User talk:Risker/Archive 3

Archives starting May 15, 2008 (including all RFA-related messages) to July 31/08

RfA

Hey there Risker, I've created a nom for you. I would suggest reading my essay How to pass an RfA. There are also two other people who are interested in being co-noms. Dihydrogen Monoxide mentioned his interest on Sandy's page and Sandy indicated an interest in being a co-nom for anybody who she suggested that was interested in running. I generally recommend no more than 3 noms--more than that seems to be too many. I also suggest not transcluding your nom until you are ready to watch your RfA for 2-4 hours after the nom. You need to be able to watch the RfA and answer questions/concerns as they arise. Those first few hours people expect the candidates to be available.Balloonman (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, when you describe the areas you want to work in, make sure they are areas where you have experience. People don't like to see "I plan on working in CSD's" when there has been no activity there.Balloonman (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent (tentative) answers to the questions.Balloonman (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Good luck on your RfA.Balloonman (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Told you it could be interesting... Risker (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember you were very disruptive at the Essjay controversy article. QuackGuru 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh hello, Quack. Long time no see, I'm surprised you still have my page on your watchlist. I hope you are well? I remember you too, and your userpage fork of Essjay controversy, long since deleted. How is the rewrite on Chiropractic going? Risker (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a sandbox of chiropractic with the greatly expanded NPOV rewrite. However, since you think something that is out of mainspace is a fork I had it recently deleted. Happy? QuackGuru 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I remembered that you had been one of the people working on Chiropractic because I was looking at that article about a month ago for information purposes, saw there were some tags on it, and noticed your name as one of the editors working on a rewrite. I know that sometimes it's easier to do rewrites in user space. I did that with parts of the James Blunt article, and I know several feature article writers do that when they're completely revamping an existing article; if you were actively working on that article in your user space, I would not have made a big fuss. I guess the biggest challenge would be finding that NPOV voice, but if you're willing to accept input from other editors, then it's not a big deal at all.

I'm not out to revisit past disagreements with you or anyone else, which is why I made a conscious decision not to link to that old RFC where a whole lot of people were calling you by the first part of your nickname, or any of the ANI threads that were related to Essjay controversy. For me, it is water under the bridge and I hope that some day it can be the same for you. Contrary to what some people think, I'm really not here for the drahmah; my real life is plenty exciting enough. I wish you the best in your editing; if you want to ask the deleting admin to reinstate that page, I would have no objections. I only mentioned the Essjay fork because I know more people than usual are reading this page (what with the RfA and all), and they have the right to know we have a "history" between us, and might be encouraged to review our interactions and make their own decision about whether I was acting appropriately or not. It was not intended as a slight to you, and I am sorry if you perceived it that way. Risker (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

←Just wanted to apologise if the "oppose per" votes derail it. I waited until you were ahead 6-1 precisely so I wouldn't tip the balance but a couple of others now seem to have piled-on. (Although, if you thought James/Lauren Harries deserved deletion, your blood really will boil when my massively-expanded Hypnodog hits the mainspace!) — iridescent 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Harries article. I'd forgotten to watchlist the AfD there, and as it turns out the article was dramatically improved during the course of the AfD and I only realised it after the AfD had closed; I probably would have changed my vote there. On the other hand, the Hypnodog article is hilarious! Believe it or not, I even saw Hypnodog when I was in the UK... Best, Risker (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on your RfA -- ₮inucherian ^(Talk) - 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you! Risker (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact that this is called drama. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur as we say around here. I was kind of expecting more questions, but I'm not going to complain. It is a very odd experience! Risker (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough, and I take my whiskey in shot glasses, lined up on the bar...

Not really, as I'm as straight an arrow as they come, but if I were a drinking man, the nonsense at your RfA (particularly Ryan) would drive me to drink. Do you have ANY idea what got the bee in his bonnet about you? Was it Giano? Bellwether ^B_C 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, give it up Bellwether - I opposed - big deal, Risker is obviously going to pass and I'll happily welcome her into the admin community, and wish her the best of luck. She'll probably be fine. It's just one comment.... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We're friends. She left a note at my talk. I replied here. I asked her why you might be so pissed off at her as to oppose her, since you won't tell me yourself. Either tell me yourself (not generally, specifically), or let her. Either way, I'll thank you to let ME decide both WHAT to "give up" and WHEN to "give it up." Thanks, Bellwether ^B_C 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Bellwether - I can only assume it relates to Giano, as Ryan has referenced the Durova and IRC arbcom cases; however, he's entitled to his own opinion and I would not dream of telling him he's wrong. It seems to me that would be unnecessary drama, and to be honest I think it's time for people to lay off him for having a different opinion than many others - after all, I often have different opinions too. I think it's one of my good points, and I'm not about to criticise it in someone else. As to some of the other opposes, well...I see Guettarda's point, he has had a bad experience with his name being shortened so would naturally be sensitive to the pain it could cause other editors. DGG (and some of the others) I think have different ideas than I do when it comes to deletion, and that's fine by me; I don't plan on closing any AfDs for a good while. QuackGuru is just who he is, and I hold no ill will against him. Risker (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, that is a very diligent response. It'll certainly give me something to think about and I'll certainly look to reconsider - I think I might have seen a different side to you. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Very diplomatic, Risker. Far more diplomatic than I would ever be able to manage, which is why I will never seek adminship. I couldn't deal with this kind of stuff. I never realized you were a "drama monger" (per Viridae's latest "contribution"). In fact, you'd always been a calming influence wherever I'd seen you. Of course, Viridae offered no diffs to prove his accusation, but I guess that's just par for the course at RfA now. Bellwether ^B_C 02:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think maybe he's upset because I won't join Wikipedia Review? Oh dear... Risker (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly possible. How long do you think it will be before the IRC channel gets hopping about your RfA? Bellwether ^B_C 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be the better part of valour for me not to speculate in any way, shape or form about IRC. Risker (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)A few more days and Risker can join #wikipedia-en-admins. Can you believe it? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Or she could always join our lonely band of outcasts who refuse to join #wikipedia-en-admins... — iridescent 14:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

More effective is to join then never show up (my policy for the last three months). Seriously though, if Giano, Geogre and I all agree on your candidacy then it's probably safe to talk about IRC. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, you always have the most interesting perspective! I think it's probably best not to put any carts before any horses for the next 32 hours; I've seen all hell break loose before and if it does so this time it won't be of my doing. But should the opportunity arise, I suppose the worst thing that might happen is that I would send everyone to bed without pudding if they misbehaved. Risker (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Risker; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on your RfA, as if you need it! :D Don't expect too much, though; they've taken the delete button away from the main page! Ah well, there's always some encyclopedia work to do until they bring it back. :P Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

tally-ho!

I was getting there... just a few more hours... (ps. Tally-ho is a quaint English phrase used by the unspeakable when in full pursuit of the uneatable. It suddenly occurred to me that a US female might take exception to the latter part without understanding the context. pps. I don't know if you are American, but then it never occurred to me that you were female. ppps Or male. I just saw "editor". pppps. I will stop now.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here I am in my office, laughing my fool head off and praying everyone else in the corridor has already left for the day! Ummm...let's see. Canadian female who understands British English extraordinarily well, I spend half my holidays there. So you're safe, no worries about tally-ho's or Oscar Wilde, or any other weirdness. Indeed, I am trying very hard not to look at the clock (except for the very good reason that the cafeteria will be open in three minutes); crazy things have happened in RfA's before and I am not one to tempt fate! Risker (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay!

Hurrah!LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Woo!! Congratulations - it's over :) Welcome to the team! - Alison ^❤ 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Risker. Best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks! Wow...all these weird new buttons... Don't worry, I'm in no rush to try any of them out! Risker (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, WJBscribe. Looks like I have plenty of homework to do. Risker (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Maxim_(talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congrats!!! Although I had no doubt.Balloonman (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Congrats. You deserve it. :) --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Killerchihuahua, that is some really good advice. In celebration of this august day, I stopped at the bookstore on the way home and bought three new reference texts. Sad, isn't it?  :-) Risker (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add my congratulations on your RfA. I'm always happy to see someone with actual in-the-trenches experience get the tools, and I'm sure you'll do good work. Let me know if I can be of assistance with anything. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreement wise, yes, re: above. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, friend. You dealt with the trolls quite well. Much better than I ever would have. Be well, Bellwether ^B_C 01:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations #36 - and an especial thank you for putting your thanks in the correct place! :) Best of luck. Neıl ☎ 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. Happy adminship, Risker. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Congrats!! Lara❤Love 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: RFA Thanks

Hah!

I wasn't sure if you or anyone else got the joke. I'm glad to see you did.

Congratulations! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh stop being so dramatic, Risker ;-)

On a serious note, it was my pleasure, congrats, and I'm sure you will do fine. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dloh Cierekim

is my real name in reverse. LOL. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Rfa

What!? You didn't agree with me and I supported your Rfa!? Why didn't someone tell me that before I supported? I want a refund = ). Best wishes, --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! May you wield the mop and the flamethrower with dignity and equanimity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations — sorry my initial oppose looked at one point like derailing it, and very pleased that it didn't. Anyone who can have that volume of loopiness directed at them without snapping is going to do just fine. — iridescent 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed it!

I would have supported, but I missed this entirely! Congratulations. The opposes made interesting reading. Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm extremely pleased to see that a candidate who isn't afraid to state her opinion and where we know exactly what we are getting passed. May this be a sign of times changing! Have fun with the tools! EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Crap. I forgot about that. I had planned drop my oppose. Sorry. Congrats. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, plenty of other drama in the aftermath of that to go around. Glad you decided to give up your "personal policy of refusing to participate in that chicanery," though. People might have been more assured of your dedication to the project if you had promised to block preemptively when unsure of someone's good-intentions, rather than suggesting you would be "extremely careful" with the block button, or seeming to engage in excessive discourse. That is the kind of "no-nonsense" quality I personally look for in an admin. Amerique^dialectics 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! And thanks for your kind words about deletion sorting. the wub "?!" 23:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA,B,C,D

Don't worry about it, Risker. But next time, if there is a next time, I expect you to opine, jinx or not :) And gratz on the mop-and-flamethrower™!-- Avi (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

All the Best!. --Bhadani (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Let me know if I can be of assistance and good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a personalized thank you note! Don't see that too often. Much obliged, and keep up the good work! --JayHenry (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, glad to see you made it. Look forward to having you on board. Orderinchaos 08:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the recent media revelation that most computer keyboards harbour more germs than toilet seats

Well, what do you expect if one tries to snort tea rather than using a cup (and saucer) while at the computer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that my computer keyboard has never harboured a toilet seat. Risker (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! I have seen your contributions and I would like to work with you in future. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Dash

Too late for the AfD, but if you want a notable local trade unionist, try him - the article does not really do him justice, lamentably failing to mention his gold watch presented by Khrushchev. Or Derek Robinson ("Red Robbo"), or many others from the great days of British strikes, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation at Kannada literature

Risker, is tripadi three line verse or three-line verse? And six-line verse or six line verse for shatpadi ? I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest considering the discussion of hyphens there, so yes or no works :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

According to my McGraw Hill Handbook of English (Canadian edition - which covers both British and U.S. grammatical styles), these should be hyphenated ("two or more words modifying a substantive and used as a single adjective"). I've made the two required changes in the text. Risker (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and thanks

