User talk:Splash/Archive6

I'm on a Wikibreak. Keep well.-Splash^talk 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005

I'm on a Wikibreak. Keep well.-Splash^talk 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Modulis page

Hi splash, there were no copyright violation on the page modulis, I'm the owner of the content, can you explain how should I describe my company so that it does not hapen again ? adrien (a) modulis.ca

Ok, well someone will eventually email you to confirm that fact when they get around to processing that day's copyright questions. You've left a message on the talk page saying it's ok, but obviously we need to be sure of that fact. It would be much better, however, if you wrote the article afresh by following the link in that copyvio message to the temporary subpage. The original page was essentially promotional material from your website. Wikipedia articles need to be neutral and definitely not advertising whether accidentally or otherwise. It is very hard indeed for a copy-paste of a website to meet either of those two very necessary requirements. If you can write it neutrally and factually whilst observing the demands of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that'd be great, of course. It is often hard, however, for someone closely involved with an organisation to be truly neutral in their reporting; it is often better to leave it to someone unknown to you to (eventually) write an article. Note that some people also expect articles to meet some kind of (hazy) notability bar and that they may seek deletion of an article which, in their opinion, does not meet such a bar. This is a controversial concept and there would be due discussion before such a deletion occured. Some (formative) 'notability' guidelines for companies can be found in WP:CORP but do note that this is still a new proposal that is actively under development. -Splash^talk 01:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

EU Law template

If you delete the template you have to add the text in each article where it was used. --Drdan 09:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I will add the text to the pages where the template was used. --Drdan 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Matlab code

Hi there. Sorry to be slow to get back to you.

I made the timing diagrams from the command line and then spent a while tweaking the export options regarding exporting before the final image was useful. The labelling of it I did all in Powerpoint (I think I exported a .eps version from Matlab) since the labelling feature in Matlab is a bit poor and fiddly to use. So I don't have the code I used, although with some legwork I guess I could reconstruct it. I think I'd prefer not to, though, since the .png files we already have are ok enough. The constellation diagrams I made entirely in Powerpoint; Matlab can do that (I believe the Comms toolbox has specific functions for it), but I didn't like the output as much as what I could get in Powerpoint. Using Powerpoint also avoided the need to write any code at all — I just positioned things using the default snap-to-grid things. Unfortunately, neither Matlab nor Powerpoint can export in .svg so I had to settle for .png -Splash^talk 01:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

if you haven't got the code and you can't make it again easily, then it doesn't matter. The point is that SVG graphics can have any resolution, while increasing the size of a PNG you lose quality. Any plot you can make in Matlab can be converted in SVG using Gnuplot (using some tips...), and then you can add whatever you want post-processing it with Sodipodi.

from now on, if you post an image you got with Matlab, post the code you used, too. It won't take much time, it's just a matter of copy and paste. Alessio Damato 17:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That's actually really helpful and explains why it was so damned hard to make the images not scramble when I resized them. I had to spend quite some time playing with the export options so that the timing diags looked ok once they were the size I reckoned they should be. (The constellations weren't problematic; I suppose this is because I made them very big and only use them smaller.) When I find the time, I'll turn them into .svg images...once I work out those two pieces of software you mention. As for posting the Matlab code; I'll think about that case-by-case because I can imagine there are some cases where I would not want to GFDL the code (e.g. if it's part of my PhD or something). Thanks for the insight. -Splash^talk 17:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

you might take a look at Inkscape as well: it was developed from Sodipodi. Its aim is more artistic, but there are more developers working at it, so it could have some interesting features. Alessio Damato 17:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CBW RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 23:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

my comment on PFA's RFA

Yeah that comment was a bit heavy handed. Yet another Asume Good Faith lesson. I think its time to be the good easy cop from now on. I just have to wait for the head rush to go down. All of these powers...I can feel the Dark Side!...but I must resist..like any good Jedi :).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

award

quis custodiet ipsos custodes. For courageous defence of process against admin abuse (and because a hard-hat might come in useful) I Doc (?) make this award (24/10/05).

