User talk:Sjakkalle/September, October, November and December 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

Your comments on edits to "Dallas, Texas"

No one had entered any nonsense to the noted article. The recent changes I made there are a much-needed correction to the chamber-of-commerce pablum spewed by the article's original author.

"With few exceptions the typical Dallasite wouldn't know culture if it bit him on the ass". I'm sorry, but I think that would qualify as nonsense by most standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Encyclopædia Dramatica

No, I missed that. My apologies. Should I undelete? Is the investigation still on-going? Rossami (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former T-bane stations

The former stations on the Oslo T-bane should have articles as well, don't you agree? Volvat, Vestgrensa etc. And stations like Egne hjem will likely join the ranks in the not-so-distant future. Punkmorten 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they probably should have articles too, as well as the temporary Husebybakken (or perhaps that one should be in the still nonexistent Montebello article). Too bad that all the stations on your line are closed now. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Husebybakken needs a separate article. After all it will populate the "former stations" category in 2008 or so :) Too bad they are closed yes, but I've heard about plans to prolong the line to Sandvika via Rykkinn. Punkmorten 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable's RfA thanks

Hi Sjakkalle, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful last Wednesday with a unanimous support of (47/0/0). I will do my best to help keep Wikipedia clean, green and vandal free. Once again, thank you! --Konstable 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sjakkalle

Hey Sjakkalle, I just wanted to thankyou for your very kind feedback and support during my recent RfA. I am thrilled that it passed with a final tally of 160/4/1. I am so appreciative and grateful for the incredibly generous support I received from so many fantastic administrators and editors. Thank you Sjakkalle. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

213.8.83.40

This anon is up to his old tricks spamming the Thumbshot and Thumbnail articles. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Thanks for the heads-up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this time I'm unable to do anything with it since I resigned my adminship a month ago, you might want to contact another admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFC deleted

Thanks.--Konstable 04:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QGD; Semi-Slav 5.Bg5 dxc4

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... Thanks for cleaning up after me. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

(seperate subject, apart from the ne above, the IP should be logged, written by a student) On the subject of our IP being banned/blocked, please mind that this is an IP that belongs to a school. It is the individual faults of the persons involved at the school that are the real culprits of such vandilous editing.

I'm looking at the block log for your IP ([1]) and I cannot see that I have blocked it, is it this block you are referring to? In that case, it should still be possible to register an account and edit with it, and I try to be mindful of allowing this when I block such school addresses. Vandalism from shared school IPs has been tough to deal with in the past and when they are blocked it is regrettable that it causes collateral damage, it was for this reason we introduced the "block anonymous edits only" capability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward william cole

You do know that copyright-violating articles created with 48 hours can be speedy-deleted, right? You can use the handy {{db-copyvio|SOURCE}} template, saving a lot of bother. I just tagged this article as such, left a note on the creator's page, and removed the listing from WP:CP. Just so you know. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfB With A Smile :)

Swindle (chess)

How do you like my Swindle (chess) article? I'm quite fond of it, and thinking of submitting it as a featured article. Do you think it has a chance? Any suggestions? Krakatoa 10:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Interesting article, I'll put my comments on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, comments are in place, hope my comments are useful. (And thanks for correcting my poor prose when I tried editing the article!) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your thorough comments are very helpful. Thanks! Krakatoa 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hi, Sjakkalle! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Core des at 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Party System

This article disappeared again, after having just survived its AfD. Any idea how this occured? (Please respnd on my talk page if possible.) Thanks. Joseph 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I see that. Overturning the AFD and deleting the article after only two days on DRV is also premature. Never mind, I see that Phil Sandifer has added a sensible redirect here, so I can make a history-only undeletion of the page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for your support of my recent RfA. I am particularly humbled by your support, as I have always been an admirer of your pragmatic judgement as an admin. If you ever need me for anything, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a redirect to one's watch list?

Hi! I noted you were involved in discussion about whether "Physical punishment" should be a separate article from "Corporal punishment", or a redirect as it is now. A technical question: How can I add "Physical Punishment" to my watchlist, so that if anybody changes the redirect back into a full article again I'll notice it? (And if I want to change it back to a redirect, how do I do that?) Thanks! --Coppertwig 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Note: I have looked at the watchlist instructions and it says you can watch a nonexistent page, but I don't see how to follow those instructions. Searching for the page or using a URL just sends me to the CP page, which is already being watched. --Coppertwig 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another unrelated question: suppose a "diff" says there was a change on "line 330". Is there any easy way to find this line in the displayed article other than reading the entire article? And another question, is there a better place for questions like this than on the talk page of someone such as yourself? Thanks again! --Coppertwig 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coppertwig! These are some of the techniques I use, although somebody else may have better ideas

In priciple it is pretty easy to add a redirect to your watchlist. If A redirects to B and you want to watchlist A, just go to A (it will redirect to B), and then go back to A via the "(Redirected from A)" link. Then add it to your watchlist in the normal way via the "watch" tab.
A nonexistent page (i.e. nothing, not even a redirect, links here are red) you proceed as if you were about to create a page there, leaving you with a blank editing field. There should still be a "watch" tab at the top though which will watchlist the nonexistent page.
For finding a particular line, using your browswer's "search" or "find" function is quite effective. Just type in the first few words of the diff into the search field, and you should quickly find the lines you are looking for. The "find" function is usually in the "edit" menu of your browser (that is not the "edit this page" tab on Wikipedia), although some browswers have the shortcut Ctrl+F.