A belated congratulations to you for your successful RFA and Thanks for noticing my first GA! BTW, I do find your comments "so reasonable" and refreshing! I especially love to read your thoughts on divisive issues, I think I always agree with you. Maybe we should do lunch. :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done Risker. It's good to see another FAC regular join the admin ranks. A bright spot in this age of increasing politicisation, bureaucracy and power plays. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you guys have any recommendations for future candidates, I'm open and looking. Balloonman (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

completely boring admin request

Hi Risker, I voted in your RFA ("for", if you must know :). I have a user-space page deletion that I can't put a template on because it ends in ".js". So I need to ask a specific admin. While I'm here, there are a couple of related deletions. Would you mind?:

• deleting User:Outriggr/testscript.js—I don't know how to put the "db" template on this
• deleting User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js (I want to move the redirect on top of it)
• deleting User:Outriggr/stuff
• deleting User:Outriggr/Amateur Withdrawal

Consider it practice? Thanks, –Outriggr § 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Me! Me! I just did the last two. I left the first two for Risker to practice. (Though if Outriggr, if you'd prefer them gone now, just give the nod.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks jb! Nope, no rush. I thought of a warning for new deleters though: the second one above is a redirect, so I'm assuming it would be easy to accidentally delete the page redirected to instead of the redirect. –Outriggr § 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, Outriggr, you lost your "stuff" ?? And you've withdrawn your amateur? What does that make you now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ping

To Commons! The game's afoot. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for this !vote, I try. I have a bias for museums and similar orgs and that one was a pretty easy improve. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice little article now, I've done that once or twice too and it is such a great feeling to save something worthwhile. So are you like I was during your RfA? I found myself copy-editing like mad just to keep from being magnetically attracted to the page! Risker (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was earlier, now it's less so. I'm just anoyed because I use a good citation tool while editing from a PC and haven't found a suitable replacement for my new MacBookPro so I can't fix as quickly from home. I like fixing, sourcing, tweaking when I can. The first couple of days were nerve wracking but then had to be offline on Saturday and that broke the nervousness, somewhat. As I told Keeper when we discussed his nom of me, I was happy with whatever the outcome. Congrats on your recent passing _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in my RfA, which closed successfully this morning. Look forward to 'potty training' with you ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm making it official

I'm done. If you want to know why, just check my contribs. I worked my ass off on Primavera, and ... oh, never mind. Drop me an email and keep in touch. You're one of the good ones. Bellwether ^B_C 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind blocking my Bellwether account, so that AuburnPilot will quit bitching about my having both, even though one (Bellwether) is now retired, and the other (BTT) will be little-used after the GG RfA? Thanks, BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Umm...yes, I would mind; it's not in keeping with the blocking policy, unless you want me to block it as a sockpuppet (which I really would prefer not doing). Just don't edit with it at all; I'd suggest a redirect to the BobTheTomato account. Email me if you have questions or want to talk a bit. Risker (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the idea. I'll do that. Honestly, though, I don't plan on editing even with this BTT account much, if at all. Best, BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You beat me

I was just going to message you and convey my hearty wishes. Your efforts have given fruit. We will go after Kannada literature, when Abecedare (the mediator) comes back (he seems to be on holiday) and nail that one too.Thanks again and again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the kind words on my RFA and on my talkpage. I really appreciate them... it is nice to have hard work recognized as I am sure you know! But all a bit scary now too. Lots to get used to and I think I will go rather slow! --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to Goodbye My Lover

WeePoochy (talk · contribs) has been blocked for using the account for vandalism-only. I considered all of his edits to be in bad faith. Feel free to revert it back. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note, for your info

User talk:Pwntjuice.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a shock at all. Given the odd circumstances of two socks of banned users editing the same two articles, I chose what appeared to be the best version of one of them and added some tags, and left Naked short selling to User:John Nevard to address as he was more familiar with the article. Please let me know if this is a problem. Risker (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Failure

You failed in trying not to belittle my suggestion. Also add fail on not wanting to insult, if that was a want of yours as well. Actually, I'd be pretty pissed off at your little comment there if I didn't AGF. Luckily, even though I've been here for a meager two months, and some how you know where I've lurked apparently, I stand by my suggestion. Thanks again though, and sorry you weren't able to achieve your goal of not belittling me. Beam 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have failed, Beam. I know the dozens of people sending messages to DHMO via email, on IRC, by IM and on the half-dozen pages that seem to be devoted to this RfA all mean well. But all this noise is making it impossible for well-considered decision-making. I don't know where you've lurked, but your user contributions tell me where you've posted before (you can check mine, it is a routine action when discussing with people one hasn't worked with before, and we have all kinds of special tools available to look at edits made, most frequent article contributions, page views, etc). Pointing out that what appears to be your first exposure to RfA is to one that is completely atypical to the norm was intended to point out that perhaps your very strong advocacy of a certain course of action is coloured by not having been exposed to RfAs that have been very useful to the community and the candidate. I don't expect DHMO to ask me my opinion on what he should do here (although he is welcome to if he wishes), and I am certainly not going to publicly advocate for him to take one course of action over another. LaraLove, as one of his co-nominators, is probably one of the few people whose recommendation should be openly posted. The rest of us should all let him try and figure out what he wants to do without pressuring him or promising him anything. Give him some space. You've made your point; now let him think. Risker (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have actually lurked the RfA for a while, as I'm very interested in eventually nominating myself one day. And you really should work on commenting on content not the editor. Of course in an RfA, the point is to comment on the editor and his content, but I'm not nominated here. My suggestion was only in response to his addition on my talk page. I did not seek out to give him advice. I'll say that again: I did not go and give him the advice without him first bringing it up on my talk page. You state your goal was not to belittle me, but then you said that I was a noob and that I didn't know anything about RfA... that's pretty messed up!

Anyway, my suggestion is pretty good imo. If you read it, and don't think it's a great suggestion say so, don't belittle me instead. Beam 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and hope we can leave him alone now, I know I for one have given him a lot to contemplate. Beam 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hey, Risker. Would you be interested in copyediting McGill University? It is a GA, has done a peer review (though I would like to set up another, for the first didn't draw out too many replies) and I'm about to finally get off my behind and actually start big changes. It would be nice to have some copyediting done, something I'm not an expert on. If you're busy, no problem. Or if Schools isn't your cup of tea, I can understand. If you comply, good! Don't be afraid to say whatever you find wrong. And please take your time to reply if needed. Thanks, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sunsetsunrise. I've taken a quick look at the article, and it's very good! It would be a pleasure to work on it; I'll be honest enough to tell you that I am just starting work on a very intense article right now, so won't be able to get into this one until some time next week. I hope that will be okay with you. (And the school part doesn't bother me at all, in fact one of the things I like best about copy editing is that the skills are portable to all kinds of articles, and I get a really nice variety.) Risker (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. I need something to take my mind off the dramas on this site. Amerique^dialectics 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Would you mind taking a look at Sideshow Bob? It doesn't matter when, but WP:DOH's goal is to eventually get it to FA and we think a good copyedit would help a lot. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scorpion, sorry to take so long responding...it's been a bit busy around here. As we speak, I am printing off hard copy for both this article and the Krusty one above - I figure two Simpsons articles together will make for some good synergies - and will start off with my usual review of hard copy tonight, progressing to online during the course of the week. I'll leave questions or requests for clarification on the talk pages of the respective articles. Thanks, Risker (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll hold off on making any major revisions so that the article won't be completely different when you are ready. I also need hard copies before I copyedit (and I usually do during lectures, but school is done for the year I won't get anything done) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you would mind instead focusing on a different article, The Principal and the Pauper‎ for now? It's an FAC but it has opposition right now, so if you could take a quick look at it, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I always give current FACs a high priority. Will take a good look at it today and should be able to work on it this evening. Risker (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks a lot. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Look into my eyes, into my eyes, don't look around the eyes, not around the eyes, look into my eyes... you're under

As my 50,000th edit, I've had an initial stab at cleaning up Hypnodog. While it's still a stub, it's now a (ludicrously over) referenced stub. If you can think of any way to expand it, please try... I'm particularly pleased at finding this reference; I think it's reasonable to say that Oxford University Press is not a source you expect to see on the reflist of an article about a dead Labrador. (I'm semi-tempted to merge this with Hugh Lennon as I can't really see why they need separate articles — and there are more stories about him that would bulk a combined article to a respectable size — but that's a matter for another day.) Also, if you can find a source for the "going missing" story, do add it - I've left the story in for the moment, but I can't find a single mention (admittedly, not looking very hard) and I find it unlikely "dog runs away" would really "make headlines around the world" unless the dog in question were Lassie. — iridescent 19:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, good morning everyone! Sorry I missed your request before I crawled into bed, Outriggr, but those pages are deleted now. Have a blast with your redirects. Wow, my first official admin-only action! Risker (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. But I'm confused, where did User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js go? Can I have that one back? –Outriggr § 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the confusion; just following the instructions to..umm...not forget to delete the talk pages of pages that get deleted... Please bear with me, I'm just a baby admin! :-) Risker (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it, recall please!! :-) ty, –Outriggr § 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing help

Hey, I found you on the volunteer list and was hoping you could pop on over to an article I'm hoping to make into a FA. The article is Crown Fountain (PR) and I'm hoping you can help with layout, organization, sentence structure and any other general grammar problems. It has been up for FAC before, but the main opposer has been Tony1, who you actually mention in your cope-editing description, so I'm hoping you can help. Thanks! Torsodog (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Torsodog. Believe it or not, I recently read this article and found it very interesting. I'd be happy to give it a solid copy edit. I must be honest with you, though, and tell you that I will not get to it until the week of June 9th as I have some serious real-life time commitments next week, and am trying to work on some previously-promised copy edits this weekend. If you can wait until then, I'd be very happy to work with you on the article. Risker (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Idle comment

Just thought I'd add that I do find it amazing how often I see a comment I totally agree with in one of the process areas and find it to have been authored by yourself. So I came by to express my appreciation of your clear, common sense approach to situations and am glad I had the chance to support your RfA at the relevant time. Orderinchaos 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Orderinchaos. I really appreciated the extent of the support, and the range of editors who participated in my RfA, and I'm glad I haven't disappointed you. Risker (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état copyedit?

