User talk:Nathan/Archive 2

Go Ahead

Go ahead and delete the Schoenbaum Field entry. I understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbbindians (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Much appreciated. Durova^Charge! 02:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Omg, haha, I had no idea what you were talking about at first. Then, I realized... I didn't mean to click revert there. I have Twinkle, and I think I must have accidentally bumped "Restore this version" instead of the link under it to view the previous version. Thank you very much for correcting that. That was an accidental bump on my part that caused a great deal of damage. нмŵוτнτ 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant V

I just added a CNN link as a citation. He is in dozens of books and articles. Important to keep it. He is the last great grandson of one of the most important American's that ever lived!!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole articel is about the multimillion dollar collection HE is selling. All his. I just added another one too. He is the last of the blood line.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

CryptoRights Foundation

1. Regarding the CryptoRights Foundation article -- I've added notability declarations and a beginning list of media references & cites; I'd appreciate it if you would re-examine it to see if you still think the {{db}} template is warranted.
2. I'd like to urge you to consider use of the {{notability}} tag in instances where you are not very familiar with the material. I'm a long-term contributor, so I'm not likely to be scared away, but some new editors would be put off by tagging items for deletion in such a hasty way. Many editors -- particularly many new editors -- do not know Wikipedia style to include the "notability" language in the top of the article, and many editors construct articles over a few hours initially (as I was doing). Please note the beginning of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion which says Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. I think this is particularly appropriate for editors who are not familiar with the subject matter at hand to determine to know, right away, whether the topic is or is not notable. --Lquilter (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But in the instance of individuals or companies (as opposed to, say, scientific fact) ... For businesses, I can understand this preference on your part, since there are obvious interests and benefits to wikipedia presence in that instance. However, I would urge you to reconsider your approach for some biographies -- specifically academics and scholars -- and for nonprofit organizations, both of which are systemically under-represented in WP. There are no commercial advantages that lead to the creation of those types of articles, and the negligible harm of leaving a WP:VANITY article for lengthier consideration rather than speedy deletion should be balanced against the considerable harm of unwarranted deletions of notable articles -- a process which can significantly delay development of needed articles. Best, Lquilter (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey. Thanks for saying you felt it should be closed in my favor, and looking at it, I obviously wish it had been closed that way. But it was 70 percent, and while that is in the discretion territory, it is the defined end of that region. As such, I agree there wasn't really consensus to give me the tools at this time. It's no big deal, though, as I said on my RfA I plan to continue editing through next year and should gain the experience for the tools soon enough. At any rate, thanks again for supporting my RfA and showing your further support. Cheers. SorryGuy 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GA on Hold

Hi,

An article you nommed for GA, Norman Finkelstein, is currently on Hold for up to one week from start date of the Hold. See notes on Talk:Norman Finkelstein. Thanks! Ling.Nut 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered your query

Hi there. As per your query on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Capel-Cure, I have responded as to the criteria under which this player meets WP:BIO guidelines. Please read this deletion debate again and feel free to comment.

Thank you. Bobo. 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

• Please see my rewite of the WP:LEDE plus related comments on the article's Talk. Thanks! Ling.Nut 09:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA

You got a problem with my arbitration candidacy, that's fine. Why you think it's appropriate to bring up in reference to my opposition reasons for an RFA candidate, I have no idea, especially in such a sarcastic and mocking tone. I have reasons to oppose the candidate. His terrible answer to question 10 was one of them. But, then again, I'm not required to give them, and mocking me about it certainly is not going to help change that either. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I've indented your votes from the arbcom elections, as your contribs indicate that you do not have suffrage, 150 edits in the mainspace by nov 1, as required by WP:AC2007. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

By my count, you had 116 mainspace edits before November 1. Sorry. — Satori Son 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

