User talk:Just H/Archive 2

Excellent Job with Welcoming

Tlim7882 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA

You seem like a friendly and helpful person, and I know I would support any attempt by you to become an Admin. Tlim7882 08:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to nominate you, but I would first suggest an Editor Review, if you're serious about this. Tlim7882 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing- If someone looked at your contribs, they'd most likely see nothing but welcomes, which may reflect poorly in one way or another. I would recommend you balance it out before running for adminship. Tlim7882 09:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see- well, I'm going to be travelling the next couple of days, so if you decide to nom yourself for adminship, You have my support. Tlim7882 09:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sup

Thanks for the welcome. I'm hoping experience in being part of a online community, common sense and what I think to be a understanding of what the wiki project is will be enough to deal with anything I might run into without having to be adopted or taken care of in any other way. Though im certainly open to critism if any of my activities somehow violate any rules or etique.

Im just here to add some new information. As well as edit, what im discovering to be a lot (the editting required, not the amount of articles), of current information about a subject I happen to know a lot about.

WelcomeBot

I noticed you welcome noobs. I am doing research in prep for the welcomebot trail in order to establish some facts on new user trends. Please can you have a look at Category:WelcomeBotResearch. I would appreciate your involvement. Also so as to assist, please can you sub your welcome template with {{welcome123}} which includes that category. Thanks. frummer 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've done thousands. there is no record being kept though. i think its very important every member should either be shown a well design welcome page or be welcome by a welcome bot and would love your invlvmnt in the research. I would like to research the affect of our welcome templates, not just how many we can go. Please add yourself. frummer 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by the way you must subst the message when you post on the talk page... like {{subst:Welcome123}}. frummer 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tilds, no need for them, you name shows autmaticly! keep up the good work! frummer 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havnt had the bot written up yet. we need to watch ourselves! :>( ta! frummer 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for being the first user to leave me a message. Tell me a little more about wikipedia.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimbat230 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your greeting

) --Taraborn 20: 44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yao Ziyuan's RfA

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yao Ziyuan. I left you a reply there. Nishkid 64 21:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with someone that has blanked their talk page multiple times?

The user User:E-Magination has blanked their talk page again after I reverted it. The first time it was all replaced with "STFU" and now it's just blank. I looked over WP:TALK and I'm still unsure if this would be acceptable or not and if I should just revert it again. Cuberguy 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing page

Just H, I seek your assistance for a small problem I have discovered today. You see, I have created a page about an anime movie (since you are a WikiProject Anime and Manga Project member, this is 1 of the reasons I have contacted you for) two or three days ago, having first checked with another user if I could do so, and having received their permission to do so, I created it. The page was Cardcaptors: The First Movie, but as you can see, the link to it has been terminated, as with all other links I placed to it from other pages, though it was doubtless working just yesterday. When I reached the current version of my page, the page said my page was not in existence. Perhaps someone deleted it, but I find no reason why- I spent hours working on the page, and now I cannot reach it, no matter how many times I try. Perhaps the Deletion Log can help me, but I do not know how to properly use it, as I am a new user. Please help me, Just H, for I worked very hard on the page, and I am devastated to see all my hard work gone to waste with no explanation available. However, strangely enough, my other anime movie page is intact. Please help me, and if you decide to, send me a message, please. Thank you. Uioh 01:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I thank you deeply for giving me your kind greetings. Thank you, once more. Aidoflight 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Marc Lemire

I'll have to respectfully disagree in regards to your comments on Talk:Marc Lemire.

There are {{fact}} tags everywhere on Wikipedia, and can be with facts that could be construed as insulting depending on your point of view(since there are an infinite amount of povs, everybody is insulted by something).

It seems more like trying to hide something by just removing it because some povs consider it to be inflammatory. I think it would be better to put up a {{disputed}} tag and let people know that this view is an outside and possibly untrue view. If the consensus thinks it best to remove the portion, then it should be removed. If it isn't presented as fact, it cannot be libel, and if it isn't libelous, it isn't scholarly to hide information.Just H 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should hold ourselves to a much higher standard of quality than that. Just because the man is a far right-winger, that is no excuse for linking to random web forum posts (at stormfront, no less!) as if it proves anything about him. We need SOLID SOURCING for ALL statements about living persons. The problematic statements WERE presented as fact, but even if they were not, it would still be problematic from a moral point of view... it is possible to libel someone through "false light", you know...--Jimbo Wales 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks here too!

