This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Having read both the RFC and your other comments I will say this ... At one point last year there was a lot of debate over how to administer the Barnstar proposal page. There were a lot of conflicts over the stuff that people want to make barnstars. It was agreed ... kind of ... that the wikiproject that started the barnstar pages in the first place. Evrik is the only one who is still around as everyone else has moved on. So, while he is not an admin, he does carry what little authority was given him when the pages were set up.
The problem is not Evrik, but the weak system that was set up in trying to administer the pages - and keep them from cluttering up the pages. Can you imagine the problems that would arise if every barnstar that was proposed just got put on the page?
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay
However you try to work round it, the fact is that Essjay, regardless of his efforts within Wikipedia, systematically lied about his identity and, far more importantly to me, used that to browbeat his opponents. If in a dispute, someone announced they were a professor in that particular subject and therefore knew what they were talking about, I would be much more likely to defer to them. Essjay has taken the principles of trust and good faith and taken advantage of them. Checkuser and oversight are privileges that are given out only to the most trusted users on Wikipedia: Essjay has established that he is willing to lie to his own advantage. It is inappropriate for him to have those tools. Essjay is undoubtedly a great contributor to the wiki, but apprently so is Giano, and no-one would give him oversight. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Essjay's fiction is not why I said he should resign. He used that fiction to sway other to agree with him, which is wrong. Taking advantage of someone's trust in you to be who you say you are is wrong and that is why I think it is not appropriate for him to hold roles that require absolute trust. If I were simply angry because he lied, I would be screaming for his bit and for Jimbo's head too. But I don't care about that, what I care about is that one of our highest ranking users has been proven to have abused the trust the community placed in him to his own advantage and that is wrong. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think even you must agree with me that the evidence being turned about Essjay's fraudalent use of credentials has gone way beyong knee jerk reaction. You said we had no evidence of his abusing Checkuser - until a month ago we had no evidence he was a twenty four year old from Kentucky. We all believed that Essjay was a theology professor; with that exposed as a lie, no-one knows what they can trust anymore - there are people questioning whether Essjay is anything he has ever claimed. There are doubts raised over whether he is gay, using a sockpuppet (his apparent boyfriend), or even if Ryan Jordan is his actual name. This is an incredibly worrying development, for all of us - Essjay's standing as an exemplary Wikipedian has made his fall only harder, and he's taking our credibility with him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I accept your apology. He's left now. I think this has done more to shake Wikipedians than any efforts by Brandt or Seigenthaler ever could. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I just saw your message about the newsletter. I will datestamp the next one I send out. Thanks for letting me know! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done some more work on Trembling before G-d, and I think your objections for GA are now covered. I said it did reasonably well at the box office in the inro because it says further down that it made $800,000 which is a reasonable sum. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Reasonably well' seems weaselly to me. Since the actual box-office take is cited, I suggest you let the reader decide if that is "reasonably well" or not. Jeffpw08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff. There seems no need to say "It did reasonably well at the box office" when you can say "It made $800,000 at the box office[ref]". I'll have a proper read through the article on Wed when I'm not struggling through with this damn dial-up connection. Opening mainspace articles is a tortuous affair- took me nearly 10 mins to revert some vandalism to Anesthesia last night...
Guess I'll also have to sort out the archiving of this page- I understand that a series of MiszaBots will be taking over from the EssjayBots. WjBscribe12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I rejected 'Ebola' because it is certainly contrary to the username policy, more users had suggested it be disallowed than the contrary, and I find it a bit tasteless. I suppose the last is also true of 'Death', though it's not quite a breach of policy. In any case, the user formerly called 'Death666' (who was requesting the change) is now called Borameer; I don't know whether he is even still interested in the fulfilment of his request. I will gladly make another change for him if he wishes, but not, I think, to 'Death'. — Dan | talk17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Usurpation and username probs
Yeah, things over there are most likely changing. Not sure in which direction or how much, but there's been some discussion (mainly pertaining to RfCU, so far, but it'll swing over to CHU over the next few days, most likely). Currently the talk is mostly off-wiki (or last I knew), but will probably move on-wiki soon. Whether the bcrats want clerks, who they want clerking, and how they want the clerking done, probably all going to be run over at some point. We'll see where that goes, neh? :p – Luna Santin (talk)19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Hi, WJBscribe. Just popping round to say thanks for your support at my RfA – getting round slowly, but surely, with one eye on the backlogs! Thanks again. Bubbahotep21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
essjay
Read the source from zdnet.com two sections above. The guy got an email from Jimbo saying he fired Essjay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I have no idea why you are so passionate about both defending essjay and minimising the strength of accusations against him, but when the founder of Wikipedia says he fired essjay, that's what I want to quote. He's said "asked to resign" in the press because it looks kinder, but lets face it, if essjay had not gone willingly, he would have been forcibly removed from his job and his positions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I don't care about legal niceties, it's irrelevant. I've left a note on Jimbo's page asking him to clarify. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Community AfD
You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Also note that nothing in WP:SELF prohibits an article on a Wikipedia related topic that is well sourced with verifiable content. That's how we can have Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales among other articles. Thanks JoshuaZ02:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't discuss on talk page because Gwen Gale keeps blanking it
