User:Carbine showed up at Wikipedia a few months ago and made a number of inane contributions (some vandalism, the others just plain useless) until he finally got blocked. After having made some socks already, he then began to create several more, usually either with the name "Smugface" or something relating to his interests, i.e. User:M1 carbine. User:Dfrg.msc is a self-admitted friend of Carbine's, and has often been precariously close to an indef block himself, engaging in similar behavior. Having spent plenty of time with both, it's pretty easy to spot another obvious sock... the same images, the same excessive userboxes, the same interests, the same behavior patterns, etc. As sockpuppets are not allowed on Wikipedia except in special cases, I blocked this user. Believe me, there has been a very, very generous amount of patience and goodwill extended towards both users, but neither seems to have understood the purpose of this website and why it's not a playground. I think you'll need to provide some compelling reasons to allow them to continue to fill the servers with more of their inane garbage.
Spend some more time looking through these two user's contrib histories and tell me again if you think there's not reason to block a sock account by one of them. A few minor edits among a sea of garbage does not a legitimate user make. I understand your concern, but being familiar with both from the start, I don't intend to open the door any to allow them to continue to harass other editors here. Feel free to contest the block if you'd like - I won't consider it insulting or anything of the sort - but when it comes to a repeat vandal who has continually abused the patience and goodwill of others, I don't feel inclined to entertain them. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Because I had seriously entertained blocking thoughts myself and stepped away from it, I felt I wanted to explore a little further. I did warn the users with reference to WP:Not and tried to deal with some of the images. I don't disagree with the decision but I am not confident about the reason. However, I have no intention of contesting the block any further. Enjoy your break. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I know the feeling, believe me. Image use has been yet another problem with these two. By the way, I should've added that I'm glad that you dropped me a note here - it's reassuring to see another admin to check on reasoning behind a block when he or she feels it may be a rash decision. After all, blocks should always be a last resort. Thanks for watching out for other editors. Tijuana
Brass¡Épa!23:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when an english wikipedia admim says that while is a relative pronoun....... Ok doesn't that make you laugh??? Well to me sounds funny..... at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.59.7 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but I have a policy of no pronoun complaints on my page until you get your punctuations straight. I'll let it slide this time, but believe me, I'm gonna be up all night going over this incident in my head. And "flying buttress" sounds way funnier to me than any relative pronoun does.
I have underlined this in his talk page, just to me sounded funny when the admin was defending his grammar error in his own talk page...--82.59.59.700:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you mean that you wanted the latter two articles moved to the spaces vacated by the former two. While you mentioned something to that effect in the speedy deletion tags, that job will often be left to the user who added that tags, as any user can do a page move and reversion. I've done both; take a look and see if it's what you had in mind. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tijuana. Starting to understand Wiki. A bit, well maybe a tidge, well OK not much but I do have a blind guide dog. Is Golden Torch ready to be Okeh'd? regards, Docludi
I saw you tagged at least two of my speedy delete tags with a new header (for example Memorial Day School). The new one seems much more fair; I was wondering if non-admins should be using it also, or is it showing the admin's decision? If I should be using it instead, what is the name (since it was subst'd)? Thanks! — RevRagnarokTalkContribReverts10:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed because I did ask for a page to be deleted recently User:Trödel/end - perhaps it was transcluded on to my sandbox when I was testing - and you saw it there - sorry for the confustion --Trödel18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome to use the setup on my talk page. Most of it was done for me by User:Sango123 as a favor. Note that most of the format is done through a separate page which lays stuff out at the beginning: User:Tijuana Brass/Talk.
On the Youth ministry page, I think you were dead-on about a lot of those issues. I'm glad to work together on getting it evened out some; I'll be kind of off and on for the next few days, but I'll jump in when I have time and will keep an eye on what goes down there and what changes you propose or make. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your response Tijuana Brass. Due to your explination, I know now my mistake and I will not repeat it. What is the deal for uploading pictures of money? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_dollar#History) AS I now would prefer to ask first rahter than suffer the consequences later.
