User talk:Seresin/Archive 1

This page is an archive of User Talk:Seresin (or perhaps something else). If you wish to discuss something here, feel free to bring it up again. The history for this page is here, not on the main talk page. Thanks.

Archives Until August 2007 — September 2007 October 2007 — November 2007 December 2007 — January 2008 February 2008 — March 2008 April 2008 — May 2008 June 2008 — July 2008 August 2008 — September 2008 October 2008 — November 2008 December 2008 — January 2009 February 2009 — March 2009 April 2009 — May 2009 June 2009 — July 2009 August 2009 — September 2009 October 2009 — November 2009 December 2009 — January 2010 February 2010 — March 2010 April 2010 — May 2010 June 2010 — to June 2013 to November 2014

thanks for your new page patrol

Very helpful work. Could I ask you to go a little further? The db tags create a message for the article creator (seen at the bottom of each db after it's in place), to be subst'd onto the user's talk page. This helps us know when a user has been making multiple inappropriate pages. If you could place those warnings, that would be even more helpful. ··coelacan 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I just dont know what your asking. Could you explain a bit more? It's late lol. Alcemáe ^{T • C} 05:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

=) For instance from Bloodflowerz, the tag says at the bottom Please consider placing {{subst:nn-warn|Bloodflowerz}} ~~~~ OR {{subst:nn-warn|Bloodflowerz|header=1}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author. Does that help? ··coelacan 05:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it. Will do. Alcemáe ^{T • C} 05:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A few more things regarding your new page patrolling: whilst what you're doing is very much appreciated, you might like to take a closer look at WP:CSD: for example, regarding this edit; "Information already exists" is not a speedy deletion justification; the correct course of action per the deletion policy is 'merge and redirect', which I've done fo you. Another example: regarding this edit: whilst that page was, in fact, a speedy candidate, it should be noted that "not notable" is not in itself a justification of speedy deletion; only pages which do not assert their notability are liable. The best template in that instance would have been {{db-web}}; I've substituted it for you. Also, fom the last few edits, you seem to have been ignoring User:coelacan's excellent advice: please do strongly consider placing {{nn-warn|article}} (or {{nn-welcome|article}} for new users) templates on the creating user's talk page when you nominate a user's article for deletion. Remember, don't bite the newcomers. Thanks! -- simxp (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll remember to do that, and be sure to do the correct tag. Thanks. Alcemáe T • C 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

Good question! It all seems to have stalled a bit. I've invited comment on WP:EPISODE and the [[review guidelines from the various television WikiProjects, so we'll see what sort of response we get. The notability template is working, so if you come across any articles which seem to fail WP:EPISODE, then tag them with {{Episode-notability}} (don't forget to substitute it like this: {{subst:episode-notability}}), and we'll see how it goes. After 14 days, tagged articles will be automatically added to Category:Episode articles not asserting notability, so check that out. I think it'll be ok to review them according to the guidelines so far; after all, prior to this taskforce, these articles were being redirected without any warning. Oh, I would leave a message about what you're doing on the talk page of the parent article, as not everyone watchlists the individual episodes. Any problems/concerns, have a chat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks for the support. Gwinva 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A few answers to your questions

If there is a page created that's just a definition, should it be tagged for SD? Or what?

Dictionary definitions should be transwiki'd to Wikitionary, if they don't already exist there. Here's the relevent template.

How do I make an article's title lowercase?

Due to technical restrictions, the first letter of all pages must be capitalised. But there is a workaround, which uses javascipt to make it appear as if the page's title is all lowercase; which is what pages like iPod use.

How do I make something be in a box? Like when you get a message saying you have new messages? And people make their own that like to practical joke or something? How do I make those?

The easiest way is to just find someone who's already done it, view the source, and copy and paste the relevent parts. More general info on putting things in boxes/tables is at Help:Table.

Does it matter what order html tags go in?

I'm not sure what exactly you mean; unless you're asking whether you can partially intersect tags -- in which case the answer is, you shouldn't: it's good practice to keep tags completely inside one another (e.g. <b><i>text</i></b> rather than <b><i>text</b></i>.