I think the Essjay article should be deleted, but I'm open to discussing it however Gwen Gale keeps blanking. On your advice, you suggested that all revisions should be discussed on the talk page, however it's impossible to discuss if one person keeps blanking it. 64.236.245.24315:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you rephrase yourself in a less controversial manner that does not give rise to the appearance of trolling. Avoid personal attacks on other users of Wikipedia (including those who have now retired) and try not to hyperbolise. Whatever you may think of the actions of the person in question, they were certainly not criminal. You may also like to check out the previous deletion discussions in relation to this article- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy. Unless you have new points to make, there seems little point in revisiting those discussions. WjBscribe15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
automation
Are you going to automate the entire portal? It would be great to get back on track for FP. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Kirill said that it was mostly the archiving that would hold us back, so we might conceivably get it FP this month! Kudos to you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
All looks cool to me except the updating frequency. A month seems a bit too long. Maybe we can go to fortnightly instead, if there's an issue with pool size? Oh, and can we build a caveat in that if no-one votes the updater is welcome to just pick an article/biography? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you deal with the advertising that's appeared on the biography? I can't do it myself for obvious reasons. Ta, see you soon Chrislintott22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A page may be speedily kept only if one or more of the following holds:
No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. I did not withdraw the nomination
The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it (since calling a nomination vandalistic does not make it so, and vandals can be correct). Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations (Such as featured articles), nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (e.g., a userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment) and making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected. This does not apply, nomination was in good faith. I provided ample evidence that my view on the misuse of this link was shared by others
The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-ban}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. Obviously inapplicable
The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy. The page is a shortcut. It is not itself a policy or guideline
Fair enough. These are points you can raise at DRV, but reverting the close isn't the way to go about it... WjBscribe23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuality
Thank you for bringing to my attention my error. Someone had replaced the entire article with graffiti and that is what I was attempting to revert. Apparently I goofed up. It certainly wasn't directed at you. Wjhonson07:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for supporting me on my Rfa which passed today. Regarding you comment on it, I promise you there will be no further copyright issues, it was an honest mistake on my behalf. Thanks also for supporting me on the talk page regarding the images question - I'm staying well away from them! Will we be seeing Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WJBscribe anytime soon?! Give me a shout if you want a nom Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I noticed you've nom'd Sockpuppeteering even though it isn't a cnr. I'm going to go ahead and remove this. Relist it if you meant to nom it for another reason. --- RockMFR04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I knew nothing about it. We need to change it back, because it's definitely POV to start splashing logos all over templates that go in the mainspace. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Heads Up
I would have never known that WerdnaBot wasn't on if you didn't tell me. I was the one who actually left Werdna the message that the summaries weren't working, but I though it was just minor and didn't think anything else was going wrong. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
free pics?
Where are you getting these free pics from? Do you just search Flickr and upload to the commons? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That was... disgustingly easy. Now I am posed with a dilemma, should I leave the current photo of Jake Gyllenhaal, sourced as it was with love and care from an Iheartjake fan who released into the public domain out of love for Jake, or do I callously replace it with this much better quality one? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you were going to do it. Sorry. Often people who close RfAs (including the crats themselves) tend to forget to add the final tally so I tend to check... WjBscribe03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Commons upload
Hi there WJB. :-) I was wondering if you'd terribly mind trying to upload this image one of Steve Sandvoss from flickr.com to Commons, seeing as you've got an account there. :-) We're trying to get the Latter Days article in es:Wiki to FAC status and we need a free image since Fair Use is not accepted. Cheers and thanks in advance for your time! Raystorm16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, interesting picture. And if we could believe that everyone who uploads to Flickr understands and tells the truth about copyright it would be fine. But it is obviously a professional photo and without a waiver of copyright from the photographer it does not meet the requirements of GDFL. Sorry, but it really isn't a free photo.... I think you'll have difficulty coming up with copyright free images for films, especially with lesser known actors who don't od a lot of premieres. WjBscribe16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking for a while now of setting up an LGBT Current Events Portal. With the LGBT Featured Portal status now in sight, I thought I'd ask you for your thoughts on it. We could transclude or update the news section on the regular portal from it, maybe eventually get some collaboration going on with whoever's writing the news for the Wikinews LGBT Portal. What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea- if rather daunting. I'd be keen for us to finish getting the LGBT Portal up to scratch before moving on to a new project, but it seems like a good way to go next. Must check out the the Wikinews LGBT Portal more often though for news ideas... WjBscribe18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When we have everything on random thingy, how often will we need to update it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Test Wikipedia
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving me a link to the test Wikipedia. I have registered an account there, and will make sure to make myself completely familiar with how things work on Wikipedia before attempting other complicated edits or page moves.