Thank you for looking into things. I am pleased that it seems to be handled in a gentle and amicable fashion. You left some guidelines for me to read, and I have read them before. I am not sure if this is a signal that you have detected something amiss in my behavior. It is a problem if I am in need of correction because I believed that I have been polite and reasonable. Of course, that could be a blindness. So... Did you observe anything in my conduct, my approach or my intonation that suggested I have been remiss in those areas? If so I would like to know what they are so that I can improve. --Anon 6401:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am VERY SLOWLY working on the Exmormonism article. I have not made any edits, but I have done a great deal of research, so far focused only on defining the term (it seems very elusive) (if you are interested in going to sleep it is found in archives 5 and perhaps a bit in 4). However, there is an editor who seems to have take Ownership of the article. I actually sort of value that kind of thing, even though it is slightly contrary to wikipedia policy. However, the problem here is that the editor in question rejects NPOV for this article and seems to be promising an edit war in advance. I would appreciate your advice. I am not soliciting action or input on the Talk page of the article as an administrator. Instead, I read your user page and read that you are both a former mormon and someone who takes their Christianity seriously. I suspect you also take the wikipedia guidelines and responsibilities seriously as well. So, I value your advice in that regard. I am looking for suggestions from you on my talk page. I also would appreciate it if you would keep your eye on things around the article but again, I am not seeking a comment there. (Dont take that to mean one would be unwelcome either!)
By the way, that AfD above is really weird. I would have agreed to delete it, but if it is a speciality encyclopedia maybe its ok! Very weird though.
The Yoism article you deleted was recreated by an administrator (Jossi) who was apparently unaware of the history. After the deletion process, the article had been redirected by an administrator to Open source religion and kept that way. Jossi used the Open source religion article to recreate the Yoism article and then deleted the open source religion article. The last version of the article that I saw (its history has been deleted and so I do not know if Jossi did more editing on the Yoism article he created before you deleted it) made no sense as an article about Yoism, so I am not questioning your deletion of that article.
During and after the deletion process, however, I was told by many admins that the Yoism article could be recreated when there are external, published references to it. While there are now, I am avoiding being the one to recreate it, as I was too close to it and the fight against its deletion. The question is whether, in the meantime, you can recreate the Yoism article as a redirect to Open source religion? That, after all, was the result of the careful scrutiny the article received late last year, and it remained that way until Jossi's actions last week. Kriegman12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Probably a good idea to not be the one to reinstate Yoism too; even if the revised article was an FA candidate, just being attached with your name would have the likely (unfair) consequence of a speedy deletion. Have you kept the revised article in your userspace? Would you provide me with the link to it so I can take a look? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy in my user space because---since it could be linked to from outside of the Wikipedia---I thought it would be seen as a way to circumvent the deletion and to continue to use the Wikipedia for "self promotion." (Was I wrong about that?) I did, however, recreate it on one of the Yoism pages. You can view it here. It can be fairly easily recreated from that source, though it would have been much easier if I kept a copy in Wikipedia format. But as an administrator, can't you access an archived version? Kriegman 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I sent this note to Jossi, shortly after he recreated the Yoism article. I was trying to inform him about the history of the article and give him the data needed to meet the critiques voiced during the VfD. (He moved the note to the Yoism talk page, which was subsequently deleted.) Kriegman16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TB. I was wondering if you could clarify the current situation at Yoism and Open source religion. Yoism was deleted and protected, but it appears it was then unprotected long enough for it to be recreated again under two different article names... then protected again. Medtopic17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoism passed, Yoism was deleted. After a couple of reposts, it was then protected for about eight months until a little over a week ago, when User:Jossi, an admin, recreated it using the content from Open source religion, then turning the latter article into a redirect to Yoism (you'll have to ask him for his reasons on that one). Shortly thereafter, another user marked Yoism with a speedy deletion tag as a repost. I came across it from CAT:CSD and deleted it (and then protected it again), believing it to be another repost. Not long afterwards, User:Kriegman posted the message at the top of this thread informing me of what had happened. Seeing that there had been some changes made to the article, along with new documentation provided by User:Kriegman, I believed that it merited a re-examination at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and added it on. I also advised User:Jossi of my error here.
