user. Thanks. Gflores ^Talk 15:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Gflores Gator I wanted you both to know I did leave an apology on the user's site. I myself was a relatively new user at the time. I was experiencing significant harrassment from SaltyPig, including mocking my disability, mocking me for wartime service, et al. I thought Doug was doing more of the same, and reacted. I have since learned the rules, don't react to the vandals at all, (merely bring them to the attention of editors or administrators) and concentrate on the history. In his case, I honestly am sorry. I certainly would not want any new user to be discouraged -- as i was, until Katefano and essjay took the time to explain the system, and encourage me to concentrate on contributing, which, if you will check the period since, is what i have been doing. I do however apologize for this incident, and have tried to make it right. As to Tours, I have rewritten the section he was questioning, after consulting the administrator who monitors that site. I am waiting for his reaction, and will work with him -- I am VERY proud of that article, which I contributed heavily too, and am more than willing to work with Doug or anyone else to improve it.old windy bear 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Impressive

Hi. I just wanted to say that I thought your comments here were very well put, and quite diplomatic. :) --Rebroad 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gator1

I am sorry that you voted to oppose my RFA, but thank you for taking the time to participate. I don't like people who comment on oppose votes themselves either. But I would point out that only two of the 'responses and arguments to oppose votes' were actually by me; constant seems a bit unfair, I'm not asking other people to comment. And I'm not making any more, it can just sink or swim on its own now. I can handle criticism when it's rooted in reality, but JJay's was not fair; I wasn't upset, but I did feel I had to clarify things. Anyway, thanks for being involved. As I said, I hate people who comment on their own RfA, but until you go through it, you don't realise how disconcerting it is when you find yourself being whacked over the head with something you did for a bit of fun, and all signs of assuming good faith have flown out of the window. Take it easy. Proto t c 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA election

Hey Gator, thanks for all your help in this process. I had my doubts initially, but you have made it clear your priority is indeed the rejuvenation and revitalization of the AMA for its own sake, so you have my kudos and thanks.

Also, don't take the detractors on there so seriously. I know it's hard to ignore them and resist lashing out at such nonsense, but if the project is to survive — and the AMA with it — they, too, must have a voice. Wally 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We're on the same page then. Use your vote well and let's stay the course. Wally 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for compiling that list, also. You just saved me an absolute ton of work. Wally 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

Can you post this on the page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? I keep trying but it won't let me for some reason. This is ASAP. The format should be right. Wally 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

{{tlp|ln|Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates}}

User:Hipocrite is making changes to the member list on the eve of a Coordinator election even after being expressly warned not to do so, as it is against organization policy. Revert war is thus in progress. Wally 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for defeding the truth

thak you, for sticking up for real Amercians, as few of us as there are on wikipedia

thanks

Thank you for helping to try to get rid of the wikistalker Antaeus Feldspar. It is sad that a technicality, in that the guy who he was stalking quoted Daniel Brandt was enough to get him permabanned and Antaeus Feldspar got off scott free. You will note that Antaeus Feldspar has also been stalking User:Zordrac for months now, and there are other people who he harasses. Sometimes it is sad to note that badly behaved users are tolerated, while the people they abuse get banned for putting up with them.

There is a 2nd user, User:Malber who has been behaving similarly of late. You aren't an administrator so can't really do anything, but the whole thing seems to be related. Its really sad really.

Anyway thanks for doing what you can to try to stop this kind of thing. Personally, I think that we should just have an "IGNORE USER" button to get rid of it - i.e. the ability to prohibit someone from writing on our user talk page. That'd deal with a lot of these kinds of problems without getting in to politics. 203.122.221.73 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Gator1. As you've guessed (who couldn't?) 203.122.221.73 (talk · contribs) is just Zordrac himself back again. (Note how he describes what DannyWilde (talk · contribs) did as "quoted Daniel Brandt" and left out the part about "repeatedly tried to publicize what he thought was another editor's real name while openly stating that he had no intention of making any further constructive edits to the encyclopedia".) -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Been gone too long.

Sorry I have not replied to your query on my talk page - I've been fairly up to my neck with work and moving, but will have more time now to look over the AMA page. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry mate.

Help, Please

I'm new at editing in Wikipedia. Znarfaggle has vandalized again (the person below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Znarfaggle They vandalized the Osama Bin Laden article. I corrected it, but don't know what to do next so am telling you since you warned them last. --AshiAshi Starshade 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)