I agree. The current article at Phu Quoc sounds like a travel brochure, but that shouldn't stop contributors from adding information about its history and Cambodian claims. But they shouldn't be allowed to create a new article about the exact same entity. (Imagine having an article titled Dokdo that describes it as Korean territory and another one named Takeshima describing it as Japanese territory. It will just confuse the reader.) DHN22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Search Google for "Koh Tral". Almost all references to it are from Cambodian sources regarding its current status as Vietnamese territory, and put the Phu Quoc name in parentheses. The reason that references to Phu Quoc rarely mention the Cambodian name is because most people who know it as Phu Quoc are unaware of the Cambodian name. One authoritative link is [1] (p. 30), describing the island's history. Also see Talk:Cambodia#Koh Tral. DHN22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. However, as far as I know the Cambodian government no longer makes any claims regarding the island after a treaty with Vietnam in 1982. All "disputes" are from non-official sources. DHN22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sex
WP:BOLD, and perhaps more importantly WP:IAR. I've been here since October 2001 (it says so on my userpage, so of course it must be true ;-p), I certainly don't need an education on the basics of policy. I did not expect the move to be controversial in the least, it had never been done before (only moves of sex before had been obvious vandalism), and as far as I could tell it had never been discussed in the past so I was bold and moved the page.
If you have a problem with the page move, that's one thing and I invite you to discuss it at the appropriate article talkpages; if you want to chastise me for something that was perfectly in line with policy, done in good faith and using careful judgement, that is quite another matter entirely and is something I would not appreciate if that had been your intention, although I am assuming that was not your intention. --Node23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
can you please revert your own edit, we shouldn't remove the pictures without finishing the discussions and because those "weak" points are being followed with stronger ones. At least give it a day for the discussion! Plust the trophy picture is FREE! i know because i found it on flickr! Also just to let you know you cant take FA back for at least 3 months from now...--Thugchildz00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This fair use paranoia is out of control. Why don't the wiki-nannies focus on retaining the quality of the content instead of obsessing over fears about copyrights? With IP addresses free to do any bloody thing they want to, diverting thousands of hours of editors' time to reversions instead of actual editing, wikipedia doesn't have enough credibility for any copyright owner even to care about wikipedia. Wahkeenah01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. However Wikipedia aims to (a) follow the law and (b) provide reusable free content to thrid parties. WP:FAIR is designed to give effect to this. Recently this matter has moved beyond Wikipedia policy however and the Wikimedia Board has indicated a firm line is to be taken on copyright. If you object to the policy, I suggest you get in touch with them. WjBscribe01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a waste of time. Mr. Wales is firmly committed to a policy that lets any idiot edit wikipedia. I've become convinced that he's conducting a large-scale social experiment. Keep in mind this is a guy who also runs a soft-porn website, which tells you something about his priorities. Wahkeenah01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The I guess WP:FAIR is here to stay and we can all get on with the task of ensuring copyright policy is followed. Thank you for your input. WjBscribe01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it another way: IP addresses and red-link editors are constantly posting stuff that, if it stayed, could potentially get wikipedia sued for libel. So why isn't Wales worried about that issue? And has anyone ever actually sued wikipedia for copyright violation? Not likely. Any more than they're likely to get sued for libel. Because wikipedia is nothing more than a pretentious weblog, and everyone knows it. Wahkeenah01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess its so we cankeep saying "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Which is the point of Wikipedia. Vandalism by IPs and new users is mostly reverted very quickly and is in my opinion a small price to pay for the openness of the project. Many valued contributers started of as IPs and some admins still have redlinks instead of userpage :-). Oh, and if the tone of our conversation is to be determined by comments like "this is a guy who also runs a soft-porn website, which tells you something about his priorities" and "Because wikipedia is nothing more than a pretentious weblog, and everyone knows it" I'd rather we stopped talking. Cheers, WjBscribe01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What I stated is true. And the fact that vandalism might be reverted quickly (and I've seen some that's been not been discovered until days or weeks later) is the lame argument I've heard by many others, and no matter how often I hear it, it doesn't make wikipedia sound any more credible. As an example, a couple of minutes ago an IP address changed "Major League Baseball" to "Nigger League Baseball". Just imagine if someone were to run across that at the wrong time. Yeh, that would really enhance wikipedia's credibility. And you don't have to respond any more and I won't come back to your page. However, I insist that this photo paranoia is the wrong focus, misguided energy. The focus should be on quality. Currently, it isn't. Wahkeenah01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Which, by the way, is why I now spend very little time reverting. I focus on the pages I care about the most, and one of the other Wales lemmings can do the reverting. If Wales doesn't care, why should I? Wahkeenah01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I think (and OK I'm a lawyer so these things matter to me) that part of quality is respecting image copyright. As to misguided energy, I quite agree. I would much rather spend my time doing other things than having to sort image copyright and fair use problems. So if other users could stop creating them, I'd be very grateful. WjBscribe01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Except you don't "have to" do anything of the sort. You're choosing to. And if wikipedia gets sued for copyright (highly unlikely) there is no loss to you personally. Just like I'm choosing to edit, giving freely of my time, despite this little voice that keeps telling me it's a collosal waste, that it's not worth it. I just haven't got quite fed up enough to quit yet. Wahkeenah01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether you quit or not is your choice and staying away from things that annoy you is probably a good idea- as for me, I find