TB, if you think it's appropriate, would you redirect Yoism to Open source religion? That's the way it was after the VfD last year. At least readers coming to the WP for info on Yoism (e.g., from pages like this, see the July 28th entry) would not just hit a dead end. I must say, I didn't understand that deletion review, but I am learning to be less invested in the outcome of a particular issue. Overall the WP process clearly works, even if it is imperfect. If you don't mind my asking, what did you think of the way it went down? Kriegman19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a logical redirect, consider it done. As far as the process goes... well... I agree that it's a borderline case, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has no restriction on space, my personal preference would be to retain the article. I think that Bwith's investigation was well thought out and thorough, and Yoism doesn't seem to be much larger than a tiny academic interest (no offense intended). Even with that said, I prefer keeping an article if it's a borderline case. Sorry that it didn't go your way. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. It helped. Whether Yoism is of "more than academic interest" (no offense taken) is an empirical question. And Yoans are empiricists, if nothing else ;-) The Yoism web site is getting hundreds of hits every day from Google searches for the word "yoism." I doubt many of them are academics. I don't think this can be used as evidence that Yoism is "important." However, it is clear that many thousands of people (over the course of a year) are looking to find out more about this "yoism" thing; they aren't searching for something more specific and these hits are not coming from a link to specific content. As you note, this is not a paper encyclopedia. What is the harm of having a brief description in the WP? In the AfD in 2003, this issue was argued at length. The decision was to keep the article but to note the limited numbers of participants, i.e., to make sure that readers weren't misled (by the article's inclusion in the WP) into thinking it was of more importance than there was evidence to support. What's wrong with that, i.e., with including things a small but significant number of people want to know about while making sure that inclusion doesn't misrepresent the phenomenon? Anyway, thanks again. Kriegman22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad form to modify a closed AfD; and doing that doesn't result in getting the result changed. The right thing to do is list the AfD at Deletion Review expressing your concerns. That can actually get the result changed. Phr (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Tijuana Brass/Archive 3, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7...
I am now an admin!!!
I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I belive it is both customary and decent to either warn/tell me if you are about to delete uploaded content, so that I can learn from my mistakes and overcome the problem so that the image can stay. Would it not be better if you told me what was the problem and we could fix it? In the stead of you deleting it, telling me what is wrong - me fixing it, and re-uploading the image(s). This has happened before, as your talk page bears wittness.
You've been advised time after time to not upload images without a valid source and license. All three of the recently deleted images had the same tags you've seen before informing you that there's been a problem, and were there for a week before deletion. You've been afforded the decency of warnings, which you choose to ignore. As you've been told several times, by myself and others, Wikipedia is not a place for you to host random images, to post your bizarre comments to article and user pages, and the other activities you and your friend Carbine use it for. This issue is now settled as far as I am concerned; should you feel the need to continue to pursue it, feel free to visit the Administrator's Noticeboard.
Yo, Bro. Ah, but I was not informed about the tags on my Userpage, and I don't regulary "do ze rounds" to see what is marked as a target. Ah, well, no matter. Anyway, I was under the impression that the images had a valid source and license, the Reichstag was from Commons and Spidey was a picture taken of a Spiderman model - I feel I have already stated this somewhere? The liscence was self-made. If I resubmit one (or more) of the images, and state this, would it (they) still be illegal? If so, tell me exactly what I am doing wrong and I will follow you instrucion (exactly) so we save some time.
Carbine?Was my friend Carbine, was. How long has it been scince he made an edit? And because we were friends, how does that make him a sockpuppet of me? Actualy, if you have looked, I post random images and bizarre comments (to article and user pages), no longer! I work for a better Wikipedia.
And why would I take this to WP:AN? We are all friends here, and resolutions can be found independently.
I agree - I edited my comment just now - and am going to leave them alone a little while - I feel that information intended for editors should not be on the article pages, but I see that they are necessary with merges. Thus, I removed the merge notice since I knew for sure that it would not succeed. Anyway - I'll try to tone it down. --Trödel23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Reswobslc is asserting POV on this featured article -- which is as chock full of weasel words as we probably could manage -- and seemingly threatening an arbitration request. All in a matter of an hour or so. On his talk page, I noticed your caution to him about confrontations on LDS articles. Has this been a real pattern? Best wishes. WBardwin23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond a suspicion after having dealt with both since they've been here, no. Their interests and edits are very similar, so it's hard to tell. I requested a checkuser, but was declined as I didn't think to include diffs for anyone other than Dfrg.msc when submitting it. I haven't bothered to go back and add them in for a re-try, but if you'd like to see the archived request, it's at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dfrg.msc.
