User talk:Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. Personal attacks against me will stay, such comments say a lot more about the person making them than the person who is targeted.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses. If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

MSK

I've got confused by the minimalist interface of unblocker that's linked from Block log (it wasn't there last time I used it. Thank you for doing the unblocking yourself, even if some people probably won't approve this action. Grue 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I agree with you, but feel that this is one of those obvious cases. A look through the contribs shows nothing but trouble, and very few constructive edits. There has been vandalism, personal attacks, particularly against Muslim editors, trolling, obsession with user boxes, posting of personal details, attempts to publicize a website critical of WP; and then on that website, very serious personal attacks (rising to the level of libel) against a number of editors, and the publication of their supposed real names. The off-site behavior is in itself close to warranting an indefinite block, under the provision of placing users in danger, and when combined with the on-site behavior, it's indicative of no respect for the project or for the people who contribute to it. I take Jimbo's view that this isn't a playground, and it especially isn't one where we go around attacking one another. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your debate-closing help

I really, really appreciate your recent closing the political party userboxes debate, and re-instating said userboxes. You seem to be one of the more rational admins. :-) Thank you. Yet we seem to have another problem: User:Grue recently archived debate on the next 30 or so debates, but he failed to render judgements, or re-instate userboxes per debate results. There is a policy poll going on, but until the conclusion of that poll (which seems to be becoming inconclusive), all these userboxes are in limbo. The one I care about is User Catholic Evangelical, but they all need looking at. Thanks for your consideration. I would do it myself, but I do not have such powers. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 16:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see they are archived. A quick cursory view shows them to be restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.

I didn't see that you'd closed LUEshi (5th nomination) in between when I put the {{inuse}} on it and when I closed it. This would not be a problem but for the fact that I closed it differently than you. If you'd like to have your version stand I'll not be fussed.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I think that you are one of those who don't endorse the "binary" school of AFD closing, but I do (and of course, O know best right? :-)). In that school a "merge" result and "keep" result are the same thing, at least administrerially speaking, since they can be altered by any editor without needing the admin tools. If you think that it's better to merge the article then don't let a "keep" result prevent you from being bold and merging it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Library IPs?

I have posted a comment to one of your blockings which has applied to an entire school community at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.228.220.93

I would greatly apreciate it if you looked at it, thank you.

OK, I have responded at User talk:207.228.220.93. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have done the same thing again at User_talk:209.113.221.11

Yeah, I've unblocked it now (that's why you were able to send me this message) and put a shared IP warning on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUEshi

I really have no idea what's going with the last AfD. Aaron seemed to have been in the proccess of closing it, when you closed the AfD. When Aaron overwrote your decision (intentionally or unintentionally), Sileonsr reverted it back. I was wondering if you could clarify some of this, since the multiple closures and reversion have kind of muddied the waters. Thank you.--Toffile 00:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talked about this above. Aaron closed the debate as a merge, not noticing that I had already closed it as a keeper, most likely because of a large green "in progress" template. In view, it doesn't matter very much because a "merge" is a version of "keep", and the difference between is a discussion for the articles' talkpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek

You recently closed this AfD (and deleted). I'm not sure if this quesiton should go to you, but I was wondering why the link on the page for the "deletion vote page" doesn't redirect to the 2nd nomination (the one resulting in delete). -- Superdosh 13:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simply because nobody added a link to the first AFD page. I'll add it now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five little speckled frogs

You wrote: "although I note that nobody mentioned that the article contains hardly anything else than the lyrics". I did...twice. Oh well, at least I tried. -- Krash (Talk) 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!! You're right. Sorry, I read it too quickly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, congratulations, and good luck with your new tools! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvica

I strongly disagree with your arguments for resulting the Savvica AfD as a 'no consensus'. Can you please tell me how I shall take my complaint further? It should be listed for a review by other administrators. --Sleepyhead 10:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can list it on WP:DRV. It was a close case, so there is a fair chance of it being overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the quick reply. I find that page a bit confusing - how do I list the article? --Sleepyhead 11:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an entry something like this at the top of the March 9 entry on the DRV page:

====[[Savvica]]====

This article was kept as a no consensus after [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savvica]]. However, I disagree because... ~~~~

Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Sleepyhead 11:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JDoorjam's RfA

Thank you!
Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006, thank you for your support in my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Again, thanks! – JDoorj a m Talk 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

