User talk:KeithD/archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KeithD/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ragib 28 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Pinkfootball.com

84.9.17.244 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who added PinkFootball.com. I just wanted to let you know that I am not associated with the pinkfootball site at all, just simply a fan.

As a girl into football, I like its slightly more female friendly content, although I do agree on your comments that it's content is mainly a rehash of many other sources (aren't most of them though?), I use it alot and so do many of my girl friends. I find the male centric attitude around football and reporting very wearysome and its refreshing to have a site with such a female focus especially with the reporting on the woman's game which is hardly represented elsewhere.

The reason I contributed in the first place is because I'm studying digital media in London, and one of our essays is about online communities. For this is decided to try to contribute to wikipedia adding my favourite football news site. I dont mind you removing the link, I just wanted to let you know the circumstances rather than blaming the site itself for the edit. In fact, your actions have given me an interesting level for my essay.

Lisa

PS: I hope i've correctly used your talk page. Appologies in advance if i haven't.

84.9.17.244

I've replied on your talk page, Lisa, but as you've just got an IP rather than an account, it's possible that you'll miss it if you have a dynamic IP, so I'll paste my response here too.

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm sorry if my assumption that you were acting on behalf of pinkfootball.com caused any offence, and I hope I wasn't rude or heavy handed in the way in which I deleted the links.

You do, of course, have the option to re-add the link in the articles if you feel that it adds something that the other linked sites don't. In terms of the Liverpool one, I'd suggest that it probably doesn't, as the others tend to include a lot more original reporting/behind the scenes gossip, rather than linking to news stories. I can't say for sure with the links for the other clubs, but I'd imagine they are similar.

I suppose you could also start a Wikipedia article about Pinkfootball.com itself, and explain about the difference in focus.

Good luck with your essay. Although I'm only relatively new to Wikipedia myself, feel free to ask any questions that will help. I also hope you choose to continue to improve Wikipedia after you've finished your essay. KeithD 15:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks KeithD, and I will continue to try and improve wikipedia, it is such an excellent resource.

84.9.17.244 20:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Here's a thank you for your recent speedy tagging work. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hey

You're not being petty at all, it's important to keep correct grammar on wikipedia. Sorry 'bout that. I'll get back to alot of the song articles later to start adding the depth you spoke of. Thanks ALOT for those tips! User:Bancroftian

It should be "a lot". Now I know I'm being petty! KeithD 20:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Feem

Thanks for catching my error when I reverted some sneaky edits on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Feem. Joyous (talk) 20:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Ain't no feem but a feem on a feem. What a bunch of feeming feemers they are, eh?KeithD 20:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feemin' A! (i wonder how long before they bring up this discussion as proof of "widespread usage"?) Joyous (talk) 20:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it three separate instances? Let's just hope their friend in Idaho doesn't have an internet connection too, or they'll have the number of votes they need! KeithD 20:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sodje

I redir'd that article through IAR, as I feel it is a better way to remove vanity then VFD. It was suggested on some Wikipedia: talk page about vfd a while back, and I liked the idea and decided to try it on an article or two. I just google'd that and meh, maybe he's borderline notable, so I won't touch it. I usually google first. --Phroziac (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Phroziac's talk page, where the original question was asked. It should be easier if we keep the conversation in one place KeithD ^(talk) 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Agriculture 17:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. KeithD (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future tag thanks!

Thanks for adding future tag at new Caesar IV article. That's another new thing I learned today! :) -- Sitearm | Talk 17:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

You're welcome. What else did you learn today, then? KeithD (talk)

Up Versus down "Peg" Spectrum Copyright

Hi, Keith

I claim no copyright on the up vs down page; so, you may use it wih\thout fear of violation. (Unsigned comment by User:4.245.115.188

Will take a look at the copyright process in a little while, and sort it out. Thanks. KeithD (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to challenge the claim of "copyright violation" which someone has caused for my vertical spectrum graph not be shown or linked. Who other than myself claims to have the copyright on my work?? ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com (Unsigned comment by User:207.67.144.50).

I emailed that email address last Friday (19th August) for confirmation that copyright is granted. I received no response. I'll re-send the email to allow you to reply to that email directly. As I'm sure you're aware, someone claiming to be the copyright holder here isn't necessarily proof that they are the copyright holder. By replying directly to the email, it allows you to prove that you are the copyright holder. KeithD (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The email was replied to, asserting that permission was granted. I'll sort out the next step from here. KeithD (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage Making & Meat Curing

I was in the process of writing something for these stubs when you deleted it. Please review now.

Terrell

The content of article on sausage making should probably be moved to Wikibooks, and then the article itself redirected to sausages. Also, the recipes are a possible copyright violation, as they're derived from a cookbook.

