User talk:Selmo/Archive 4

Archives

Thanks

Vancouver

New page to write on. Thanks for all your support on getting Vancouver to featured status. Mkdw and I are really trying to get it done. Lets hope it works! Lily Towers^talk 05:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol that's what Mkdw was just saying to me. He's over here studying right now, says HI! Lily Towers^talk 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

When you get the list of what projects need tagged and with what let me know. I can get most projects done in under 72 hours. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South park tagging is done Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

south park families

selmo, it's User:Mr. Garrison, the South Park families page is part of a new scheme of character pages. A final design of listings. First, we abolish South Park adults/children and be more specific. I propose a page for south park elementary teachers and another for the students, another for other residents of south park and an occasional characters page. At the moment I'm just copying a pasting stuff but I'm working on it. Please help me change some of the stuff and I couldn't think of an appropriate name for the page so temporairily called it South Park families. Anyway, please reply,

Mr. Garrison •my userpage• my talk• my contributions•

JS reviewer

Hello Selmo, I just edited your monobook.js to replace the coding from the PR script with {{js}}. This allows for me to keep track of who is using the PR script and to let you use the most recently updated revision of the script (well, at least since the last WP:BYC). Thanks, AZ _t 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiProject Vancouver

You posted the revise invitation at User:Bormalagurski's talk page; sadly, Bormalagurski is serving his long-term block, so he I suggest putting him under "inactive" (but does it really count - he's prevented from being active?). --PaxEquilibrium 15:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Selmo, thanks for sending out that message in regards to the new participants structure. I did notice in your spamlist message that [[ need to be added in front of 'See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vancouver#ROLL_CALL_-_All_Read|the project talk page for more details]]. I'm going around to make some of the changes manually, but I was wondering if you had a way to do it on a mass scale? Mkdw ^talk 09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nom

Selmo, I'm quite flattered, but with a recent block and other administrative actions against me, plus the fact that I only give an edit summary half the time, it wouldn't fly even if I wanted the responsibility! Thank you anyway! -THB 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

I've never been part of a mediation before, so - if I can ask - how do you see your role in this dispute? At the moment, it would appear that you are standing back and letting us fight it out as before... Yonmei 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What other issues are there? Well, if you read the Talk:Homophobia page (or indeed the mediation page) you could find out. If you like I'll summarise what I see as the main issues here, but I thought that was what our mediation statements were supposed to be about? Yonmei 09:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my Talk page. I thought that we had taken the case to WP:MEDCOM, actually: are you giving it up?Yonmei 08:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joke137

I'm not entirely sure to handle this. His comments are completely irrelevent to the point of an encyclopedia and this article. I admit he has some good points, but some incredibly short sighted ones that mainly have to do with a self motivated goal of making the article 'more interesting' for himself rather than focusing on the true point of the article. Mkdw ^talk 09:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borders edit and the VandalProof tool

You recently wrote on my talk page: "It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Borders Group. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me"

Before my edit, the Borders Group page was in both the Category:1971 establishments and Category:Companies established in 1971 (a direct subcategory of the former category). After my edit the Borders page was only in the Category:Companies established in 1971.

Generally, articles should not be placed in a cat and the cat's parent cat (I see no good reason to make an exception here). The reason for this is to reduce category clutter which helps readers find what they're looking for.

I am concerned that your VandalProof tool is not well configured. If you compare the message on my talk page with the facts:

"It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from ..." - it was my intention - I said so in the edit summary.
"be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason" - I had a valid reason.
"which you should specify in the edit summary " - I did specify in the edit summary.
"Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia" - I am a well-established editor - Check my edit history, edit count, talk page etc.

I appreciate that you are trying to deal with the problem of vandalism and I understand why you have constructed the talk page message the way you have. However, please consider that that for editors who are not vandals, did use the edit summary and are not total newbies the above message is rather patronising. I suggest that you need to make the tool more discriminating (well established editors are not likely to be vandals) and work on the user notification. Greenshed 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Series of tubes

Hi,

If you can explain why the particular jokes the Daily Show chose to make are pertinent to the topic, feel free to add them back to the article. Valid reasons might include:

Part of the topic itself (ie people think of the jokes when they think of the topic)
Especially insightful
Useful in explaining the topic

The jokes fit none of these. I'm a fan of the show and I've met Jon, so I hate when people ascribe it so much importance. Noting what Jon Stewart said about a topic, in and of itself, is no more acceptable than filling every celebrity's article with all the jokes Leno or Letterman have made about them.