I have undone your copypaste move of Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment to Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Dutch). Our GFDL licence requires that all edits to an article be visible in the article history. Simply copypasting an article to a new title and then redirecting the old title to the new title attributes the content of the entire article to your username. If you want to move an article, you should read Help:Moving a page#How to. If you want to see this particular article moved, from Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment to either Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Netherlands) or Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Dutch), I suggest you file a move request for the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your kind words at [1]. I'm used to it .... nobody is obligated to read what I write (If they are, it would say Summons at the top! :-) I've certainly been told many times that brevity is the soul of wit -- you'll find such comment on my Talk page -- but the problem is that it takes me three times as long to write one-third as much, and I already spend too much time writing. It's always been true that some love my writing and some hate it. Yes, I love to write. I like, better, talking with people face-to-face. Not always possible, and the plus with writing is that a record is left behind. Again, best wishes. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

Hi, I just read claims by Atabek regarding Golbez & VartanM and left my comments there, please take a look. I myself became a victim of destructive behavior of Atabek, who has ill faith in editing Wikipedia and is intentionally provoking users to emotional exhaustion, you can see it yourself by reading his contributions. One of his recent provocations against me was when he was challanging that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic isn't even notable enough to meet Wikipedia standard for notability for inclusion into encyclopedia. I said, it is non sense and I am not going to discuss it any more...Steelmate (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Avruch, I am not sure what Steelmate and few other Armenian contributors mean by "destructive" behavior. Since when talk page discussion, opinion, disagreement or ANI report is considered "destructive"? But I think I presented all evidence on Golbez's violation of neutrality and inability to mediate on ANI page. Because of the company of contributors whose actions he keeps on supporting on disputed pages, none of Azeri contributors are able to contribute anything to articles. Any reference is simply reverted, any evidence becomes subject to talk page demagoguery, ending in personal and ethnic attacks, and so forth. It does not seem that the issue with Golbez's belief in his "mediation" has been resolved despite your comment though. How can this be made clear? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and valuable advises. Of course, I agree with you that ethnic background of contributors should not matter in editing, and it's very difficult to preserve this condition given sensitivities of international conflicts, such as Armenian-Azeri one. The problem here is not about just content, but about a mediator, and in fact, an administrator, who is assuming a position of only one side and singling out contributors of another group, or calling them names, which is why I reported it to AN/I. This is not specific to one particular Nagorno-Karabakh article, the same thing is going on at Shusha article, where neutral edit attempts are being simply reverted. I could request an assignment of another mediator from Mediation Cabal, but frankly I am not sure how effective this would be given that Golbez persists on "mediating" and he is simply not accepted by one of the disputant sides as mediator. Perhaps, you could advise. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arash Markazi

Just an FYI. It is best not to close an AFD conversation that you participate in. Some admins will jump on you for doing that. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - didn't think about it that way. Seemed to be a clear case of a mixup, but I should probably either have not voted or not closed. My bad. Avruchtalk 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuff happens  :) have a good one. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Academic institution‎

I believe that such typology is notable, but I don't indent to expand this right now (I am working on other articles). If you disagree, feel free to test it at AfD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive, thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacy school

Hi, I have proposed that Pharmacy school be moved to Pharmacy training as a more suitable title. Also, could you please add citations for the references you used to create the article? dramatic (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Au

 Done - Thanking for notifying me. :) Regards, Rt. 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. But you've explained your position, so that's quite alright. :) Best, Rt. 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

3 revert

I'm not in an edit war but preventing vandalism of replacing sourced statements with unsourced POV. I'll continue to revert as with any other vandal. I've never had a warning before with any other article, so an admin needs to step in and do something about it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, if someone removes sourced statements that's vandalism. If someone replaces it with unsourced data any editor has a right to remove it. In the meantime she renamed the article and deleted all the information, I restored it. It's not simply an edit war now but one editor destroying an entire article. You see that, or no? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed sources that weren't relevant to the article. Bikinibomb twice replaced a lengthy reference to the Christian book of Mark when I'd taken them out. Since that reference was in the "Jewish perception" column, it was inappropriate and offensive content.