ISP meltdown

Thanks for cleaning up after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote stacking for me. My service provider actually told me it could be as long as forty-eight hours before the problem would be fixed, and delirium tremens kicked in instantly. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Sjakk alle? I am not a good player, but it's those kinds of people that I can usually beat. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever a project that I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. ×Meegs 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.153.19.106

Just so you know they blanked Chemical compound too, my bot autoreverted it but its something to note, it looks like they're a bit of a recurring vandal. -- Tawker 09:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see. Curps appears to have blocked him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit block

Wondering why my edits are frequently blocked by yourself. Laurel Bush 10:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Protologism

Hey Sjakkalle. As you took the prod notices off Protologism, I thought I should inform you of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protologism. Proto||type 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hellcat & Longbow

The rule we mostly used for deciding whether to keep ships or not was whether they appear in more than one game. But we would've kept the Excal for its "historical" significance even if it had never appeared again, and originally I didn't think we should keep the Claw because its second appearance is more of a cameo. (I was overruled.) Hence, the secondary rule: notability. I don't think the Hellcat and Longbow were notable, but that's just me; we've been doing most of our discussion at Talk:Wing Commander (computer game), and I'm going to bring up the issue there and see what everyone else thinks. Feel free to contribute. =) Marblespire 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Defined, etc

Would it be possible to have the talk pages for these templates undeleted as well? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do so now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"oh snap"

My mistake, looked like the rules were being broken. Sorry! --Bob, just Bob 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know.

Cactus.man ✍ 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list). I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user 194.35.219.117 blocked

Sjakkalle re: 11:08, 13 March 2006, Sjakkalle (Talk ) blocked 194.35.219.117 ( contribs) (expires 11:08, 14 March 2006) (Vandalism) My local library (inverness.library@highland.gov.uk ) uses the IP range including 194.35.219.117. As users need to log into a queuing system you may get the vandal's true identity. Digriz

My RFA withdrawal :(

Hello Sjakkalle, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your support in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appericiate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Commander I images

Noting that you went and added the images (I have no experience with them, so, go for it!), I wanted to share a thought with you. There's a section of WCNews's ships database which features the game's VDU wireframes. I thought it might be cool to have those instead of the 3D portraits, as they're easier to interpret if you don't realize what you're looking at. Obviously they don't manage to convey the fighters' true aspects, though. You're doing the images; it's your call. Marblespire 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marblespire! Actually, I don't know much about the images, but they were added by someone else to the articles when they were separate. After those articles were redirected to the game I decided to merge them in with the main article (in part to save the images from being deleted as orphaned fair use candidates). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Hi Sjakkalle! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

defection

The defector article says: "A defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one political entity in exchange for allegiance to another." The Donaldsons made a pretty big point at the time of saying there had not been a political motive, but only a romantic one. Of course that might have been a polite fiction to make it easier for EA to get her daughter out of the USSR, but that's conjecture and doesn't belong in the article without a cite. Phr 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I also thought it would be good to post some references on this issue. Saying that the move was not a defection is not really more neutral than say that it was. With some good sources cited presenting both sides, I think the article becomes more neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

RedCrescent's block

Thank you for contacting me. this notes that another admin may choose to lighten/remove a block for accepting responsibility for a 3RR vio. In my view this would similarly apply to if someone accepted they did it and asked to be blocked, hence I handed down a lighter block. If you strongly feel it should be 6 hours each, feel free to change the block length. NSL E _(T+C) at 09:46 UTC (2006-03-28)

Well, particularily when dealing with new users it will be perceived as unfair if they are blocked for a period four times longer than for an established contributor. I have therefore shortened the block to six hours for RedCrescent as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't even know what he's blocked for. Good grief. NSL E _(T+C) at 09:58 UTC (2006-03-28)

Yeah, I know. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.94.47.118

User:65.94.47.118, an IP you blocked a few weeks ago, has vandalized again. Qutezuce 22:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see it. Well, he has appeared to stop for now at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User review

I have restored this template per the exception clause of the undeletion ploicy. This template has been deleted before as a T1 candidate, which has been contested at this DRV debate. The subsequent TFD debate produced a unanimous "keep" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither TFD nor DRV has any clue what is best for Wikipedia, then. I'm not going to delete it again, but this is the wrong decision. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly protest your action, and inquire why you think that we should keep a template whose sole purpose is to link to a forum. I have deleted the page again, as forum span, and now wash my hands of the matter. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the box is pretty much harmless, and that throwing all the opinions of other people to the wind does more harm than a userbox ever could. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User antitheist and Template:User antiatheism