Personally, I'm less than convinced that this user has turned over a new leaf. He goes on with the numbskullery until he gets enough warnings to get worried, then will make some minor, inconsequential contributions for a while until he gets bored and goes back to the same old garbage. Been there, done that. We'll see if it happens again or if he's seen the light; in any case, he's on my list of editors that I keep an eye on. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets blocked for exhausting the community's patience within a few months time. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!11:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out specifically what I removed that you see as essential to the ongoing discussions? Refactoring is, at its heart, removing comments, but doing so in a way that it clarifies the talk page — think of it as pulling up weeds. I aimed to remove rants that were not intended to improve the article, but were rather comments such as "Fred Phelps is not Christian!" Tijuana Brass¡Épa!20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he's actually contributed anything worthwhile to WP, but for your edification, I draw your attention to his recent edit [4]Pete.Hurd23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If he persists much longer, I'll take it to WP:AN/I, since I don't like to be the only one passing out blocks unless it's a severe case. In the meantime, it gives me something interesting to add to my watchlist... Tijuana Brass¡Épa!01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let me know when and if you bring it up at AN/I, as I'll be glad to provide a supporting statement. You may want to reference this if it comes to that. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!01:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems we both have a fairly decent stake in the Youth ministry article I'd like you to clarify some things for me (I've gotten the impression that you've got this much understanding), if you wouldn't mind.
The article, before we found it, referred to everything there as Evangelical. Does it also apply to other denominations of Christianity?
Have you only experienced Christian Youth ministry? Everyone who's commented on the AfD seems to not know about any other kind of ministering for youth.
Regarding the former, in general, much of what was written applies to other Protestant youth ministries. It was clearly written from an evangelical perspective, but with some cleanup, some of it is worth salvaging. For what it's worth, while I haven't done any extensive research into the history of youth ministry, I know that the current movement does have some roots in evangelical churches. But, as we both agree, youth ministry is by no means strictly evangelical.
On the latter, it depends on how we define Christian. Like you mentioned at the AfD, many (if not the majority?) UU's do not refer to themselves as Christians. Ministry is usually a term only used by Christian denominations, though, so we can just work within that self-defining title... I've never heard of Jewish or Ba'hai youth organizations referring to themselves as ministries, although they are functionally similar in some ways.
I have experience with the equivalent of youth ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and some in Catholicism; both define themselves as Christian, but are unique in some ways when comparing them to Protestant groups. And I've personally worked in both Presbyterian and Methodist groups, which have a few unique qualities that can be mentioned as well.
Perhaps we could have the article start off with the usual intro, then go into a more general, interdenominational history and description of youth ministry (which is often an interdenominational field anyways). Then, a section could be dedicated to describing some of the unique features of youth ministries according to denomination, each under its own subheading. For groups within those denominations that are significant, such as some of the UU articles you've written, the Presbyterian Youth Connection, etc., they'll be referenced to there.