Furthermore, both the AfD and the administrator Jossi say that the article needs to be stripped of the overwhelming OR (and given the topic, the cherry-picking of sources for citation is absolutely OR) and changed to a list. I did that, and Bikinibomb reverted it. I think he should be prevented from doing so. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring your content disputes to my talk page. Avruchtalk 02:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. This is vandalism. Before I begin reporting this -- I just need to know, are you a part of this vandalism yourself, or is it only Lisa and her meat puppet Jossi?Tim (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't think you were.Tim (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Avruch, I hope you'll change your mind. There's truly nothing being added in this article. There are maybe 3 items in the entire article that don't have their own articles already. The editors here know that if they try and push an WP:UNDUE/WP:OR/WP:NPOV agenda in those articles, they'll be stopped, so they've chosen to use this article as a means of pushing their message.

Why should "Apostasy" be defined in this article when there's an Apostasy article? Why should "The Fig Tree" be defined in this article when there a The Fig Tree article? The question applies for each and every item in this "glossary". And that's entirely aside from the fact that the Messianic sect is being places on the same level as two major world religions. That itself is contrary to numerous Wikipolicies. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories and subcategories

Please stop placing articles in the Antisemitism category when they are already in subcategories of the Antisemitism category; this is against categorization guidelines. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

archiving

I do not know that it is good form for you to archive a discussion to which I contributed just one minute ago. I feel dissed. No matter what you think of discussion, unless the page is over 40 kb long or the talk is from more than a week ago, I do not think you should archive it, or all of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, cool. Please restore it - at least for a few days. My suggestion: if 48 hrs. have passed since the last time stamp, archive it, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be right - but I am trying to change the general tone of the discussion. If my efforts fail, so be it, I will not belabor any of my points. Clearly there is not just an argument about figs, or the title of the article, but a total breakdown of the process. I think your suggestion that some editors strike-out offensive or provocative things they have written is a positive suggestions ... but I do not think erasing the talk (shoving it under the carpet) will help. It is true that some of my comments are directed at individuals but I wrote it on the talk page because I wanted others to read it. I realize you may think this is an error in judgement, I hope it isn't but it certainly is a judgement call. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Please do not add your personal commentaries when placing resolved templates like you did with this edit. Just state the facts, don't state your opinions on the things recommended. Metros (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre acceptance support

I removed your support vote, just because I want to run a fair RfA. Once I transclude, your support is welcome. Thanks anyway! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Kellner

I wanted to thank you again for the way in which you communicated the possible problem with my using Wiki emails. I am always glad to learn the rules here, and I will always follow them. Thank you again for your thoughtful manner of relaying the problem to me. I do appreciate that. ScottRskellner (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pandyan Kingdom

Thanks for your help - I guess it only remains to be seen as to how the participants in the war respond to what they see when they return (hopefully to a protected page forcing them to discuss the issues). StephenBuxton (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Laconia Daily Sun

I'm puzzled at your recent edits ([2] and the one before it) here. Why did you remove the citation? The link still works. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The ad rates themselves weren't in the Wikipedia article -- I (who added the citation) referred to the rate card as a source to back up non-advertising information, i.e. the towns the paper covers and the self-reported circulation. Especially in the case of circulations, I like to have as much information as possible cited. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and revert it, then. Your point about self-reported stats being unreliable is well taken -- it's actually one of the chief reasons I had the citation there in the first place: Any reader can see that the 15,000 comes from LDS itself, and take the figure with whatever sized grain of salt s/he wishes. I'd much prefer a third-party cite such as The Citizen or Weirs weekly, but from my perch here in Massachusetts I lack the proper research facility .... _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your abundant work on WP:AN/I in attempting to help resolve incidents, expediate the process, and advise users on relevant policy, I award you the Barnstar of Diligence in service to the community. SorryGuy  Talk  08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Friends template

At Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_28#Template:User_friends_with, Voyagerfan5761 has userfied the template to his own user space at User:Voyagerfan5761/UBX/friends with. Do you want to add this on to your nomination? Metros (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, it might be a good idea. Now the original template you TFDed doesn't matter because everyone's got the userfied one. Metros (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Voyagerfan5761/UBX/friends with. I've nominated it for deletion. Metros (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FortKent