Thanks for the greeting from me as well! Friendly folk here! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haverpopper (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Happy New Year

Nimbat230 04:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

...to you too!!! keep up the great work!!! frummer 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by the way how come you havnt enabled your email??? frummer 06:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you'de prob do quite good but its not so cool being an admin since soon they're revamping the whole system and admins will be having admins too. frummer 06:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they already have them, they're called stewarts but officialy have the rank of an admin. the truth is most admins get bored after a while and put the mop asside. being an admin is nothing more than having to take on responsibilities. its much cooler doing all the networking etc. frummer 06:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont have the link, i sometimes see one of them arround, forgot who and where. frummer 06:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Adminship

Before I say or do anything, I suggest that you go up for Editor Review. Personally, I think that no ammount of experience can prepare anybody for adminship (look at the current guys up for WP:RFA) and no matter what you do, somebody will find an error you have done and oppose you for it. But first, before you do anything, get an editor review. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Just H, gave me a great welcome. If he chooses to be nominated, I certainly support him. Nimbat230 07:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Welcome"

Thanks for your welcome. I'm not a new user (I just got renamed like an hour ago), but I appreciate the welcome, nonetheless.--andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 06:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the welcome template you placed on my page will come in handy will all those useful links.:D Happy New Years-andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 06:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr

Whoa, ok I found it. I'll be blunt: There's no way you're ready at this point. In fact, I'm not even ready for Adminship. And my contribs can be found Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool|here. You need way more time at WP:AFD, WP:PUMP, WP:AIV, WP:RFA, WP:FPC, and many others. I wouldn't risk trying to adminship with under 5000 edits (total). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I am not planning for Adminship anytime in the near future (I'll wait until at least the end of June). I'd like to note that you've made most of your edits in User talk pages, which although good won't really sway anybody. Also, you cannot canvass for your election. That means that if you were to run, you're not allowed to tell people that you are running. This would be a violation of WP:SPAM. As of right now, you have no need for the tools. Most of your edits have been in welcoming people. Admins only have powers in areas such as vandal fighting. You would need at least 4 more months of at least 2000 contribs with the areas spread out over talk, category, images, etc. A good place to start is WP:AFD or WP:RFA. If you really, really, really want to be an admin, you should try admin coaching. Unfortunately, there is a 6 month wait to get in. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those bots have a job to do. Personally, I find that you're way too eager to get the tools of an Admin. The fact that you seem so eager will haunt you if there ever is a vote (trust me, somebody will find these conversatios). Just relax and take your time. Contribute to the quality of Wikipedia and not the quantity of your edits. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome ;)

Thanks for the welcome, but "anonymous" 83.10.227.62 it's really me - Q Original

Happy New Year!!!

Q Original 09:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MENUDO Thank for the message. I need help improving Menudo at the bottom of that page is numerous songs of the group with internal links to the CD covers and basic info. There are some with no internal links or JPEG of the CD covers etc. I have the JPEG of these missing songs can I email them to you and you resize for me to wiki standards and I fill in the bsic song info??

Thanks --Blue5864 08:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Well, I really don't ever ask for anything in return. However, I hope that you frequent the Village Pump. It's really a great place for Wikipedians and you'll either learn fast there or sink. Good luck. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 09:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My History

I am far from being the perfect Wikipedian. Both you and User:Crzrussian inspired me to make this page. Hope you enjoy! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 09:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password Error

Just H, as I said yesterday, I thank you for your kind words, but I have encountered a small, but rather complex problem. You see, I do not know my true password for logging in. The password that I remember for logging in when I first created my account cannot log me in now. However, I always succeed in logging in by clicking on the password blank when I type in my user name, something which is caused by, I believe, the Remember Me control below the password. However, I only get **** when I click on the password, so though it is the correct password, I do not know if it is possible to decipher the ****. Is it possible to decipher the **** that I get when I click on the password blank? Thanks, and please send me a message of your reply. Thank you very much. Aidoflight 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another User Name

