User talk:Wikidudeman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Paranormal barnstar

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Ariel A. Roth"

Hello,

I tried adding a page about an important scientist, Ariel A. Roth, but my article was deleted and there was no record of the deletion in the deletion log. Please let me know why you decided to delete my contribution.

JdeOliveira 21:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was taken from another website. Copyrighted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

On a quick skim, yes, it's a GA, and could probably make FA if the lead was punched up a bit - it's a little rambly as it stands. More later. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 07:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Original Barnstar

Thankyou for the barnstar! Nice to know the work/help is appreciated

)

Reedy Boy

Homeopathy

Thank you for the offer to participate in the homeopathy draft. Unfortunately I'm wrapped up some off site projects and can't get involved in a major project at this time. Maybe if it's still going on when I get the projects done, I'll come back to it. Thanks again. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for me, Wikidudeman. I think User:Antelan would be a good editor for the article as he is a med student. - LuckyLouie 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to participate in your homeopathy update. While I would be happy to contribute, as a practicing General Practitioner who is well aware that homeopathy is, in context and in theory, total bullshit, which statement is fully born out by all the properly conducted trials which have been undertaken, I am not sure that my input is what you are seeking.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm a bit wrapped up in both real-world and Wiki science at the moment! Tim Vickers 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

re:homeopathy

Thanks for the invite, I'd be happy to help. Glad you asked too, as I'm pretty familiar with homeopathy and alt medicine in general. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

About autoconfirmed proposal

The Autoconfirmed Proposal is not getting updates in over 3 weeks. Do you want me to put the {{historical}} tag on the proposal, or do you want to revive it at the village pump?

P.S. This is not canvassing in any way. We were both major contributors in this proposal. The discussion has died down since.--PrestonH 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I want you to revive it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Brock

I think you should change my edits in one piece instead or else maybe you shouldn´t do anything.--80.216.145.96 08:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, You're the one editing against consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking the vandal. I'm always grateful for your barnstar. I've recently joined the anti-vandalism task force. Thanking You, Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block it. I just left the note on the users talk page notifying them that they had been blocked. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Could you plz. tell me of any good anti-vandalism tools? I use "Twinkle" and "Lupin's Anti-vandal" tools. Thanking You, Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all I use. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK! So these should do. Thanking You, Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You could also look at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