I'm not going to unblock him altogether, but I reduced it to two days.   jj137 ^♠ 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an automatic switch of StatusBot. Since Chris G Bot 3 (who updates it) goes in alphabetical order and is currently at I, it should be automatically change to "Online"... within a couple minutes.   jj137 ^♠ 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From Sarsaparilla

^{I don't know why all this is crossposted here, since I was following the thread where it was originally posted (at Sarsaparilla's talk page). The warning from Ryan below is directed at Sarsaparilla, not myself.}

Attack Ruylong (especially by linking to WP:GIANTDICK and taunting him) and you'll be blocked. Please do something more constructive. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you're going to start an admin conduct RfC over Ryulong's warning (which would be a waste of valuable electrons, IMHO) then you should just do it and be done. If you are going to do an RfC about WP:MYSPACE, then do it and be done. No sense militating all over about how people are wrong and the policies are terrible if you aren't going to do anything - see WP:SOFIXIT. ^Avruchtalk 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't know it was possible to file RFCs on policies; I'd brought my objections to WP:MYSPACE to Village Pump in the past but overall the reception wasn't particularly good. I suppose posting it to WP:RFC would be forum-shopping? Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It seemed like the best thing was to post a proposed project at m:Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for letting me know! I fixed it now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen

Faulhaber is indeed mentioned by name in the article four times. The article also states: "In October, a German court prevented publication of A Moral Reckoning until the slander against Faulhaber was corrected." (What Dalin called a slander is, I believe, actually a libel). There cannot be any BLP issue when merely restating a court's ruling.Mamalujo (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the section to the article on the book and included a cites to the NYT.Mamalujo (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA Navbox

On the CIA series of articles, you mentioned that it should get a navbox, is the navbox I had previously added at the bottom what you meant, or did you mean a side navbox (Like the British legislative one)? I agree the current intro describing why we have all these CIA articles is rather poor formatting and owuld like to standardize it to accepted practice. Watching here. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing a box (big article) but it doesn't seem like there is a navbox devoted to navigating between various articles about the CIA. There are boxes about the cold war, about other intelligence agencies and about foreign intelligence services. There is also an infobox about CIA leadership/vital stats. Most of the other articles about the CIA seem to be available only under the "See also" section. My suggestion was that if folks were going to create CIA-related articles outside of the main article, they should be aggregated in a navbox template. ^Avruchtalk 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, thats odd, in all the editing and reverting today it got removed. This is the navbox I was referring to Template:Central Intelligence Agency, I've since re-added it. And yes the articles need renaming, I just don't know what word to replace Activities with, that doesn't imply the CIA was on the ground doing something in country X. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, thats much more what I was thinking about. It could just be "CIA and Africa" "CIA and South America" etc. ^Avruchtalk 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your kind words. I was just thinking, "I should just take a go at it, and if I get criticized about something, then so be it," but it was a lot harder than I thought, and I didn't recall some of the things from before that you guys dug up. Again, thanks for your kind words, and I'd be honored if you could also adopt me. You seem like a very nice person. Let's keep in touch. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks, I am not usually that incompatent but today just happened to be an off day. Anyways have a good night. Rgoodermote  23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Avruch/template unreadable

I have IE7. User:Avruch/template and the user page transclusion is unreadable for me. The headlines are invisible on black background. I can only see them by selecting all with Ctrl+A. The show links are dark blue and very hard to spot on black blackground. The text I get by clicking show is readable. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing font face="helvetica" color="#FFF"> to font face="helvetica" color="white"> works for me in the headlines. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell

Repent, ye sinner! Thou hast opposed! :) J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well everything's okay, then! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Editors matter, but content matters more"

I've noticed you commenting in a number of places that "editors matter, but content matters more", and I thought I should explain why I believe this to be a false dichotomy.