Just H, I am sorry to disturb you once again, but I wish to ask you something. You see, a few months ago, I have used another User Name-Ntyfj. I was just wondering if it was possible to put all of the contributions I made on that user name to the one I have now, in a way sort of combining them, for I worked hard helping Wikipedia under that User Name, so I want to add everything I did under that user name to the one I have now. Please reply. Thanks VERY much. Aidoflight 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought i'de pop in to answer that one. You cant merge usernames, but you can REDIRECT it to your current one. frummer 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I think he wants the editcountitis as well, but a redirect is a good quick fix if you're not picky. Just H 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the JH, glad to see you're better. perhaps in a few months from now you will be readier. in the meantime keep it up with the welcoming, check out the new tool on the project page. We can now see No0b activity! By the way its better you only welcome new members as apposed to IP addresses, go to the user creation log. frummer 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:2006nweatjax

Template:2006nweatjax has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Ral315 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi there; given that you have nearly 5000 edits - in fact almost exactly the same number that I have, and I am an adopter - and given that you are talking about going for Admin status, which I can see not overwhelming problem with, are you really sure that you want to be adopted as a new user? Or have you stuck the wrong userbox on your userpage? --Anthony.bradbury 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi there. At this moment you have 5,076 edits, which is actually about 300 more than I have. You have what appears to be a reasonable spread of edits over mainspace and namespace.

I do not know who told you that being adopted would enhance your chances of becomimg an admin,but I am quite sure that they are wrong. Being an adopter may help, but decisions are made primarily on the size and type of your edit-count and on the answers to the questions you are asked on the Rfa page.

I would have thought that you would have a reasonable chance of passing RfA; I have to say that attempts to short-cut the process, as you were misguidedly thinking of doing, are not looked on with favour by the community. Nevertheless, assuming that you have not recently been blocked, and also assuming that you have not been guilty of biting the newcomers or of failing to use edit summaries, you might just as well have a go. Good luck.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a bit deeper, a lot of your edits are welcome messages, which do not really count. Nevertheless, I would feel that even after discounting those you should be ok.--Anthony.bradbury 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you really want to be an admin, picking a fight with the boss is not the best way of achieving it. I would give it six months now before trying. Sorry.--Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments by Anthony.bradbury

As Anthony stated above, I believe you would have a decent chance of a RfA going through. After looking at your stats, which include 1300+ mainspace edits, I would suggest you apply for Adminship, if you feel you are ready. Even if you don't succeed, you could always try again in a few months. There's no harm in trying, and I believe you have a fighting chance. --Tlim7882 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement with Jimbo is going to hurt your chances big time. Still, you may have a chance. I'm off for tonight, so I wish you luck. Tlim7882 01:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

Hey there Just H, thought I'd take a look at your edits while I was reviewing your RFA. I see that you've started to warn vandals (which is great). Just remember to substitute the template like so {{subst:test}}. Also, take a look at these warning templates; That list should help you find specific warnings. :) Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming

You did a great job, you got more than 20 no0bs interested in WP:ADOPT and even more into WikiProjects. Ride on. frummer 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

listen man, rfa isn't for you. be happy. if you got a mop you would never get off your comp so take it as a good thing. I respect those who clean up wikipedia, but not those who think it is a massive accomplishment in life. frummer 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one thing that could make you ready and that is time. If you want some advice about making moves I would suggest you make some place on wikipedia "your turf". This place could be the football place, welcoming comitee or WP:ADOPT. This doesnt mean being mean of course but determined. If you welcome 100 new users into wikipedia and encourege them to ask questions and edit article they are interested in then you will pass with flying colors next time! frummer 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you've calmed down and getting really involved. Thanks for keeping Hman on his toes, i know he's busy. In my opinon the fact that only arround 5% or so of the new comers actualy get welcomed is against the idea of a wiki, but on the other hand Jimbo would have no idea how to cope with a WP double the size, only the community would be able to handle it. The invention of a community is the smartest invention. frummer 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hman is Hagerman. I think with confirming the details of the user creation log and by showing how few users are welcomed and shown the ropes, and the fact that the ropes (rules) themselves are elastic due to an invisible hierarchy of, we will bring allot of attention to these concerns. Have you ever studied the Special:Log/newusers even without Hgrman's client? Its quite obvious that somethings wrong. I think we should start a Union of Concerned Wikipedians. frummer 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Common.css