vandal reverting quite relaxing actually. Also, I am easily distracted :-). When I see a problem, I am not happy moving on until I have done my bit to resolve it. In the same way that if the mainpage FA has been replaced by a giant penis, I feel obliged to revert it, if I see a photo that WP:FAIR does not justify being in an article I feel I must argue for its removal... WjBscribe01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you enjoy reverting, then you're probably better suited for this site than I am. And if you really like reverting, add lots of pages to your watch list... or better yet, monitor all changes as they go by. Focus on the redlinks and especially the IP addresses. You'll find that about 90 percent of what IP addresses post is either poorly-written junk or outright maliciousness. Wahkeenah02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I do a fair amount of watching recent changes. Sometimes anon and newbie edits are vandalism but often (and I would say more often than not) they remove vandalism, correct spelling mistakes and add relevant content. Sometimes those edits need to be copyedited, verified for accuracy or adjusted for NPOV but I think Wikipedia would be poorer if we lost all of their contributions. And that would mean the vandals would have won. I've written articles that have been improved by passing users who didn't register an account before correcting the odd spelling mistake. I think valuing IP and new editors less than others is a mistake. WjBscribe02:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Maybe so. Still I'd have thought in 19353 edits you might have stumbled across at least one valuable anon contrib! Shame you seem to be so down on the project- you've obviously invested a lot of time in it... WjBscribe02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yikes. That's a lot of edits. And too many of them are reverts. I will agree that the occasional IP address makes a positive contribution, which makes me say, "Oh!" but ironically there is no way to thank them directly. Anyway, I haven't given up yet. I need to stay focused on what I care about. FYI, I do try to stick within the photo rules. Wahkeenah02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:-) I don't think I've suggested the contrary. And I have not gone back and removed the fair use photos from Cricket World Cup again because (a) revert warring is bad and (b) life's too short. I've said my bit (both here on Wikipedia and in the Commons deletion discussion). We'll see if Ed g2s wishes to take the issue up again when he's next online- either by removing the photos or nominating the article for FA review.
That's all right, I've enjoyed talking to you- wasn't sure I would at first but I definitely have... I mean well, honest. Friends? WjBscribe02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on both accounts. I've left a line at the image talk, I think the issue is pretty clear right? About the Prime Minister of Spain...well, it's a debate that simply makes my skin crawl. You read the lead and the first paragraph and it perfectly explains the name of the office, but people just don't care, why let exactitude get in the way? Argh. I'll raise the issue there in a month or so, but I'm not letting it creep into SSM in Spain if I can help it! :-) Just a few more hours until the article is off the main page and the madness stops... Thanks for keeping an eye on it btw. ;-) Raystorm19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Some madness will linger a little I'm afraid- it'll still be linked from the mainpage as "recently featured" for three more days! Still everyone seems to be on top of reverting the damage. To be honest I thought it would be a lot worse- video game articles on the main page seem to average several vandalism edits a minute. I thought a controversial topic would be on a par with that but it actually hasn't been that bad (Cricket World Cup was more vandalised yesterday- people are strange)... WjBscribe19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:-) I always watchlist the main page FA to help out with reverting. People who've brought it up to FA standard tend to get a little upset by the collateral damage (even if it is fixed quickly)- understandable really, I guess it must feel a bit like watching your child being bullied at school. WjBscribe19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: XNRs
No, Special:Random will only give you an article so clicking on it won't result in a XNR. There is an equivalent Special:Randomredirect, but most people probably don't know about that and you would have to intentionally use it as it's not linked from the navigation box like Special:Random. I'm not sure what happens with broken redirects (doubles, db-redirnone, or redirects to special pages). I doubt Special:Random would return them as Wikipedia should still think they are redirects, but a developer would have to answer that for certain. -- JLaTondre19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Park Place Tower
It's definately the tallest building in the area. I have a friend that lives there. They have nice condos. I don't know if it's particularlly notable or worth having an article. I would say not. I don't know if any Chicago Cubs live there.--Twintone19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Lovely. Have you looked at the cricket pic deletion discussion lately? Seen the screaming? I wonder if we should let that fellow know about the big tag. Wouldn't want him to be deprived of the tools he needs to make his point. — coelacan — 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I give up. As if the AGF of flickr uploaders argument wasn't bad enough, he's revert warring with Ed g2s over the fair use images at Cricket World Cup as well. He can't see why if he mentions cricket organisations, including their logos isn't fair use. And if he says X team won in year Y, using a copyright pic to illustrate them celebrating is obviously essential. Obviously otherwise a good contributor- would be a shame if he gets blocked over this... WjBscribe04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If it gets the message across and saves other editors from having to clean up mess after mess, then it won't be such a shame. 24 hours isn't too long but if it stops him from continuing that then it's both necessary and preventative. Have any admins been notified? — coelacan — 04:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. I guess Ed g2s will check the page when he comes online. I've decided to watch this one from a distance for a bit... WjBscribe04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely going on my list of Wiki accomplishments:-). In other news, I have been quite busy with my interviews (John Rechy, Dennis Cooper, Michael Silverblatt and The Angry Samoans, to name a few of the more notable. This project is really on track now. Hope you're well, and as usual, your comments on the "fun thread" above were thoughtful and well reasoned. I have no fears your candidacy would be similarly derailed. Jeffpw09:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Usurpation question
