User talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:RyanGerbil10. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
Please imagine a different catchy song:
- Believe it or not, this page is archived,
- Please leave a meesage at this page
- Scream all you want, but I'll never hear,
- 'cause I'm not here-
- Believe it or not, it's archived!
Sorry
My apologies for that whole outburst. It was extremely sarcastic, but that doesn't really excuse leaving a sarcastic "death threat" on your talk page. I was just outraged at the removal of the ITN item about the Iowa caucus (especially considering how many items of lesser importance are included and lost it a bit. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A comment
Apropos your post Article writing is so not necessary for adminship. I disagree with your statement, so am personally posting a message here. I do think it is necessary for an admin to have article writing experience. Our goal is to create content for an encyclopedia, the second priority is to manage it. Now, if we promote inept and admins inexperienced in the article space, issues are bound to crop up with main stream editors. An example I can give you is one I faced last month, where an experienced admin deleted an article for copyvio, just because the version he saw was a partial copvio. In the process, several wiki policies were broken. I had to personally intervene and remind the admin of his duties and establish Wikipedia policies. An admin is supposed to know his or her work, if an admin cannot recognize a copyvio, who will people new to Wikipedia turn to? I hope you see my point. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:TfDs
Thanks for the pointer. I have to ask, when closing MfDs, does the {{mt}} go above or below the headers? Thanks. jj137 ♠ 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK; I think the setup is similar to AfDs from seeing some archived ones. Well, again, thanks. jj137 ♠ 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Result was deletion
So why wasn't this deleted: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_29#Template:Remote_Viewing? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice you closed this as a delete per concerns over GFDL violations. Could you elaborate as to what GFDL violations were taking place, as well as why you believed the consensus was to delete? Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was just coming to ask the same thing. I'm not one to normally challenge a xfd, and I didn't even participate in this one, but I just noticed there were 3 deletes, 6 keeps, and one comment that amounted to a weak keep and I was wondering where the consensus was to subst and delete. Ryan, can you please explain your reasoning?↔NMajdan•talk 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- GFDL concerns are reasonable, but isn't that the case with many other templates really? I was going to suggest moving it to a subpage of the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats where it could still be edited and used within the article. I'd still like to see it used in the other two articles mentioned, but I thought I'd throw that out there as a potential option. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fred Astaire template
Could you please direct me to the TFD discussion page regarding the deleted Fred Astaire films template? I'm curious to find out the rationale for deleting it, especially since such templates were specifically created because Wikipedia banned actor-related categories. I thought this place was trying to encourage proper categorizing and indexing, but I must be mistaken. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The TFD page needs a proper index of past discussions. As for the template, I've given up defending such things. I just had to vote "Keep" on a list article over at AFD that I would never have agreed to keep before, on the basis that the category that would have been appropriate for the subject was deleted! Just like so many other so-called "policies" on Wikipedia (I use the quotation marks because they're often actually "guidelines" which include the caveat "feel free to ignore") they seem to change with the weather. And they're applied with absolutely no consistency. You may have noticed that while you deleted the Fred Astaire template at Broadway Melody of 1940, the Eleanor Powell template remains unscathed and, last I looked, free from TFD. For now. My general attitude is the same a that for images: if there's enough Wikipedians who don't like them or feel they are not appropirate, they should be banned completely, not willy nilly. Anyway, thanks for the fast response. 23skidoo (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Jackie Chan films template
Howdy, I noticed that this template has been tfd'ed and you've removed it from all the relevant film articles. It's a shame, cos all the links in it were valid and it encapsulated the key roles from an extensive filmography.
Anyway, a while back, I copied the exact style of that template and applied it to another actor (see Template:Sammo Hung films). Unlike the Jackie Chan one, it currently has a fair bunch of red links. Hung's filmography is even larger, with a significant number of non-starring roles, so again the template was a nice simplified view of this. However, I guess if one template must be deleted, then you may as well go ahead and delete the other.
I understand why people get annoyed at these sort of things, after all they've spent time and effort doing something they think is good / useful / interesting, and then it gets permanently deleted, often without them having time to argue against it, but c'est la vie. Figured I might as well tell you about the Hung template now, rather than wait for it to be found and removed at a later date. Gram123 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA requirements
I'd just like to let you know that I disagree with your requirements. You claim that administrators will be involved in these specific namespaces, but that is not necessarily true. I've been an editor for over three years now, and an admin since July 2006, and I still wouldn't even come close to your requirements. Please reconsider them, as an admin I don;t think they are indicative of standards which would be helpful in adminship discussions. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Also please post replies to my talk page, I prefer to keep a very small watchlist. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ryan. I'm reconsidering them, because I only thought that these numbers were pretty light. I was surprised when I checked and saw that quite a few people (including good admins) that commented on my opposing due to these criteria didn't meet them themselves! The idea for the numbers weren't based on edit counting directly, but by the idea that if someone has touched those sections a bunch of times (a bunch being arbitrary I suppose) that they would be at least familiar with, if not experienced with, multiple areas of Wikipedia. I'll be honest that I took the initial numbers from myself arbitrarily.