Margaret Turnbull

Yes, thanks. I saw it on my watchlist and have expanded it somewhat. Marskell 17:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

the wub's RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 13:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Avenue on DRV

You commented at the top of the Woodroffe Avenue avenue debate on Deletion reveiw that you "wern't sure" if I was really a keep deleted vote. i don't know why you were unsure. While I suggested thsat the matter didn't need to come before CR in the way it did, I thoughtI was very clear that DR should not undelete this articel, indeed I put a speedy tag on it for re-deletion, which another admin removed. The only thing I didn't do was unilaterally delete it -- should I do that :) I definately am voting KD on this. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: I was somewhat unsure because I decided to be very precise in my reading of what I knew would be close vote, and a controversial one if it yielded a kd. My unsureness stemmed largely from your opening sentence, which seemed to say you thought this shouldn't be on DRV at all and that the bulk of your comment dealt with whether or not there was a G4 case rather than whether to overturn the AfD or not. I'm splitting hairs, but was pretty sure that if I was conservative I would cause less bloodshed. Anyway, now that you've written a crystal clear statement, there'll be no possibility of me misunderstanding again. -Splashtalk 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. I did concentrate on the G4 issue because i was hoping to induce the person or people wanting the article to do a more through re-wite, thus making a probably contentious DRV debate moot. I cna see how that may have made things less than clear. Thanks for being conservative in a heated situation. DES ^(talk) 21:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 17:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Gave your ideas a lot of thoughts

I changed your name on Jimbo Wales site, Wales never bothered to answer anyway.

I gave the actual author notice.

i also gave your ideas a lot of thoughts about fair use.

I guess I didn't understand how headers worked, thanks for explaining it to me....Travb 22:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I am "being bold" and erased the sentence which is NOT copyright law:

Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable, unless it is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source.

Changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACopyright_problems%2FHeader&diff=26476341&oldid=26427599

Discussion on the talk page...would welcome your input.

Thanks. I left a note on your talk page regarding this. I think, in particular, that you'd be better off trimming down the message you left on Header/Talk and moving it to the main CP/Talk page which is likely to much more widely watched. -Splash^talk 22:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher

I think there's been some good headway dealing with the Scottfisher copyvio issues. Scott has come up with a list of images that he agrees should be deleted, and both he and Pigsonthewings are asking me to go ahead and delete them. However, I'm not entirely familiar with procedure on PUI and how that relates to the new speedies, so I wanted to ask some other admins familiar with the issue for comment. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Appleby

By all means, if you think it's the right thing to do, then go ahead and extend the block. Edit warring is never the answer. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 02:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well, although regardless, he shouldn't be continuously reverting. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV comments

Ive just gotten a chance to look at what people have been arguing about, and I think your comments on the issue of the Arbcom's remedy have been rather notably insightful. Now that the decision is made, perhaps some kind whistleblower with access to the Arbcom could leak to us all the private correspondence on the matter? Regards, -St|eve 04:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use discussion on Jimbo's Talk page

I have responded to Travb's comments about my addition to the Copyright Problems page on Jimbo's page and on Travb's talk page. I think the contested sentence should go back up-- note the text that appears at the bottom of every Edit page: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION. All edits are released under the GFDL (see WP:Copyrights). [...] Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages." It probably makes sense to wait a few days to see if anything develops, but it seems to me that it is a correct and useful addition to CP. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For the html thingy --Doc (?) 20:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't stand for slashes in the wrong part of a tag. It's like....well....it's like...yeah. -Splash^talk 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Headers

Hi Splash, sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were a vandal. It's just that it's been discussed on talk. Some people were having difficulty editing the page because it had gotten too long, so we either had to remove comments or create headers. I removed comments, but someone objected, so I created headers instead. I've seen this done before on RfCs that get long. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your concern

Splash. Thanks for your vote, but I would like you to realize that I was only campaigning because there have been campaigns to get voters against me. I would never have done this before, but it really concerns me now that a couple of people would take their opinions against me to try and influence other's votes. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also Splash, I never asked people to support me, I just asked them to vote. These are all people I have met on the wikipedia, but hadn't voted. Most of the other one's I have met before already voted. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree to edit wikipedia space more often. Please take time to consider your vote if possible. You don't seem like an unreasonable editor, and yes I have made my share of mistakes, but it will take me some time as an admin to familiarize with some of the admin tasks. Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Principle of correction

I made up this name for something that has occured in a couple of AfD discussions in the WP:DRV for Wikipedia:Advogato, and might summarise it as never invoke a process if the grounds for invoking that process are easily corrected. I'm interested in whether you consider this a valid principle: the text

"I think I am an immediato-eventualist. This makes me a slightly deletionist soul who is nevertheless prepared to keep a weak article that can be demonstrated to be rescuable in either the short or medium term"

from your user page suggests that perhaps you do.