GAH. I totally missed that message. x.x Um, I would agree that requests should generally be archived unless we have some fairly pressing reason not to. Not sure how big of a deal it is, though -- say, checkuser requests need a searchable archive, not as sure about declined username changes (how often do people look at the archives, anyway, eh? ;) -- but as I said, not sure). Hm. I guess we could restore it and let the bcrats tag as not done. Or we could just add it to the archive by hand. Those seem the two ways to go. – Luna Santin (talk)19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to entail the least fuss and embarassment for all involved. Clerknote sounds a good way to do it, just a quick explanation. :) – Luna Santin (talk)19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your question (I suppose I should've put a rationale there), "no consensus" doesn't mean "someone wanted to keep it", it means "there wasn't a clear consensus as to what people wanted done." Granted, no one seems to wants an article there, but there were arguments (not votes, remember!) that the location would serve better as a redirect then a redlink (with or without a merge), which seemed to be well-argued. The decision to redirect or delete can certainly be hashed out on its talk page, if the decision is redirect, that can be done without AFD, else it can be sent back with the comment that those who wished to redirect now agree to delete (and of course, those confirming it). If you'd like to DRV, you're welcome to do so, though-I don't take offense at things like that, I make errors sometimes like anyone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The close was already several days overdue, I didn't get the idea that relisting would get anywhere productive. If you disagree, though, please go ahead and relist-hopefully you're right, and a second one will achieve consensus. There's nothing against doing a relist on a no-consensus AFD, and hopefully a wider slice of people will comment this time around. (If you'd prefer, I'll refrain from closing the next one around.) I don't like closing anything no consensus (it tends to cause exactly this), but if that's how I read it, that's how it gets closed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Awww, pooh. Say, tell me, do you think I'm working from a faulty assumption here? That's a bit old, commons deletions take forever to close, but it's been bugging me. — coelacan — 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Took a snack break and then did some amateur astronomy. ;-) As regards Largo, I see what you're saying and I've got no reason to doubt your judgment. If you feel it amounts to a delete !vote, do make that clear over on commons. And thanks for looking into it! — coelacan — 07:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not comment on Commons as I'd prefer not to express legal opinions in actual debates unless really necessary. And I don't know enough about Florida law to be sure. NYC JD has made the point already so I think I'll just let that one run its course. WjBscribe07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Right then. If it gets deleted I'll just get on the uploader's case about photographing Stanton in person. Mikereichold lives in Largo but is probably sick of me bugging him by now. — coelacan — 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. It was successful, and I hope to put the tools to good use. Shimeru16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there's no need to remove speedy tags from articles that are also at AfD. It speeds up the process if those articles are also listed at CAT:CSD (hence why I tagged it as well as commenting in the AfD). WjBscribe02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If the speedy process already ran its course without resolution, then the AfD should clear it up. If it did not have a chance to run its course, then the AfD was premature. The excessive taggage is unpleasant to readers. The encyclopedia IS for readers. Read User:Shanes/Why tags are evilJerry02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I regret that you state I did not present our discussion neutrally. My comments on his essay talk were twofold in purpose: to ask him if his essay applies to what we talked about, and to begin a dialogue about future content for his essay. For that reason, additional context was added intentionally. I did provide a link to our actual discussion, and asked him to read it, so I did not feel it was necessary to recreate a faithful duplication of it on his page. I was not asking him to decide which of us was "right", just asking him if stacking of templates associated with wikipedia deletion procedures and maintenance tagging was also among the things he was describing in his essay. Jerry17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to have helped- I'd vaguely noticed the discussion on my watchlist but it was only when I visited your page that I realised what an unnecessary number of posts there had been on the topic. Don't worry about it- you're doing a great job mate ... WjBscribe04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon (GMT time); thank you for your input regarding my reading of consensus at the above MfD. Further to your comments, I've revised my decision, and the "Archives" of Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association have been speedily deleted. Further details are given at the discussion page.
As all Wikipedians should be, I am striving to implement advice given to me by other editors - this area of closing deletion debates is new to me, and your input was greatly appreciated. Hopefully future edits of this sort should be of a higher standard, and more in line with your advice and the par the community expects from Wikipedians who undertake these essential duties.
Don't hesitate to drop me a message at my talk page if you've got any more comments, suggestions or advice. Otherwise, Happy Editing!
Wow thank you both very much for the show of support. I'm very touched. And I no longer can see any good reason to put off asking the community to support my RfA. However, if I can ask you to indulge me a little. I would very much like to ask the first user who expressed a willingness to nominate me for adminiship if he is still willing to do so and take it from there. Thanks again- I've been quite lost for words for a while... WjBscribe03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You asked for it ;o) Go here when you're ready, follow the instructions and we're away. Stay cool and don't let the process stress you (I barely slept during mine). RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen you around and thought you were already an admin. If you need a conominator, just drop me a line. Cheers, --Asteriontalk21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Also very much appreciated. Redvers has done a very thorough job though. If anyone has anything significant to add you're very welcome- and do comment on the RfA one way or the other.... WjBscribe23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
List of dog topics (hist) ⇒ Portal:Dogs – List of misc dog topics that didn't fit into any other category. This was whittled down to zero and redirected to the portal.