-- simxp (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion for Century Comics

I'm not quite sure if Century Comics is a candidate for speedy deletion because I wouldn't quite call the page advertising. It might be better to just make it a prod for not being notable. ChrisLamb 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Higginson

I meant for the article to be deleted, not moved, because there is no need for the article. Now i have to go through an AfD because of the lack of natability. Thanks anyway. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of notability? He's the lead singer of a popular band. O well. No sources I suppose. Good luck at Afd Alcemáe T • C 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag

In general, we don't put direct references to things like that one on the actual article. Cleanup tags are fine, but collaborations like this belong on the talk page (like featured article drives and stuff like that). TTN 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That should stay as a general reminder until it is fully reviewed. It's OK to have them still in the category because someone may try to do it at the last minute. TTN 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from TfD

'I do not believe our discussion is on point any longer. I would love to debate this with you further, but I felt it would be better to bring it to you talk page.'

So you think that all articles should be left, since there is no deadline? There is no deadline, but that is not an excuse for leaving vast amounts of articles that not only violate WP:EPISODE, but WP:N as well, in existance indefinitely. This tag allows them fourteen days to make sure it's ok, instead of redirecting it on sight. These articles should not have been created in the first place. The devised system is much better than mass redirections, which could very well be an appropriate course of action. Alcemáe T • C 05:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise "These articles should not have been created in the first place," so yes I think YOU HAVE 14 DAYS STARTING NOW! is way too menacing. I think a better approach is to point people to the light. Have the project members working on this develop a list of FA/GA episodes as a guide. Then we all can work to improve the articles that are not good. I do not see the big rush and I do not see how this process is making a better encyclopedia. I believe strongly that 95% of television programs and at least 70% of all television episodes are notable and have the potential to be developed into a good article. Honestly, "Where is the fire?" Regardless of whether you have an opposing view are not articles are shaped by consensus not coercion. Ursasapien (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

70% of all television episode articles are notable? Are you kidding me? I don't mean to be rude, but that is some serious delusion. It's not YOU HAVE 14 DAYS STARTING NOW! It's "Technically, this article very well could be redirected on sight. However, as some people dislike the approach, a lengthly discussion decided that problem articles should be given fourteen days after notificatino to get up to standards, at which time they will be assessed." And the template does point them, it has a link to the guideline on episode pages. And develop a list of GF/FA articles? Way to read the guideline. And this "you are all immediatists" argument is really silly. Your basically saying that we should let articles exist forever, just because there is no deadline to fix them. Alcemáe T • C 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating the extreme incivility and condescension that sometimes exist on WP. I have read the guideline, thankyouverymuch. I get it that you think that we need to immediately delete/redirect nearly every television episode article (90% of them anyway) on Wikipedia as of yesterday. I simply do not agree that this is what the guideline points toward. I am not advocating we wait forever, just that we wait a little longer than 14 days. Again, where is the fire? More to the point, what is the need for this template? Simply, be bold and do what you think is best. Ursasapien (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Extreme incivility? Really? Just curious, but if you had read the guideline, why did you suggest we do something already on there? I don't think we need to redirect 90% of the articles, I think that some can be made better than their current state. (I do agree that most of them cannot, but there are some that can be, and I dont think they should be redirected). Until then, they really shouldn't be their own article, but since I am but one person, as TTN was, it needs to be brought before a wider forum than just one user. And if not fourteen days, then what? Sixty? One year? A time has to be set. It was, per consensus, at fourteen days. I don't really think longer is needed; enough contributions can be made in fourteen days that would demonstrate its ability to show notability. (ec) Heh. Last time someone was bold, people got angry And the need for the template is so that that incident is not recreated. Alcemáe T • C 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would call . . .

"that is some serious delusion . . . Way to read the guideline . . . And [your] argument is really silly"

extreme incivility but your mileage may vary. I think when you say "consensus" you are being confused by the echo chamber of your DIMEist Cabal. I think notability on nearly any subject is subjective and difficult to prove. Now to answer some of your other questions.

• Yes, I read the episode guideline. I am fully aware there are many places that list FA episode articles. My point was to improve the encyclopedia through encouragement rather than clipping.
• Yes, I think a year to improve an article would be sufficient and reasonable.
• Yes, I sincerely believe most television programs and even most episodes can pass the notability test. YMMV.
• No, I do not believe you when you said, "I don't mean to be rude."

I thought you could benefit from hearing an alternative point of view. Ursasapien (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I wouldn't really consider sarcasm extreme incivility, I could've said it nicer, but it wasnt extremely incivil. I apologize if you were offended. However, calling us a DIMEist cabal and claiming we acted without consensus could be construed as incivil the way my comments were.