Hi, i'm looking the sortable wikitable.css , I saw that you had edits up that css skin, and was wondering if you could help me find it. Just H 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just H. The extension was committed to SVN here. It's basically all javascript. —Mets501 (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP

Hi there, VP stands for VandalProof which is a tool that a number of us use to assist us in spotting deliberate attempts to vandalise pages, such as blanking user pages, adding keywords (e.g. swearing) etc. Check it out and, if you're interested, register to use it! Cheers! If you'd like to talk about it more, get in touch!Budgiekiller 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Is there anything in particular that you like doing in Wikipedia that you'd like to improve upon? As always, get in touch if there's anything specific. Cheers! Budgiekiller 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no admin myself, but using the tools on my talk page, such as the category tracker and the admin toolbar will help you familiarise yourself with what you can get access to quickly. You could also consider joining the Virtual Classroom project. I contributed a section on anti-vandalism here. It's worth having a read about this, and stubs etc. Be advised though, becoming "good enough" to become an admin is very subjective indeed! If you go to WP:RFA you'll see some of the reasons why admin applications succeed (large mainspace edits, additions to gain articles featured status, work on WP:AFDs, anti-vandalism etc..). Check that lot out and if you need any further advice about anything Wiki-wise, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Cheers! Budgiekiller 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost and WP:OWN

First and foremost, you made no attempt to initiate discussion on the issue. Why file a Request for Comment when you never requested others' comments on it in the first place?

Second, the Signpost has, for its entire existence, had bylines. The reason we use bylines is that unlike Wikipedia articles, the Signpost is essentially original research (which also violates Wikipedia policy). We, of course, get away with this, because original research only applies to the main namespace (and, rarely, to other namespaces where original research is used negatively). For the same reason, the byline has never been an issue- the Signpost is not an article. The page you link to is titled ""ownership of articles"; the Signpost is not an article. Ral315 (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did initiate discussion, you can see it right above. Talk pages are hit or miss depending on what part of Wikipedia you're in to get feedback from, with user talk and article talk being much better than project talk it seems.
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost would have been the obvious place to start, and you mentioned an RFC in your very first post on the issue.
So basically you're saying, as long as it isn't in article space, and as long as it has something vaguely related with wiki, it's "mine": basically copyrighted to myself? When I see that byline up there, that's what that connotes to me if it "belongs" to somebody.
It's not copyrighted to anyone. It was written primarily (and often, only) by the author mentioned. Minor edits don't add anything significant; the byline is to show the person/people who did most of the work. Fixing a typo isn't the same as writing three paragraphs of work. And it doesn't belong to anyone; you're confusing the various parts of WP:OWN. Nobody said that I, Daniel.Bryant, Michael Snow, Simetrical, Trodel, Flcelloguy, or any of the numerous contributors in the last two years "own" our articles, or try to hold the sole ability to edit the article. Any major edits after publication, however, we frown upon, because most people read the articles on Tuesday or Wednesday, and major edits would be best suited for a new article in the following week's paper.
What about all those other people who made edits to those signpost articles? Why not include them in the bylines or in a sub-byline(minor edits by..."blah")? Just H 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I mentioned above. Complete history is on the history page, but a typo fix != writing an entirely new article.