- I figured that if a non-admin had that many in six months (my criteria were actually less than what I'd done), it shouldn't be a big deal for anyone to take part in a lot of different areas of the site (AFD, noticeboards, AIV, etc.). Is it a problem that they're too high, or just there in general? How else could you gauge what a candidate is familiar with, without going through thousands (if not tens of in some cases) of contributions carefully and bit by bit? When I look at candidate's contributions, it's hard to always get an immediate feel for how familiar they are with the various sections of WP, even by just looking at the Kate summary or their raw contributions. Lawrence § t/e 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just my two pence, and as Ryan asked for this to be slightly centralised I'm commenting here. The problem with arbitary standards based on numbers is that people will split hairs. A candidate has 249 not 250 contrbutions to a specific venue - do you oppose? A candidate has 2499 not 2500 contributions in another area - do you oppose? Standards are fine, and I do not feel that yours are way outside of "community norms" as such, but they are .... well.... hard! As Ryan says, he would not have passed your standards and neither would I and we are both admins (wether we're any good is another question ! :) ). To assess a candidate properly it should (IMHO) be the net sum of the contributions. 5 or 6 particularly valuable inputs at XfD that result in a clear decisions due to those comments are worth a 100 "per noms". In short, it's best not to either rely, or work off, the results of edit counting tools when evaluating an RfA. Pedro : Chat 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Munster Rugby current
Could I have the details for this page as it seems the page has been deleted after there was no consensus. Also looking through it fits in with the majority of navboxes here Category:Rugby union squad navigational boxes. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Project Chanology Image
Thanks for the great image you added to the Project Chanology page! :D --Muna (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
JustaHulk (talk · contribs) removed the GFDL image, Image:LMcPhersonProtestPicturePHGPA.jpg that you posted to this article. Care to nail down its relevance on the image description page, since you uploaded it? Also could you please clarify relevance in the image caption, and on the article's talk page? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Image removed a second time by Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs). I'll let you address their issues. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you also provide detailed clarification like that on the image page itself? Also, FYI - there are articles on Project Chanology in (5) other languages (so far). You may want to move that image to Wikimedia Commons, so it could go on those articles too. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, I'll let someone else put it on Commons. You could add the info you already added from the image caption on the article page, to the image page. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you also provide detailed clarification like that on the image page itself? Also, FYI - there are articles on Project Chanology in (5) other languages (so far). You may want to move that image to Wikimedia Commons, so it could go on those articles too. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:ScientologySeries deletion
I just noticed this cool old template is gone per your closure at this TfD last October 30. I don't understand the reason for deletion. In the TfD discussion it looks like there was an editorial decision to stop using it in Scientology-related articles and to use another template instead. That's fine, but the way to implement that decision is to just edit the articles to remove the inclusion of the template going forward. There's no need to delete the template from the wiki, and deleting it messes up the display of all the older revisions of the articles from when the template was still there, probably 10,000's of revisions across dozens of articles (example). Deleting the template is like deleting old revisions of an article after a change is made, something normally not done except in special circumstances (privacy, etc.) since a principle of the wiki is that old versions should stay accessible. I was going to request undeletion at DRV but it said to ask you first, so here I am, please consider this as a request for undeletion. Thanks. 75.62.108.101 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. The deletion decision was unanimous, this is the standard way of doing things. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Image
Hey. Please see my comments re that image at Chanology. I really think that you do not have a leg to stand on and, as an administrator, you should know that better than most. Please remove the image. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just in case I was at all vague, I took your advice and posted at AN. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Help?
[1] — Save_Us † 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eek, it appears you protected the user page, not the talk :) — Save_Us † 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks buddy. — Save_Us † 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator
My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Stargate SG-1
Hello. You closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_24#Template:Stargate_SG-1 as delete, but you did not actually delete the template. – sgeureka t•c 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Looking forward to joining you at TfD with my shiny new admin bit! Happy‑melon 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
AWB Bug
Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_6#AWB_told_me_to
I archived it as you didnt respond.
Please try downloading the newest version manually from [2]
The cause of the bug, it would seem, is you havent completed the updater updates that i released, to prevent this happening.
There was a change in the Diff Library used between 4.1 and 4.2, and a different file name, and your AWB is complaining as it cannot find the dll. The older updater would not cater for this file, and therefore not copy it from the newer archive.
This therefore causes your bug
—Reedy Boy 12:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Main page vandalism
You've been desysopped and blocked as a compromised account. — DarkFalls talk 07:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)