UCS and IAR

WP:UCS is not actually a policy; the alternative essay Wikipedia:There is no common sense puts across an equally valid opposing point of view. My interpretation of WP:IAR is that it should only be invoked in totally uncontroversial circumstances, where any reasonable person would agree. (For instance, if a new page says "Fred Bloggs, born 1995, has an IQ of 200 and conquered the world before he was five years old", then it technically doesn't meet CSD A7 but should still be speedy-deleted.) In any case where there is likely to be controversy, admins should not ignore the rules, but should go through the full process and get community consensus for their actions. Otherwise we very easily become a dictatorship. Walton^One 09:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR takes into account the fact that sometimes the rules are flawed and hinder improving wikipedia. There are so many instances where the policies are flawed or incomplete it would be impossible to be constructive if one strictly followed them all, not to mention impossible due to the fact they frequently are reworded or changed. Where there would be controversy, admins shouldn't ignore the controversy. It wouldn't be common sense for an admin to ignore controversy concerning a deletion for example. Wikipedia can't become a dictatorship because there are no people who have the authority to ignore consensus, even Jimbo Wales wouldn't do such a thing. If an article is created for example and a specific admin deems it criteria to be deleted, if there is a substantial amount of people who disagree then that admin shouldn't delete it. Regardless of what the policies may or may not say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say admins should "ignore controversy". I said that, in controversial circumstances, admins should always follow the process and get community consensus for their actions. For instance, if an article doesn't meet any of the CSD criteria and it is likely that the deletion will be controversial, it should be taken to AfD rather than instantly deleted, as per the policies and guidelines. And, with respect, your third point is wrong: if there is a substantial amount of people who disagree then that admin shouldn't delete it. Regardless of what the policies may or may not say. If something is a direct copyright violation, for instance, or a libellous comment on a living person, it has to be deleted; otherwise we'd be on shaky legal ground. Policies are the result of a much broader consensus than that which goes into a single XfD discussion, so XfDs can't be closed in a manner which directly contradicts policy. Walton^One 10:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understand what I'm saying. Let's take a hypothetical example. Imagine a scenario where a page is created that meets the criteria for speedy deletion for one reason or another but isn't a copyright violation nor is libelous. If the deletion would receive a lot of controversy and would probably go against consensus, should an admin delete it? My answer is No, an admin shouldn't delete it. Let me give you a specific hypothetical example. Imagine a user creates a great page which becomes a Featured article, then it is later found out that this user was banned in an arbitration decision. What should happen to this Featured article that the user created? Let's imagine that hundreds of other users had put a lot of work into it and the consensus is massively in favor of keeping it. WP:BAN and WP:CSD clearly states that such pages should immediately be speedy deleted, regardless of the quality of the pages. If an admin is dogmatically following the rules without regard to the improvement of wikipedia, he would delete the page without thinking twice. However an admin who uses "common sense", rather than following the policy absolutely, he would take into consideration the quality of the page and make a decision not to delete it since it is such quality and other users have contributed substantially to it. This is where there is a gray where on when to ignore the rules and when to follow them, if following them HARMS wikipedia then they should be ignored. Period. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may jump in here... your example doesn't hold. WP:BAN says that (bolding mine) "such pages may be speedily deleted". WP:CSD is a list of "cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages". As I said before, the important aspect of common sense is to read the policy's intention: it allows easy cleanup of a banned user's edits by making it easier to speedy them. Nowhere does the policy state that administrators are under any obligation to delete the user's every edit. Leaving this featured article in place is not "ignoring" policy; it is applying policy as intended (using common sense). I don't think you and I actually disagree on much except wording here, and in the end we would both take the same action. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "may" doesn't exist in the general criteria of the CSD section. Also, Since it says admins "may" delete pages that were created by banned users at WP:BAN, does this mean they "may" delete them even against consensus? Of course not. That's where common sense and WP:IAR come into play. Let me ask you, What does WP:IAR mean to you? It says that if a rule is preventing wikipedia from being improved then it should be "ignored". That's fairly clear. Does it mean something different to you? Maybe I don't understand your position. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just can't imagine a situation in which a policy would be so strictly in opposition to encyclopedia improvement. Obvious decisions like your previous example fit in with the spirit of the rules. Controversial issues should see discussion based on the rules. If a policy truly does conflict with Wikipedia improvement, then it needs to be amended. My point here is that policy and common sense need to go hand in hand, and neither can be said to trump the other, because they should ideally be the same. "Ignore all rules" is a hyperbolic way of saying that rules do not supercede common sense. Of course, this is true, and no action should be taken that clearly harms Wikipedia. Unquestionably, the rules should not be read to the letter dogmatically. But I object to what, as it appears to me, is an attitude that says the policy should be carelessly cast aside when one editor deems it a hindrance. With any decision that bends policy, it is critical to understand the purpose of the policy, acknowledge the conflict, and be able to articulate why the policy does not apply in a manner that meets community consensus. This is a far cry from "ignoring" the policy. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my hypothetical situation, the rules would seem to trump common sense. This could mean that they need to be changed, which I could easily do, but I don't see the point in defending my changes for several days at WP:BAN or WP:CSD. The idea I'm trying to convey is that "Wikilawyering" doesn't work period. Since the rules aren't supposed to be "strictly and dogmatically followed" it won't work. My fears are that administrators will use strict interpretations of policy to do things that are counterproductive to wikipedia. As I've said, I would be willing to change my vote if that isn't the case with you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

re:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thanks! I actually unblocked him/her because I didn't think it was vandalism, but then I got suspicious of the checkuser case and finally found out the situation. Also I left a note on the administrator's notice board (WP:AN#Checkuser block) so if you have anything you think is important to add, you would know a lot more about this person than me. Thanks again, James086^{Talk | Email} 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars you definitely deserve.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia! AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

That was really great, coming as it did from nowhere! That makes two in my collection now! One more and I'll build a sub page!!! Cheers Wikidudeman and Happy editing! Pedro |  Chat  11:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks from me for the barnstar too. I really appreciate it! Best regards :-) Will (aka Wimt) 12:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin nomination

I strongly feel that you would be able to do a much better job, being an admin. Plz. reply ASAP. Thanking You, Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I do think having the extra buttons would help tremendously. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure plz. give me some time. I'll talk to other editors know and do my best. Thanking You, Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the barnstar! Always appreciated. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My barnstar

Thankyou! If you can call me being here for a year fairly new...? I'm always aiming to please the more experienced members of Wikipedia. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Update

The Autoconfirm Proposal has been revived at the village pump here. Please leave some comments regarding the proposal policy.--PrestonH 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered...