My responses are above. If you wish to file an RFC, I suppose I can't stop you, but I'd encourage you to actually post on the Signpost talk page, rather than simply using it as an empty threat against me. Ral315 (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the exchange through the history of a Signpost article to which I'd made a correction. Just H, the Post is well established as being basically a conventionally written newsletter/newspaper with regular beats for certain editors and an editor-in-chief. (The fact that others offer tweaks after publication doesn't change that these are tweaks.) You're raising a non-issue and, if you want your name in a byline, volunteer to write a regular feature. If your reaction is that it would take too much time and effort every week, then you may have an inkling why nobody begrudges the Signpost writers their bylines. - Banyan Tree 15:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-org-stub

Hi - I've fixed the category for your new stub type, and listed the stub type at WP:WSS/D for debate. it will probably be a keeper, rather than being sent for deletion at WP:SFD. Luckily the problems with the category were only minor ones and didn't create the usual amount of work that misformed stub types cause (just one of the reasons why WP:BOLD doesn't apply to categories and templates - as clearly stated at WP:BOLD). Please, in future, propose new stub types prior to creation at WP:WSS/P, for the reasons explained in the answer to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! Grutness...wha? 08:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - there is a way to count up stubs - a tool called stubsense. I've not used it myself, so don't know how to use it (or even where it is) - but I know User:Alai uses it a lot, so you might want to talk to him. As to the stub you made, the template was fine, but you forgot to add any parent categories to the stub category. As I said, it was a minor thing. But it is true that most people who create stub types on the fly don't bother checkig how they're done, or bother checking things like the number of stubs, which is one reason why the proposals page is in place - this is even the case with "similar precedence" as you mention on the proposal page's talk page, BTW. Precedence alone doesn't guarantee that a stub is a good idea, and even experienced stub-sorters can slip up when it comes to naming stub templates or categories. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noface1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Xbox Handheld

You participated in an AfD for Xbox Handheld. I re-wrote the article as a stub and provided sources. Please take a look at the re-written article Xbox Handheld and comment at the AfD discussion [1] Alan Shatte 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the greeting! --Nwbpwnr 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me!: --Wiki und Ylvie 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/Just H/Archive 2, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis -- twist serve

I agree with you -- it's an awkward sentence. I've already rewritten it a couple of times over the years but other editors keep redoing it. I'll try to do it one more time so that it both 1.) makes sense and 2.) is not too awkward -- as well, of course, as being accurate. Best.... Hayford Peirce 05:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to rewrite that article a little. It *used* to be clear that a kick serve went over the net at a higher altitude than a flat serve or a spin serve -- and that because of the spin employed on this particular type of serve it would then "dive" down to the court. It was therefore safer to use this as a second serve because there was less chance of it hitting the net, eliminating at least one way of making a bad serve. Among really good players, receiving a kick second serve is no harder to return than a slice second serve. Among ordinary players a good kick second serve may indeed be harder to return. But no one, I would say, except out of desperation or hoping for surprise, ever hits a flat second serve -- it has so little margin for clearing the net that the percentages are not good. I'll try to rewrite this article later today. Hayford Peirce 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProtectionBot RFA

My apologies for the misunderstanding. It's not about dragon's flight, it's about anybody, regardless of who they are. It's in my nature not to trust too much power to one source. I replied as such on the rfa, and once again i'm sorry for any confusion in my meaning.Just H 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You distrust everyone (including the most trusted members of the community) indiscriminately, and yet you complain when you believe that people are failing to assume good faith on your part. Does that make sense to you? —David Levy 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't distrust people, I distrust the system as it is now, which includes everybody. The fact that those people acted in such a way towards my comment is proof to me.

Even the best of us can become corrupt and hostile in an environment that fosters it, which I think is rampant for alot of Wikipedia right now. Until that's fixed, I don't trust anything with more power of the encyclopedia. Just H 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You clearly do distrust people. The fact that this includes "everybody" only reduces the validity of said distrust.