The article on meat curing I've redirected to the existing article on curing. KeithD (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep

Have changed my vote to Keep on Bog Snorkelling. No-one now supports deletion. How do I get the speedy keep process kickstarted? — ciphergoth 12:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I think when a moderator gets round to seeing it, they should de-list it from VfD. KeithD (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, I was right: that's exactly what happened. KeithD (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul mcguire

You might be interested in this edit. Zoe 08:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ha. KeithD (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor's RFA

Thank you for the taking time to comment on my recent RFA nomination. Your confidence and support is greatly appreciated. Hall Monitor 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. ...Now make sure you abuse your position of authority for my benefit. KeithD (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:my sig

thanks for telling me, I fixed the tag so it should work fine now. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

if you reply to this please cross post to my userpage as I will not be watching this page, thanks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

		An Award
		For your speedy reverts of page move vandalism

KeithD (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks. --fvw * 18:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Well done on putting it all back before anyone else even did one of them! KeithD (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All mine! My preciousssss vandalism :-) --fvw * 19:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for reverting the wheel vandalism of my talk page. And, by the way, a friend of mine from trans-Caucasia has one Armenian and one Azerbaijani parent. He's interested in reconciliation between the two nations. Shall I put you two in touch? Uncle Ed 19:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome.

I'm not sure why you're telling me about your friend though. Because I voted on the VfD for Armenian Genocide resources? I don't have any particular interest in the topic, I just saw it mentioned on the list of VfD topics, and corrected the spelling from 'ressources' to resources'. KeithD (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD on Aloysia Weber

Hi Keith. Please consider checking the edit history of an article before nominating it for VfD. The version you nominated was the result of vandalism by an anon IP. I have reverted, but kept the VfD notice, as you need to withdraw it. Unless of course you think the article should still be deleted. Proto t c 10:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Will withdraw it, and be more careful in future. Thanks for spotting it and letting me know. KeithD (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) The best rule of thumb is, if you can sort it without it being on VfD, do that. Redirects are always good. Proto t c 10:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withdraw my smiley cos I noticed you're a Liverpool fan. Proto t c 10:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good rule of thumb. Ta. Who do you support then? KeithD (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a dirty Manc. Proto t c 11:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we wouldn't be human if we didn't have major character flaws! ;-) KeithD (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the article "Araku Valley"

Hi Keith,

I am a relatively new member of wikipedia and do not have a clear understanding of the copyright policy.The website from which I gathered the information does not claim any copyright. Moreover this is just some information on a particular tourist place. Does this mean that wikipedia does not allow copying information from any other website? If that is the case,Can i rephrase the information and add it to wikipedia?. I have gone through the copyright policy but it is a bit confusing. Could you please clear my doubts?.

Regards, Sumanth. (Unsigned comment by User:Sumanthk

The official policy can be found here.

My amateur understanding of that, and of copyright in general, is that a website doesn't have to claim copyright to actually have copyright. Simply by writing the text, they've claimed copyright on it. If the website from which it was copied wanted it to be used freely, they'd have to assert that it could be used freely.

In simple terms, yes, Wikipedia doesn't allow copying information from any other website. You absolutely can rephrase the information and resubmit it (at the temporary subpage link provided at the copyvio notice at the article). That would be the best solution. Good luck with it. KeithD (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: welcome message

hallo keith, thanks for your welcome message. i've been a keen wikier for nearly a year now and thought i'd start to work a bit on the Big One. i was just wondering why you welcomed me though? do you welcome all newcomers? (or all that you can?) is it standard practice on WP? or just your own personal friendliness? i'm just interested, as an artist dealing with wiki theory and practice. --Darrel Stadlen 14:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Anyone can welcome anyone else at Wikipedia, by placing the {{subst:welcome}} template on their talk page. I think I spotted one of your edits on a page I was watching, and then noticed that no-one had welcomed you, so thought I'd be the one to say hi. It was a combination of personal friendliness, and standard practice. KeithD (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok, that's interesting - might introduce a similar template on my own wiki. thanks again!