• Well, what more do you want us to do? Hold their hand while they establish notability? Sorry, but under policy things that do not assert notability can be deleted. This is a compromise.
• A year would be sufficient and reasonable? I'm sorry, I cannot comment without being incivil. I'll just say that I disagree.
• Why would I need to be rude?

Alcemáe T • C 16:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one thing to add, please do not accuse people of being a cabal. If you understand the definition then you wouldn't say that. You keep telling Alcemae that he is incivil, but your personal attacks against myself, Alcamae, and any other editor that chose to discuss the problem with episode articles and find a solution has gone on long enough. I take your comments as a personal attack against myself, as you are claiming that we have been deceptive. To be more precise, A cabal works in secret and avoids claiming responsibility. I don't believe there was any secrecy to our actions, nor have we ever not claimed responsibility. People had a chance to get in on the discussion, they chose not to. As for your belief that most could pass a notability test, I say prove it. Right now, the majority do not. The template that was added does not say they don't pass, it says they have not proven it. You cannot claim, "it could pass", but do nothing to prove it. You want an example of episodes that pass, see the entire season 8 of The Simpsons, or the half dozen featured television articles. What I've come to find is that ones that truly prove their notability are ones that people have continued to work on until they reach at least GA status. That isn't a requirement in my eye, but I find that people just don't stop after asserting notability, they keep going. I believe the reason for that is when you look for sources to prove notability, you inevitably come across other sources that help expand the rest of your article. There are plenty of other GA episodes out there, not related to The Simpsons, also. Like I said, you and Matthew seem to believe it is so easy to prove notability, but have yet to actually do anything other than criticize and fight with other editors who have not seen any actions taken, and are taking their own to improve Wikipedia. If you can assert notability, great. If you cannot, then at least accept the possibility that the episode needs to be redirected/merged with a parent article. This is all I need to say about the matter. In the least, please cease your claims of CABAL, as I take them personal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question #3

Are you looking for less?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

i dont want my username to be dleted

why is this happening?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 03:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

" have a problem&action=edit&section=new here" at the top of my talk page links to you somehow^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• yeah thats exactly what happened thanks, how do you use it right?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, please do help me if you would be so kind. ILikeToBeAnonymous is currently harrassing me, belittling me, patronizing me, calling me a liar, going against consensus, called me an idiot on the Richmond, California and is being very uncivil to say the least. I also feel sexually harassed by his If you are a she or he comments. Can you help me report him?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• keeps calling me a vandal, i have called him one too however so have other users and he really has broken policy and i have not^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcemáe

I reviewed them properly, just not how you'd like them reviewed. I did it according to the guideline and policy at WP:NOT. Matthew 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked that episode. Not only was it agreed that 1 person shall not be the sole reviewer of any page (sorry Matt, but then you'd be doing what TTN was chastised for doing), but more importantly that page has a big copyright violation with the use of that non-free image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you let the people at Hanna Montanna know you merge the articles and provide a link to the archived discussion?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

SLG

You're now eligible for the Single Letter Group! Please join if you want to. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See my talk. --(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again. --(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Method

I used the episode list, rather than alphabetical list at WP:TV-REVIEW. Linked to first, created redirect #REDIRECT [[Series name#Season one]] {{R from merge}} then copied (highlight then ctrl+C). Edit summary: explanation linked to archive discussion. Once saved, followed link back to episode list. Then went through episodes in order: click on link, check talk page, back to article, edit tab, highlight all text then ctrl+V which replaces all text with my paste; edit summary: type a couple of letters and your old one comes up; save; follow link back to page. Once season one finished, I changed my paste to redirect to #Season two. When finished all, left notes on talk pages, and cut links on episode list. All manual, which means you can check what's going on. Make sense? You get on a roll after a while... Looking at my contribs, I was doing 2 a minute, and I felt that gave me time to scan it properly. Using that method, you need to make sure you're only doing the ones tagged: there was one that hadn't been reviewed. Gwinva 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Your computer should be saving your edit summaries as cookies or memories or whatever they call those things, so typing a letter in the edit summary should bring up all the summaries you've started with that letter...just select the one you want. Gwinva 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ursasapien

I replied to your comment on my talk page.