Both these templates have been restored per the exception clause of the undeletion policy. Both templates have previously been deleted, claiming a T1 candidacy, but they were part of a series of templates whose deletions were disputed at this DRV debate. That debate overturned the speedies and determined that they were not T1 candidates. If you want these deleted, please bring it to TFD, neither of them have received individual treatment yet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sjakkalle: Alright then, fair enough. To be honest I'm sick of these divisive templates being allowed on Wikipedia at all, and I don't see why they should have houseroom - whether they'd been debated or not - and I'm losing patience with people's unwilligness to just get along with each other's views on Wikipedia rather than producing userboxes that stoke up war between POVs. I admit, however, as per the Wikipedia bureaucracy, I likely shouldn't have deleted them; my recent "fuck deletion process" demeanour hasn't been very civil, nor responsible of me, I acknowledge. Since I've better things to do than spend my time stoking up arguments on TfD I think I'll leave it to someone else to list, if they feel like it. Still, it annoys me that basic common sense is overrided by ridiculous process. Thanks for letting me know, however; I shouldn't really be winging at you, since you're just the messenger, so to speak, so apologies for the above. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those templates have been redeleted per T1, Sjakkalle (I got the antiatheism one). They're simply far too divisive and utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia. T1 applies here. TfD doesn't matter here; these clearly were valid candidates for speedy deletion. Remember, not every page automatically gets a "fair shake" at surviving. Most deleted articles never go to AfD, for instance; they're simply speedily deleted. If anything the bar for deletion of nonencyclopedic templates should be lower than that for articles. --Cyde Weys 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:April Fools

Yes, I know it can be funny. But with every contributor deciding they need to make an April Fool's prank, it is not so funny for the people who need try to clean it up. Sorry about being so grumpy, I had a tough day here yesterday and today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But {sniff}, I've been {sniff} planning this for months now. Pretty please? [bambi eyes] --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out, man! You can always revert when the day is done. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock of Grue

You unblocked Grue without discussion anywhere that I can find. Reverting an administrative action without discussion is inappropriate administrative conduct. Do not do this again. I am reinstating the block. If you think it is inappropriate, you will discuss it with the blocking admin or on the appropriate noticeboard before you revert it again. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was extensively discussed on WP:ANI. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of User:Grue without notification or consultation

Dear Sjakkalle: I would have appreciated it if you had, as per common standards of admin etiquette, at the very least let me know of your unblocking of Grue; indeed, if you disagreed with my block, the proper action would have been to discuss it with me first before unblocking. I shall not reblock, as I abhor wheel warring, but considering that you did not either notify me ~~nor note your unblocking on AN/I~~ I would please ask you to bear this in mind in the future, and, if possible, to reblock Grue until the originally set expiry date. I'm getting the decided impression that you don't really approve of any of my administrative actions, and are reversing them on the basis of your own opinions on my conduct; in future, I'd be really grateful if you would just discuss the matters you disagree with me about - I'm always open to amicable discussion, and willing to reverse my own actions if people are willing to enumerate reasonable cause as to why (for example, I undeleted the Feminism userboxes on the basis of users discussing the matter with me). I would like to point out to you that this procedure of consultation is well-entrenched as administrative etiquette, and generally reversing administrative actions without either notification or discussion is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I'd be grateful if you would please take the above on board in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Amended after seeing AN/I note, sorry --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Editor's Barnstar for your efforts in reversing unfair actions by other administrators. —Guan aco 21:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that barnstar - thanks for keeping us administrators honest! Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Clearing air