Sorry but I find that to be a mischaraterization of the situation. Reverting vandalism, specifically avoidant vandalism of removing the "{{nsd}}" is normal. Besides this image has already been deleted once and absolutely a candidate for speedy deletion under the recreation clause. (→Netscott)07:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a reviewable process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion." - From CAT:CSD. While I understand that you feel certain on this, and I'm not taking a side either way, I don't think it's an open and shut case and feel that it needs to be reviewed. You're quite welcome to add an IfD tag — doing so will only strengthen your position, and it may very well be found to be speedy deletion criteria by another admin through this — but please stop marking it for speedy deletion. Continuing to do so after an admin has removed the tag can be considered vandalism. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit/conflict - Your involvement is a bit paradoxical... one the one hand you remove a perfect valid {{db-repost}} template but then on the other you're saying that the image isn't even valid where it was displayed. Re-delete the ridiculous and unsourced image and be done with it. (→Netscott)07:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in taking sides in this dispute, I'm interested in keeping either you or Banzai from abusing process to push your own goals. You both need to step back and cool off before touching this issue. Don't get yourself into trouble that you don't need. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!07:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the {{ifd}} suggestion. That makes a lot of sense. Still... with two valid reasons for speedy deletion and the fact that the image is hardly encyclopedic... it just seems like unecessary process. Thanks again for your cool head in this matter. (→Netscott)07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it worked out. I'm not trying to throw up roadblocks for you — like I mentioned on the talk page, I don't think the image has a practical use anyway, regardless of license — I just didn't want the other side to be able to complain that they weren't given a fair chance if the decision goes your way (and I suspect that it will). Let me know if I can help with anything else, especially if you run into problems with reverts of the IfD tag. And thanks for being patient with a stickler for wikiprocess. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the unencyclopedic nature of the image as well... this image is just a stinker on so many levels. I do however find it a bit unfortunate that in your commentary you've described my reverting of User:Banzai!'s avoidant vandalism as edit warring. My vandalism reverts certainly don't fall under the description of "revert war". Even you must admit that someone's "Friend Clare K." doesn't qualify as a source... It makes sense that we as Wikipedia editors should be vigilant regarding such matters in general but particularly relative to high profile articles like Mel Gibson. The Wikimedia foundation certainly does not need any further legal difficulties stemming from a biography of a living person. (→Netscott)08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. I agree that images, especially pertaining to high profile articles, merit special scrutiny. But on the other hand, it's good to balance it with patience and some mercy. Copyright issues and licenses are hard for most people to grasp, so it's not surprising when an editor comes up with garbled license descriptions. Unless it's an obvious case of vandalism, malicious intent, or copyright violation, there's not an urgent need to push toward deletion before talking it over with an editor to see if he can come up with the proper information to create a license. It can always be removed from an article during that process. Of course, I'm not saying that I've always followed that procedure perfectly... heh, consider it an ideal.
As far as a revert war goes... if there's two users who are reverting each other over and over in a content dispute, that's a revert war in my book. Not sure what else you'd describe it as. Content disruptes often aren't about who's right and who's wrong, but who wins. I don't mean to step on any toes here, but that's what I saw happening in this case, and when that occurs, things like AGF, NPOV, and civility go out the window. Even if it reaches the right outcome — perhaps in this case, that means the deletion of this image — the means don't really justify the end. Someone leaves angry, we may have lost a potential contributor (or many potential contributors), and it makes editors here look petty. If there's a slightly lengthier way to reach the same result that avoids creating more problems, then in my opinion, we should take that option. The extra effort is worth it. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for explaining your view. While I understand it [your view]... there was no content dispute but merely a tagging dispute. I think we both can agree that it would have been equally valid to have left the {{nsd}} tag up and allowed for that process to have gone to fruition. What I realize now is that I should not have even bothered with {{nsd}} and reverting it but just went straight to {{db-repost}} and been done with it. There'd certainly have been less arguing about the validity of the repost tag. :-) Here's looking forward to a red Image:IMG 3006 crop.jpg link. Cheers. (→Netscott)08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tijuana, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Tijuana, our paths cross again, and what a good chance this is to tell you it's great to see you're doing fine, and to hug you after all this time! :) You know, I switched email accounts, and recently I found a lengthy and beautiful one you dropped by my old one which I had not checked in weeks... I'm so sorry! I promise you a reply as soon as my possibilities permit, k dear? Please take good care, and I hope to talk to you again real soon... Epa! :) With a big hug, your friend,
Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk)03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Hi there, this is about an older edit of yours [5], when you removed Tanuki from the Complete Bollocks essay. I should explain why I put him there - the figure is known for his disruptiveness, odd humor and for his huge testicles. Cheers! Dr Zak22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Sixth Party System was an article regarding the U.S. Party Systems, from the nations founding until today. It was deleted, leaving it the only missing piece from the 1st thru the 7th Party Systems.
Please excuse me if my formatting of this request is somewhat inconsistant. I'm not a habitual undelete requester (in fact this is my first :-) Thank You Joseph19:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Tijuana Brass, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd22:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tijuana for your views on my page, In my views I am creating informative page, already page was under review by another administrator and need your attention to it's talk page. Request to review it with WP:CORP guidelines for the page, if you have any suggestions that are welcome. Deletion is a extreme step, and persons who have worked on it, they got there time & resources in vain need to consider it.
Deepm11:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Tijuana! It's good to have you back.