Re: SLG

Thanks ^^ I like double meanings --L^augh! 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, I, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, I, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping up appearances

The current layout is messy, pointless and illogical. Surely you can see that one table with all the episodes together in chorological order makes more sense? Tidier, neater, easier to find? All the best Edito*Magica 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it just appears that your comments got saved before mine. He was deleting comments on that article he's debating. He wiped out the talk page to start a "new" one. I didn't even realize you had commented after it saved.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

keeping up appearances tables

The trouble is, this debate has been going on for weeks now, and little voting activity will continue. Other articles like the one for The Brittas Empire have just one table for the specials and I think you’ll agree it looks much better. However if you still believe we should wait, that’s fine. All the best. Edito*Magica 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, its just on a public domain web site you have to make the decision whats best for the majority, but i shall wait anyway. Thanks for replying Edito*Magica 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you doing that, however won't it result in less votes been collected? Edito*Magica 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, i think we need to make a not on the episode television page thathe debate continues there though. Edito*Magica 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Daniel

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Daniel (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel. --   j    talk   04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your edit count tool

Done. —« ANIMUM » 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Try purging the cache. :-) —« ANIMUM » 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ho 'bout Ctrl + shift + R? —« ANIMUM » 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What's next?

You gonna hit up Norman Golb's page too? Good grief. If Golb qualifies, why doesn't Schniedewind? Seriously, have your fun with me. But don't undo everything i've created...

Let me get this straight...

TV personalities can be on Wiki, but scholars cannot? Are you kidding me? William Schniedewind doesn't qualify? Anna Nicole Smith gets a page, as dumb as she is, but scholars do not?

What, are you going to go through wiki and delete all of the notable scholars?

William Schniedewind is nominated for deletion???

How about the following... Let me help you out.

Norman Golb Frank Moore Cross David Noel Freedman

really? scholars get deleted? no wonder the academic community shuns wikipedia.

seriously, do what you want to me, but don't delete scholars just because you've never heard of them. please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs)

Will do. Thanx for the tip.

Look, I know you're just doing your job. I jjust need to do some convincing.

As for your comment: "And if you think that Anna Nicole Smith was less notable then any of those scholars you listed, then you should've watched some television the entire month of February." I agree with you. Isn't that sad???

shalom - bc

Questions

I just came across your user page, and noticed your questions. I'll try to answer a couple.

1. "I want to do more maintenance stuff on Wikipedia, stuff that doesn't really require lots of knowledge, since stuff I'm knowledgeable on I am usually already editing. Anything that is just needed maintenance, such as double redirects. Suggestions?" — WP:BACKLOG lists many tasks, some of them gargantuan. Category:Wikipedia backlog alone contains 25,600 articles, or about 1.35% of all articles. Double redirects get cleared out regularly by 'bots, but there are plenty of other things to keep you busy.
2. "How do I make collapsable things? Like where you click "show" it shows it, and then it hides? I know I have the RFA box below, but it does hide as default, so I have to click it three times. And, I want to know how to do it, without copying someones code." — Wikitables can be given the "collpasible" class to make them collapsible; adding "collapsed" as well makes them default to hidden, otherwise they probably default to being open (see my user page for examples of normally-collpased tables).

I hope this is the sort of thing you were looking for. --Stemonitis 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate. Just out of curiosity, how did you find my page? I  ^{(said) (did)} 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I watch WP:RM, where you recently posted a request. I think I was just finding out what character your username was; in a sans-serif typeface, it looks just like a pipe symbol or vertical line or lower-case L, so I had to get to your user page to find out. --Stemonitis 12:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "'If an edit is deleted, will the person who made that edit's edit count drop? Also, can someone request that a huge amount of edits from their userspace be deleted? I ask because I made way too many edits, and I'd like to really deflate my edit count so that it's only non-me related." — Yes. When I deleted my sandbox for Smallville, I lost every edit (toward my count) that I did on the page. Also, I believe an admin can go in and delete "history" stored on a page. Though, I doubt they'll do it just to "deflate [your] edit count".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-vandal tool for non-admins

Thanks for your help. I changed to {{subst:User:Voice of All/RC/nolupin/monobook.js}} because I don't use Lupin's tool. Yes, I tried to install TW before, but AzaToth said it wasn't compatible with Internet Explorer, which is what I use.