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état, Wackymacs requested that the article be brought before a fresh set of eyes. I saw your name at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers, so I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting the article? Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishkid64. I found the article quite interesting and would like to say yes to you, but I need to be honest and admit that it will be late next week at the earliest before I get to it. On checking the FAC, I see that you've gotten some response from other talented copy editors, and I think they'll probably be able to help you in a more timely manner. Good luck! Risker (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

Ready for you to go through it with a red pen sir.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, VK. I'm just making my morning cuppa and will be right with you. Risker (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we in a position to nominate it as the FA before someonelse gets in there and noms something else.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a couple of hours, I am just finishing up the review of references to match them up with content, and will make the necessary changes. I don't always do that, but given most of the FAC reviewers will be unfamiliar with those websites, it's a precaution to make sure the answers are ready before the questions are asked. (If you look at the FAC for London, going on right now, there are a lot of questions about reference links, and I don't want you to have to go through that.) It should be ready for you to post when you wake up tomorrow, and I will be online on and off throughout the day as well in case any questions come up that I can answer. Risker (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Gomez

Bingo!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I've put a comment in about having the references pre-verified, so that people will concentrate mainly on the content. Fingers crossed it goes well. Risker (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gomez

The .1 subsections (4.1, 5.1 and 10.1, is it?) look rather stubby to me. Is it not possible to merge them—that is, to remove the third-level subtitles? TONY (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC) PS The rule about the ToC is in the FA criteria. TONY (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hi, I fell across your userpage and I noticed that you said you were a copy-editor. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out ? I have put the Doggystyle article up for FAC and it has been requested that it receives a copy-edit before it can pass as a FA. A partial list of what has to be changed is at the FAC page, but I think the article would need a complete copy-edit to ensure it has good grammer and that the prose flows well. I personally don't know what to look for, so your help would be invaluable. Can you help me out ? Please get back to me soon :) - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Guerilla In Tha Mist. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I am working with another editor to bring an article up to FA even as I write this, and I have made some commitments already that I am embarrassingly behind with. There's a possibility that I might be able to get to this very late next week, but I cannot guarantee it, and it would be unfair to both you and the FAC process to hold things up that long. Have you looked at WP:PRV? There are several editors there who volunteer to copy edit various subjects there, and you might find someone more quickly that way. Good luck! Risker (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I've asked a user at PRV, hopefully he can help out. Thanks for your time anyway ! - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthony's RfB

In addition to Anthony's thoughtful response, I think he's being a little modest. His dispute resolution work is a good place to see him in action assessing consensus, weighing arguments, interpreting 'this is not a vote' etc. Hope you don't mind me butting in. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, you're not butting in at all; in fact, your nomination was probably the one thing that gave me pause. One of the things I looked for were some examples where Anthony assumed unilateral responsibility for a difficult case and explained the reasoning for his actions. Now, I will admit that I only looked through the last few months, but I didn't see any shining examples there. He was making reasonable decisions, normally based on discussion with several people in which he took part in the discussion. That won't be the case in reviewing RfAs—'crats shouldn't be actively involved in those discussions, but instead should be implementing the consensus of others. I'm not counting the checkuser blocks, which are pretty well cut and dried; or the implementation of Arbitration Committee decisions, for which he is just the instrument and has no role in the decision itself. I did stumble on a mediation case where he admits he was not timely in his response, which isn't exactly a point in his favour here, given the "too many hats" discussion; I didn't feel it necessary to bring that up, because realistically bureaucrats do not have a role in that type of dispute resolution. Perhaps you or he could provide some diffs in the RfB discussion to highlight some examples of where Anthony has made an independent assessment of a difficult situation and taken decisive action. It may not change my !vote, but it may be very helpful for others who have yet to come to a conclusion. Best, Risker (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the measured response. I think it's more appropriate for Anthony to do this than for me. I'll drop him a line and see if he wishes to do this. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As something of an interim response (I'll pull more links: this is a single example until I can find more), User talk:Bsrboy is an example of assessing relevant factors, consensus in both directions (for + against unblocking), and weighting the situation against Wikipedia policy. user talk:AGK#Unblocking of Bsrboy provides a little further discussion. Hope that is a suitable example, Anthøny 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

40,000: a new movie and comic book from Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez, starring Gerard Butler

I keep thinking about that number, and I'm moving to your talk to avoid making or being presumed to make personal deprecations. It just makes me wonder if people know what numbers mean anymore.

1. 40,000: If you count aloud, and you can say two numbers a second (and when you get up to "eighteen thousand seven hundred and twelve" I'm not sure you can), then simply counting to 40,000 aloud will take you five hours and thirty-five minutes.
2. Suppose that it takes only a paltry two minutes to read an article, that will take you only one thousand three hundred and thirty-three hours, twenty minutes.
   1. If a person stays awake 16 hours a day and has neither a job nor school to attend nor food to eat nor evacuations to perform nor ablutions, then that will be eighty-three days and five hours, non-stop. That's 2 months, twenty-two days.
   2. If a person has some awful interference, like eating or bathing or going to school on the short bus, or possibly suppose that the ISP isn't reliable, and the person can only get 8 hours of work on 2-minute assessment. Well, one hundred and sixty-six days and five hours will be necessary for that. That's only five months and two weeks of doing nothing else (at two minutes an article).
3. Suppose, instead, that a person takes two minutes to read an article, a minute to think, and two minutes to type and save. That's only going to take 1,666 hours and 40 minutes.
   1. Our heroic, superhuman, demi-urge of an assessor who spends sixteen hours a day at it will therefore need a little more than one hundred and four days.
   2. The galley slave worker, on the other hand, will need two hundred and eight days (seven months).
   3. A full time data entry worker would need forty-two weeks, ten and a half months, and no vacations or sick leave.

It just keeps irritating me. The only way I can see someone, rather than some thing, doing this is by going to some number lower than my limits. The only way it's possible is if someone approaches the "counting out loud" speed. I remember that, when I was four, I used to boast of how high a number I could count to, but I don't recall that skill being a matter of pride since. What an odd thing to be boastful of: it begs a question instantly. Geogre (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

John did say that number included a lot of stubs. For the classic case of speedy assessments (using a script no less), have a look at WP:WPBIO (the biography wikiproject). On that pages is "The Spring 2007 assessment drive was a huge success. Over 40,000 articles were assessed!" Also, look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Spring 2007, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Summer 2007 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Spring 2008. Numbers are 44,324 (Spring 2007), 103,940 (Summer 2007), and 39,024 (so far, Spring 2008). So a total of around 187,000 assessments. For the overall picture in terms of biographies, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics: 518,733 articles, 461,637 assessed and 57,096 unassessed. But note that 335,313 are stubs. I still continue to be amazed at the number of articles we have on people. I did assume once that many of them were non-notable people, but it is amazing how many are in fact perfectly OK articles (though there are still large numbers of vanity articles and ones of borderline notability). The sad thing is, though, that Category:Top-priority biography articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies (and its talk page) remain as inactive as ever (people basically argued for months over which people to have in that 200 and then did hardly any work on the articles themselves). Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You (Geogre) and I have discussed things there before. See here (scroll down a bit or search for our names). The current assessment drive is slower than the previous ones. I actually support the general principle of assessment, but think that we should distinguish between "rough, first pass assessments" and more careful, formal, knowledgeable assessments. The first are needed to make any kind of progress, but should always be discounted in favour of the latter. When two "experts" collide on assessments, they should stop assessing and work on the article! Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What a pleasure to find two such charming gentlemen at my talk page. I hadn't really contemplated the statistical realities of doing 40,000 assessments; that truly boggles the mind. Perhaps there was a bit of hyperbole in the boast. Carcharoth, I find the breadth of your familiarity with all of these little information hiding places to be quite remarkable! There are a couple of wikiprojects where there is the genuine expectation that members actively develop content (MILHIST comes to mind), and they are to be commended. Most, however, seem to be unhelpfully insular, and at times seem unaware of things happening in the encyclopedia generally that contradict what they themselves advocate. As for assessments, I think there can be some less offensive ways of "ranking" articles and reducing the amount of wikiproject advertising on article talk pages.

Feel free to drop by any time! Risker (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. Well, actually, I have had it for ages now. You know what they could do with their assessments? They could get rid of the passive voice. Wouldn't that be a trip? Wouldn't it be fantastic to have the paragons of judgment get their due for their Rhadamanthine wisdom? Imagine that, instead of saying, "This article has been assessed as a stub," it said, "The great and mighty [USER NAME HERE] thinks this article is a stub." Wouldn't that add the needed glory (and, oh, coincidentally, add some clarity) to the grave endeavor? Wouldn't that allow people to quickly notice, honor, and sing praises to those who sacrificed so much of their time to assess 40,000? If some people also got the idea that this is just Some Dude's opinion, then, well, we might have to deal with that unfortunate possibility. Geogre (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As for the "breadth" of my knowledge, what you don't see is what I don't know! Some bits of Wikipedia are shallow and can be forded with ease. Others are deep oceans with malevolent creatures lurking in the deep waters, and you need a sturdy ship to safely sail those waters. Swimming innocently into those places is not a good idea. Grubbing along the bottom of the sea are the wikignomes of course, feeding on the detriutus from above. Has my analogy broken down yet? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article writing and assessment

Totally agree with what you said at Geogre's talk page. One point, to be fair to John, is that he did try this edit, but Geogre reverted it as being too close to the DNB entry (I don't have access to a copy to check this myself). On a side note, would you be willing to e-mail me the name of the article you mentioned that got assessed as start? I realise this will reveal the identity of the Wikipedian in question, so no worries if you feel it is best not to. Maybe another example other than William Melmoth could be discussed? Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eerie. Geogre's post wasn't there before! We were writing at the same time on the same page and never knew it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Email sent. I recognise that John had indeed made an edit to the article, although I have to agree with Geogre that it was too close to the nDNB entry to stand. (I looked at their article during the last round of discussion on the topic, when I was coincidentally in a library that happened to have a copy. The nDNB is not quite as common over here.) If similar additional information was available in other sources, and could be referenced to those sources, then I think it should be added to the article. It's unlikely, however, that a two-paragraph entry in a work discussing the topic generally is going to give us much more information on Melmoth. Risker (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to fragment discussion, but I will also point out that what is at stake is not merely "is there anything else that could be added" but "is there anything that should be added?" It was my judgment as an editor that bits of Stephens-mandated data was not germane to the job of a general interest encyclopedia (which, of course, the DNB is not). Stephens's format requires birth, what the parents did, what the mother's maiden family was, occupations of ancestors, then which school attended, then what job held. Only after vast amounts of that data can a DNB (or, by the way, an DAB author, as the "American" follows as strict a style sheet) author get to the significant artworks, musical pieces, etc. They are also locked into chronological order. This reliability is a good thing. You know where you are in a DNB article. You know what you'll get. I like it.

However, I looked at this figure and asked, "What contexts generate his name? What other events or works were caused by his?" From this, my judgment was that his single famous book (which wasn't known to be his for most of his life) is important in the context of the evolving shape of Anglicanism and radical Protestantism in England. There is an overarching narrative there, and a darned interesting one, where books go from fiery to smoldering, where the concerns move from revolution to contemplation, and this sets the stage for the great evangelical movement that will result in Methodism and the growth of the congregational movement. So, this person's biography is important for locating the work and setting up his son. Therefore, things known that were not germane were excluded. His work world seems to have had little effect on the world at large. (He got a lamp post put in, by the way.) Certainly his letters about the licentiousness of the stage were put in by the DNB author to belittle Melmoth, and I felt that, since they weren't published (for a while, anyway), didn't generate responses, and didn't result in anything, and since they were a generation late to be part of the public debate, I didn't care to include the information, as I have no interest in trying to make Melmoth look more devout or more cranky.

I made all of those decisions, because I regard it as the duty of anyone who is going to synthesize information and present a coherent and useful account to make such decisions. I dare say that John Carter, for example, now knows about Melmoth, and that's all to the good, but I do not believe, myself, that he does because of any interest in the figure. Rather, I think it's interest in the fight. That's petulant, but it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the successful and judicious presentation of a life in a way that will be of most use to readers. Geogre (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A star for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your eloquent and collected arguments concerning the article assessment of William Melmoth, I award you the Socratic Barnstar. Contributions like yours are a pleasure to read. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, this is a very lovely surprise! I am flattered that you took pleasure in my words, and I hope that you found them to be meaningful and to have the ring of truth. Great save on Book of Kells, by the way. The diverse knowledge and skill of our contributors is what keeps me coming back to Wikipedia every day. This page is a perfect example. Thanks for the barnstar. Risker (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rating William Melmoth

Article ratings are based on the quality scale of a WikiProject. They are intended as a comparative measure of the standard of an article with other articles in a group. WikiProjects and their assessment department (if they have one) cannot emphasize enough - grades are not (intended as) a measure of an editor's ability. They very rarely ever reflect the time, effort and work put into an article.

Every constructive contribution is valued - if an article is on Wikipedia, and has not been deleted, then it is considered an achievement. Grades can (and have on many occasions) motivated editors to work harder and make more improvements to meet certain expectations - eg; the article needs to be well written, it needs to have an image, it needs to be sourced etc.