You seem to have tacitly/indirectly accused my of lying on that process page about the purpose of the article. I'd rather you didn't simply evade ignore my challenge. --- Charles Stewart 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn that you do not think I was lying, although to me your words in the DRV do appear to suggest just that. Since the AfV reached the wrong conclusion I don't see how you can claim there was nothing wrong with it. It does not follow that because the participants individually conducted themselves tolerably well that no collective mistake was made. Indeed I have have documented what I understand to be two errors in that process. Furthermore, isn't part of the DRV process to allow for late-arriving evidence to be taken into account? --- Charles Stewart 20:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship votes

Hi Splash,

Question:

Recent events have motivated me to become a more active voter at RfA. There is a standard set of three questions for every candidate. Can any user add question there? (I know I've seen admins do it, but...)

If so, I'm thinking of adding "What is your view of Wikipedia's WP:Rule To Consider WP:IAR? In what circumstances, if any, might you invoke it?" I'm aware that the question is a bit-"wikipolitical," but it is something on which I will base my vote, and I imagine both sides in the process debate care about it. The question is also neutrally phrased. Your thoughts? Xoloz 05:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD

Thanks for reminding me of that. --Phroziac^(talk) 14:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User: Monicasdude and Album infobox 2

Monicasdude has continued to unilaterally and systematically revert all articles using infobox 2 back to infobox 1 on the grounds that there is clear consensus and that infobox 2 violates fair use. I have tried explaining countless times to him that this is not the appropriate thing to do considering the fact that there was in fact no consensus on deletion of the template and, until then, he should not continue to change these templates. The user has been nothing but rude to me and insulting of my credibility, making outlandish claims. Furthermore, the user continues to censor his talk page by deleting comments he does not approve of (especially ones which are critical of his behavior). An RfC has been going on regarding this user for quite some time concerning other issues, but it has not really gone anywhere and I will be turning this over to mediation shortly (with the support of many more users who have had nothing but problems with Monicasdude). I'm just wondering if you're willing to get involved at this point because it appears the user will simply not listen to anyone and has continued to show bad faith edits. --Comics 17:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am astonished by the "bad faith" characterization, since User:Comics has acknowledged that my edits are motivated by legitimate concerns. The relevant Wikipedia guideline, reflecting applicable law, states in pertinent part that "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." It's a sad comment about the condition of Wikipedia these days that editors who try to keep articles in conformity with undisputed guidelines are subjected to repeated personal attacks and abusive commentary. Monicasdude 18:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

I have responded to your comment in the oppose section. Respectfully, St|eve 04:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have again replied inline. Thank you again for the courtesy of being responsive to my points. -St|eve 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hola

Hey Splashy. Long time no talk. Just swung by to say hello and ask how are things. I've been doing very light work this past week. What have you been up to? Bit of a nasty business with Steve's RFA/ArbComm thingy, eh? As always your remarks ring smart and true. Project spaces seem depressing these days. Sometimes. Noticed? Say, if you ever want to chat about stuff, you'll always be welcome at my page. Catch you later buddy. encephalon 21:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Heya – good to hear from you again. Sounds like you've busy with an actual real-life! Things are ok. I've written a few new articles recently, which is always heartwarming. Referencing them was quite hard work, and I've discovered that several of my earliest articles are really quite poorly referenced...Yeah, policy pages have been a bit spiky lately. I hope it wears off (or down, at least). Still, I can avoid almost all of the hoo-ha by taking my delete button over to Copyright problems if things get too much! I think DR may have been activated, but we have yet to test it out. The RfA(r) things was really a mess, and I don't suppose my comments have endeared me to ArbCom, but there we go. Your remarks were also their usual incisive selves. Enjoy your editing time: spend it wisely! -Splash^talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CopyPath-template

What is wrong with CopyPath-template? It is trying to tell users to use Requested copyright examinations before adding content to Wikipedia, and list existing problematic content as Copyright problems. I'm waiting to see, how you are planning to improve the template. (I still don't understand why you had to delink it while you're improving it) It is one part of solution for people uploading and copy/pasting stuff with unclear licenses, and also an atempt to avoid copright violations getting listed at examination page. As you can see on the page, 1/2 of the requests listed there should be somewhere else.