I've refreshed my cache using Ctrl+5, and I now seem to have some extra tools. A date has appeared on the top-right of the page (don't know what that is for) and I've got a button that requests speedy deletion for an article. On editing, at the top of the screen, I have options which say [m], [w], t, t2, v, w, b, b2, s, s2 - and I don't know what they're for either.

However, I do not seem to have a revert function at all. Lradrama 08:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried hovering over them but nothing appears. However, on looking at the bottom left of the screen (over the 'Start' button) it keeps on giving me error warnings and something to do with Javascript - maybe I need Java or something installed on this computer.

When I look at the diffs, it's exactly the same as usual, with only the undo function available. Lradrama 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try those ideas. Thanks for your help. Lradrama 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) The Admin higlight script

You seem to have understood the functionality of the script correctly; it changes the background colour of any link to an administrator's User or User talk: page. It applies to the bodyContent of the page (in Monobook, everything from the title down that isn't part of the sidebar or footer) only, and doesn't apply on edit screens or Special:Preferences. If it isn't working, try Wikipedia:bypassing your cache; if it still doesn't work, let me know what browser you're using and I'll look into it. Hope that helps! --ais523 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found the problem; I store the script in my own userspace, so

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Admin highlighter')

should be

importScript('User:ais523/adminrights.js')

in your monobook.js. (Many other scripts are stored like this; check the link from each mention on the scripts page to find where the script is stored.) Hope that helps! --ais523 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions on your userpage

1. That page is related to the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. If you happen to own a Web server (or rent space on someone else's), you can download the software and set up your own wiki that operates much the same way as Wikipedia (for instance, see http://esolangs.org/wiki for an example of a non-Wikimedia MediaWiki wiki); if you're thinking of setting up a wiki, it's worth considering whether MediaWiki is the best software (it's best for wikis with similar needs to those of the Wikimedia Foundation, and gets worse the more different what you want to do is). If you aren't thinking of setting up a wiki, it's probably not a good idea (if you merely want to look at the MediaWiki code, you can view it via the Internet at svn:.)
2. If an edit is deleted, the edit count as measured by most edit counters will drop, but the internal server edit count http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=contribcounter&titles=User:I will stay the same. If you are the author of all revisions of a page in your userspace, then asking for all revisions but the most recent of that page to be deleted would drop your editcount as measured by Interiot's Tool1 and most other edit counters that aren't based on the server's edit count; the easiest way to request this would be to save the text of the most recent revision, place {{db-user}} on the page in question, and after it's deleted recreate it with the saved text (but make sure that nobody else has edited the page, or doing this might be a violation of their copyright).
3. As for the third question, I'm not quite sure; it's not an area of Wikipedia I normally stray into.

Hope that helps! --ais523 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As for whether it's OK to delete your user subpages; deleting your subpages is normally fine, except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. if they were the subject of an Arbcom case). Deleting your user talk page isn't, both because other editors have edited it and because it hides any history of warnings, etc., you might have. --ais523 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting your main userpage history is less clear, because other users (and anons; possibly you logged out?) have edited it, and technically speaking they might have a GFDL claim over the page. It probably isn't worth the bother, but you could take such a query to the admins' noticeboard. --ais523 18:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If the edits were undone, and their content wasn't used in the subsequent history of that page, and you were the anon, then that would be fine, yes. It probably isn't clear-cut enough for a speedy, though, although it would likely be fulfilled quite quickly after an admins' noticeboard request. I have to log out now, though, so I won't be able to answer further questions for a while. Hope that helps! --ais523 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Question answering, and Age of Mythology

First of all, great work on the article!

Giggy _U^CP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Now, for the questions;

1. This will download the MediaWiki software, which you can place on your sever to have a wiki like Wikipedia.
2. Yes, deleting an edit will drop your kate count, but not your everything count.
3. I don't think so... Giggy _U^CP 03:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

archive, please

Hi, I just 'closed' the review of season 1 of 24 and am not sure what the archive scheme at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review should be; should this go under 'T' as in Twentry-four'? Thanks. --Jack Merridew 11:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond, I got distraced. I would archive it under "T", yes. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I'm again unsure how to proceed. The 24 discussion took place on the LOE page and, presumably, will be archived there. However, it would not necessarily be a bad idea to maintain another copy. Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 09:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that the discussion be archived at WP:TV-REVIEW in the archive box, since that would be a centralized record of the discussion. I presume the redirects and removal of links has already happened? I  ^{(said) (did)} 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just done as you suggest. I did the redirects and other clean-up yesterday. --Jack Merridew 09:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actor Infobox