Some editors get too emotionally involved and think that their efforts are enough after a certain point (for whatever reason) - which is fine. That is their own decision or self-expectation.

However, it does not change the fact that a reader who does not know anything about the subject, when reading an article will have a lot of questions (when a reader looks something up in an encyclopedia, they want to be able to rely on the article without having to spend hours researching like the editor who wrote the article). Questions can include the following. Is the content clear? Is it understandable? Is it reliable information or is this plucked out of the air? Is it an extremist/minority view or the significant viewpoint? Is it violating someone else's copyright? Is there enough information? (In the case of a biography, what about this person's childhood? How was it? Was there anything significant in it that contributed to them being notable as a...[whatever they are]) Why are they notable or important? Does it have images where appropriate? (Readers want to be able to see what they look like, without having to look for one themselves. Sometimes they want a certain bit of info and if it's very basic, it's easier to locate in an infobox than going through the text of an article.)

The assessments, I think, serve to categorise how well these expectations have been met. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Comment on my talk page

My reply here, in the event you don't have my talk page watchlisted. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Request

Could you please move the content of In The Ayer to the existing In the Ayer page, per the proper use of caps in the title? I attempted to move it, but could not. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you actually succeeded in moving it without my help, which is probably just as well since I haven't really played around too much with the move button even as an editor. Count yourself as having a successful evening! Risker (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I figured out a way around it. I nom'd the original article for CSD to make way for a page move and was able to get an admin to agree to it. Then, I moved the content to that CSD'd title. A bit of a back-asswards to do it, but it worked :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Regarding eHarmony, I am aware of the media-reported criticism eHarmony has had from some who want them to include gays and lesbians in their listings. Based on these reports, and the past vandalism history of the user, I thought that it was vandalism. I sincerely apologize if I mistakenly labeled edits on eHarmony as "vandalism." Willking1979 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

re Plymothians

Them be they furrinaaaarz! Thems live other siiiide arve Taaaymaaaar! Ems Caaarnish live in they West, me beauty - west of they Fal, if best!

Re Lightning Bolts; easily accessible for anyone wearing Raylon shirts in a house with nylon weave carpets (although the computers tend to go fizz and pop). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Furrinaaaarz?? I just checked Google maps to ensure I'd not become geographically dense. The distance between Falmouth and Plymouth is 67 miles...which is pretty well an average daily commute in this neck of the woods. Of course, having made use of your inter-city transportation system, I can understand why you might feel that way... Risker (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but...

...would you mind looking at this? You seemed to be volunteering for a peer review, and suggested listing it. However, whenever I list anything I end up breaking all of the pages involved. So I was wondering if there was any need to be formal, and just do it, to avoid breakage. Maury (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I'd be pleased to look at the article and provide you with an informal peer review; however, if you're planning to move the article through to GA or FA, it would benefit from having several more eyes on it than just mine. I'm going to do some work on another article first because it's on FAC right now, but will read your article late this evening or early tomorrow, if that is okay. If you would like, I'd be happy to help you through the steps of putting the article onto the peer review page. Risker (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be of bother

But can you skip to my request at WP:AIV? This user is irking me.....Dusti^{complain/compliment} 06:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, and deleted the pages as well. Risker (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Main page

Unfortunately it's not Call of Duty 4, another article I brought to FA, which I actually think would get even more hits! :D Gary King (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A gift for you

(Some) admins deserve chocolate, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmm.....chocolate.......
Thanks, Sandy!
Risker (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

my report at AIV

Here I reported a possible case of vandalism. Here you commented stating it was not vandalism. How are this and this not vandalism?--Rockfang (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockfang. If you, an experienced Wikipedian, had blanked talk page comments it would have been vandalism. It's a lot harder to say the same thing about someone who's been editing for all of 90 minutes and has received no direct communication, or even a templated message, on his talk page. Quite simply, new editors don't know the rules and need to be shown what they are; they make newbie mistakes that frustrate experienced editors and hit our "third rails" with their stumbling around. Assuming good faith, particularly in situations like this, can turn a potentially troublesome new editor into a good contributor; now, we have a situation where someone is more likely to go back to his community and say "Yeah, sure...anyone can edit as long as you agree with them." I am sure that it is not your intent to discourage new editors from participating. Perhaps you might consider explaining your concerns about this editor's edits on his talk page (since that is the only place he is going right now, another admin blocked him, and that was certainly within the range of possible remedies) so that if and when this editor returns, he will have a better idea of what caused your concern.

In fairness, this editor's chosen username causes me some concern, and it would not surprise me if he does turn out to have a single editing focus, but that can't be assumed by edits that take place over the first few hours of an account; almost all of us started off working on a single article or subject before we expanded our horizons. Best, Risker (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, Srilankangovtwatchdog's conduct so far is more that of an edit warrior or disruptive editor than a vandal. That is, I think his ultimate aim is to rewrite articles so they fit his opinions, instead of just wanting to cause damage. In this context, I think it's preferable to give editing advice such as {{uw-npov3}}, instead of vandalism warnings such as {{uw-vand3}}. I blocked for edit warring, but it could easily have been for disruptive editing. I think given that he was clearly being disruptive, a 12 hour block is reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying. Thanks Risker for indirectly pointing me to {{Welcomenpov}}. Thanks Phil for pointing out {{uw-npov3}}. I didn't know either of those templates existed. Much appreciated.--Rockfang (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil; I appreciate your taking the time to help me understand your thinking. It seems we were both of the same general impression on the NPOV issue, and definitely this editor was quite the bull in the china shop on that article. Perhaps my response is a bit on the Pollyana side; I suppose we will see if and when this editor returns. Risker (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: StewieGriffin! Talk

Why did you waste your time doing that? I simply stated a fact, not trying to get a report on how the economy works. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Stewie, I am very disappointed in you; this is a bit rude, don't you think? Particularly when you've just chided Giggy and told him you felt insulted.

When I went to respond to your AIV report, I saw the exchange of comments there, and noted that another administrator had already addressed the issue. Your comment about the IP being a television network led me to take a moment to provide you with some information I thought you would find interesting as well as useful for your anti-vandalism patrolling. Like many other longer-term editors, I've been watching you and noting your enthusiasm and eagerness, and hoping that you would find the right places to channel these, because you've had a few stumbles along the way. If I may suggest, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to actually follow some of the advice you've been given, particularly about doing actual edits, and cut back on some of the maintenance tasks you've been doing; it seems they are causing you quite a bit of frustration, to the point where you're feeling stressed and snapping at friendly hands. Just click that "random article" button and see what article you can improve, even if it's just fixing a typo, or adding a category, or finding an external link. Do that for a couple of hours, and Wikipedia will feel like an entirely different place. Risker (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Alansohn

May I ask what the reason was for protecting User talk:Alansohn? Does it harm anyone if he creates school articles while he is blocked? It might seem wrong, and maybe you are trying to enforce a break, but is it really going to help if it upsets him? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been bothered with an e-mail yet, so it obviously doesn't upset him enough. If you don't think it's necessary, remove it. I just was under the impression that the user talk page is only editable during blocks in order for the blocked party to contest his/her block (hence why you can't edit other pages in your userspace that are equally, and perhaps more, trivial). -- tariqabjotu 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm...no. That has never been the case. The practice has been that user pages are protected when the "unblock" template is being abused, or the edits are inflammatory or violate policies like WP:NPA or WP:HARASS. It is the exception rather than the rule. Risker (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Excuse me for butting in, sorry...I'll get my coat

Yes, for the record, you were butting in. Condescending "Um... no" included. -- tariqabjotu 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PROTECT: "Administrators may fully protect the user talk page of a blocked user if the page is being used for continued inappropriate editing. This includes repeated abuse of the {{unblock}} template, or continued uncivil or offensive remarks. The protection should be timed so as not to exceed the length of the block. If the block is of indefinite duration, then the protection may be likewise."

Exactly what was inappropriate, uncivil, or offensive with what User:Alansohn was writing on his talk page? Many times I have seen admins suggest to blocked users that they do this very thing - write an article, reference it, etc. - as an indication of good faith in editing. I don't see him writing anything on that page that meets the criteria for page protection. Sorry that you see "Umm...no" as condescending, I will endeavour not to use that expression in communication with you in the future. Where I come from, it's an expression of surprise. Risker (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. --Risker (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dantesjuice

If you are working with this user on their draft article (now sandboxed), then I am inclined to close the MFD as a procedural. Is that OK with you? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please do - poor guy, what a greeting. I have left a rather sharp message on User:StewieGriffin!'s talk page for being so terribly bite-y. Risker (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Michael Gomez edits

Well, actually that was a drive-by edit, as I wasn't planning on editing any other parts of the article. I should really be paying attention to other stuff I am in the progress of! :) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which article was that?

Which article was that? Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Check your email. Risker (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi Risker, thanks for responding to my request to stop the deletion of my page... Could you tell me how I remove the outlined in orange boxes with instruction from the front of my page.. I would appreciate the help. Thank you (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008

HI Risker, could you give me some pointers on how to edit my page, cause another member keeps tagging it......? Thank you I like your energy and kindness. Sincerely Sloan Bella June 12th 8.58 am..... (talk) (responded on Sloanbella's talk page)

John Birch Society POV editor

The same editor has apparently edited while not logged in and has been given warnings -- User talk:71.72.254.208 - I don't think the not logging in is deliberate as he seems to be signing his publiusohio username "publiusohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.254.208 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)" He is still changing the article to the JBS POV - [1] - I'm not sure what is best to do now except keep reverting him but I worry about 3RR getting me blocked! --Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are probably right about the IP, but at this point it appears he has quieted down a bit. I have posted a response to his comment on the talk page of the article, and copied it to his own talk page. Hopefully, he will get the hint. If you are a regular editor to the article, you might wish to deconstruct his edit a bit and identify what kind of reference support would be required, or identify which policies it violates (using exact quotes and the full name of the policy, alphabet soup is very confusing to new editors). I'll keep an eye. Thanks. Risker (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was Richie Ramone lawsuit information and reference removed?

(replying on Talk:Richie Ramone where this same message was left.)

First edit?

Hello Risker, its me Dantesjuice =)

just wanted to say thanks again for the tips and sticking up for me as a new user, it means alot. eh, still seems like they dont want me to publish that info about my band from what user Friday was saying. i have a friend thats a journalist though, maybe i'll have him do some interviews or something, then maybe they'll let me post it.

Anyway, my real question is that i want to add some content to a page, the brown noise page. I know a little bit about this topic and have found outside web sources that talk about the myths associated with it...mainly regarding it being used by our government in the 60's and 70's for military use and or mental studies.

can i add this content? and if so, how do i site my web source?--Dantesjuice (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

also, id like to help with the meme site. it mentions removing excess external links. what exactly does that mean and what do i do? --Dantesjuice (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dantesjuice! No worries about the band thing, it was serendipitous that I caught it, and I'm glad that things have worked out in such a way that you're still interested in editing here.