Hope that helps! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sjakkalle! I tried those things and they worked! I've also learned how to add new redirects, so when I try to find "Wikipedia: renaming pages" or something if it doesn't exist, I create it with a redirect to the page I really wanted (assuming I do finally find the page I really want.) It's fun being part of a big collaborative project! --Coppertwig 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of political persecution against animals

Sjakkalle, do you mean you want me to delete it (which I've already done), or undelete it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misread your post. You asked me to reconsider the deletion. If you think you can get it in shape, that's fine by me, so I've undeleted. A different title might be a good idea, mind you. Good luck. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's looking much better. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Sjakkalle, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to delete Domestic discipline (lifestyle)

Question: Is there any easy way to find out whether this page Domestic discipline (lifestyle) was previously considered for deletion, or previously created and deleted? I'm thinking of proposing this page for deletion, and it looks as if I'm supposed to read through pages and pages of deletion logs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to see whether it's been considered for deletion before.

It was apparently created in December 2005 by Matt Crypto with the remark "(somewhat embarrassed to have made this stub (I don't do this, btw!))". I've put an informal suggestion for deletion on its talk page and he's the only one who has replied so far. This would be my first time proposing a page for deletion; thanks for any guidance you can give me. --Coppertwig 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not previously been nominated for deletion, usually a previous deletion discussion will be mentioned on the article's talkpage. In the meantime, see if you can discuss the issue with Matt first. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Dell Regional High School

What was with the move and edit to River Dell Regional High School? I can't figure out what on earth you were trying to do. Alansohn 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what I did was remove a few revisions from the page history because they contained personal information and libel, and those things should not be online for all the world to see. Most vandalism is "harmless", we simply revert and let the vandal revisions stay in the history, but when someone named is falsely accused of dealing with cocaine, or personal phone numbers with name and address are given, those revisions need to be taken off line. There are basically two ways of doing this for administrators without oversight access (oversight access is rare, most who have them are current or former arbitrators).

The simple way is to simply delete the article, and then restore all the non-offending versions. The problem with this approach is that the next time someone adds personal stuff into an article which needs to be deleted, chances are the next admin who deletes revisions will overlook that there are previously deleted revisions with libel, and may wind up restoring those by accident.
What you saw me doing was the complicated approach. It consisted of first deleting the article, then restoring the "offensive" versions so that I can move them out of the way (in this case to a subpage labelled "/dump"), and then delete them again. Then I can go back and restore the article without the offensive revisions remaining in the page history (the final step is reverting away the a vestigial redirect from the move, that is the edit with "restore content"). It is a laborious process, and it is rare that I do it. In this case I considered the issue serious enough that I blocked the IP which added the libel for a week and e-mailed the school to report it.

Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking teh time to explain what seemed so utterly baffling. I'll know for next time. Alansohn 07:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about links to ChessWorld.net at WikiProject Chess

Hi, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Links to chessworld.net - you are welcomed to contribute. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 17:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please Answer at ANI

Thanks. --- ALM 13:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion request

I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidde). Thanks. (Radiant) 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at it. I'm afraid I don't have time for any lengthy comments, but I think some observations are in order. The "vote count" has typically been a factor in such discussions, on subjective issues like notability the determining factor is often "does a significant number of people think this article is on a notable subject?". When a large percentage (say 40%) of people are opposed to something it is a stretch to call that a consensus. As such, the sheer number of people on each side of a discussion is frequently a factor, and that means that those entries could be construed as "votes", even if we don't have a pre-determined cut-off point I don't close *FDs as much as I used to, but generally I looked for a two thirds majority for deletion, although I have made several exceptions, I have kept with more the 67% delete (typically: all delete arguments go "delete, nn" while the few "keep" arguments present a real case, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savvica for a DRV endorsed decision), and deleting with less than that percentage (if there is not one "keep" which addresses a well-worded reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kelly Martin/R for a decision which I was surprised not to see on DRV).