Nicholas, let's just make it clear: I did not reverse the block on Grue because I dislike you as an editor or administrator. In general, I think you are a responsible and good administrator. I unblocked Grue because I thought that a 48 hour block for an isolated incident was excessive. In the case of the religion templates, I undeleted them because a DRV had overwhelmingly voted to restore them and that I therefore thought that deleting them was not in line with the processes we have here. If you are wondering if I have any acrimony against you personally, I assure you that I do not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, I have no intention whatsoever of lifting the indefinite block of Blu Aardvark. The policy violation coming from that account indicate an insincere contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sjkkalle: I cannot apologise enough to you if I conveyed the impression that I believed you to hold ill-will against me; that was far from my intention, as I do not question your motives in reversing those administrative actions you mentioned above and have never felt that you were showing a personal grudge against me. The only reason why I raised the issue with you was because you hadn't asked me first; that was the only point that I took issue with, and I should have perhaps emphasised my intentions more. Likewise, I consider you a respected and responsible administrator on Wikipedia, and indeed can see why you reversed those actions even though I may not necessarily agree - I hold you in high regard, and have likewise never harboured acrimony against you. I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good to have that cleared up! :-) Looking forward to working with you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physical punishment

There's a bit of a dispute atm about whether Physical punishment should be a redirect or not. Would you mind dropping by Talk:Corporal punishment and giving your views? Thanks! The Land 21:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! I have responded on the talk page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA away!

I put my RfA up. Thanks again for nominating me. :) --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to hear it! Good luck with the nomination! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 11:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hi, I've sent you an e-mail about something - could you please see to it. Thanks. Edwy ^(talk) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwy! I've responded by e-mail as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Sjakkalle: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego ^talk 01:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny the Vandal

Yep, it was supposed to have this message attached:

On seeing a report farther up the page on a new Johnny the Vandal sock, I ran a checkuser to determine if there were other accounts, and particularly if there were undetected ones. As a result, I have blocked a fairly large sock farm across three IPs, as well as blocking those IPs for a week each, as thre was nothing but Johnny vandalsim coming off them.

Apparently, my copy/paste didn't take; I'm still waiting to see if it will go through (that is, I keep getting edit-conflicted when I try to post). Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the reply! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good RFA nomination

Sjakkalle, I think you made an excellent choice in nominating Fang Aili for adminship. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.226.48.226

I saw that you banned this user earlier and they recently vandalized 1987 here. This user is obviously not a useful member of the wiki. Is there a way they can be banned for a longer period then just 3 days? Thanks. Chris M. 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!
Hello Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎?

And thank you especially for nominating me. :)

DRV.

Please remember to sign your stuff. :) — nath a nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Thanks for pointing things out. A week-long wikibreak does dull the mind doesn't it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archive 6

Hi, I think you accidentally archived a talkpage of Kosovo by placing it in the main article namespace at Article 6. I have moved it to Talk:Kosovo/Archive 7 (Archive 6 already exists), so could you take a look at it and see if I got it right? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaah DOH! The link towards Archive6 was already on top the talk page, I didnt create it but rather just followed it. Should have checked; apparently it didnt say /Archive6 like I expected it to say. Thanks for correcting it. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 09:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls

You once said in this afd page, "Useful list of episodes for those interested in a fairly major cartoon series." What do you mean by "fairly major"? For one thing, the movie only made like $11,000,000, which is very little revenue by our standards. Second, the show was only moderately popular, and this was in the year 2000 only. Third, hardly anybody here on the Wikipedia is interested in the series; they just make edits to the episode list. I do, however, see it's clear that the episode list should be kept, as there are many other episode lists for rather obscure cartoons. If you can say that The Powerpuff Girls was "fairly major", you can say this also about Dexter's Laboratory, Johnny Bravo, Cow and Chicken, Courage the Cowardly Dog, or any other shows of Cartoon Network. Please take into consideration all that you read here, and please respond soon. Thank you. Marcus 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The channel it aired on is Cartoon Network, which is internationally broadcast and very well known. I would consider a cartoon which has been on that channel for several seasons as "fairly major". With that said, the cartoon itself is stupid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny

Thanks for blocking Bonaparte's latest sockpuppet. He is still active as 212.200.52.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a likely open proxy. He logged in as Deutsche after I had reverted his attack on User:Ronline's talk page earlier this morning. Please investigate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that the harrassment has continued. Since I am not sure of how to check for open proxies, I have set the block to 24 hours for now (there do seem to be some good edits from that IP as well). Goodness, you have been having to put up with a lot of nonsense haven't you? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I believe his latest spree was provoked by my today's edits on User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. He watches this page closely and, when someone makes an edit, may start stalking him or her. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me? Bonaparte just returned with such edits as this one. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have blocked it for three months. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Sjak, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Explain in detail why my work for binary was removed-Gav89

I am really annoyed and would like to know why my work was removed from the site. I can understand your point about signing your work with your own name. But I cannot see anything else that could get it removed from the site. It was not offensive to anyone person, organisation, religion, or belief. Yes my work may be my work(an original source) but what right is that to take away from a site of information and knowledge. What should I do steal other peoples work or ideas and post them. My simplied version explain the facts of binary to a more understandable level. You should really ask people who know abit or alot(even members who have posted in it) about the topic before removing something that I find is of great value to the world-wide internet public.This is a real insult.