Knights of Xentar

Thanks for adding a little to that page. I saw the guy create it a few days ago, and casual searches on wiki didn't turn up much relevance to anything. I was waiting for the weekend to have more time to search, and then was going to VSD it if I still didn't have a clue... so its nice to see it improved instead of just deleted. :) --Syrthiss 15:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't really know anything about the subject, I just cleaned it up a bit and used the tiny bit of information at Dragon_Knight_(disambiguation). It could still do with a fair bit of expansion, but it's better than it was. KeithD (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit fetishism barnstar

Thanks! I shall wear it proudly indeed! -- BD2412 ^talk 19:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abebooks

Thanks for the speedy re-write on Abebooks. I actually live in the UK and had never heard of them. I withdrew the AfD request. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. KeithD (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "beraid"

Yeah, I couldn't find the correct spelling either and, hoped someone else would but, I have heard the word used often but had never written it till this article. My understanding is that it means like annoy or bother with continuosly. I think the word I meant to use might have been "berate" .--The_stuart 21:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhh, berate. Ah ok. In the context, that's a bit strong (it means "To rebuke or scold angrily and at length". I'll change it to 'grill'. KeithD (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal opinion

I do not think that the whole Elvis Presley article in its present version is encyclopaedic, as you claim. There are too many uncritical passages in it. See my reply on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. Onefortyone 01:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the reply on my User talk:Onefortyone page. I have also read your critical remarks on the Talk:Elvis Presley page, but still think that less than 5% of the whole article is critical. In my opinion, the general tone of it is uncritical. Perhaps you may be able to rewrite some passages of this article, for instance the "Relationships" section, and add some critical passages on Elvis's consumption of drugs, etc. Onefortyone 20:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said at the talk page, I fail to see why an encyclopaedia should be focussed on criticism. It should be focussed on reporting the facts. What percentage of an article about Elvis Presley should be critical, would you say? KeithD (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not drunk? I'm having my doubts already. KeithD (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon... RFA

Looks like someone already closed it.

In my opinion there is usually little benefit to removing RFAs unless the nominee agrees to the removal. Gordon was responsible for his own drubbing and egged it on through his responses to the RFA. He would appear to have a thick skin. Removal is appropriate in those cases where the candidate clearly does not want to be involved in the RFA any more, which is rare. And (IMO) anyone can do it, not just bureaucrats. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. Thanks for the clarification. KeithD (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments with regard to the holocaust on the Wikipedian RfA board; I'm terribly afraid that you misunderstood my comments, and I apoligise for not having been clear initially.

The purpose in making mention of this was to avoid future events in which people "followed the crowd" and did as others do; there was no attempt to imply my situation was as bad; Further, it was not my intent to gain something by that remark; it would have been treading on the blood of dead Jews, and that would not be right. Since it is obvious that I would more likely lose votes than gain them, it is clear that I did not hope to "benefit from" their suffering by use of an analogy.

See my boldfaced point above? I am aware that those who follow the crowd may get into positions of authority and have a chance to either help or jeopardize life, and I am hoping my comment will make those in power be more careful: This may save lives.

--GordonWatts 07:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: FYI, Keith, of the people who have known me since many months here, three (3) voted for me, and 1 voted neutral, implying that those who know me well trust me. Ann Heneghan was the neutral voter and the first three "support" votes were from people who have known me for over four months. I went into more detail about how the holocaust may recur in the RfA page: Maybe I won't get any votes, but if I can help others avoid this, or even save a life, it is worth it. Here are highlights:

"The constant rebuttal of oppose votes, and his insistence that the system is wrong when the vote doesn't go his way, seems wholly out of line with the measured neutrality that I feel is necessary for an admin." How do you know, KeithD, that the system is not wrong? Hmm? You assume that it is not broken, as yet unproved, and then use this assumption to prove itself: circular reasoning. "The constant rebuttal of oppose votes..." So? What's wrong with rebuttal? Maybe there is a problem that needs rebutting. You assume to many things, one for example, that the system is all good and well. That is not a given.

I've read and re-read what you've said on both these issues at the RfA page. I still believe that you're not suitable for adminship, and that mention of the Holocaust, spousal abuse, and human rights abuses were not appropriate, and stand by my given reasons. KeithD (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading and hearing my viewpoints; Yes, I may have been over-the-top with my comment about the holocaust; HOWEVER, maybe the provocations of others who decided to make up their own policy (instead of following the clear written policy) were over-the-top in their overreaction -and made me frightened -at some gut level that the same tragic things that had happened in the past could recur -and maybe I just reacted as any person would: Oppose that shortcut stuff. Many admins are much harder to get along with than am I, but once they become an admin, a "double standard" applies: They can get away with a lot and not be removed from admin, but I (and other RfA applicants) make maybe a some small mistakes, and we are slapped?? No, this is just not right. Further, I am certain that mistreatment of users occurs on a semi-regular basis, or else I wouldn't be squawking so loudly. Yes, maybe I am unsuitable for Adminship, but if that's so, there are others ahead of me who are even more unsuitable and need your attention even more. However, until policy changes, I am "qualified." (As a side note, I think they should raise the standards on ALL users by making EVERYBODY register -no more anonymous IP users -and make us post our photo and at least our first name and an email address, but since they haven't raised Admin standards, I think that many people qualify currently, who are improperly denied adminship -because of partisan politics and games. Wrong.)--GordonWatts 11:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning

Hi KeithD. Thanks for the welcome. I have a question but I don't know who to direct it to for a proper answer. Might as well ask you.