Imagevios

Hi Splash

It is my view that the project is best served by a narrow interpretation of fair use. My view is that fair use is only an appropriate strategy when the image in question is be ing discussed. This essentially rules out any sort of biographical or event photo from the possibility of being fair use.

If you are interested in the reasoning behind this and are unfamiliar with it please ask.

Anyway thanks for the note. I'll attend to the images another time when I'm more, er, awake.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio sigs

Thanks, this is taken care of. I've changed about a dozen I reckon, and there didn't seem much point reverting the change! I now stop myself editing copyvios. Rich Farmbrough 10:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unproductive

Unproductive is in both Dictionary.com and OED dating back to 1756. So, it is a word. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 17:11

Huh, so it is. But it's a very odd word, and "counterproductive" is much better. -Splash^talk 17:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see others' discussion before reverting what everyone is in favor of. Template talk:Test. Rdsmith4 was against counterproductive, but both he and David Gerald are in favor of unproductive, as am I. Of the 5+ people, nobody was against changing vandalism to something less harsh. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 17:21

Now who is being unproductive? IRC discussion doesn't count? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 17:23

Not every channel on IRC is #wikipedia. There are productive channels on IRC. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 17:26

Yeah, I was considering that too. I'm fine with it. (Making it two paragraph, but keeping the links inline, not bullets) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 17:34

About a copyright violation filed on October 11th... the "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees"

A {copy-vio} was initiated on October 11th on a page I had done a lot of work on -- the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I see you erased it from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 October 11 recently.

This is the first {copy-vio} I have been involved in. I have a few questions:

1. Is the {copy-vio} now over? Have you adjudicated that the there was no actual copyright violation involved?
2. I've been on the wikipedia for just over a year. And I had not been involved in any {copy-vio} or {afd} discussions, until this last month. In addition to initiating this {copy-vio}, which it seemed to me gave the strong appearance of being initiated in a act of bad faith, User:Joaquin Murietta, subsequently initiated over half a dozen {afd}s, several of which also gave the strong appearance of bad faith. The way they are following around my edits, and doing arbitrary reversals of my contributions, slapping tags on them, and making insulting comments on them, makes me feel almost as if I am being stalked. It is extremely unpleasant. I am hoping that if I have to initiate a formal complaint against their treatment of me that I will have the option to take clips from the edit history of their contribtions to "Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 October 11". So, do the pages where the {copy-vio}s are reported and discussed get deleted, when the last {copy-vio} from that date is dealt with? Or are they preserved, as a record?
3. Was my feeling that the {copy-vio}, and my perception that JM was unwillingness to engage in an honest, meaningful, civil discussion of the issues, sufficient reason to initiate a formal complaint?
4. If a contributor makes too many abuses of wiki policies and procedures, sanctions, like temporary blocking, are imposed, aren't they?

I realize that, since there is a backlog in processing the {copy-vio}s, this feedback may not be coming at the most convenient time, but I would like to give feedback:

1. I took several long looks at the backlogged list of suspected articles. It is very rare for anyone to comment on the cases.
2. The person who wrote the material suspected of being a copyright violation is entitled to respond?
3. If they are entitled to respond, the correct place to respond is right after where the suspicion was logged?
4. As someone who went through this for the first time I can offer an explanation. The {copy-vio} tag doesn't actually point to a location for interested parties to put their comments. I felt sorry for some of the other people who had {copy-vio}s filed against them. I could see that some of them had made attempts to explain that they were actually authorized to put up that text. They just couldn't find where to do it.

Thanks -- Geo Swan 21:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply

Thanks for your reply.

I have tried to stop short of an accusation, and phrase my concern as "giving a strong appearance of bad faith". But the amount of trust I had in their good faith long since asymptotically approached zero.

I have told them that I will give a civil, serious answer, if they can manage to ask a civil, serious question. They have asked a few questions that they phrased civilly. But my civil answers seem to be like a red flag to a bull for them.

You volunteered to speak to them? Well, they said they were going wait for an administrator to make the judgement as to whether it was a copyright violation. This was their justification for refusing to discuss the issue. They repeated it after I pointed out that they were misinterpreting Feith v. Rural. And they repeated it a third time when half a dozen of the the people who had voted to keep the article during its {afd} told him they too thought Feith v. Rural was conclusive. I believe in acknowledging when I make a mistake, and possibly apologizing too. But I don't believe they do.

But, since they said they were going to wait for an administrator to make the decision, I think it would be a good idea if you told them it was over.