The section you added was removed because it was redundant with another section (Binary simplified.), and as it stood looked a lot like original research which is not considered appropriate. Please don't take it too hard that something you added to the encyclopedia was removed, it is something which happens to all of us. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way i can get it Rectified

Thank you for considering how i felt when posting. Is there anyway i could get it back into the topic or at least get it on the site.

Well, I would suggest that you edit the relevant section and make it better. But you may find yourself reverted again if other people find your version worse than the previous one. Try to make the thing look "professional" and in a style which you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. The important concepts are neutrality, verifiability and no original research. The main guidelines to how things should be written are at the manual of style. It's a long document and has links to many other long documents, and I haven't read all of it myself, but it has a lot of good advice.

Also, if you want to write a "how to" manual for doing binary mathematics, Wikipedia might not be the best wiki to put it in. Such manuals are very welcome at Wikibooks] however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Sjakkalle, I think where a very clear mistake or policy violation has occurred, it's justifiable to unblock, so long as the violation really is unambiguous. I wouldn't want to second guess the unblock in this case, because it was an arbcom matter and the admin who unblocked was an arbcom member, so that seems appropriate to me. I personally wouldn't have unblocked without discussing it first, because I don't like to unblock where the block boils down to a judgement call. Having said that, Tony's block was only three hours, so to have spent time discussing it might have obviated the need for an unblock. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're still playing Wing Commander?

Hi! Long time no see... and I see above you're still playing with Wing Commander. We had our chat's on that back last June! LOL

I'm a little concerned whether the AfD on Cycle Theory is going to present properly with the whole forgoing set of discussions and such so prominently displayed before the current voting. I'm not personally in favor of the 'general theory' of cycles (speculations, really!) in any way, but the theory has been around since the fourties, and on that basis alone is notable enough to not be ridden out of town on a rail, nor tarred and feathered, both which seem to be happening there. Looks like a lynch mob!
The general problem is that there is really no 'cogent' article but compare and contrast with Arsenal of Democracy, what is left of it (see the talk 'peer review'). One might say the same thing at this stage, yet I had no less than four admins telling me to not move it into my sandbox. So I think about that yet I can remember hearing about cycle theories (S emphasized) back in Macroeconomics in 1974. Obviously whoever put those up is not much at writing, at least in English, and they need a lot of work. I've no time now. So I've got two questions for you.

Have you heard or studied anything in your mathematics career that talks about such researches. I'd guess we're generally talking numerical analysis of some sort.
Do you think it fair to present the topic with all that baggage as a 'prelude' to the new vote you so scrupulously arranged to hold?

In any event, it's nice to touch base with you once again. (I was away for seven months, so I'll take the blame <G>). Best regards, FrankB 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again! Well, I have not been editing the Wing Commander articles much lately, except that several of them have now been redirected/merged with the new articles we have on the games. Haven't played it much either for that matter...

On question one, regarding the Cycle Theory, I am afraid that my knowledge on the subject is virtually zero. The mathematics I deal with is of the numerical analysis and differential equation type. On question two, I relisted the AFD because of a notice on the Administrator's Noticeboard reporting that it for some reason had fallen off the AFD listings. I thought it would be unfair to close the debate without ensuring that it had received the proper five days on the list where everyone can find it, but I also I thought it would be rather unfair to throw away all the earlier discussion.

It appears that the article is on a pseudoscience which is of dubious merit and which does not have significant support in the scientific community. As such, I am not opposed to deleting it (the article as it stands is also rather poor). However, I don't have much of an opinion either way and don't know if rewriting it to something better is worthwhile or would involve discarding the entire content, therefore I have not voted in this particular debate.

