User talk:Phr/Archive-2006-08-01

User talk:Phr/Archive-2006-04-03

Hello

Paul: I introduced Sam S. to W. about six months ago. He is a little flakey, and he does add some gossipy stuff to his articles, but he is a smart man, he has an excellent memory and he is mostly writing what he knows. I hope you can find that Wikipedia (and the World, for that matter) is big enough for the two of you. I agree with your approach of mostly editing w/o a W account, but I note that some admins now delete IP-based edits without any meaningful discussion. AWM -- 71.139.171.168 08:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought--I do sometimes get a chuckle from reading Sam's writings outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not the right venue for gossipy stuff and stuff sourced from unverifiable personal knowledge. Also, his reverting and disputing habits are similarly at odds with acceptable Wikipedia practices. Finally, I have to take issue with you about Sam's memory. His edits are full of factual errors both large and small, as reviewing the edit history of affected articles clearly shows, and he does not bother to research his assertions before making them. So other editors end up having to do what should be Sam's job, since he's the one making the assertions. Sam should either adapt his style to suit Wikipedia's standards, or choose to publish his stuff in other venues that are more suitable for him instead of in Wikipedia. Phr 08:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkertbot2 and diffs

I just noticed this on my RfA page (I was looking for questions for someone else) - essentially I don't have nearly enough hard drive space to save all of the diffs, I'm already running with less than 500MB free and starting to save diffs would make it even lower. I guess the point is almost moot now that I do have sysop and can look at the deleted edits, but thats essentially why it doesn't / didn't do it -- Tawker 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I've answered the question you added to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lightdarkness |my RFA]]. Thanks for adding it, if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Cheers! --light darkness^(talk) 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms

Hi Phr, a while ago you made comments on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry if you think I'm too new to be an adminship but I've been being a Wikipedian since December, 2003. I just didn't have an account. I know all about Wikipedia. I have interviewed many Wikipedians and have even made friends with a few. I WAS a perfect adminship nominee. An old nominee, General Eisenhower 17:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of something I don't really care about

Oh, it is OR but it is not against WP:OR because of In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.. I don't think you have to think something is interesting to make a list of it, so I don't get what you are trying to say. I agree, there is a good case that this list is against WP:NOT but it is not against WP:NOR which I inferred that the nom was trying to say. I just don't see the harm in keeping it. People say it is unmaintainable, but I don't see it and even if it was click on history, set it to 500, count the pages. People are willing to maintain this thing for some reason. I for one see no reason not to let them. Kotepho 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use using one policy to say it violates another policy. If it fails WP:NOT it fails WP:NOT; Don't try to get there via WP:NOR. Kotepho 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Higher RfC Comment

You left a relevant comment on the RfC for Take Me Higher regarding model releases. Could you move the comment over to the actual RFC in the appropriate section? Stude62 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

(from my talk page; I replied there)

This is a difficult issue and I understand where you are coming from. However, my "research" is different from the above example in that it does not contradict anything that is common knowledge. It is well known in the anarchist commmunity that the FAQ is going to be published by AK Press. There is nothing stating the FAQ is NOT going to be published.

WP:V says "Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors." - in this case, my claim is easy to verify: anyone can e-mail AK Press and ask them themselves. I am not acting on behalf of AK Press in divulging this information, which is not even new - news of the FAQ's publication has been around for quite a while. -- infinity0 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing wikitext for old revisions

Hi, I noticed your note on Yurik's talk page about this. Just in case you haven't come across it yet, I thought I should mention the action=raw&oldid=123456 syntax, which is useful for grabbing (single) revisions of old wikitext. Lupin|talk|popups 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Query Interface Suggestions page - if interested, drop by and comment :) --Yurik 19:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 207.99.90.253

Phr -- I noticed that you gave a final vandalism warning to user 207.99.90.253 . I just removed his/her nonsense post to article New York City[[1]] and added a note on his/her user page. If this nonsense edit constitutes "vandalism" by wiki guidelines, please block this user from editing. Thanks, Docether 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your prod of Fitzgerald Hotel

Courtesy notice. See AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzgerald Hotel. I think your prod was a little misguided, given how many prior editors thought the article was fine. Someone even included it into the category for SF landmarks. If you believe an established year-old article with a dozen editors ought to be deleted, you should go to AfD right away. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment

Odd, you are not alone in thinking that. Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 13:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized Rolling Stones

Hey -- I deprodded this, it does seems this is a notable group (via mentions in the press), and the article seems to be NPOV or close to it. Just letting you know. Mango juice^talk 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page's markup