I don't really know what it was that made the infobox in that article malfunction that way. All I did was go to an article that had the same infobox but didn't have the same problem (in this case the Tom Cruise article). Then I c&ped that to the Miss Understood article replacing all the relevant information.--Jersey Devil 09:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, I! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ^∆ 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Charcilo

To be fair, he's stated he can KEEP CREATING MORE ACCOUNTS, so it's likely he could be a troll/vandal account HalfShadow 05:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

pages

No worries, I restored the pages. Just tag them again when you're done with them. Natalie 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Durr, I don't believe I forgot to remove the CSD tags. I had noticed they had been deleted shortly after I restored them, but I just didn't connect the dots. My bad. I'll restore them and then remove the CSD tag this time. Natalie 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, actually done properly now. Natalie 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Over use of Bold

I tend to forget that many people see the use of bold as either "yelling" or "forced reading". The limited ways to emphasize on wiki tends to leave little other choice. In this instance, however you were correct.--Amadscientist 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Church of Christ

Please see my response at my discussion page. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 10:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please re-consider your vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion

I tried to deal with your stated reason for deletion for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please reconsider your vote based on my edits diff diff. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Muslims etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler.

With regards to your other stated reason for deletion please take note that e.g. Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic but not a convert to any other well-defined belief system. Also, what should be the categories of Ayaan Hirsi Ali if we confine ourselves to categories of converts. Category:Muslims and category:converts to atheism? This strikes me as unwieldy and confusing. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for re-considering. Can you please help to remove people from these categories? It is a lot of work. Andries 11:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I finished removing people from most of the categories, but for the following categories , I merely added warnings with explanations on the talk pages of the categories. I will remove the people from these categories later.

1. Category:Former atheists and agnostics (added template and half way done removing)
2. Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses
3. Category:Former Mormons
4. Category:Former Muslims
5. Category:Former Protestants
6. Category:Former Scientologists (added template and half way done removing)

See also Category:People_by_religion and Category_talk:People_by_religion. Andries 14:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Andries 14:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Wizarding War

I have restored the article and moved it, along with all of its history, to User:I/Sandbox/The Second Wizarding War. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You could tag it for a speedy, or just drop me a note and I can delete it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Second Wizarding War email

It doesn't matter, thanks! Therequiembellishere 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What d'you mean? Therequiembellishere 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanx.

If you'd like, email me. Otherwise, thank you. IsraelXKV8R 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your questions

In response to your questions (the current batch?), you can use the website for the Balloon Fiesta as a source for that article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves for more. When you email someone via the "emailthisuser" function, your email address is visible in the email sent (to permit the person to reply), but the software doesn't reveal the receiver's email address. That person has to email you back for you to know their address. As to your last point, I usually evaluate an article on potential in my own AFD participation, in part because I tend toward eventualism. One exception is articles of dubious value with problems that require lots of time to fix. One example is the content at User:Jefferyds, which was an autobiography of an individual who is probably not notable, and concerns about neutrality and sourcing the article from the author's own experience pushed me to ask it be deleted. I don't know if this issue has ever come up in deletion discussions I have closed. Cheers!--Chaser - T 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So generally people dont just use emailthisuser back and forth, they generally use an email client after the initial email? Just a side note that I like asking, how did you find my page? You dont need to answer if you dont want to, but I like to know. Thanks again. i ^said 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could use emailthisuser for subsequent emails, but I've never seen it. I noticed your comment on Shoessss' RFA. My curiosity is always piqued by people who've gotten their usernames changed to single letters after an editor I know did that.--Chaser - T 07:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Whats your opinion on that? I've seen negative comments about it, and I wonder what people think. i ^said 07:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor inconvenience of trying to highlight a single letter, but really not a big deal.--Chaser - T 07:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Okay. Thanks for answering my questions, and your input. Appreciate it. i ^said 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Bond: capitalization