Over and above that, well the history of our interaction has so many incidents sorting it all out would take a long time. I expect the summary I would need to make if I file a complaint could take all day. I won't expect you to follow it all. I should make that summary.

Anyhow, thanks for your prompt reply... -- Geo Swan 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Splash, Geo Swan, in his customary confrontational way, has posted all over Wikipedia about this, so I am aware. Thank you for your time and consideration. Joaquin Murietta 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PS in view of your ruling on the List of Guantanamo detainees, I wrote List of corporate executives charged with crimes. Unlike List of Guantanamo detainees, it is not plagiarized from the newspaper article and is NPOV. Joaquin Murietta 05:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct

I am currently amassing evidence of the misconduct demonstrated by User:Tony Sidaway and would appreciate your help in the matter. If you would please post any contributions you may have to User:TheChief/Evidence I would appreciate it very much. TheChief (PowWow) 23:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the way you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics process: I think the comments you made there will be helpful. One remark you made there was Also note that a poll on extending the debate has no useful precedent and is largely unnecessary anyway since the backlog in closing AfDs is usually at least several days beyond the 5 stipulated: should I understand by this that all admins won't close a live debate, and will say the vote ends when the dust settles (ie. votes arriving later than the 5 stipulated days count)? FYI, I have seen such requests made before at least on the old VfDs. --- Charles Stewart 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ending AfDs

It looks like we should start an RfC. There's a lot of ill will around Hewitt's edits, hopefully the RfC can draw out that poison. --- Charles Stewart 16:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Help please

Splash, do you mind putting this thing out of its misery? It's way past its expiry date. I'm also concerned that it be closed by an admin skilled in AFD, who'd write a suitably elucidative note for everyone's benefit, ie. in particular those who feel strongly that the article should be kept. encephalon 23:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I took a look and wrote a closure note commensurate (I hope) with the debate. It really does take quite a while to deal with an AfD of that size: reading and re-reading, checking and double checking...then orphaning the article and handling its redirects etc. We should offer admins the option of cyborgish implants; it'd clear the AfD backlog in no time. -Splash^talk 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Subst: part of a template

Hi- You wrote:

Hi Rick, you seem to know these sorts of things. I'd like for {{copyvio}} to be able to hard-link to the relevant day subpage on WP:CP without actually being subst:ed itself. Is this possible? -Splash^talk 22:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you mean what I think you do, I think the answer may be no (Who has been looking for a solution like this for the {{cfr}} sorts of templates as well). One thing that would work is to create a variant of {{copyvio}} that takes a date as an argument. When subst'd, this would leave a hard link. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a way to make variables like {{CURRENTDAY}} be interpreted at template subst time (you can get a variable in a template through some trickery, but if you do then subst'ing the template does not expand the variable so you're left with a variable link which is not what you're after). This has come up enough lately that it seems like someone might have entered a bugzilla request (I haven't looked). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio Queries, Oxf Dict of Saints

Hello there. Regarding the couple of items you queried, the new version of Ambrose Barlow is virtually verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so no copyvio at all now (lots of style and updating issues, but that's a different question entirely). As for Apollinaris Claudius, I was so focussed on the Oxf Dict that I missed the other bits you mention. I have looked at it again, but am not sure quite what to make of it: I will check it out further. Thanks for your message, and all bestStaffelde 02:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Discounting votes based on Wikipedia: space edits

I noticed in your summing-up of an Articles For Deletion page: "Additionally, Shard and Robin Johnson each have around 10 Wikipedia: space edits and I'm usually minded to numerically remove them too." Sorry if I've missed something, but can I ask why this is? Robin Johnson 10:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review: Ticalcs and Vdesign

Splash,
I cannot help but notice that your commentary here veers a bit from your normal calm considered self. I thought I was the flighty flappy fickle one, so I must ask: everything oll korrect? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I just directed all the fire against myself for a bit. Besides, it's just an article, and if it ends up undeleted, it'll be deleted again. Calm down. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I should clam down, you're right. For completeness, I replied to Aaron at User talk:Aaron Brenneman. One day, I will work out a talk page policy so I know where is right for me to reply. -Splash^talk 04:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Would something else to get your teeth into help? I'm about to do a savage refactor of WP:WEB, which is where I have corralled the artist formerly known as WP:COMIC. This debate seems to have a tendancy to run off into venom, I'm sure you noticed. I'd like to see a bit more rigour, moving smartly into this proposed guideline becoming an actual guideline. If the talents of yourself, Titoxd, and Encephalon do VfU could be applied here...
  brenneman^(t)(c) 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On a hard day

Hi Splash,

I noticed you were a bit tense at DRV, and I can understand why. So here, have a barnstar!