At any rate, good to see you around again! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Fr a ncs2000 10:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a page

Hey can you do me a favour and delete this page User:Lamuk69/Auriga Logic or then tell me where i can find information to do so and i'll do the needful. Thanks Lamuk69 (talk) 05:55, 02 May 2006 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have taken it offline. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'd've speedied it myself if I had thought of the proper justification... --woggly 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4.23.183.36 block

Thanks for the revert to my userpage and the block. Regards Tonywalton | Talk 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Begging re:DRV

Mighty Sjakkalle,

If you might find the time, please help clear out the backlog at DRV. I (sworn non-admin) do what I can clearing unanimous cases, but an admin's fine touch is sorely needed. Not only are you universally respected and very wise, but you have the virtue of less involvement in the debates than many XfD regulars, bringing an impartial eye to these drawn-out discussions. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I have closed off the four DRV debates from April. There is no need to talk to me as if I were a deity however. ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, the undeletion of Userbox and Userboxes which came after 10-8 at DRV lasted for about ten minutes. That's process for ya. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took ten minutes to undelete them?!?!? That is a peril of adminship I didn't know existed, making your service even more valiant. As for your divinity, I must respectfully refuse to concede, remaining firmly convinced that you are a wiki-deity! :) You do "check everybody", making you, at the very least, the wiki-god of chess. ;) Oh, and... thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you... Best wishes, Xoloz 15:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes, Userbox

Please redelete these cross-namespace redirects, as they obviously have no legitimate place in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 06:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and I have relisted it on RFD so you can add your vote there. But with 10 votes to undelete and eight to keep deleted, the rules and mechanics of DRV demand that they be undeleted and relisted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects

There's some merit for leaving NPOV, because it's existed forever, and is a remnant of when a Wikipedia namespace didn't exist, and articles like that were left in the main namespace (see the history of Neutral point of view, for example). Additionally, Be bold was deleted, but recreated for a similar reason just two days ago. The pages in question aren't historical, nor is it likely that outside sources will link directly to them, as is the case with NPOV. In any event, I wasn't trying to overturn your ruling, but my intention was to leave them as they were until the vote was decided. If RFD should rule for them to be kept, I will respect its decision fully. Ral315 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise

Hi-Need some wisdom and mature judgement; this article is chaotic at best: Talk:List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise. Also, see the problem list sub-page! <G> Thanks FrankB 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Frank, but I am a little busy at the moment I'm afraid. I'll come back to it later. Sorry. :-( Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userboxes

I'm not sure how to help you because I've been unable to validate your count. You reported 10 redirect to 8 delete. I count 7 redirect, 2 list for RFD and 9 straight delete. I thought the redirect comments had the better weight of policy and tradition on their side but I also think that this is a weak enough case that I don't think Wikipedia loses anything by it. At this point, I'd just let it go. There are more important battles to fight. Rossami (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. 9-9 is actually a relist according to the undeletion policy but I agree that it's not worth fighting battles over redirects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Pectoralis major muscle

RE: Pectoralis major muscle

Hi,

You were linked to on the talk page of the article above, so thought you might want to keep an eye on it- they're have been quite a few attempts at blanking and other vandalism recently, but I've not got the time at the moment to keep an eye on it!

EvocativeIntrigue 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal links

Sjakkalle, please don't be rude and eliminate the internal links placed for the readers. Thank you.

For anyone wondering, I reverted revision] of the Calculus article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, Sjakkalle, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

Thank you for looking into this and fixing the error. Much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

Boy, you picked a tough one to close. I think you made the right choice but I get there from a different path.

Normally, I would give considerable deference to the previous DRV discussion. In this case, however, the appropriate weight to be given to the first DRV discussion is unclear. That DRV discussion was closed as an "Overturn" decision however that discussion may have been tainted to an unknown degree by deliberate vandalism to the AFD discussion page which it was reviewing. The vandalism was not discovered until late in the discussion. While several participants in the DRV discussion explicitly reviewed the corrected version and still concluded that the AFD discussion should be overturned, it is unknown if the prior participants also reviewed the corrected page.

The most recent AFD discussion was clearly closed inappropriately. Pages which have been undeleted as a result of a Deletion Review discussion are explicitly not eligible for speedy-deletion under case G4 (re-created content). (Actually, you said that but I would have worded it more strongly.) Your criticism of the edit summary was right on point. However, the focus of this discussion moved immediately to the core issues of the suitability of this topic for the encyclopedia. The tacit consensus of the discussion participants was to leapfrog the improprieties in the AFD close in this case. While that should not become a regular practice, it seems unlikely that reopening the deletion discussion would have produced a different result.