• The article about the band - two key things need to be fleshed out. First, there needs to be some evidence of interest by third party media; this could be interviews or reviews in magazines or newspapers, and it should be multiple references. The second is evidence that the band is noticed outside of its local region: supporting another band in a national or multi-state tour, release of recordings by a major label (one that already has a Wikipedia article), winner of a national contest, things along that line. It may take a while for the band to meet those notability requirements; for now, I think the article is okay in your userspace and you can add to it there as additional information becomes available. (Of course, if you stop editing Wikipedia, we tend to delete userspace pages after a while.)
• Brown noise - very interesting. This article is currently pretty academic, and if you are going to add to it, I would suggest ensuring that your reference sources are very, very good; academic studies or mainstream media at least. If the references are from websites, make sure that the website has a reputation for fact-checking and it's clear who owns it. There's a bit of prickliness about both "conspiracy theory" and "debunking" types of websites used as references because they're often opinion and not fact. The applicable policies are Verifiability and Reliable sources. If you're not sure whether a reference source you're considering will meet standards, you can get other opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard.
• Meme - oh dear, that is an article sadly in need of help. Academic/mainstream media sources in particular would help bring this article up to standard. I don't see any one particular editor or group of editors who has been working on the article, so you may find yourself a bit on your own in developing and improving the article. It's probably a good idea to leave messages on the talk page so people know what you're doing. I see there is some discussion of merging Meme to Memetics, so you might want to take a look at that article too.

Hope you find all of this helpful, and I'm really happy that you've decided to stick around. I'm going to be quite busy in RL this week so may not be able to respond very promptly if you leave a message, but sometimes one of my gentle readers will follow up too. Risker (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for a copy edit

Metal Gear Solid, I ask because I am trying to get this back to FA status and the prose is the main problem at the moment. And you talk on you page about mainly being a copy editor. Thanks for any help. Buc (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Butting in, but if you haven't already, try Giggy for this; he's a very good copyeditor and an expert in videogame history. – iridescent 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm a terrible copyeditor - why do you think Risker is so backlogged! :) (Will try and take a look.) giggy _(:O) 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent, that's an excellent suggestion. I'll confess complete ignorance of video games, and I think Giggy would be a much better bet, not only because of his knowledge, but because I'm kind of backlogged as it is. Once he's given it a good working over, I can follow behind with a light copy edit for grammar and English usage if you like. Risker (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain WP:OWN to me

Further information: Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks § Please explain WP:OWN to me

I'm innocent of all charges!!!!!

I demand a new lawyer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a lawyer you need, it's a dietitian! Risker (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I don't really mean this post to be confrontational, but the attitude that you display towards Giano [2] differs markedly from that that you previously displayed towards me [3]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? As far as I'm concerned, you can be snippy on your talk page too, it won't bother me in the least. It isn't on my watchlist, so I won't notice. Risker (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In the way of criticising me for 3RR - of vandalism, actually - and yet making excuses when another editor does it. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I condone anyone breaking 3RR? If you look closely at my postings from yesterday, you will see that I explicitly expressed that I would not contest a block related to disruptive editing. I contested the validity of a block for *outing*. Risker (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a sockpuppet tag to a talk page of a checkuser proven sockpuppeteers isn't vandalism Bonkers, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism before falsly accusing any editors of it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Having gone through Risker's posts yesterday, and re-read WP:VANDAL, I can't find either of the claims that you two make. I can't see that much is being gained here. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gomez

Bit busy to be honest, and the style of prose I'm used to writing doesn't really lend itself to sporting articles too well sorry. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You

Mr Risker you must be so important on Wikipedia and all. I hope one day I can grow up to be like you and create lies and then heap praise on myself for doing fuck all and be able to say things like, "but I've received good reviews on my work enhancing the prose and research of others". But then that's only if my plan for having a life goes awry and I feel if I talk to you for too long it will.

By the way seeing as how you "have mild deletionist tendencies, particularly when it comes to biographical articles of people known mainly for one event.", maybe you should meet my friend John Middendorf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.175.169 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd statement. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very odd. Nonetheless, the IP has a point about John Middendorf; it's a crummy article and it's clearly written with a viewpoint toward sneaky promotion of Middendorf's company. I've prodded it (it doesn't quite meet CSD criteria), and I expect it will be gone soon. Now all the IP has to do is figure out I'm not a "Mr" and that it's entirely unlikely that he or she will grow up to be like me, and we'll be all set. Risker (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I and Giano

I agree that the problem is the appearant gaming of the system by a user with a history of abusive sockpuppetry. Hopefully, we can get others to see that and get away from giano's minor disruption. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano (the persona) is a larger than life character, and as such he draws a disproportionate amount of attention. It's a double-edged sword, though, because it is so easy to be distracted by Giano the persona and overlook the issue that awakened him from slumber. Giano the editor is a completely different fellow. Risker (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please include the URL on G12's

I don't know if it was an omission or not (likely the case that you just forgot), but when you tagged 10 Ka Dum for speedy deletion under G12 as Risker checklist, you didn't include a URL with the speedy tag. Having that URL right there is very handy when I go in to speedy copyvios. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, of course. It was the official website, the link was in the article, and it didn't dawn on me that you'd need it. Thanks for reminding me, I'll keep it in mind for the future. Risker (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:D.M.N.

I've just noticed that you deleted my user talkpage, and then restored it with the edit summary "Remove personal attack". [4] If you don't mind me asking, who made the personal attack? (If you don't wish to disclose who it was respond via e-mail) Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Hey Risker, thanks for your note. I wasn't sure what to do so I consulted with the universe's most knowledgeable 'crat, User:WJBscribe. He advised that requests like this don't fall under policy, merely 'crat discretion and as such, I've fulfilled the rename request, to User:Renamed user 20. Thanks for letting me know about the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

hi you revert my recent revision

I your life so pathetic that you must constantly crush the dreams of a child owning a single article on wikipedia. I was simply yearning for this on revision and then you tear me down. How sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.205.76 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 July 2008

so sad, "Manning protects against the poaching of dolphins, and can run faster than an eagle". Eagles can run? It's obvious that we should let random children on the internet own articles and insert their fantasies, instead of trying to make a serious encyclopedia. :P --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I responded on the IP's talk page as well, offering suggestions on other places where this children's story would be more appropriate. Matthew Manning the psychic healer is just on the edge of notability himself (I've been trying to gather enough info to build a better article but it's a tough slog since I live in the wrong country to do this easily), but he is a real person whose work has been documented in reliable sources. Risker (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

hey

Now do you hey paid for this job or is it voluntary because it is simply pathetic that you respond to the win of every child editor of this site, and constantly reverting a page that is clearly already lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.205.76 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid - "win of every child editor"? In any case, as I have made clear on your talk page, the article about the notable psychic stays and your story about a child doesn't. You are welcome to add content referenced to reliable sources to articles. What you have been adding to date doesn't meet that standard. I won't be replying further, sorry. Risker (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sloan Bella

Hi,

A few days ago you protected Sloan Bella because of edit warring between User:Margaret wendt on the one hand and User:Brilliant Pebble and myself on the other. The protection expired today and I am afraid to say that things don't seem to have improved: already 18 edits by User:Margaret wendt in the last 20 min that are re-establishing the article in its rather awful original state. I am, frankly, getting tired or reverting these edits. I strongly suspect (from the pattern of editing, and from making the same typos, such as "referance") that User:Margaret wendt is actually User:Sloanbella. The same goes for User:Kristysixt and an anonymous IP (76.169.216.222). I think that the version that User:Brilliant Pebble arrived at is neutral and factual. Any advice on how to handle this situation is welcome...

Thanks, --Crusio (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Crusio, I can certainly understand your frustration, and I suspect you may be right about the multiple usernames. I'm not in a position do make a report at WP:RFCU for several hours, but I think it may be called for at this point; highlighting the editing commonalities will help the CU/SSP investigator to make a decision. Once User:Margaret wendt appears to have stopped editing, it would probably be worthwhile to go through the article and put {{fact}} tags in applicable places, and that other tag (which I have forgotten at the moment) that questions citations may be needed too. As well, I think an AFD may be called for to see what the community's opinion is about the notability of this person. (I don't want to impose my own opinion, as I've edited the article and tried to counsel Sloanbella at various times.) If you don't have a chance to do these things within the next 8-10 hours or so, I'll look into doing something about it then. Thanks for keeping me current. Risker (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Less admins

Ah, but see, one of the punchlines of my brilliant little essay was going to be that we shouldn't treat admins like commodities. It would be fewer if we focused on promoting quality individuals, but since the drive is purely for raw masses of quantity less fits the bill. --JayHenry (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinda like "tastes great, less filling?" Risker (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yep! And just like light beer, it doesn't actually taste good either. --JayHenry (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Put to bed

I've range blocked the vandal - interestingly enough, it looks like he's been at it for quite a few hours because I range blocked the vandal yesterday aswell.[5] Ryan Postlethwaite 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh how very very interesting. Thanks to all of you who've helped tidy the mess up. ;-) Risker (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OmbCom policy

Risker, please direct all discussions to the talk page of the disputed policy. Thanks! Cheers! Bstone (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, Risker, please keep all discussion about WP:OmbCom on the project discussion page. Thanks so much! Bstone (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ombudsmen Committee. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bstone (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Respect

Well, me and you have had our differences, but I was wondering if we could put those behind us now? We seem to be agreeing on quite a few things recently so maybe we've started to think along the same lines! I've actually developed a lot of respect for you and I believe that will only continue to grow. The concerns I had during your RfA certainly haven't come to light - you've been doing a bloody good job so I can only apologise for opposing you - if it was now, you might even manage a strong support ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A Nice Cup of Tea...

Ryan, what a sweet message! There is no need at all to apologise for opposing me; to be honest, I sort of expected it, and I can understand where you were coming from at the time. We sometimes have very different methods of getting to where we think things need to go. It's good, though, that we're heading toward the same objectives more often, and that the long view is prevailing. There will still be things we don't agree on, but that's okay, too. I'm glad that my actions have defused your concerns; I'm still unlikely to be doing many really bold things (I'm not a naturally bold person), so you're unlikely to have to worry about my climbing the Reichstag over anything. Milk and sugar? Risker (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Ryan's page

I assure the fair damsel that I was not disparaging her gender, merely my disinterest in women's history. There are plenty of interesting women in regular history after all. Usually women who are going around killing people though......disturbing. Narson (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, we're very good at that. And much better at cleaning up the mess afterward. ;-) Risker (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Well, you've got me confused ;). Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to compliment you on having taken leadership with an Arbcom-related page that had not yet been graced with the presence of a certain person who changes usernames the way others change television channels...but then I looked further up on the thread on your talk page, and there he was! Honest to Pete, there is no escape. Risker (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MWAHAHAHA!!!! --Jenny 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eeek! ermm...I mean, Oh hello, Tony. :-) Risker (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have had Mackensen's talk page watchlisted from when I was chatting with him. --Jenny 04:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Review help for Anekantavada

I can see that you are a copy editor. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) have made a lot of improvements, but I still need more assistance which would be appreciated. Anekantavada is the most important principle of Jain philosophy and I hope it will be the first article on Jainism to qualify as FA. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, and I will copy this to your talk page so that you don't miss it. I note, on looking at the article today, that concerns have been expressed by User:Redtigerxyz about some of the reference sourcing. I've just had a very challenging experience copy editing an article that had referencing issues; to address those issues required rewriting a good chunk of the text. Based on that experience, I'm hesitant to carry out an in-depth copy edit until all of the referencing issues have been addressed to everyone's satisfaction.

I suggest you contact User:Redtigerxyz to find out what exactly the concern is about the use of citations, resolve that issue, and then I will be pleased to help out. The citation issue has to be addressed before the article goes to FAC regardless. Incidentally, I think the article looks very good already, and should not have a lot of copy edit issues. Risker (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Copy edit requests for Simpsons articles

Okay, thanks a lot. I'm going to Thunder Bay for 3 weeks, and will be back July 20ish (I'm actually not sure when). The Principal and the Pauper is of the most concern, it needs to be ready for an FAC by the end of August, or else we could lose our season 9 FT. Sideshow Bob also is a potential FAC in the near future. Krusty the Clown is still a ways off, so you can skip it if you like. Thanks again, and I'll make sure there are some editors that can help you out with any questions/concerns that you have. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, there is one more you could look at: The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. If you could do that instead of Krusty the Clown, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will add it to the list now and put it in the #3 position. Risker (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(talk | stalk)

(This section was moved to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks and then moved back.)