And no, removing content that shouldn't be in an article is not vandalism. Please don't throw words like that around without due cause. --88.111.41.106 01:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Act of Kindness

Thank you for the award. It means a lot to me. Though I feel that I have played only a small part in a very large team effort at the WikiProject Vancouver. Mkdw ^talk 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editor review

Hey... I am from Vancouver too ;)

I just noticed your editor review notice. (It's from six days ago, ah) I'll do that sometimes tomorrow. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I have mediated some cases before. I would like to help on the one realting to homophobia. Wiki eZach| talk 01:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you will, please explain the basics of the conflict. I have read the first things, but it will take a while to get all the transcipts. Wiki eZach| talk 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Seems like a simple edit war gone mad. If you haven't already (sorry if you have already) send a message to all parties telling them that we are going to get this show on the road; we are ready to reach a compromise. Wiki eZach| talk 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what you feel about moving the case to the Mediation Committee. Wiki eZach| talk 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you contact all parties to see if they all will accept an medcom case? Wiki eZach| talk 02:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

		The Featured Article Medal
		I hereby award you the The Featured Article Medal for your unlimited contributions to the article Vancouver. Thanks to your consistent edits and improvements, Vancouver after two failed FAC's and the longest FAC I have ever seen, became a featured article on November 22, 2006. Your support and committment to seeing the article through, along with your contributions to the WikiProject Vancouver merritt you this award to its highest meaning. Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

Vancouver Portal

I wrote a message on the WikiProject page before leaving this comment. Since then I've decided that I'll leave the portal and its organization up to you. I see now that it meant a lot to you and I was wrong for editing it. I was hoping we could have had this conversation before you made all those changes and unfriendly actions/comments, but that's in hindsight now. Good luck with the portal and the WikiProject. Mkdw ^talk 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Will do. I'm adding one right now to me replying on your talk page.

Mr. Garrison 11:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Adams

Hi Selmo - you recently edited my Jay Adams update. That was my first time posting and I'm not sure why you removed it. I assume that posting to this page is ok. Regardless, my final edit was accurate and made the former posting current; I even listed two sources. What is the correct procedure to post? Why did you take my posting down?

Jay Adams

No problem....thanks for responding. Can my edit stand then? Can you fix it, or should I repost?

Thanks

Please do not edit my comments

I was asked by admin Irpen to move my comments. Please do not edit my comments for me. Thank you.

I am trying to find out where you made the change. Please allow me to finish working on my comments and do not write so quickly in reply on this. I don't know yet what you have done because the history file of the project page looked like I'd made the most recent change so now I have to go see if you have vandalized my comments on the Discussion page.

Please stop removing content from my user talk page such as this evidence that you were accusing me of vandalism then if you are going to write me about good faith. I did not accuse you of anything. I asked you to give me a chance to see what you had done with my comments. You had written a message saying you were removing my comments and accused me of vandalism. Then you have the gall to come to my page and telling me to assume good faith when all I was trying to do is ask you to give me enough time in between the repeated messages from you to have a chance to see what you changed after your declaration you were removing text by me and that I had vandalized something. Please assume good faith yourself. This is taking up my time. I have other things to do. – Bebop 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you had vandalized anything. You outright accused me of vandalism and then deleted the accusation. Then accused me of bad faith. Could you stop coming to my page to make false accusations and give me a break from hearing about this minutiae a while? I had started to rewrite my comment to remove the link to your vandalism accusation but you interrupted that edit with two more messages that made an edit timing conflict so I had to give up. I told you I needed to go see if you had removed (i.e., "vandalized" per your definition you put in your initial message) the Comments I had made. It was half a joke in reference to what you said about me "vandalizing" a page and that removing text constitutes vandalism. I explained to you that I was moving my own text on the request of another user, not vandalizing something, and said I needed time to see what you said you'd moved without getting 15 more replies interrupting my looking to see where you put it. All you said was "it was an accident", not "I didn't end up removing your text" and that's why I had no way to know after you declared you were reverting it. Please stop pretending you don't know what I mean. You started this silliness with a message you wrote and deleted saying I had vandalized something and you were going to revert all my hard work, which constitutes the same thing as what you were accusing me, and I asked you to let me have a second to see what you were talking about and that what you were saying you had done (deleted my text) fit the definition you gave of vandalism. In the end you didn't delete my text from the RFC and I didn't get to thank you because you kept replying while I was trying to add something to my page. Thank you for not reverting it after saying you were going to. But please do not keep writing me about this tedium and writing me new accusations of harming you in some way or of having bad faith. I don't think it's good faith when you go to my page just to twist my words and remove things from my page and make accusations. – Bebop 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]