Firstly, it is the editors who create and maintain Wikipedia's content, and they are our most important resource. When I assert that editors matter, I'm not advocating some sort of humanitarian, fluffy attitude of "we can't let anyone get upset", nor am I suggesting that we should compromise the quality of the encyclopedia to keep editors happier. Rather, it's a simple cost-benefit equation. We have no shortage of webspace (and deleting things doesn't actually free up space anyway, since deleted material stays in the archives), but we do have difficulty recruiting and retaining good contributors to do all the work that needs doing (much of which is routine and dull). Having useless pages in userspace does not actually directly harm the encyclopedia. Losing contributors does harm the encyclopedia.

There are, of course, a few circumstances in which we should delete userspace content. The most obvious is where it is inflammatory and creates divisions in the community; a page which attacked a national or ethnic group, for instance, would clearly be unacceptable. I would also agree that we should delete userpages which are being used for blatant advertising or promotion; such pages compromise Wikipedia's appearance of neutrality. But we should not delete userpages of inexperienced users on the basis that they haven't made enough encyclopedic contributions - such deletions do no good to Wikipedia, and have the potential to do a lot of harm. And we should never block a user solely on the basis of "not enough encyclopedic contributions" or "too much social networking". Blocks are a last resort, for users who are causing damage to the encyclopedia or preventing other editors from working, and need to be stopped in order to prevent the encyclopedia from being harmed. If an account is not harming Wikipedia in any way, it should not be blocked. This, I think, is common sense. Walton^One 12:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's another false dichotomy to divide people into "users who want to contribute" and "users who are here for social networking". Editors don't divide neatly into those two groups; many people are here for a mixture of both. Many editors start off making predominantly social-networking-type edits, but then gradually get involved in editing articles or fighting vandalism. And even an editor who is making 90% user and user talk edits, and 10% beneficial contributions, is still benefiting the project with their contributions - and they're a net benefit to Wikipedia, since their less useful contributions don't directly harm the project in themselves.

I can understand what you're saying about the possibility that an increase in social networking might drive away the more serious and committed contributors, but I don't see that happening, nor do I see any evidence that it's ever happened. When people leave, it's usually due to the "wikistress" caused by edit wars, wikipolitics, failed RfAs, etc. I've never seen any dedicated article-writer say "I'm fed up with all the social chitchat around here, I'm leaving". In contrast, I have seen lots of new editors become discouraged and leave the project after their userpage gets deleted at MfD, or after someone blocks them for "lack of encyclopedic contributions" (I'm not just picking on Ryulong here, I've seen equally bad blocks from some other admins). So I think my position here is supported by the evidence. Walton^One 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I noticed you recently changed your signature right around the time I changed mine to similar colors. I was going for my school/personal favorite colors and wasn't trying to copy/confuse your style if it matters. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, unrelated. Not sure why I switched, mostly I thought the big box stuck out so I wanted to make it smaller. ^Avruchtalk 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== TPH RfA oppose ==

The emerging consensus on the AfD that caused you to switch to oppose on TPH's RfA is that the article in question should be deleted. You may (or may not) wish to re-evaluate your oppose based on this interesting development. ^Avruchtalk 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ^Avruchtalk, I stand by my opinion be it ; "...Good, Bad or Ugly". But thanks for the heads-up. Shoessss |  Chat  22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evaluate the grammar of this sentence, will you?

Example 3, unless "Inner-Core" is some kind of special term, which it isn't explained in the body of the text, and if it were, would be considered the addition of jargon, it should be spelled, "Inner core." Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When you've finished, consider posting your evaluation on the Rudget RfA. ^Avruchtalk 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I omitted a semicolon. It should read: Example 3, unless "Inner-Core" is some kind of special term, which it isn't explained in the body of the text, and if it were, would be considered the addition of jargon; it should be spelled, "Inner core." Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question 5

Thanks for posting questions at my RfA. In this post Diff User:Neil suggests that the correct answer is "discuss it with them on their talk page". I must admit I did not see the question as a potential edit war question, there are over 2 million articles on English Wikipedia, the majority of them (in my experience) are not watched or involved in active edit disputes. In fact the majority that I edit through Active Wiki Fixup Projects have not changed in a year or more. I would like to suggest that if the intent of the question is to elicit the answer Neil has suggested, future versions of the question might be worded as "Another editor has just removed material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?", I make two changes here; administrator to editor, because the same expectations of courtesy and civility apply if the modifying editor is a sysop or not; and the addition of "just" to indicate timeliness and that the article is on the editors watch list. Jeepday (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Police