PS - Damien, would you reconsider the use of the word "stalk" in your signature line? There are some editors here who have had real-life experience with being stalked as a result of their work here at Wikipedia, and some of them find it offensive to see that word used in a casual or joking manner. It's just a suggestion. Risker (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Do you plan to ask other users who use (talk | stalk) signatures? Google "talk stalk" site:en.wikipedia.org turned up these:

• Bdve (in Talk:John Cena)
• Hrafn (in User talk:Hrafn)
• Radioactive afikomen (in User talk:Shane Roach) s/stalk/watch/ on July 1

Two other users (SheffieldSteel and RienPost) once used (talk | stalk) sigs; both have since redesigned their sig to leave out contribs entirely. --Damian Yerrick (beantalk | beanstalk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I never realised there were that many. I'm not sure I've met up with many of those names before. Thanks for being considerate, and for suggesting I look further afield; I'll certainly look into it. Risker (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Damien, thanks for fixing the level after I had archived some stuff last night. I've just left messages on the user talk pages of the three editors who currently use "stalk" as part of their signature, asking them to reconsider the use of the term. There is, of course, no obligation for anyone to do so; it's just one of those small things that people can do to prevent unexpected distress to fellow editors. I know of an editor who was blocked, in part, because he had used the "stalk" word in a joking manner with another editor who had been stalked (although the blocked editor hadn't been aware of the situation), and it would be unfortunate for anyone else to wind up in a similar situation. Risker (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II

User:Karanacs suggested I ask you for a copyedit and review of the article. Your help will be appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I've taken a look at the article and the FAC to date. I will be honest with you, I am currently steering a first-time FAC nominator through the process, and that is my #1 priority edit-wise right now; if all goes well, a decision will be made on the article before the end of the week. I can try to work on this article over the weekend; in the interim, I urge you to try to address as many of the review comments as possible, in particular splitting off list-like sections and adding the information suggested. I am not in a position to verify content against many of the reference sources; that means you'll have to keep watch for any copy edits that alter the content to the point that it no longer reflects the references. It's a fairly long article, so I will put comments and questions on the talk page for you to respond to (for short ones, I just put it on the FAC page). I usually start out with a printed copy of the article (reading on paper uses a different part of the brain than reading a screen), so don't worry too much if it looks like I'm not doing anything. I use copy editing banners and edit sectionally, so if I am working in one area you can be working in another (you can use banners too).

If you want to try to find another copy editor who can start working on the article sooner, I will understand completely; just let me know please. Risker (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Request

If it's no bother, may you copyedit Backlash (2003)?--SRX^--LatinoHeat 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi SRX - I'm not sure I will be able to copy edit it within the next week, which might adversely affect your GAC; right now I'm working on two FACs, one of which I am for all intents and purposes the co-nom. Best I can offer is starting around July 5th; if you can find someone else who can work on it in the interim, I urge you to do so. Sorry! Risker (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My talk

Re your complaint of lack-of-response and removal of your comment. Sorry. Multiple edit comments. Leave the page alone for a moment and I'll fix it up William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing vandalism on my talk page. Much appreciated. Boston2austin (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

edits on Richie Ramone

Please check the additions here --Enric Naval (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your help with Woodstock Film Festival

As a writing admin, would you mind helping me out with the above article? I'm not sure how to get good help in putting together a great article. Per Googlenews, it seems there's a lot of material to be had about the festival. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if you think there's any potential to work it up to GA/FA status? Also, I don't know how to nominate any potential interesting facts from it for that DYK thing, if you could help me with that as well. Thanks in advance! S. Dean Jameson 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi SDJ (hope you don't mind the abbreviation) - This is definitely an article with possibilities; how lucky you are to have stumbled on a completely clean field to work with. The first thing you need to do is read this essay on how to develop a featured article and also read any GA or FA articles that relate to similar events - music festivals (a couple of FAs), film festivals (Reel Affirmations), and so on. Look at the articles listed in Category:Film festivals to get a feel for what other articles of the genre are like; it will give you some ideas on what kinds of topics can or should be covered. Check Google books to see if there have been any books written specifically about this festival, or in which this festival receives extensive discussion. Stick with the most reliable sources available, and use inline citing religiously. Go to the WP:FAC page and just watch a couple of articles as they go through the review process - it will give you a sense of what reviewers are looking for, options for editors to improve the article, and (the best part, in my opinion) what it means to collaborate with specialists. The GA review process is much looser and more idiosyncratic, in that the review is usually by one or two people and is a lot more difficult to follow. You may need to develop a child article or two - I can envision a List of Woodstock Film Festival award winners, which will help with the framework of the parent article and prevent it from becoming too large and unwieldy. Once you think you have a relatively comprehensive article (as a rough guess, it should be about 8 to 10 times as long), pop by and I will be happy to give it an informal review; in fact, I've watchlisted it now and may leave some suggestions from time to time on the talk page. You might want to develop some associations with other editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films (look for ones who've written GAs and FAs) as you progress, too. There is some important work to be done on the issue of notability here (is it a top FF? an international one? focusing on only indie film or does it include advance screenings for major studio films?).

Well...that was longwinded and probably more than you expected to hear all in one shot. One thing I would suggest you do tonight or tomorrow is to hook up with someone who does DYKs and figure out how to write one for this article. (I've never done one, but maybe User:TenPoundHammer or User:Milk's Favorite Cookie can help you, they are both experienced.) There are very strict rules and the nomination must be made within the first 5 days of the article's life so time is of the essence. Okay, I am stopping now. Really.  :-) Good luck! Risker (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's a lot to take in (and I'm certain that I'll have to refer back to this thread frequently), but I think I'll start with DYK and go from there. I really enjoy putting together the skeleton of a solid article, but I don't know if I have the stomach to do all that review process thing. I may compile a list of good sources and turn them over to a member of that WikiProject you mentioned. Thanks again for all your help! S. Dean Jameson 03:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

SDJ, this is an ideal article to take all the way. You don't have to rush, make it a 3- or 6-month project. Maybe target it for FA as your Christmas gift to yourself. You can draft up information in your userspace to add in, keep your list of references there, and so on. I can see that you have the writing ability to produce a top-drawer article here; your grammar, spelling, and vocabulary are very good, and you picked up the September 11 information and recognised its importance immediately, which tells me you have a good eye for identifying salient information and finding a way to include it. Give it a shot, really! Risker (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I may do it, but it's just a lot to take in right at the jump. There's also a ton of WP:Requested articles to sift through that I don't want to neglect either. There's such a huge backlog there that I know I won't ever get through them all, but I do like to sift through them. I've done several of them so far (some are simple redirects), and it's one of my favorite things to do on the project. I just don't want to get so caught up in the WFF article that I neglect what I enjoy most. S. Dean Jameson 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A man after my own heart. I have a bit of a reputation for getting involved in meta issues; as a reward to myself, I sit down and copy edit something completely unrelated (as you can see from my user page, it can be anything from the history of literature written in an Indian language, to a boxer, to an iconic Russian film, to a hockey article....) I still like to click on "random article" and see where it takes me, and I have an alternate account that has a watchlist of little-known and seldom-read non-BLP articles that wanders around doing just that. It's really important to keep in touch with what brought you here in the first place. Risker (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are "meta issues" like the things at ANI and the various WP-talkpages? If so, I stepped in a pile of it while trying to get involved on the WP-space side of things earlier today and yesterday. As I told Iridescent, I think I'll just lurk about at WT:RFA and WP:ANI for awhile now. My reform suggestion at WT:RFA went over like a lead balloon. I learned my lesson, that's for sure. S. Dean Jameson 04:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've got it. Just a suggestion - don't watch ANI, it is very easy to become jaded reading that page, and even quite a few admins stay away from it. WP:VPP is a more interesting place to go, it's more laid back and the range of discussion topics is much wider; there are always folks there who are willing to answer a question, either right there or on their talk pages. My baptism of fire into meta affairs turned out to be a lot more than I expected - a draft policy that wound up being discussed at WP:RFAR a couple of times, involved many senior editors, sockpuppets, the overlay of content issues on behavioural norms, some WP:IAR and a policy that remained in a disputed state for about 7 months. Be careful where you step. Risker (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Sheesh! I mean, seven months?!? What policy was it, if you don't mind me asking? S. Dean Jameson 05:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Trust me, it would take me three days to explain all the twists and turns of this one. The draft policy was Wikipedia:Attack sites[6] and it got merged into WP:NPA, where the discussion continued. Risker (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good GOD! Now that was a mess, my friend! However did you fall into that debate?!? (Hope you don't mind I fixed the redlink in your last.)S. Dean Jameson 05:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody asked me to look at a page... Risker (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) off to bed now, hoping I don't have nightmares about this all over again

Sorry to open old wounds. I hope I didn't adversely affect your night's sleep... :( S. Dean Jameson 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On a different note

I've been venturing into AfD, and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this AfD and closing it? It's becoming a bit of a platform for one user, and it has passed it's expiration date. S. Dean Jameson 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no I won't close it. It's a complex close to start with, given the new information, and secondly I've not closed any AfDs since my successful RfA; one of the things I promised then was taking things slowly, especially when it relates to BLP nominations. In fact, I am going to watchlist this one so I can see what a more experienced admin does with it. If it hasn't been closed in 24 hours, I'll post something on WP:AN. Thanks for the heads up. Risker (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone named "brenneman" just closed it as "delete." I wasn't aware that you don't work AfDs. I didn't mean to put you in a bad position or anything. S. Dean Jameson 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh excellent - thanks, brenneman! (I have a feeling he saw this conversation. Just you wait, someday you may have talk page watchers too!) It's not so much that I *won't* do them, it's just an area where I don't make many contributions at this time so I need to spend some time observing before jumping in the deep end. I'm still cutting my teeth on CSDs and PRODs :-) Risker (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine after the issues I got involved in earlier today, I may have a couple "watchers" of my own. Hopefully I'll aquit myself better the next time I venture into WT:RFA. As I said, my suggestion was not well-received. S. Dean Jameson 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker: I'd forgotten that this was where I'd seen this! Which makes the following question easier, I don't have to give you context.

Can you have a look over how I've done, and in particular my last comment. I sometime struggle to speak human, and would like a clarity check. Also, It has been a while since I used the tools, and you're still fresh meat, relatively speaking: Am I operating within the current acceptable zone? I'm happy to be a couple of standard deviations out, but just want to know.