Do you think either of these be deleted if consensus was to do so due to their edit histories? I just wanted another opinion before (re–)nominating them for deletion. Thanks, mattbr20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the dogs list was used as a list of uncategorised articles which were eventually categorised and the pages effectively blanked before the redirect. I'm not quite sure what happened with the other. The history ends in 2003, and the histories of Current events and Portal:Current events don't start until 2006. As far as I can tell the content wasn't incorporated, but the page was redirected about three years before the target (Current events) appears to have existed?! mattbr22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ben, wanted to ask a favour as you're a wiz with templates. Have a look at Uranium, which is the main page FA at the moment. We had a bit of a problem when one of the templates used in it was vandalised tracking down which the problem. As you can see it uses over 40 templates to create the infobox. Do you think you (or someone else who's good with templates) could create a single (or a few) template (s) with multiple parameters to do the same job? That number of templates just to create an infobox seems ridiculous. Would appreciate your input. WjBscribe02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, it's a beautiful modular design: {{Elementbox_header}} starts the infobox format, then subsequent subtemplates get slotted in as they're invoked, and finally {{Elementbox_footer}} closes the infobox. This makes any single template fairly simple by comparison, and thus easy to maintain. Considering the total amount of information conveyed, and the opt-in feature (the subtemplates are only invoked if, and in the sequence, you choose to invoke them), it's the most efficient and flexible design I can imagine.
There actually are single templates available already -- {{Element}} and {{Elementbox}} -- which do take multiple parameters as you suggest. Not being modular, such a template is much less flexible in terms of what it lists and where, but if you want to put all your eggs in one basket ("and then watch that basket!", as Mark Twain wrote), try that.
Either way, you'll want to protect anything transcluded into the Main Page, and cascading protection should work as well on the infobox subtemplates as on a single {{Element}} or {{Elementbox}} template; conversely, leaving either method unprotected is still an opportunity for vandals. -- BenTALK/HIST20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
About my edit summary on the Final Fantasy VII page...
When I said "rvv", I meant to revert Grossout's vandalism, I didn't mean revert vandalism by you (which there was none of). Sorry if the edit summary offended you. What makes it even worse is that I hit "mark edit as minor" by accident before hitting "Save Changes", so it makes it look like I perposely reverted something by you. Sorry about this. --LuigiManiac | Talk14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No offence taken- there's a lot of activity going on to revert vandalism on that page and wires are likely to get crossed. Don't worry about it... WjBscribe14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It does seem bizarre. I wonder which user will take on his job. We're running out of unemployed Wikipedians... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
My talk page / archive setup
I just moved old messages to an archive subpage (my first!), but am leaving them transcluded onto the talk page until mid-April. If you click on the "+" (new-section) link at the top of the talk page, your entry is actually on the talk page. If you click on the "edit" link of the last archived section to add a new section, your entry is actually on the archive page. However, as long the archive's transcluded, which page you actually posted to doesn't matter; it's all visible on the talk page anyway. About a week or two into April, I'll sort it all out, and then the sections concluded before April 1 will be on the un-transcluded archive page.
Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. I guess we can just copy them over, then. I should've figured it's all the Bcrats watching the same pages, anyway... should we move them, or just leave them as is, you think? – Luna Santin (talk)18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably the best way to go. CHU seems to have a much faster turnaround time than it used to. I'll do that for next time, moved the one that brought this up. – Luna Santin (talk)19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:USURP
I went to correct a mistake of yours, but then found you had already done it when I got to the edit window. Then I found out it wasn't a mistake because you didn't fix anything, and you were right the first time. .........Finally, I found out that the right message is commented out for some reason. I don't know why, so can you fix if it should be commented in (which apparently it should be). I'm referring to the last name on the page. --TeckWizParlateContribs@01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If you get two seconds, could you have a look at this? I've googled the subject and haven't found very much, and don't have the time or inclination to dig through and cite everything. Should I AFD it? Or delete it? Or leave it? Cheers Chrislintott08:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, glad you could be bothered! See my comment on your RfA - will be free for most evenings next week if you're not too busy cleaning. Chrislintott09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that users are allowed to delete messages from their Talk pages, though the guidelines point out that it's generally frowned upon. What they can't do, though, is insist that others don't leave messages, as happened here. So yes, in a way they are forced to receive messages; what they then do with the messages is more open. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on events related to your current RfA
Please respond here on your talk page to keep the thread together. Do you support an edit like this? Do you think that opposing your RfA quote "reflects badly" on me? I notice that some of my contributions have been closely scrutinized over the past day. Today was the first time in over a year and a half than one of the articles that I started received an AfD nomination, and there were 2. I am not saying that you personally did any of this, because clearly you didn't. Wikipedia should be a place to have fun doing editing and creating the world's best encyclopedia, not a source of stress. I would like your opinion on what you think about these developments. Do you think that I should cave in under pressure? How would it make you feel if I did? What would you do if you were in my shoes? RoyalbroilT : C20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Usurpation questions
WJB - Yes to both of your questions: 'Vaya' is too new, and I have no qualms about giving away 'Basil' to somebody who will make good use of it. I don't think we need a hard minimum age for the target account -- common sense will, as so often, suffice -- but it seems only fair to leave the newer accounts alone. Thanks as ever for drawing attention to these issues; your help is invaluable. — Dan | talk21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was composing a note for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and when I went to test my assertions (of brokenness), the link worked! Having copied from the current pages, I'd copied the link after you fixed it. You had me flummoxed. But I'm used to it (computer wonk) and so went looking and found your note. Now I know the 'magic'. :-) Thanks! Shenme04:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate to bother you WJB, but we have more people vandalising the Anesthesia article. Removing documented links, portions of information which were backed up with evidence which we already discussed. I appreciate your help in this matter, and hope these issues are resolved so we can all get back to more important matters! Thank You ICUDocMD15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. I just browsed through the bot's execution logs and noticed that page bail out with a "security error", meaning someone tried to archive to a page that's not a strict subpage. And I very much prefer to iron out any now-and-then bugs this way than handle the numerous requests myself. Cheers, Миша1314:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz]20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your RFA
Just a quick note to say well done in your RFA. – Steel21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (Yes, I am aware this is a little early; I don't plan on being around tomorrow to congratulate you then.)