I, Xoloz, award this Working Man's Barnstar to Splash for his tireless defense of the spirit of consensus in many wiki-forums.

If Wikipedia ever adds a virtual statuary hall, I'll be sure to suggest that you get a monument. :) Best, Xoloz 11:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Veering

I'll be watching you, should you exhibit recidivism over The College of Wooster Greeks DR. And why didn't you plonk a "neutral/oppose" on me like everyone else, btw? If you can't trust your mates to stab you in the back, who can you trust! - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That was enough buts to form a congo line. Just remember, my back is always open to you. To swing away from the slightly giddy relief that I feel now that it is over: <serious> I do always appreciate being told when I'm doing something wrong. Or even something simply poor. I try to learn from my mistakes, but sometimes need a little help to see them. </serious> - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PSK

It's always nice to get a message now and then about articles :-) --> Anyway, I don't know why that image did not "exist" in the log file, but I re-uploaded another one as its replacement. That seemed to do the trick. --HappyCamper 01:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

20k

20,000 edits, yay me ;) «»Who?¿?^meta 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hey, I was going to post this on the Deletion review, but then I decided not to further clutter that page, since as far as deletion review is concerned, the right thing has already been done. Anyway, as for Riot Siren, the only "harm" IMO is that the undeletion and unclosure just made extra work for no discernable benefit. If it hadn't already been brought up on DR, I'd probably be the guy closing it now, calling it a clear consensus for deletion. Leaving these things lingering provides no benefit and increases the chances of a sock invasion that wastes everyone's time. But, obviously it was contested, so I suppose we now have to delete it with as much delay and ceremony as possible. I realize my opinion on this may be a bit more Wikipedia:Common sense than some folks like. I don't disagree with your undeletion and unclosure, but I just wanted to say that IMO there's no harm in closing an Afd early when consensus is clear. With the ever-increasing amount of articles listed there, I personally think we should encourage early closure (in obvious cases) to help move things along. Friday (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The College of Wooster Greeks

Thought I'd bring my comments re this to you directly.

• Keep closed Can't see the point of listing perfectly good articles on AfD. We're running an encyclopedia, not an aunt sally stall. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but the point of the listing would seem to be what the nominator stated in the AfD. Clearly, Purplefeltangel thought it wasn't a perfectly good article. She is entitled to make her case, as those who agree with her. You are not in a position to tell them to shut up because you fear what they are saying.-Splash^talk 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In the above you make two particular points that I find difficult to reconcile with my own comment:

1. You are not in a position to tell them to shut up
2. you fear what they are saying.

I'm kinda flummoxed about both. I said "Can't see the point of listing perfectly good articles on AfD. We're running an encyclopedia, not an aunt sally stall."

I'm comfortable with the idea that some people may think that the article isn't "perfectly good". I have no fear on this matter.

So could you explain why you made those two observations? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

#1 was addressed to the keep closed part. Closing early (or deleting the AfD) serves principally to forcibly end the debate before its natural expiration after 5 days or some longer, backlog-induced time. Snowspinner's comments in the DRV debate make fairly clear that ending the debate was certainly what he wanted to do. This is telling the participants to shut up, because the closer disagrees with the debates existence. Mandating that it stay closed is to endorse such an action. I agree that there is no point listing perfectly good articles on AfD and would not do so myself (except accidentally, once). On the other hand, once nominated, I don't see any harm in just letting the debate run or, in this case, resuming it until its usual end. It was plainly going to be a no consensus and no harm would have been done and there'd have been no need for all that. Imo, the article needs quite a bit of work before being properly goodt, but it doesn't need deletion.