In some wikipedian pages relating to films, there are certain contributions which depict the whole storyline of the film, sometimes scene by scene. Not only do I think that is annoying, I also think that it is unfair to the reader and to those who produced the film/movie. I would like to voice out my opinion on that, not particularly wanting any change in the rules in return, but at least let it be known that I, for one, would prefer people to be granted the liberty to watch the movie themselves rather than read it here in Wikipedia. Kinda makes Wikipedia a spoiler for the movie industry if they let this continue. If this is not possible, let it be.

For an example please refer to Pirates of the Carribbean : Black Pearl. Nicely written but everything's there. No one has to watch it anymore after reading it. Please do something about it.

Sylee

You'll notice that the articles have a warning about spoilers before any plot details are revealed. I think there's a difference between an encyclopaedia, and most places where films are mentioned (review sites and the like). An encyclopaedia's duty isn't to the film industry, or even to people who haven't seen the film yet. An encylopaedia's duty is to report the facts.

You might find raising your concerns here will get feedback from Wikipedians more familiar with the situation than I am, and perhaps between you formulate some guidelines as to how much plot should be included in film articles. Hope this helps. KeithD (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool, and new member

Hi Keith

I am Mark, a fellow reds fan, a season ticket holder and the guy who posted the early history note on LFC.

I am very new to Wikipedia and have not yet developed a talk page. Any advice?

Any help you can give would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

Mark

Hi Mark. You do have a talk page, even if you don't have an account yet. I've left you a message on your talk page, and you should see an alert saying that you have new messages on every page.

To register an account so that you have a username, you can click on the Register link at the top right hand corner of every page.

I look forward to your further additions to the Liverpool article. Don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can help you with. KeithD (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keith,

just found my own talk page so I have edited out my email address from above. Well you have it now so there is no need to leave it there.

I will add a bit more on LFC history and see if I can tidy it up a bit. You may be interested to know that I did the history of LFC as my Mastermind specialist subject. (Unsigned comment by User:Aint no saint

Excellent stuff. How did you do on Mastermind? (Don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~ KeithD (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I lost the final by a point. Thanks for reminding me ;)

BTW do you get to Anfield much?

Aint no saint 12:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, bad luck. No, sadly I don't get to Anfield much. I'm largely an armchair fan. KeithD (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright violation on Aerosol-PFC

Hi Keith,

you marked my article as possible copyr-vialation. May be I forgot some marks or what ever. Never the less I am the C right holder my self. Please help me through the dungle, how to mark it right. Thank you Michael

Hi Michael,

By far the quickest way to resolve this would be for you to update your website to include on it somewhere say that all the content is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, and then note that this has been done on the article's talk page, and on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page under its entry.

Hope this helps. KeithD (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND 22:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Challenge yourself, and get ready to think!

Hello! Thank you for participating in Round Two of the Wikipedia:Mind Benders! The round will officially close on Friday, September 16, and round three (which is complete) will be open in the immediate days after that. A notice will be sent to you at least 48 hours before round three is set to open, to insure fairness. Round three offers 11 new exciting questions, this time written by Deryck C.. Please be sure to join in the fun! Also, congratulations to Riffsyphon1024 for winning our logo competition! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 22:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, KeithD/archive1! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND 06:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, KeithD/archive1! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND 06:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, KeithD/archive1! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'm not sure if we've ever really interacted before, but I'm glad to have the trust of people even if I don't really know them. I'll do my best with my new powers. -R. fiend 17:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have interacted, but I've certainly seen your edits on the recent changes page, and so forth. Congratulations. KeithD (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

def of 'unnecessary mirror'

regarding (my belief of) your removal of an abebooks link.. Just exactly what is meant by "unnecessary mirror"? It would seem that mirrors are, by practical usage, "necessary". Regardless, the link was accurate & therefore a legitimate addition. An Encyclopedia is meant to be exhaustive.. That alone makes the link valid. I understand the need to remove non-factual info, but not the need to censor factual info. I say this with some concern. I have been finding some excellent as well as some obviously politically motivated info on wikipedia. The prescence of the politically motivated is discomforting to say the least. Perhaps I am being touchy.. But I do wonder..

thanks bobby billie joe bob at yahoo (drop the blanks & add the uld to contact)

p.s. it was my first editing of a wiki entry & I was, however small the contribution, proud. ;-) hence the 'touchiness'. (Unsigned comment by User:24.60.97.59)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry your first ever edit was reverted. I'm sure lots of your subsequent edits won't be. However, some may be, as they may with all of us.