If we look at RFA, 75%-80% support has generally been needed and the times where someone has been promoted in spite of <75% support have generally either been due to a mistake by a bureaucrat (i.e. Luigi30's RFA, though his actions as admin have made this promotion fairly uncontroversial), or caused a huge amount of debate (i.e. Sean Black's and Carnildo's repromotion RFAs). Clearly on RFA there is a strong tradition to put emphasis on the numbers, although there is a 75%-80% bureaucrat "discretion zone" to provide some flexibility for weighing arguments presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad Elo

You failed to do all the steps in your closing in this edit[2] related to the discussion at Talk:Árpád Élő. I have raised the issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Review of Arpad Elo and others. Gene Nygaard 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, I think Tariqabjotu botched the close of the move request. Anyway, it's a mess, and Arpad Elo will have to be moved again. I'm very disappointed that admin Tariqabjotu ignores WP:V. Quale 04:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have put a comment on the requested moves page. I also see that Tariqabjotu has moved the article back to Arpad Elo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming resignation of adminship

Confirming this request. I do not intend to completely join the ranks of missing Wikipedians, but I no longer have time for regular contributions and hence do not wish to be an admin any longer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-wailing and wiki-gnashing of wiki-teeth...

It often takes me days to notice important events, but this is the saddest occasion I've ever been three days late for... :( Your leaving the admin-corps represents an incalculably grave loss...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For superb service above and beyond the call of duty, Sjakkalle deserves a million barnstars! He is a leading light of the community, unsurpassed in wisdom and judgment: He may just be Wikipedia's only indispensable man. Xoloz 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. Desysopping was absolutely necessary to keep me from spending to much time here and feeling guilty about not being able to respond to requests and queries. I'll stick around now and then however to make some contributions. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, we got you promoted to admin status, isn't that a more than good enough substitution? ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... You = Socrates; me = Pseudolus. :) Wikipedia wouldn't survive without you! Xoloz 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting revisions

Hey Sjakkalle, I noticed you have a little system for deleting bad revisions from articles. While I know you can simply delete them and restore the good ones, you seem to do something with a /dev/null kind of thing involving moving the page. Mind telling me how you do this? ★MESSED ROCKER★ 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...

Because I thought the point has more than been made in the current Arcom elections pertaining to Kelly I did not bother to add my $0.02, but I did stop by her RfC just this second with a few things to say. However, I just want to commend you on a well written, fair and very concise commentary, that not only covered five times more than I had to say, in covered that which I did five times better than I possibly could of. Really, really impressed. Thanks for taking the times to speak our minds so very well :) Glen 07:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hmm... I'm not too envcouraged by Kelly's response to my comment, but there does seem to be something to go on. Time will show. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of User:Bonaparte

I think he's a vandal. A commie vandal. --Madhyako Pradesh lo 13:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, can you block Bonaparte's latest account and rollback his edits? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think a block on Mad. P is coming up anyway. Further details on your talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked already. Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Deer Hole Creek

Thanks for your support and praise at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Deer Hole Creek. Please let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions for improvement. Yours, Ruhrfisch 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

myg0t recreation

Hi, I was just patrolling the new pages, and I noticed the article myg0t. I tagged it for notability, but User:USER-cacophony claimed it was notable, so I let him/her remove the tag. However I just came across Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second) (also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t) and it looks like the page was decided to be kept deleted. However User:USER-cacophony seems to have recreated it. Just thought I'd let you know. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good News!

	<font=3> Thanks again for your support and comments - White Deer Hole Creek made featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Idea?

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a rule I think grievances should be presented in a serious but polite manner. Presenting them in the form of taunting awards tends to raise more ill will than it's worth. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Emerson issue

Hey. I'd like you to take a look at the situation of Emerson, Emerson (disambiguation) and Emerson (diismabiguation). I know you're not on call and you can decline, but still.

Here's the short version: there was a requested move, a successful, if oddly quick admin assisted move and complaint which led to a major conflict. As is now, I'd like you to look the situation over. My biased request on your part is to move "Emerson (diismabiguation)" to "Emerson", fix any redirection issues and protect the page from further moves. From there, I promise to civilly attempt dispute resolution on my own, though I'd appreciate any fuher help.

The long story: I requested a move to the former from the latter. Seemed pretty straightforward. However, some assert that one Ralph Waldo Emerson is the "primary/principal use" of the name "Emerson". Go fig. Anyway, an admin moved the page within hours. (Like...overnight.) I assumed it was a slam dunk. I admit that it seems like the admin didn't follow procedure. There was hardly much time for opinions to be gathered. (Not that I expeced a big turnout.) Also, the talk page wasn't updated to indicate that the move request had goe through. Anyway, a guy complained before I even got there. The usual whine about Ralph, you know. So, I removed their attempt to "vote" after the fact and fixed the talk page myself. Needless to say, the user wasn't happy. I'm afraid it became incivil on both our parts, and I ended up making no attempts to compromise. I thought that was it, but they came back, undid the move, relisted the name and had "Emerson" redirect to Ralph in the meantime.

Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]