As for #2, good. But being afraid of the outcome of a debate is usually the reason behind trying to quash it. That's not an assumption of terribly good faith, but why else suppress discussion? Something to do with Snowspinner complaining about the ability of DRV to discuss disputed keeps, I think, but then why have concern over that? (No need to repeat the discussion here.) If a kept-AfD had no procedural errors then DRV would not overturn it, I hope. We have yet to test that claim properly, though. If you'd said something like "relist, but I can't see the point in...", that'd have been different. -Splash^talk 23:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point, but I'd reply that you're using special pleading here. We do commonly end debates when their outcome is obvious. We speedy keep and speedy delete all the time. Obviously Snowspinner's intention here cannot have been fear, nor do I think it can reasonably be stated that debates are normally ended out of fear. His intention was apparently to discourage the listing of perfectly good, verifiable articles (which may need cleanup). I think this is a very laudable aim. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we commonly speedily end no-brainer debates (or accidental should-have-been-speedies), but I'm not sure we commonly declare a speedy "no consensus" (or, if you prefer, a speedy "keep because of no consensus"). When Doc glasgow tried that with a school just recently he was quickly reverted, although he got a barnstar for it. Perhaps it's the somewhat (imo) over-dramatic language Snowspinner is using on the DRV that sounds fearful. But once something is nominated, what's the point in quashing the debate, with a rather authoritarian sounding closure if you are entirely unflappable about its potential outcomes? If someone wishes something were not nominated, they need only say so in the debate (or on User talk: or something). They don't need to take prophylactic action. -Splash^talk 00:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I saw this, I'll point out that Doc's done the same a few other times when his result was left to stand -- see for instance Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St.-Pius-Gymnasium. 140.247.23.104 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting yourself?

I was about to participate in the Afd on Wooster Greeks. You've reverted yourself and re-closed it? Friday (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. I think my tone is amibiguous in the above. To clarify, I'm just confused. Are you going to re-list it? I'm considering re-listing it if you're not going to, altho I halfway think a fresh Afd might be the way to go. Friday (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I replied on my talk. Friday (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wooster greeks

I noticed the early AfD closing when it happened, and asked Snowspinner about it, but he never replied. I ended up not worrying about it since I was arguing with him a lot over webcomics at the time—where should I have brought it up? -- SCZenz 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up on Riot Siren. I bungled a couple of speedies in my eagerness, so I appreciate the guidance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PRueda29 RFA

Thanks for your Support! I really appreciate it. Thank you also for your suggestions, they'll be helpful towards improving myself to becoming a better user. I've been trying to place edit summaries as often as possible lately but they often slip my mind, I'm working towards changing this. As for Afd and speedy delete, this is something I recently started looking into and hadn't done so before because since registering I've mostly spent time editing pages and working on articles. I did pick up a lot of etiquette and regular editing from the start, but it wasn't really until I began working on the Columbine article that I began to pick up the more intricate rules and styles of formatting. Thanks again! PRueda29 03:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OJ

Remember the (non?)vandal I blocked over the OJ edits - who complained on WP:RFM from a diffent IP, and I apologised and unblocked? Guess what? His new IP was subsequently blocked for vandalism by Mindspillage 69.60.116.125 (talk · contribs · block log). Gotta love the wiki! --Doc (?) 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Well-deserved. Mine would be less so, but I'm taking one as well. :) encephalon 16:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Enjoy! --Kbdank71 16:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. Have fun, forget about Wiki for a while so you come with recharged batteries! Titoxd^(?!?) 04:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Should I be worried, Splash? [1] Be happy, be well. encephalon 22:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Splash? encephalon 12:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I would appreciate your vote or comment on these two cfms:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Executed_revolutionaries_to_Category:Revolutionaries
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Jewish_American_actors

Thanks, Arniep 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Hi there! You said, "It wasn't deleted, but DRV can review non-delete decisions too" - of course I know that, I believe I co-wrote that policy :) I was just trying to forestall a pileup of votes-on-principle by people who thought the page was deleted. Yours, Radiant_>|< 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia-watch

Hi,

I'm leaving this message on the page of all the users mentioned by Brandt on this new page of his wikipeida-watch site. As you can see from the link, he's put together a list of the Wikipedia users that he sees as his enemies, and is trying to collect as much personal information as he can about each of them. Just thought I should let you know. Canderson7 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FireFox RFA

Splash/Archive6

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!

Thank you so much for voting in my RfA, and especially thank you for supporting me. I really appreciate it, and will wield the mop and bucket the best way I know how. I admire all your work on AfD, CfD, IfD, TfD, and the various other _fD pages. I have begun to realize how soothing it is to finally get a vandal to shut up, or delete that annoying page. Thank you for giving me the power to delete, block, protect, and serve. Stop by my talk page, or on article pages; I greatly look forward to working with you. A belated thanks again, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}