...and thank you for the barnstar! Sr13 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you as well. I see that I am in good company ;-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FA

I don't want to chastise you, since Martinphi is already trying to do so. But a nominator trying to decide whose comments are acceptable criticisms of the nomination is seriously bad form. You're right of course to say what you said, but what we do in that discussion can reflect on the article. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for speaking presumptuously then. And as a side note, are you the subject of an RFA? Please let me know, because if so, I'd be glad to lend my strong support. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a great deal for that barnstar! I always like barnstars, especially from other good editors. Best wishes! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar. -Lemonflash^talk 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Oh wow, another one from you :D Thanks so much! Giggy _U^CP 02:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi there, I'd be happy to do that. As preparation, I've had a careful look through your edits and contributions and think there are one area that might be picked up by other people and might cause problems. To be blunt (as friends should be), you have on occasion come across as short-tempered and aggressive in discussions, I'm thinking particularly about that time Adam Cuerden deleted most of the anabolic steroids article after putting it up for GAR. However, you do have a good record of participation in processes such as AfD and anti-vandalism activity and the discussions at Ebonics show you keeping cool under very trying circumstances.

To deal with this, it might be a good idea to raise the GAR in the nomination as an example of when you encountered conflict, and explain what you learned from this experience. That approach could turn a problem into an advantage.

Your thoughts? Tim Vickers 05:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, I've made some minor changes (grammar, simplifying sentences) which you might want to review to make sure I didn't introduce any errors, but apart from that it looks ready to go. Just give me the word. Tim Vickers 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, you might want to turn on the option in your preferences that prompts you to add an edit summary if you forget and leave the box blank, people tend to prefer admins and admin candidates to use edit summaries all the time. Tim Vickers 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed that bit since editing protected articles is a difficult business and, as I understand it, it's best to avoid doing it if at all possible - if you do need to edit a protected page, it's best to discuss it on the talk page first. This fitted uneasily with the idea that you might "not have time" to do this through contacting other people. Tim Vickers 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page. Wikipedia:Protection policy

I meant articles such as Brock Lesnar where the page is protected due to persistent vandalism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just refresh the page! Tim Vickers 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are your comments in bold text? Tim Vickers 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, have you adjusted the date and time to be exactly 7 days after your acceptance (the edit answering the questions?) if so, then it is time for you to put it on the page with the others. Tim Vickers 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Moderator, for you: Homeopathy attacked, religious agenda of Skeptics.

[BLP violation removed]] Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm in the process of improving the homeopathy articles and making it a featured article with quality and balance. P.S., Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ right after them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

re: barnstar

Yo, thanks dude! Much appreciated. —Миша13 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice page

Like your user page, very nice. --Kenneth M Burke 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! I appreciate it. --Kenneth M Burke 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

I just noticed that you are consistently marking all your edits as minor edits, which is a violation of policy here. Check out this page for more information: Help:Minor edit

You need to change the setting in your preferences and then use the "minor edits" markup on the few occasions where it really applies. -- Fyslee/talk 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was doing it so I didn't have to check the box every time I made a minor edit I didn't want to have to check the box and I didn't want minor edits added to my watchlist. What I will do is un-mark the box whenever it does apply. How does that sound? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever works. The guideline (linked above) wording for what constitutes minor edits would mean that a minority of edits are truly minor edits, except for those editors who stick to correcting spelling errors and such like. Any changes of wording are normally considered major edits since they are potentially contentious, even when the editor may not see the possibility themselves. -- Fyslee/talk 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

suggestions for parapsychology article

I don't know how to particpate in editing Wikipedia so will just send my thoughts to do with as you see fit.

In the parapsychology article:

Reference 45, the Kennedy article (which is me) is available on the web at http://jeksite.org/psi/jp04.htm

In the section on fraud, it says William (Jay) Levy. It should be Walter J. (Jay) Levy. Check the Rhine article or the August 26, 1974 Time magazine article if you want to verify this.

James Randi is primarily an entertainer and not a scientist. He serves a useful function in challenging other entertainers who make paranormal claims, but the various entertainers have not been central players in scientific parapsychology. By giving a picture of Randi and so many links to him (more to him than anybody else), this article seems to be advertising and promoting his entertainment activities rather than presenting a balanced perspective on scientific research in parapsychology. If you want to have a picture of a skeptic, I would suggest Ray Hyman. He has put more effort into scientific criticisms of parapsychology than anyone else in the past few decades. He has had a central role in the various scientific controversies whereas Randi has been on the periphery, mostly promoting himself and his entertainment activities and (nonscientific) books.

Jek222 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Jim Kennedy

1. I'll fix the reference tomorrow.

2. James Randi is very knowledgeable in scientific matters. The fact that he doesn't have a scientific degree isn't relevant since he's considered a reliable source due to his vast experience in these matters of debunking frauds.