In terms of the mirror being necessary, in Wikipedia terms I don't believe it was. If, for example, the Abebooks site was frequently down, then mentioning this in the article, and including a mirror at the end would be useful. As it is, it offered nothing extra to the main site link. In fact, for all I knew, it could have been an affiliate link, not a mirror link, and thus even more unsuitable for Wikipedia.

If you feel the mirror is necessary, then perhaps you should raise it at Talk:Abebooks, and see what other users feel. KeithD (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote marks

KeithD said: On the Besian Idrizaj article, you recently added quote marks to the end of a paragraph, when the quote continued to a new paragraph. As the Quote mark article says "The convention in English is to give the first and each subsequent paragraph opening quotes, using closing quotes only for the final paragraph of the quotation." Thought you'd like to know.

Sure thing. It's just an English-language convention I get quite arsey about because I just don't think it ever looks right in the context. We all have our personal gripes with how things look sometimes. My fault, not the article's. No worries. Thank you for reverting the article. To be honest, I'm so focussed on other things right now, that I forgot I even made changes to it. Bobo192|Edits 17:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:MIND

Thanks for the suggestions! Deryck C. is writing round four, and I'm not sure what scoring system he's going to use for that round. I've asked him to take a look at your suggestions. For rounds five and six (which I'll be writing), I will use a new scoring system, and I'll take into account your suggestions- I've already got some new ideas. Thanks for dropping your opinion by; it's greatly appreciated! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments to the scoring system. It was, if you can see, for the first 2 rounds, the first person who gets the correct answer received a times-infinity bonus because all others are given 0 points. My work with the current scoring system is to encourage people to KEEP ANSWERING after somebody has got correct, and as the same time KEEP the privilege of the first correct-getter. As you can see, owing to this new scoring system, the amount of answer-scripts have risen dramatically. I wonder if the 1-extra-point system will bring any negative effect to the future competitions. It is because each question carries different amount of points, and the first-answer will lose his or her advantage. Instead, I suggest that a multiplier is to be kept instead of replacing it with an addition.

Also, to encourage more replies, I've also given bonus multipliers to the second and third persons who get the correct answer. So what I think after hearing your opinion is, to keep the multiplying system, but the multiplier may be reduced from *4, *2, *1.5 to something like *2, *1.5, *1.2 (something greater than 1 but not greater than 1.5). Hope to see your feedback at my talk page (click the capital letter C in my signature will do ^_^) D e ryc k C. 06:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Onefortyone

A short and concise "me too" paragraph @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence would be helpful. Sam Spade 15:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out a little longer than "short and concise". Would the following be appropriate?

I stumbled across this issue on the AfD page [1] and found the cited sources to be non-credible and unverifiable. User:Onefortyone said he felt I was an "unbiased Wikipedia user" and asked me to look at the Talk:Elvis Presley page [2]. Following further discussion [3] of the credibility of the sources, I was accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Wyss [4], which I (hopefully!) debunked [5] and [6].

Between this change of heart, I had observed Onefortyone calling people with whom he disagreed his "opponents" [7]. With this, I found it hard to assume good faith and politely bowed out of further direct discussion with Onefortyone on his talk page [8].

I kept an eye on the Elvis Presley talk page though, and continued to find the credibility of sources provided by Onefortyone to be suspect. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

Onefortyone continued to search for sources that "support[ed] his view" [14], which I took exception to, and asked if anyone had any suggestions for a way forward [15]. The discussion continued in much the same vein at the Elvis talk page. Eventually I filed an RfC on the article to get feedback from other editors about the credibility of the sources, and asked Onefortyone if he had any suggestions as to how we could resolve the impasse, whilst offering a possible option myself. [16] These fell by the wayside when this arbitration was filed by Ted Wilkes. KeithD (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I think the arbiters are going to be grumpy w how their formatting requests havn't been met in this case, but at least the above is under 1,000 words. Go ahead and add it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence. Thanks, Sam Spade 20:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the correct format, and cited some different diffs to make it a little more relevant, I hope. It's up at the Evidence page. KeithD (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to leave this on my talk page?

Hello, KeithD. Did you mean to leave that comment on my talk page? Shouldn't it go to Deryck's page? In any case, I've already strongly advised him not to do it. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I mistook your page for Derek's, but I imagine he'll see it on yours. Feel free to remove it from your talk page if you'd rather though. KeithD (talk)