Maybe not. This article is one of the ones on my watchlist, and it gets regular, and predictable attacks. Same with Cunt, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, dot, dot, dot, you name it. But of the twelve to sixteen hours a day I spend here, some of that time I actually get to write articles. For an anon IP, I find it difficult to care, they are here today, and mostly gone today. Those who try, but get it wrong, I will try to help; if they won't listen, fair enough, I tried. If you look at User_talk:Olirampling, where I tried to help an apparently obvious basket case, despite the abuse I got, but wasn't able, fine, I tried. I did a lot of advising about notability and verifiability when I used NPW a lot more, and got a couple of Barnstars out of it, FWIW. I helped take nonsense pages into at least non-CSD and non-PROD and non-AfD articles, and Wikified a load of other stuff that otherwise would have been now long gone. Now, if I'm prepared to go out on a limb to help produce a viable and credible encyclopedia, I hope you'll understand that just occasionally I get pissed when I get diverted unnecessarily from that purpose. Perhaps I should just clear my watchlist and not care what toss nitwits insert into our articles; but, perversely, perhaps, I care about why I'm here. There was a time when I thought I'd like to be an admin, after all, I have a reasonably good grasp of policy, sometimes better than some admins I've seen. But having seen what can happen to you, I find it difficult to desire the tools. Now, I hope you'll forgive me, but if you want to blank that message, fine. While this is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", I don't think it was ever meant to be an encyclopedia that "any dickhead can edit". For anon IPs, although many make good edits, my experience so far is that they're more trouble than they're worth; because they lack traceability, and so accountability. The model we have may not be ideal; but let's not kid ourselves that it's viable. You only have to take a quick look at WP:ANI to realise that. Good evening. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• And I hope you'll forgive me if my rhetoric is slightly less than totally felicitous, but I've just spent a major slice of time here --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the page myself now, but because that may be a floating IP. I doubt the original vandal even saw my reply. We are too quick to tolerate drive-by vandals, and in most cases, by the time we've issued the customary cascade of warnings, they're gone, and they know this. I have, since September, been dealing with a persistent vandal at Theft, who has taunted me that "all he has to do is reboot his router", vandalised my user page, and because for some reason we have to tolerate these goons, they just walk away and laugh at us. This means the page is semi-pp'd and valid IPs can't edit. No. No. No! We need to grow some balls, and soon. Enough of this pussyfooting around. I'm amazed that earlier today, an IP who blanked WP:AN was warned. Warned! You don't warn terrorists, you kill them. Dead. Stone dead. Please, let us grow up. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

I did not ignore your message on my talk page (added January 8th). I had not noticed it until today when I went to archive. I had been getting messages all day so I missed a few. By the way, I was about to ask for it to be closed when some one beat me. Thank you by the way. Rgoodermote  03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Avruch, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ComputerGuy's RfA

At first, I found out about ComputerGuy's RfA through Recent Changes, so I commented, but then noticed that his nom wasn't transcluded onto the main page. Since he was supposed to transclude it himself but obviously didn't, I did it for him. If I'm not supposed to do that, tell me. I really don't know much about RfA. Calvin 1998 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply

You are correct. Wikipedia Foundation is non-profit. Wikia is not a non-profit. The Wikipedia Foundation is not barred by law from selling things but the money has to be used for non-profit uses, expenses, salaries, etc. The Red Cross is non-profit but sells things and pays salaries and bonuses. Spevw (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Questions

Yeah just got told off on e-mail too. Removed the un-answered ones, and I will leave questions for now, apologies // F9T 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Please consult with me before reverting my edits in the future, especially when it relates to you reinstating comments which were added in defiance of a ban. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Avruch - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I appreciated your questions, and I hope my responses were satisfactory (if sometimes a little vague). The RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)