Tijuana, how I've missed you. Remember how we once were? I've edited hard to prove that we could be like that once again. I could not have known it then, but being a regular editor is much funnier and weirder than being an nonsensical trouble maker. I sincerely thank you, Tijuana Brass, both for your kind praise and your deletion of the Sock page. I promise you that I have never been Carbine or Smugface or F-22. It seems that you and Improv (now retired) are the two Wikipedians that made me, and I can't thank you enough.
Congratulations on getting married! How are you feeling about it? Sorry about casting you as the Knife lady. Budget cuts (actually we spent all our money on that Hard Drive). Were planning a sequel, so I'll cast you as something good. Perhaps a palm tree? :) It's good to have you back. Kind Regards, Dfrg.msc1 . 2 . Editor Review23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, your right about that. I've got some funny vandalism for you:
This one (certainly my favorite, this article was created on St. Valentine's Day)
Category: Athletes who have maliciously stepped on other athletes during competition
Category: Flora and Fiona of Azerbaijan (Fiona?)
Category: Towns with Zombie Problems
Category: Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article
Sure thing. About 12 hours after you initially created this article, an editor marked it for speedy deletion (CSD A7), presumably based upon a perceived lack of notability (something that you're probably familiar with, given your experience — so I won't launch into an explanation). I saw the page listed on CAT:CSD and took a look, and since I don't like to be too fast to delete pages, I checked the TLV website to try to get an idea for myself. Based upon what I saw there, my understanding was that TLV was more of a conceptual project that was a ways off from being an operational air carrier/service. While I believe that it will eventually meet WP:N, at the time it didn't seem to, and so I deleted the article.
It's my practice, though, to avoid the speedy deletion of articles where someone has expressed a legitimate interest in keeping it (at which point I'll either leave it alone or put it up for a prod/AfD as a courtesy). I'm open to your reasoning to do that instead. I'd also be happy to move the article's contents to your userspace in order to preserve it for future use, or to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Let me know which option you'd like to pursue — preferably on my talk page, so I'll see it sooner.
Finally, I apologize for not leaving you a note on your talk page about the deletion. I try to inform the prime author(s) of articles I delete — at least when it's an article which seems to have been written in good faith, like yours — but I neglected to do so in your case. Sorry for that. Tijuana Brass19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Point taken...If you could move the article to my userspace, then I will re-post it once the airline is officially starting. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your reply in regard to the deletion of Matt Norman. I am a journalist who has taken a big interest in the story of this film-maker and also the subject matter of the film that he has made. Its a time in history that finally gets to be revealed to the World because the subject matter is the uncle of this film-maker. As you can see by doing a goodle/yahoo and Wikipedia search, there is a lot of information about the 1968 Games, Black Power Salute, Peter Norman etc. I think it's crucial to have the name of the film-maker who is about to change history in the way that this event actually happened. I have spoken with the film-maker about this and let him know that I would be putting information about this on Wikipedia. He and his company have agreed that I can look after that for me so I do have a connection with this story. I was hoping that finally I could get an administrator like yourself to help edit my last article so that at least people have a place to go? Is it possible for your help making sure that the right thing is written so that it doesn't keep getting deleted? I ask for your help. Filmnews200701:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an edit today; I was gratified to see current activity. I have missed you around. If you get a wild hair, I would appreciate you reviewing the Golden Plates article. An objective, third party might help. I have found quotes from Chase to be over-emphsized (see comments on talk page by me). I know you have consciously chosen not to edit that genre of article lately, but it would be good to work with you again. Happy New Year and continued best wishes. --Storm Rider(talk)04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining why my first wiki page was deleted. As I said before deletion, I inadvertently posted it in the wrong area. With some work, I found the right place. It is now at http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Amateur_Astronomy, which is a new wiki for original research material. Please pass the word. wvogeler
Basically, I got into trouble after I linked from Wikipedia articles on "Astronomy" and "Amateur Astronomy" to Acadmeic Publishing Wiki and Amateur Astronomy because the articles said that "amateur astronomers can still make contributions to the science." Unfortunately, some Wiki users said I was spamming and then blocked me from editing.
I have stopped linking, but I think it would help Academic Publishing Wiki if users could link to it from Wikipedia where appropriate. It seems inconsistent to ban links to another Wiki community, especially when other Wikipedia links abound to less reliable sites.