On a straight vote-count of this discussion, I got a different tally than you did. I found 18 to delete (plus 1 suspiciously new user discounted) but only 12 to keep/restore (7 anons or suspiciously new users and 1 troll discounted). Had this been a regular deletion discussion, that would have been (just) within a closing admin's discretion to close as a delete decision.

Your comment about "deletion by attrition" is appropriate but could also have been balanced by the counter-argument of "inclusion by attrition". I don't think that either side in that argument holds the moral high-ground. This cycle of nominations does credit to neither side.

Hope that helps. Kudos for having the courage to close such a contentious discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Rossami! Always good to have your opinions to lean on. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When they make me king, I'm making you two my supreme court. Thank you both for not only this carefull and well reasoned action, but the seemingly unending stream of equally excellent decisions. - brenneman ^{L} 07:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi, on the same topic, while I respect your decision and reasoning for the endorsement, there are a few issues you may or may not have known about:

First of all, you said "A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t shows a strong consensus to delete and will therefore declare this deletion as endorsed", however this AfD was performed "in secret", as none of the regular contributors to the article were notified, and no notification was left on the article until hours before the AfD started.
Second of all, this AfD took place in the timespan of a few hours, rather than the several weeks it took for the DrV to complete.

Due to these two circumstances, I'm obligated to insist that the AfD was unfair. Were the contributors given proper notification, and were the AfD given more time to take place, and were the AfD not closed prematurely, I can assure you it would have turned out differently. A vote where only assenters are invited, and the dissenters not given enough time to even notice it, is hardly a fair vote. Even if the article didn't survive it's SECOND DrV, I think that it should have been given a fair AfD.

Lastly, I don't see why an AfD can be held just a month after a fair DrV was held. The DrV took about a month to complete, and just a month later, there is already an AfD. Does this not defeat the purpose of the DrV? If the wikipedia general public clearly voted to reinstate the article, why can the dissenters appeal immediately afterwards?

I feel that your decision was just, based on the facts you were given, but, with all due respect, you were not given all the facts.

Thanks for listening, cacophony 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad close on Amiga virtual machine

Your comment was "The result of the debate was redirect to Motorola 680x0. I gather from this discussion that the content has already been merged." Only one editor in the debate proposed that redirect. Only a very small portion of the article, solely content on bytecodes, was merged into the chip family article. Amiga virtual machines are not limited to the Motorola 680x0 architecture and it makes little sense to have this as a redirect. Furthermore, I think you should verify a merge before closing an Afd with a redirect. That would give you an opportunity to notice what has (and has not) been merged and perhaps realize that a redirect is a poor one. Btw, there were more editors proposing a redirect to Amiga emulation, but the single editor who proposed the redirect to Motorola 680x0 also abridged a whole slew of previous editors comments.—131.103.138.231 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decision made on AFD as to where that thing should be merged is not entirely binding, and can be changed by any editor. If you feel that the article ought to redirect to a different article than the one I chose, then you don't need permission from anyone to just be bold and switch the target of the redirect. Happy editing! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Standard illuminant

ok cheers. I'll draft the article on it's talk page, if that's ok. It's not mine I don't want it under my user page. TomViza 13:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 July 2005 London bombings

Just browsing and saw the Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings article you merged and changed to a redirect here due to an AFD. Well, it was recreated in the next edit. I don't know the background so maybe it was decided to recreate, in which case sorry to bother you! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Proto

Hello, I am contacting you because I see that you are someone who has thought carefully about the actions of the user Proto, during his first and second RFAs, and, in particular, because you eventually came to endorse his knowledge of policy. I also see that you have been in dialogue with Proto in the past. For these reasons, I wonder if you might take a few moments to look over the exchange of views (see also here) that he and I have had over the past few days. I have a deep concern about his ability, as an administrator, to properly apply policy. I would appreciate your advice on the situation. MyPOV 22:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A8 is a speedy criterion which is frequently "stretched" a little, and Proto is not the only "sinner" in that. Even though WP:CP is the place where non-A8 coyvios should go, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi there, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Your support was especially meaningful to me! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Sjakkalle. Thank you for your support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation, especially for a respected admin like yourself to make an occasional visit to RfA to support me despite having never directly interacted. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]