Re: your Neutral in my current RfA: I didn't recall putting anything too odd in the markup on that page, and certainly no javascript. As far as I am aware, in fact, there is by design no method of embedding arbitrary javascript on pages except by editing one of the pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, such as MediaWiki:monobook.js. Please feel free to inspect the markup and tell me if you run into anything you think may be causing the error you received. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], Paul Rubin and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en - Louis Blair (July 11, 2006)

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

"Most prominent"

Thank you for clarification on the Andreas article. "Most prominent" was not appropriate. --Xenumaster 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your view in my recent RfA

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u\|t) 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the box doesn't really apply well to neutral opinions, but I do appreciate your attention to the process. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions/suggestions

Phr, you are very quick in suggesting article deletions and merges. In Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater you first suggested article for deletion, than deleted the major section not even reading it and than right away suggested that article should be merged with another one. Please read before deleting! This is contentious article that should exist by itself.

Phr, I disagree with deletion. If this article should be deleted, than all of articles in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Strip_clubs should be deleted as well. This is a prominent club, on the high-end in it's industry. And it deserves an article. It's not just some club, one of many. This is absolutely top-notch.

Report on the Frontier-Science Research Conference-FSRC

Thank you for that! It pretty much made my day. How did you find it? (I think it tells it all.) KarenAnn 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTMU

Hi—sorry to bother you. I replied to your comment at the CTMU deletion review, and thought you might like to take a second look. Thanks. Tim Smith 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptography

Between us, I think we've got it into presentable shape with last minute polishing and all. Relax, and don't worry about the curtain going up. I've gone through this before when I nominated it for FA and I think we have a somewhat better article now. Less effectvie for what I was trying to build in those days, but... Good work. ww 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And good catch on Kerchoff's. I'd read it about 50 times and missed it each one. ww 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juice

thanks for the welcome...you seem much nicer than Fan-1967 take care, ----

Mr. S.

The problem is that if you load up the article with today's pet peeve, then the article will never stabilize. His whole life does not get much space but suddenly's the size has increased by 30%, much of that with somebody else going on and on about some Federation. My advice: go for balance and a lasting prose addition. This is not a game of "I told you so." in case Mr. S. opens his mouth over the next year and blows it. Go for balance. -- 75.26.4.206 23:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I'm trying to keep it balanced, I'm inserting some passages from Sloan's candidate statement right now. Please take this to the article's talk page. Phr (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied

See User:Phr/Talk:Rudy Colombini. Mango juice^talk 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werto IP unblock

You unblocked RumDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s IP address which had been recently used by Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The commonality might not be coincidental [2]. Phr (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn't do any unblocking (I'm not an admin). I merely answered him through a bot message at #wikipedia-bootcamp and I found out that he was a sockpuppet, and I posted it on WP:ANI. Ryūlóng 04:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a message that was posted by the original blocker of Werto that was posted on my talk page. I have permission to paste it here. Ryūlóng 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RumDuck is a brand new user and this account has not been unblocked, let alone blocked, by anyone. Of course, his sock was blocked, but I guess he was "allowed" to create another account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sam Sloan

I added some paragraphs to his biography (Sam Sloan) about his success in the recent USCF special election. This addition includes a long and unflattering quote from Susan Polgar about Sloan's election result. Polgar is a very respected chess person and so I think it's appropriate that her views be included, but maybe the quote that I used is too long (I wasn't sure what parts to trim). Please take a look at it and edit as you see appropriate. Phr (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I will say that I am not a member of the USCF, but of the far more peaceful Norwegian Chess Federation (which with only 2000 members is so peaceful that there only once has been two candidates in the election for the job as president and where the loser was given a large round of applause and an award for his services.) My opinion on whether Sloan's election to the USCF board was a good thing or a bad thing probably won't count for much.

Nonetheless, wearing my "Wikipedian" hat, I think that only adding quotes critical of Sloan's success, without adding anything about who supported his election is unbalanced and therefore dubious under the neutral point of view policy. In general I don't think that a master or strong player means that ones voice should count that much more than an enthusiastic amateur. However, I agree that Susan Polgar is a very respected and famous chess personality, and that respect comes from more than just her playing strength at the board, and her efforts in chess organization make her a more significant voice than an average grandmaster. Even with that in mind, I don't think that I would add such a large chunk of her opinion into the article, because it makes the commentary on the election result unbalanced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairnie and other stories

Hi there. You've been very supportive and helpful with me as I took my first tentative steps into the mysterious world of Wikipedia (thanks again!), and I just had one more question. The Fairnie piece is still registered as being considered for deletion. I read somewhere it takes about five days for a decision to be reached and then another few days for the whole process to be complete. What should I be expecting at this point in time? Is it still a case of trying to work on improving the piece before the green light comes through? All the best >> Tjpike 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, I think you might be interested in this MfD which seems to be a consequence of the recent deletion review on CTMU. ---CH 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]