Actually, I believe it still has about 20 hours to run (and crats are quite often a few hours late closing noms anyway- no big deal)... WjBscribe02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, he does not. We know Dunstan lived with his partner. I assume he probably was gay. But he never spoke about it during his lifetime, and thus we have no business coming to our own conclusion that he was. Rebecca03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But before you do that, can you GA review Washington Blade? Jtowns has been waiting a very long time on GAC now. Why have all our processes suddenly become so backlogged? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, GA review first. Then I'll get back to sorting the Portal (which I had indeed been distracted from). Aye, aye captain... WjBscribe22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
WJB -- I have made the suggested changes to the article Washington Blade and addressed your GA concerns on the talk page. I am around the rest of today, but out of town the next three days -- so if you have more for me, I may have a slower turn-around sicne I have no internet access where I am going. Thanks for the help and review. :) Please let me know what else I can/should/need to do for the article. jtowns14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
AIV report on User:Judygarlandishot
You reported this as a username vio and Netsnipe apparently agreed with you. Could you explain what in WP:UN is being violated? It's not defamatory, not an impersonation, and the subject is long-deceased. —dgiestc17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
File:Oscar4.jpgAnother early congratulation on your happy day, WJB! I have to go to sleep, but didn't want to go offline without marking the festive occasion. I know that Wikipedia will be a far better place with you in possession of the fuckin' shiny buttons!Jeffpw21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)File:Dutch crown.jpg
Hey WJB, just wondered what the latest news was on the Padawer, quert.......... (sorry can't remember the username!) is. I was thinking of dropping Padawer and email, and once this had been sorted, unblocking his son. Have you had contact with him already? Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have promoted you to adminship. Congratulations. Make sure you are familiar with all the relevant policies before using your shiny new buttons. Raul65423:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Woah 131 support! That's amazing, I knew you'd do well. Good luck with your new tools, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help :) Majorly(o rly?)23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humour does not reflect the official humour of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo. All rights released under GDFL. Stolen from KillerChihuahua who was spot on, believe me.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, one act of vandalism replacing the word "writer" with "cunt", for which you warned them. Doesn't seem to relate to the username. WjBscribe16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, I see username "Andrea Cunkwin" as being a typo on "Andrea Cuntwin", given that the user inserted the word "cunt" in Andrea Dorkin's biog. Should I assume good faith? Or give the benefit of the, erm, typo? --Dweller16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
mmm, given the militant way RFCN defends vandals' usernames I don't think that I'd get away with that as my block reason :-). If they carry on vandalising they can blocked on that basis... WjBscribe16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time patrolling Recent Changes, :Looking for destruction that's been wrought on our pages, :There are more silly people than I could possibly handle, :So thank you blocking this annoying vandal. --Dweller18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I regret that I am nowhere near as electronically eloquent as Dev920, but please accept my heartiest congratulations, best wishes, and sincere sympathies. It's always a good sign for an article when your keystrokes grace its talk pages. Risker20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing my name from the AIV noticeboard. I have been working on the List of vaudeville performers for about 2 weeks and I was innocently adding categories. I can understand that it might be unbelievable that Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb performed in vaude, but they did and I have references to quote. Thanks again. It's nice to know that somebody recognizes that I'm doing legitimate work. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as nominator, I think it's fine for you to close it. That would be same as if you withdrew the nomination and then I changed it to a disambig afterwards. I'm not sure why someone hasn't closed that one yet. -- JLaTondre02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Bus images
Delete them, unfortunately; there is no evidence that these were ever correctly licensed for us. Jkelly03:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is still unfortunate, in terms of the time spent uploading them and now deleting them, on top of issues of having failed to credit someone's work and misleading reusers. I was hoping for a better ending to this one. Jkelly03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, new admin!