I notice that the Academic Publishing Wiki has not grown very much since it was created in 2005, and so I suggest a change to the policy about linking from Wikipedia to other Wiki communities. Otherwise, I fear that Academic Publishing Wiki may fail like its predecessor from lack of exposure.
I would appreciate an intelligent discussion on this subject.
Seems to me that you have been continually taking off references to my film "Salute"?? I also believe that you seem to have had some kind of problem with a journo (filmnews2007) who had spoken with me a few times about putting Salute onto Wikipedia.?
I saw that you believe that this is spam? My name is Matt Norman. I am the director and producer of the upcoming feature film "Salute - The Peter Norman Story". It is my understanding that by adding external links to a professional film which is the only film of it's kind dealing with the civil rights movement, Peter Norman, Tommie Smith, John Carlos that you should have absolutely no reason to delete said posts that I've just made. If you don't believe that I am Matt Norman then please email me directly on mattnorman@theactorscafe.com and I will post you a personal reply.
I ask that you please consider this a request from me personally to stop deleting external links to my film. Could it be classed as self publicity on this occassion?????? NO. The reason i'm adding it to Tommie, John and Peter's wikipedia list is because as you will notice on the www.salutethemovie.com webpage, we have millions of people wanting to know about this incredible story. As Peter Norman's nephew I have been able to gather the greatest Olympic champions in history all on one film. I suggest before you go deleting external links to this film that you do a bit of a search online about what this film really means to Tommie, John and Peter.
Do me a favour before hitting the delete button. If I write something then please consult me before deleting it. I'm a pretty easy person to speak with if you have any problems. I look forward to your prompt reply. Matt Norman01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindest Regards
Matt Norman
www.salutethemovie.com
The Actors Cafe Pty Ltd
www.theactorscafe.com
mattnorman@theactorscafe.com
I would like you to contact me directly at mattnorman@theactorscafe.com before this becomes a public spat. I also ask that you undelete the information that you have undeleted and also stop saying that I am somebody i'm not. Filmnews is someone that approached me to add Salute to Wikipedia. For you to keep going down that road will bring shame to Peter, Tommie and John. Matt Norman02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording was taken directly from {{test4im}}. It's not used for typical vandalism; it's intended specifically for obvious return vandals, as a shot of cold water to get their attention immediately. For example, a person who registers an account, then instantly posts an abusive rant to an admin's userpage is clearly not a lily white good faith newbie, so it's not appropriate to run through the normal range of warnings. I've used it for vandals like this. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)06:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I'm an admin, so I've seen my share of vandals (and have used my share of warning templates). Given that the template is for use with an obvious vandal who is already aware of the policy he's breaking — and the warning already states that it'll be the only one given — the extra sentence was over the top (and sounds like the warning editor is a little overagitated, IMO).
Give me some credit. :-) I like to have some idea who I'm talking to, so I glanced at your userpage and noticed the admin userbox. Your edit summary left me with the impression that you didn't realize that this template was just copied over directly from the old warning templates. I can't say I feel all that strongly about it, although it doesn't strike me as particularly silly. I like the original version; I can live with this version. BTW, I agree with you about the uw-own* templates; they did seem a bit WP:BITE-y. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much, but hey, you never know. I understand what you're saying; I probably wouldn't have bothered, except the same sentence was absent from every other ___im template.
Thanks for the support. I'm thrilled to see this project — the old warnings were a disorganized mess, so it's good to see some editors getting them together and standardized. Tijuana Brass06:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I read your comment on my RfA and I noticed that you thought it would be a problem that I can't post on AN/I, which would inhibit my admin work. However, there is actually an explicit exception made that I can post on AN pages when I want to discuss an admin action of my own, or when I want to respond to something that directly involves me. Because of these provisions I see no reason why the page restrictions would make adminship more difficult. (It's worth noting as well that I've had the same restrictions for 15 months and I've only had a need to post on the board according to the provisions a handful of times, and not once to discuss an admin action of my own—as an admin I simply did not do anything iffy or controversial, and therefore I never had reason to post on AN pages about my own actions.) Everyking05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Word of thanks for Tijuana Brass Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley - I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards.
If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message
at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia!