Of coure, in the event that you tell me I'm fringe, my solution will be to attempt to move the mean to me, but still...

brenneman 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aaron, I for one think you did (and are doing) fine. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions and solutions you are coming to, but your reasoning is pretty sound, and good-faith editors can disagree on such matters while still admiring the manner in which we come to our separate conclusions. One area where I disagree with you a bit is the faith you seem to be placing in Utahredrocks. That user posted some flat-out screeds in the first go at this thing, and seems to have no compunction calling other editors "deletionists" for simply arguing for deletion of his article. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road at AfD, so I find that more than a bit offensive (from him, not you). Other than your apparent support for him, I have no issue at all with the way you've been guiding the discussion a bit at the AfD. Keep up the good work! S. Dean Jameson 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aaron, still reading, but I just had to stop and say "Stop being so binary, you mob" is quite possibly the best opinion I've ever read in an AfD discussion. Incidentally, did you ever read my RfA? My nominator introduced me as "not your typical admin candidate". Consider that a warning. More to follow. Risker (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• And finished reading. I agree with everything you say there. Your original close was correct and based on the consensus, I believe, and would have been endorsed at DRV. Permitting the article to go through AfD a second time, while content is being added, seems an entirely reasonable option over speedy delete or forcing the editor into userspace, where the development of a BLP article would go unscrutinised. (WP:BLP is a very hot topic, as you may have gathered.) There is useful information in the article, and it should go somewhere - most likely a Family of Barack Obama article. The family as a whole is probably notable, particularly because of its diversity. In other words, I think you're doing fine. Risker (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a page that was on my watchlist after the ANI deal. I noticed that BC had said Neil "disgusted" him/her, which I felt was a rather gross thing to say, and seemed to be a pretty clear violation of WP:CIV. You're definitely right, though, and I can see how it would be perceived poorly. S. Dean Jameson 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched, just for the record. No need to buy others' troubles. Thanks again.S. Dean Jameson 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis Petre

I reverted myself, I didn’t realise adding a simple tag would get this reaction, I figured placing inline citations in the article today would stop it from failing FAR. I cannot put inline tags in the article as the references are completely obscure (i.e. Wynn-Williams, D. B. (1982). The basilicas of F. W. Petre. MA thesis, University of Canterbury, NZ Historic Places magazine, June 1984, p10-11. March 1995, p33-34, New Zealand Tablet), I don’t think anyone but the primary author is going to be able to inline cite this article. It looks like you don't like cleanup tags and I tend to agree with your thoughts as I don't particularly like them either as they tend to make a article look a bit rough. On the other hand if the article is fixed up then they can easily be removed when the work is done. The point that there are "tens of thousands of articles that have absolutely *no* references" does not alter the fact that this article has no inline cites. So the helpful advice of an admin is to: go and tag all you the articles you want just not this one? :) Additionally perhaps you could follow up this edit/user [7] with a condescending note on their talk page also? Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV"

A page you created, User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it serves only to attack some entity. Please do not continue to create attack pages, as you will be blocked from editing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. BigHairRef | Talk 04:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because of the inclusion of the word "Wanking" in the subpage title which arose my suspicion somewhat given there was no mention of the wank or mastrbation in the RfA, I didn't disagree with the question which appeared perfectly reasonable but it looked like someone may have been making an allegation about Aaron Brenneman in the page title. BigHairRef | Talk 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked at the user page before tagging. Please go and remove the tag now. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

*Head spin* I had intended to come and get your opinion on this page (and the idea of Armchair_quarterbacking in general) when it was a little more mature. But sinse you're looking at it already... o_0
brenneman 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did and saw that the pages 'owner' had neither started the page nor had made any contribution to it and was about to tag the user subpage before you sent your message. Perhaps you should have read the banner I had on the top of my talk page and seen where it said that I make mistakes and so will you rather than making a demand for removal of the tag "now". The page was tagged for a whole 19 minutes, surely the end of the world! BigHairRef | Talk 04:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding peremptory; I've already had one spurious warning in the last few days, and I'm really not a very big fan of automatic tools to start with. The words "please" and "thanks" were both in my comment; I meant that now you should correct your error, because (being the only person who had edited the page) I should not remove the tag. Our colleague brenneman had most certainly started the userpage in question, and I was just starting the talk page associated with it. Hence my shock at getting flagged for making an attack page. I can understand the "wanking" part, though.

Aaron, I'll respond on your talk page, okay? Risker (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, good. But you're one of the troublemakers that I always keep an eye on thier talk anyway...
brenneman 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the trouble maker? I don't know about that...never used the word "wanker" in any of my userpages, that's for sure. Responded on the talk page of the strangely named userpage. We'll talk about your "errant child"' crack at some point in the future when I am somewhat more awake. Have a good night. Risker (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did see the please and thanks, it was just that in the past I've seen many people use please and thanks to otherwise cover for decidedly uncivil comments. Obviously not the case here after your last comment. After I went back to the main subpage (User:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration) I did see that he had created the general subset but having just checked the Request for Arbitration Evidence page I thought there wouldn't be a need to go back through all the subpages other than the one I did check (User:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV). Obviously as a mistake feel free to remove the CSD G10 warning. BigHairRef | Talk 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Soliciting some feedback

I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at a short essay I've started in my userspace regarding my criteria for adminship? I've been participating in RfAs for a short while now, and am a firm believer that adminship isn't that big a deal. In fact, in my initial forays, I supported nearly every candidate with no major concerns in their contributions, simply citing that belief. It was brought to my attention that citing NOBIGDEAL in supporting a candidate wasn't necessarily a good thing, so I attempted to develop some criteria that further codified my reasoning. I'd appreciate any feedback you (or any of your talkpage watchers) might have regarding the suitability of the criteria I developed. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

`

Ping

I have replied to your note. Sorry it took so long. I don't check my mail very often. S. Dean Jameson 01:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't take me as long to reply this time. S. Dean Jameson 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Last ping, I promise. I just had a question in my last note that I wanted you to see before you log off tonight. S. Dean Jameson 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

hey

haha I edit matthew manning page again and with the powerful administrative strenth you have in this dump I'm sure u can fix and more but I'll just keep plugging away and make u all :^( wow ur a lozzer do u live with ur mom and r u a doctor u can't save lives sitting at home waiting and protecting this "precious" site from being vandalized nice job risker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.58.99 (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image problem

The answer to our prayers?

I think that's an adequate replacement for the image in question? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can just imagine certain of my talk page watchers yammering on about the merits of that horse. I have a feeling I might just be missing something here. Risker (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This or more pertinently this (page 5 onwards) tell the full story. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On my you are very naughty! We colonials would never think of such things! Plus, she sort of looks like my mother. Risker (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposal

I've proposed a new policy concept at Wikipedia:Devolution drawing on our old discussions of a block review system. Your comments would be appreciated. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation on ja.wiki

Hello, Risker. The account Risker on JAWP is now made yours by Ks aka 98. All the best, Aotake (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

naked Gary Overstock Patrick Securities

Thanks for your message, and I have protected Securities fraud as requested. Please place any other suggestions on the ANI thread, for transparency, and I will do the same providing there are no howls of protest (presuming my recent actions aren't undone by consensus or otherwise). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It seems that another editor (User:Noroton - interaction requirements: CHERISH) actually took time to read the few posts regarding the content and posted a thoughtful response, to which I responded - and it appears that there is a general agreement between us that recruiting a few untarnished (by exposure) experts may be of some benefit. I believe you were considering approaching a few (and may have already done so). Is it possible that we three, and any other fellow travelers, try and co-ordinate our efforts in cleaning up the articles? I'd like your thoughts before floating the proposal before anyone else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad somebody did some reading. I'm a little overloaded here right now, between an article I'm helping another editor bring up to FA and that blasted real life stuff so can't really jump into much on those articles right now. Fingers crossed someone is able to motivate an editor or two who knows what they're doing. I think the biographies aren't in too bad of shape, compared to the articles on the financial issues; it's a lot harder to game them because they require less technical knowledge. In theory, I will be taking next week off work so can try to clean up my backlogs here, but that could change unexpectedly. Once clear of the office stuff, I'll give everything a good looking-over. I think we're on the same page, i.e., the "editor" issue is essentially resolved so now we can focus on the "content" issue. Risker (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal collection

Did you ever get round to checking if the copyrights of the paintings in the gallery on Royal Collection are OK? Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cameron - I checked many but not all of them; several have been removed from Commons, and some seemed to check out alright. I've been excessively busy IRL and copy editing an article in prep for FAC, but now have a small gap in the calendar so will be going back to that in the next week. Thanks for the reminder. :-) Risker (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this an issue - the paintings all qualify on PD_OLD (or whatever its called now) grounds, surely? Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't all paintings, many are sculptures and other 3-D objects. Quite a few were scanned from tour guides and thus the photos themselves were copyright, and some of them come from places where photographs may be taken only for personal use and commercial use is strictly forbidden. To be honest, I haven't worried as much about the paintings as the rest of the images, and I've even restrained myself from making a fuss about photos taken in the Victoria & Albert and British Museums, which have the no-commercial-use restrictions on any photos taken there, because I recognise the impact it could have. I've left those questions in the hands of a couple of Commons admins who know the rules better than do I. Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he said paintings. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Re: Scotland, the problem is the user Barryob, who constantly reverts anything I ever post. What can be done about it? Astrotrain (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrotrain

I see you've warned him about his edit warring lately. He has twice restored Arthur Chatto which was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Chatto (2nd nomination), and three times restored Samuel Chatto which was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Chatto (2nd nomination). Thanks. BigDunc^Talk 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you check his contributions from today he is still doing nothing but edit warring including against AFD consensus still, can something be done about his disruptive presence please?--Domer48_'fenian' 17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you ask Domer48 and Duncan (who I suspect to be the same person), that they not edit articles on British Royals? I am referencing the Chatto articles and still have further work to do on these. Otherwise they should be placed on probation for disruptive editing on British Royalty articles. Astrotrain (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know CU case BigDunc^Talk 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you weren't following, another admin has blocked Astrotrain for his edit warring, and still another admin extended the block for other reasons. I believe it's up to 7 days now. And clearly Domer48 and BigDunc passed the CU sniff test a while ago, so I'm not going to pursue that. Risker (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

Can I leave any AfD decision to you; I have no opinion at all about whether he's notable, or whether the marriage is genuine, and whether that confers notability... Don't know if you're following the incoherent discussion on my talk page, but I've semiprotected it again as the editwarring was getting silly; if you're going to AfD it it would probably be a good idea to unprotect it so the non-spammer IP can have a stab at rescuing it if it wants to. – iridescent 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Good luck with that, Risker. I just read WP:PORNBIO, and I want nothing to do with that hot mess! You're a much braver soul than I, my friend! S. Dean Jameson 05:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no way of explaining why, but that is the section of the notability policy with which I have the greatest familiarity! This guy sure doesn't meet it. Risker (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, certainly he does not. However, I can see you getting some very angry editors disagreeing with you on that, and I don't think I want any part of crossing the angry porn fans! :) Seriously, I'm not going to comment on that AfD... will not comment on that AfD... ah hell! I'm probably going to comment on that AfD. I just can't help myself! ;) S. Dean Jameson 05:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting here – but be careful throwing WP:PORNBIO around as an AfD argument. That's not a policy, it's a (fairly weak) guideline based on a personal essay by Joe Beaudoin Jr. a couple of years ago. Focus on the lack of reliable sources and apparent unsourceability. – iridescent 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is part of notability guidelines for biographical articles now, having moved up in the world, but my argument was based more on lack of reliable sources and general lack of notability anyway. More fuel to the fire, however. Risker (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

Congratulations on this article's promotion to FA! Cla68 (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you! That means a lot coming from such an accomplished editor. I eagerly await your next one, too. Risker (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

Email – iridescent 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yay! [Goes off humming "Letters...we get letters!] Risker (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Risker, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

fancy reviewing a difficult situation?

If so, would you mind taking a look here (and attendant statement, arb comments etc.) and here.. I'd be really really pleased if a way forward were found which represented appropriate resolution...