2. No one responded inappropriately to your comments (which didn't make sense). Regardless, it's hypocritical to demand the assumption of good faith from "anybody" when you distrust "everybody." —David Levy 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree since you don't want to trust my distrust of ochlocracy. A individual on their own and an individual within a group are two completely separate things, especially when conformity seems to be a forced norm. Just H 20:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on the clipping there. Back and forth discussions can get messy at times. Just H 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I assumed that the removal was accidental. —David Levy 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Hi, I commented on your editor review. You seem to be doing okay to me. I'm not particularly keen on indepth coverage of sports but that's just me. I wouldn't worry too much about the policy side of things. You'll just break your heart over it. Those who it favours will never support undoing it and they outnumber and outgun you. Grace Note 07:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

110th Congress table

Hi! I saw your table you are designing for the 110th House. Looks great! I'll take my suggestion back! The current list format looks better to me also. Just a 2 cents suggestion, how easy would it be to separate each of the state delegations on your table???? I think would be easier to follow with delegations separated by state, but the current version you are putting together works looks OK too!Pmeleski 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... welcoming me even though I'm not new?

User_talk:Anger2headshot

You've welcomed me even though I'm not new, I just changed name. Hmm, maybe there should be some kind of thing to tell admins or others that its NOT a new user. Not a request for help, this is just a general comment.anger2headshot 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I hope that my actions as an admin won't give anything that would lead you to have voted differently. :) Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilf anion (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Pardon my French, but fuck 'em. Just because you're not admin doesn't mean you can't take on many of the tools and responsibilities of one. There are a variety of tools that you can acquire to fight vandals, edit more efficiently, and gain more responsibility. I have a friend who's a check-user clerk, but not an admin. I have several friends who work actively to keep people out of lengthy litigation. None of them are admins either.

If you see something wrong within the community, write an essay about it and disseminate it to appropriate parties. Get with the Transhumanist, and learn all you can. I know it doesn't feel that way now, but you have all the power as an "ordinary" user than you ever really need. I've never been an admin (in all my three months here), but I know I've made a significant impact on my little corner of Wikipedia, and, by proxy, Wikipedia itself.

Some of the most active and influential members of this community are NOT admins, and will probably never BE admins. So what? I have no wish to be one. By all accounts I've heard, it's a colossal pain in the ass. You have to listen to every stupid argument, treat every troll with at least a modicum of respect, Get in the middle of crap that you could care less about, and generally do a lot of things you don't want to do. Is that really how you want to spend your time here?

If it really really is, then check out a couple of essays in my New Years Day card. Just click on the two links and it will take you to a couple of my sub pages. I guarantee you if click on the "Happy New Year" one and live by it, you'll be an admin in less than a year. Well, that and taking every single "virtual class" that the Transhumanist has to offer. Sincerely, NinaOdell | Talk 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on useless image. Happy New Year from a complete maniac. Nina Odell 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should amend this. Either you'll be an admin, or you'll be content not to be one, as I am. Sincerely, NinaOdell | Talk 16:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally wise, young grasshopper. NinaOdell | Talk 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment

This is a highly POV edit, asserting as if uncontroversial fact something that is very much a matter of dispute.--Jimbo Wales 04:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC) response here[reply]

It is wrong for the Larry Sanger article to claim it as if it is uncontroversial. So that article should be fixed promptly as well. It is, in matter of fact, completely false. But I do not expect or ask that Wikipedia reflect my own personal viewpoint on this matter, even if I am right. What I do expect and ask is that Wikipedia follow NPOV. This is a matter of some controversy. We have published, reliable sources which point out that I say that it is preposterous. Therefore, wikipedia should not claim it as uncontroversially true. That seems transparently obvious to me.

I am confident than in the long run, the historical record will be set straight. In the meantime, it is imperative that Wikipedia not repeat this error endlessly.--Jimbo Wales 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess

I am more than a little bit offended by your suggestion that I am arguing for something other than NPOV here. Rather than merely insinuating insults, why don't you explain to me just how it is that you think that Wikipedia asserting something that has been widely disputed in the press and elsewhere is neutral? Stick to the content question, rather than casting doubts on my character, ok?--Jimbo Wales 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate the opportunity

I would appreciate the opportunity to speak to you by telephone. --Jimbo Wales 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, perhaps you can continue here and specify for me just exactly what you think I have done wrong.--Jimbo Wales 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It sounds like we are making progress. Now, if we both agree that "a founder" is not satisfactory, and you agree that Wikipedia ought not to take a stand on controversial matters, then what is the next proposal in terms of what the page should say?--Jimbo Wales 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]