There's a note on my talk page from User:Coryarlo regarding Sexually transmitted disease. Evidently that page gets vandalized often - surprise surprise! Isn't there a protection level to disallow edits from ip-users? Would you mind taking a look? Thanks!!!!!! Hope you're enjoying that mop! :) :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page for the next month. Hopefully they'll get bored in the meantime. Yeah, loving the mop- just deleted over 200 images of buses someone uploaded without permission. Grrr- why did I want to be an admin again :-)... WjBscribe05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Too late :) One week into it here and .. yeah .. I can understand how admin burnout can happen! - Alison☺05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted User:Parker007/article as {{db-userreq}}. You might be interested to know that it contained the entire history of said user's talk page. For that reason, I restored the content, and history-merged it back to his talk page, then move-protected his talk page to prevent a repeat incident, then deleted the trailing redirect. —freak(talk) 06:10, Mar. 28, 2007 (UTC)
The bus images
Thanks for clearing them out, I was going to batch them last night, but it got a bit too late and I had to go to sleep. I created that category to be able to run it via pywikipedia with this query:
python delete.py -cat:'Candidates for speedy deletion - Bus images'
-summary:'image taken from www.busesatwork.co.uk and needs to be deleted' -always
hi i am under a secure login right now could you please unblock this ip address:151.199.193.64 it is registard to Henrico County Public Schools for John Randolph Tucker High School please make it so only brand new users can't edit and so older users can edit with out using a secure login
My adoptee brought a problem user to my attention, and looking into their contribs I found this nomination which they registered to create. With the response in the AFD, and coverage like the CBC, I'm predicting a 100% chance of WP:SNOW. — coelacan — 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Closed. Seems to have been a disruptive nom- very poorly argued notability criticisms, overwhelming keep consensus. WjBscribe01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out Fleur de Lys (superhero). As far as I can tell nothing happened. This should be easy - just need to restore the original at Fleur de Lys and move it over the former redirect page, crediting User:E-Kartoffel with the move in the edit summary. The other history at Fleur de Lys (superhero) is me figuring out the redirect months ago, and it doesn't need saving. Gimmetrow19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
User:E-Kartoffel did a cut-and-paste move from Fleur de Lys to Fleur de Lys (superhero). The edits on Fleur de Lys should be moved; the edits on Fleur de Lys (superhero) don't matter and could be over-written. (The previous move history is logged in the history of Fleur de Lys.) The talk page should be moved as well; I could do that but there is no reason for a redirected talk page to remain. Gimmetrow19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD Closure
Hello. Let me begin by saying that I am not trying to question your decision on closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKP. To be honest there wasn't really much support for deleting it. Nor am I asking for you to overturn your decision! Mainly I am curious why you chose to close it as a keep decision when a large number of the keep !votes did not attempt to address the issues brought up in the debate and offered no substantive reasoning for their opinions - I was pretty sure this one would have gone down as a no consensus due to the lack in terms of cosntructive debate on the topic. I'm sorry if I'm belaboring the topic, I just would like to understand your thoughts as the closing administrator if only for my own enlightenment. Thank you! Arkyan • (talk)22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think its best to avoid no consensus closes where possible. Although a number of comments were from sole-purpose-accounts, the only delete opinion other than your nomination was a weak one. Most of the other keep opinions suggested that the article should be cleaned up rather than deleted outright. I thought the balance of the (admitedly poor) discussion was on the keep side. Obviously you are free to cleanup the article and remove unsourced and OR material. And the result does not proclude a fresh AfD in a couple of months should you feel that necessary. WjBscribe00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Heroes
I noticed the user wasn't involved in the dispute so I figured no big deal. Feel free to reprotect, I don't feel strongly either way. John Reaves(talk)01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.
While we're on the subject! Can you breeze through my edit history really quick and give your opinion on how I'm doing on stuff? I'm a bit concerned that I might adhere to WP:AGF a little too strongly, particulary around usernames and their appropriateness and I'd love your opinion. Be honest!! I want objective criticism - Alison☺18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick review! Appreciate it :) It's just kinda nice to know I'm reasonably on the right track - Alison☺04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request
Madman234 (talk·contribs) has requested a block review. Looks at least plausible to me. Could you check and unblock or let the user know what more information you are looking for? Thanks! --Yamla18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your unblock of Transnistria is way too premature. Wait an hour and you'll see all mayhem break loose. Or else protect again, please, since discussion is currently underway in Talk:Transnistria among five of us to work out the differences. - Mauco18:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The disruptive accounts are all presently blocked and discussion is continuing on the talkpage. Lets try unprotection. WjBscribe19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, if it wouldn't be too difficult for you to do, merging their history would be great, thanks. Congratulations on your RfA, by the way. I tend to participate only with RfAs that I feel strongly about, or in cases where I feel an editor doesn't know what he/she is getting into (such as an editor who has newly registered). So I didn't participate in yours. Again, congratulations. --Kyoko19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