Hello. Thanks for letting me know however I already knew this and still took the liberty to make "bond" to "Bond" because that is correct according to the WikiArticle Manual of Style (trademarks). I do know about the typeset of Bond as being "bond", the same issue happened with another article I came across and that is Blink-182. The band officially uses "blink-182" however the conventions state that every article MUST be capitalized IF the second letter (or any other letter I suppose) is not capitalized, such as iPod or eBay. That is why I made the edit. Xangel 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the link you gave me doesn't even say anything about this and it even suggested the link I gave you Manual of Style (trademarks). I still go by my judgement on this in changing "bond" as "Bond". Xangel 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright holla back when you get your reply from Wiki. Talk to you later. Xangel 09:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shoessss

Good morning or evening (depending on your location) i ^said. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your comments on my Rfa application. I believe I now hold the record for the quickest closure! However, that does not negate the input and insight gained. Once again, thank you and have great day. Shoessss |  Chat  12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Due to your constant work in reverting vandalism. Cheers, Lights 21:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no email

Sorry, but I still can't get your email. Can you send me one? bob@bobcargill.com Thanx. And thanx for your help/clarifications. IsraelXKV8R 01:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Battles in Harry Potter

This is probably too borderline for G4 - its subject is a little more general that Second Wizarding War, and a lot of the !votes at Second Wizarding War's afd were to merge that article to Battles in Harry Potter. If someone removed the prod, I'd say AfD is probably the best bet. Natalie 02:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawn

Oh I see, you and your God buddy's are going to revert edits once individually three times so you are not in violation of an essay that doesn't even have to be abided by. Wikipedia is crooked. Wwefan980 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I could simply edit the rules page that's how crooked Wikipedia is so it's nothing official. By the way, the three revert edit rule does not make sense because someone who agrees with someone else could simply revert once individually but still revert all they want. See all of this? I'm not buying into Wikipedia "policies". I'll just make about 20 other accounts and revert then. Is that ok? Wwefan980 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You have reverted more then three times today. So you = hypocrite. Wwefan980 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It says August 7 for me, but it's still August 6th so I included all edits on what Wikipedia says to be the 7th and 6th in this: 00:38, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wwefan980 (question) (top) 00:32, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wwefan980 (answer) 00:26, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wwefan980 (reply) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:I (Yawn) 00:24, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:I (Move) 23:35, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wwefan980 (3RR) 23:34, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m RuneScape (Reverted 1 edit by Wwefan980 to last revision by CaptainVindaloo; British game, British spelling. using TW) 23:14, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas and Friends video releases (comment) (top) 23:11, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (→DougsTech*com - comment) 21:08, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m User:I (Reverted to revision 149419060 by I; I like this better. using TW) (top) 21:08, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User:I (fix) 14:57, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas and Friends video releases (answer) 07:20, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations (change date) 07:07, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.24.216.127 (General note: Vandalism on Bugatti Veyron. using TW) (top) 07:06, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Bugatti Veyron (Reverted 1 edit by 24.24.216.127 identified as vandalism to last revision by JodyB. using TW) (top) 06:00, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m User:Natalie Erin (Reverted 1 edit by 74.192.222.142 identified as vandalism to last revision by Natalie Erin. using TW) 04:09, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qst (that rhymed...) (top) 03:52, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:William Schniedewind (reply) 03:41, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:IsraelXKV8R (reply) (top) 01:00, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Natalie Erin (Admin Question) 00:56, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.83.134.40 (Caution: Vandalism on Cory In The House. using TW) 00:56, 6 August 2007 (hist) (diff) m Cory in the House (Reverted 1 edit by 76.83.134.40 identified as vandalism to last revision by 70.188.19.86. using TW)

More then three reverts in there wouldn't you say? Wwefan980 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You were clear. However, I just copied all of that instead of posting the specific edits. There are more then 3 reverts within those edits I pasted. Wwefan980 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's where you weren't clear. Wwefan980 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you figured this all out yet?

This is why I wanted you to email me. (I still can't email you btw). Anything I write, he cuts and pastes to his news blog, and then rips it. Go read the links. Look familiar? I don't respond to anonymous folks, so I don't defend myself. I'd expalin, but I don't comment. You do as you feel is right, and I shall do the same. Just check his user talk page, so you know where you stand. IsraelXKV8R 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't email

Re:[1]

When I click the "E-mail this user" link, I get "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users". EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Ahhh. I didn't know that part of the story. I will remember to do that in future. Thanks for letting me know. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am now proceeding to notify the necessary users. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian political jokes

You might have to wait at least a month or so to renominate, given the negative attitude people have toward renominating articles that were kept in a previous AFD. --Coredesat 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)