Sometimes I think it's worth applying rigour to try and find ways around obstacles, particularly when a 'closed door' solution is also on the cards - your thoughts on my approach are also most welcome here. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)and yeah - if you're paying attention you'll know that this is kinda talk page spam - I just read about Carcharoth's wiki break, and thought a couple of eyes on this one would probably be a good thing.. :-)

the arb case has now been rejected - so I've adjusted the link above... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PM, I had already looked at this situation a while ago, and I do agree with the decision of the arbitrators not to accept this case. Whether or not there is a legal threat involved (and I am not going to speculate one way or the other), the fact is that one user is trying to bring an external dispute onto the English Wikipedia. In my mind, the Dutch Wikipedia is a separate entity and gets to make its own rules, and users there are expected to obey them. The same holds true for the English Wikipedia, and one of our rules is "leave your baggage at the door". If both editors had simply gone about their business editing en.wp, I would have no objections to their both being here (although Guido has run into some difficulties here that cause me some concern). Guido, however, decided to bring up the external dispute, and that's not what we're here for. There have been situations to my knowledge where editors were in dispute externally but co-existed just fine on en.wp (mostly by never being in the same place at the same time, if ever). Guido can make an application directly to Arbcom to have the indefinite block lifted, but he would have to assure them that in no way will he bring this dispute onto this encyclopedia. I'm afraid I'm pretty hardline about that, and it's entirely in keeping with my position that attacking users for participating in other websites (regardless of whether that other website is Wikipedia Review or Dutch Wikipedia) is wrong. Risker (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree on that - could you review the second link - this one - and see if you agree that he's moving in the right direction.... his application to arbcom was just punted back to the community, no? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He is heading in the right direction; however, I would be hesitant to say he is all the way there yet. I've reviewed his edits, his RfC, and I am not liking what I am seeing. Original research, conflict of interest, editorialization in mainspace, edit warring...I am afraid that Guido has established a pattern here already, and this current issue is more along the lines of the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps an email to Arbcom some weeks from now might be more successful, or perhaps an AN or ANI thread asking for a review in about the same timeframe, but really, this behaviour warrants a fairly lengthy block, even if he has now started repenting. He was still disagreeing with what was being stated in the RfC, after all, and I do not believe that he has fully understood the COI issues that have been identified as concerning. Risker (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

<- thanks for taking the time to have a look Risker - I'm sure you can appreciate that when one is blocked it can feel awful for the goal posts to kind of keep shifting - which is sort of what I perceive as happening here. I think we're in a position to continue to make progress though, which is great... am i reading you right that you think a mid-term block (3 weeks?) is in order to allow Guido to reflect on the RfC and COI stuff, and that should he then be prepared to return to editing, it might work out? I'm really really not a fan of the whole 'email arbcom' thing because simply put, they seem to find it hard to reply! I also appreciate that an AN thread is probably necessary at some point, but wanted to try and move things significantly forward prior to taking anything there - otherwise people seem tempted to grab any end of any available stick...

Finally - the only stated reason (that I can figure out!) in the current block is in regards to the legal threat - could you say whether or not we've been able to resolve that issue now? I think it's really important to let people know where they stand - particularly when 'indef.d' - yup, personal experience creeping in here... it was actually a genuinely horrible experience from my perspective - regardless of the rights and wrongs of it - and I think good communications are absolutely vital - so thanks heaps for helping out! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, Privatemusings, it wasn't all that long ago that I threw my hat in the ring and agreed to a nomination for adminship. Before I did that, I spent quite a bit of time reflecting on my personal Wikipedia philosophy. As I make clear right at the top of my user page, the quality of the encyclopedia is my #1 prejudice, and editors whose contributions adversely affect the quality of our articles (by poor sourcing, original research, POV editing, COI editing, etc.) are going to have a hard time getting me on their side. I will educate where appropriate, but given the extent of this problem I usually just edit elsewhere and neither support nor refute most of these editors. My #2 prejudice is on the subject of bringing external disputes on-wiki. You are aware that I was one of the first opponents to the original iteration of BADSITES (ironically, because I anticipated that it would have deleterious effects on content - and pretty well all of my predictions came true), and during that extremely extended debate, I came to the conclusion that one of the best ways to keep this site running well was to simply not permit those external debates to gain traction on-wiki, whether they originate from a political or religious perspective (e.g., CofS, Israel/Palestine), a critical/philosophical perspective (e.g., Wikipedia Review), or a strictly personal perspective (as in this case).

I've never been blocked, so I won't pretend that I can truly empathise with the personal upheaval it causes the blocked user; as it happens, though, I have had the opportunity to work with a few editors who have been blocked, and I recognise that it is very distressing to be on the receiving end. I would not interfere with another administrator or editor trying to work with Guido to come into line with acceptable editing and conduct practices (and it has disappointed me when other admins have interfered in my attempts to do likewise). On the other hand, he's crossed both of my two "lines in the sand", so I'm simply not the best person to be working with him at this point. I trust you will understand. Risker (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

totally respect your position, Risker - your help and willingness to spend some time taking a look is much appreciated, and it's always good to talk wiki-philosophy! Feel free to pipe up in any related discussions (or unrelated!) - your thoughts always seem very helpful to me.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I have practically no tolerance for editors who think it's worth their while scolding other editors, sorry. You are in particular wasting your time where I'm concerned, and doubly so because you just didn't get the joke. Never mind. I'm not offended or anything. Just please keep it to yourself next time. Grace Note (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and btw, I note in your comment above that you've never been blocked. Given that you haven't but have some idea that it's distressing, maybe you should slow down on throwing around threats? Just a thought. imo, that kind of behaviour is about five degrees less civil than calling a bunch of trolls and their facilitators shits. Grace Note (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel you've been threatened. I wasn't threatening you, I was asking you to temper your language, pointing out that someone else had been blocked for similar use of language just the day before. I only block trolls and serial vandals. I'm not really sure your response that I check out the Humour article demonstrates that you understand how this current childishness irritates editors. If you think Wikipedia Review's goal is to make Wikipedia dysfunctional, I can't help wondering which side you are on here. Please get yourself together. Risker (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Royal Collection

Thanks for informing me, I appreciate it. It's a good job we get to keep some of the images. The images on that page are all wonderful. = ) Thanks again, --Cameron* 18:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Berlet (2nd nomination)

Hi Risker, good to hear from you. I've re-opened the nomination. Luckily the phone went, so the AfD tags are still on the page. The last delete was added after the close, but you're right, it should have been open at least a few hours longer. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper templating

Little Risker green admin. Best template here be "Welcome, and thank you for vandalising Wikipedia. Go away." bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

That would be a good one, too. I was actually looking for one that spelled out the words for the acronym "FOAD" but it seems nobody has written one up yet. I really should learn more coding. Thank you for your advice, oh scaly and beautiful one. I have a feeling I am a different shade of green than you. ;-) Risker (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal and the Pauper

Hi! I have The Principal and the Pauper on my watchlist, and I've responded to a couple of your questions on the talk page. I own the DVD with the episode, so after I dig it out, I can answer some more of your questions. Thanks for your help with the article! Zagalejo^^^ 05:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, sorry it's taken me a while to get to it. I just focused on a couple of sections tonight, and will continue on over the course of the next few days. Then, since I will be in a Simpsons mindset, I'll probably cover off the other articles Scorpion0422 has asked me to look at. Thanks for responding to the questions, it gives me some direction in which to help the article along. Risker (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User page

Risker, is this user page OK? User:Ecrone SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not in my books, and not according to WP:UP either. I've modified it and left the editor a message; thanks for letting me know. Are you enjoying your chocolates? :-) Risker (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of in a mint chocolate chip ice cream mode these days :-) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

TPS

Hey, I love the custom TPS userbox you made. can I add it into the template? xeno (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I sort of have a thing against the word "stalker", but I seem to have a fair number of watchers around (Hi everyone!), so I asked Giggy for some assistance in customising it; he did the groundwork and I took it from there. Risker (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote the humour page, I realized the word stalker could lead to different impressions - I tried to shy away from it, so I like your take on it. Thanks! (P.S. a user dropped by my page to ask about offering a {{2nd chance}} to User talk:Jimthebobfred, but in looking at the edits, I didn't see anything that indicated much more than a trolling account. take a look if you like) xeno (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who uses the term "wikichum" without having lots of cute cuddly pics on their userpage is probably not going to fit in very well, in my books; however, if someone feels motivated to babysit and educate this editor, I certainly won't stand in the way. There's a reason why I never joined the adopt-a-newbie program. Risker (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Personally I agree with the block and the reviewing admin.) The userbox can be transcluded if you wish at {{WP:TPS/watched}}. xeno (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Farfel

You do get the Chowder reference, right ("Shnitzel and the Lead Farfel")? If not, I have only one thing to say: Radda radda radda. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit confused

Thanks for the message, but I'm a bit confused as to what article you're talking about. I reverted the troll, but I'm not sure what the other bit you mentioned was referencing. S. Dean Jameson 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that. The individual who keeps leaving such silly messages on my page has been responsible for adding nonsense content to the Matthew Manning article for some time; in fact, at one point the nonsense actually managed to get the article deleted. He's used multiple IPs and a username or two. Pretty sad in its own way. Risker (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Risker, sorry to bother you. Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. If you can spare the time, we'd very much welcome a peer review from you to help us iron out any problems before going to FAC in the near future (bites nails). All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re IRC

I am who I say I am. Risker (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is everything okay? S. Dean Jameson 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny stuff

Got a chuckle out of this - thanks. :-)  Frank  |  talk  23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Risker, there are many problems with what you have previously stated. 1) "You have refused to accept that other editors have interpreted the sentence involved in a different way" This shows that you do not understand the case. Clearly, it is about the user not leaving me alone, not about the original comment that prompted him to follow me constantly, and to continue to treatment in an incivil way. 2) "The close was appropriate." My diffs prove otherwise, especially with Ncmvocalist clearly claiming a consensus that did not exist, and advice that did not exist. These two issues right here are serious, and I believe that your reaction, in light of these two, is problematic to say the least. And say what you want about my behaviour being disruptive. However, most people in the community know and value my mediation work, and I know when there is a problem between two users that needs outside help. If you are unwilling to see that Jameson refuses to leave me alone, then you are unwilling to actually look at the problem objectively. If you continue to threaten me in the manner that you have, while doing the proceeding, then I will have to file a complaint about you at AN, because you blatantly stated that you were an admin, which was a threat to use that power. I believe that you will do the right thing and strike your unbecoming comments.

Also, the fact that you were canvassed by Jameson previously (as seen here) shows that you are not unbiased, and you are abusing your authority. Such things have resulted in admin losing their priviledges. I expect an apology for you breaching a conflict of interest or I will file a report. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See now, there you go again, Ottava Rima, trying to bully me this time. Now you are here on my talk page bragging of your mediation skills and stating that the Wikiquette Alert you posted was closed one way when it was actually closed quite differently than it was, and implying that I should be desysopped for agreeing with the closure. Ncmvocalist did not close the thread as having consensus, he closed as "Stuck - Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input".[8] In what Ncmvocalist will recognise as an unusual turn of events, I agree with his closing of that thread; your posts there imply that you will not be satisfied unless everyone agrees with you, while in fact nobody posting in that thread agrees with you. You and Jameson have been given advice—to disengage and leave each other alone. That means both of you. Your complaint on Ncmvocalist's page was that he made the closure despite the fact that he is not an administrator[9] and I have responded to let you know that I, as an administrator, agreed with that action; you can now no longer complain that his decision has gone unreviewed by an administrator.

Many editors ask me for my opinions and comments on articles; Jameson has done so a couple of times, and so have many others. I was going to suggest that you take this to one of the administrative noticeboards, fully expecting that you would be dissatisfied with the outcome, but it seems Ncmvocalist has already raised your behaviour in respect of this matter. I will cross post your comment and my response to Ncmvocalist's talk page, because it is better to keep things in one place. Risker (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I submitted to you a private email. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)