3. If I had a free image of Ray Hyman I would use it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again! I appreciate you noticing :D Spellcast 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. This message was added by a bot. If you have any problems, leave a note on my operator's talk page. --WestparkBot 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That was quick

You didn't even give me 2 minutes to improve The Simpsons Theme Song before slapping on a merge tag. The song has been covered by Green Day and is now a charted single (a source is provided in the article), so it has it's own notability outside the show. Plus, the good people at WP:SONG told me it would be okay. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've added a request for comments at The Simpsons opening sequence. We can discuss it there. I think all of it could easily be merged there though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

For the Barnstar! It's really nice to be recognized like that. I see your up for an RfA, you have my support, and not just because of your kindness. I'm sure you'll do great. RfA's can be a harsh process though, and if you need anything, just ask. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Hi Wikidudeman! I was away for the weekend. I consider it a privilege to co-nominate an excellent user of Wikipedia. I'm only doing this, out of my genuine appreciation for your tireless efforts in Wikipedia. You really deserve an adminship and I strongly believe that you would do a much better job post that. Thanking You, Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

46 'scrapers for Pittsburgh?

I see that you cite 46 skyscrapers for Pittsburgh and not the 151 or 147 listed in the citation referenced by the claim. First how can a reference infer a number different then the claim? If this is so please cite your source I would be very interested in learning more things about my hometown. Second I did look to see if there was some Emporis.com reference you were using (like any structure 250 ft. or 300 ft. or taller etc.) but no matrix (even with floor height) fits your 46 count for Pittsburgh. Before I revert this obvious citation error I'd be interested in learning any available info or rankings you have on Pittsburgh. Thank you. 65.33.69.241 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Hholt01 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reference or article you're referring to. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks - that great. Glad to know I'm appreciared. I'm not only tryon to set up an African wildlife series on wikipedia like Wildlife of Karnataka but have been getting Cambodian articles off to a start also like Cambodian clothing, etc and mapping out the districts but we need images!!! I am also compiling a super project of my own List of American films which is in its early stages -it needs filling!!! Pretty diverse huh? Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

E.g like American films of 1984 needs filling in with the mass of info -it'll look great when its done as will the entire films by country from Afghansitan to Yemen!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 21:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, That's very impressive. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Msg

Hi Wikidudeman -

Was I trolled?

I was trying to edit a page about a living politician , Don Siegleman, who has just gone to jail.

Who has the right to troll a page?

The current page is very biased and includes false statements about Siegelman. It leaves a lot of important information out.

I am not aware that any one of Siegelman's friends has tried to edit this page. I am curious that there appears to be an argument between 2 Riley supporters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajmdarden (talk • contribs).

I don't know what you mean. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomena

Thanks for the message, I doubt I'll be terribly active but I'm curious to see how the page evolves. There were quite a number of NPOV issues when last I was actively involved in the page. — e. ripley\^talk 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Wikidudeman, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hang in there mate! Dfrg.msc 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

The reason I haven't provided a vote yet is because I don't consider myself familiar enough with your track record yet - I'll be looking through some of the links on your RfA page. At this point I'm not saying support because of a lack of familiarity, and I can't see myself saying oppose unless I turn up some sort of baby-eating behaviour :) Unless there's some drastic downturn in your behaviour, the 'worst' I see myself saying is 'hearty endorsement in another 6 months'. WLU 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've changed to Weak Support on your RfA - on reflection, one conversation isn't really enough to stop me from supporting. Overall I think you'll be a good admin; you certainly shouldn't be discouraged by any criticism (I got far more criticism on my RfA than you've had, and it still passed). Walton^One 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

positively stunning

Martinphi's comments really sadden me. People whom you disagreed with were not the only ones who got overlooked in the flurry of the parapsychology rewrite, a few of my own changes were slipped by in the fray. But I certainly didn't assume you were out to ignore me intentionally, or think that whining about it was going to improve the article. That's the worst kind of assumption of bad faith. Just think, after GA-status and no more edit warring, they still completely ignore the value of the services you provided. It's like when people complain about say, a byline on one of my theatre reviews...they can never manage to suggest something better, but they still insist on attacking my honest work.

On a different note: don't hesitate to tell me to bugger off with the commentary. It's your RFA remember, and the last thing I want to do is endanger your chances.

Best of luck, VanTucky ^(talk) 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't quite understand Martin. Apparently he's afraid I will "Destroy" him if I were to become an administrator. BTW, Feel free to leave any comments you want, If someone decides to oppose me based on something you do then I wouldn't want their support anyway. Not that you're doing anything wrong mind you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, like I said: I think what WDM did at Parapsychology was valuable. I just have had a lot of other experience which WDM which hasn't been pleasant at all. I'm not claiming to be a saint myself, but I'm not trying to become an admin. If WDM continues his good behavior for another year, I'd vote for him. But as of now, it looks like he changed when the idea of "admin" came into his head. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Though sad, I think it's really a better idea to withdraw from the nomination than see it fail. To bow out seems much more intelligent and gracious than a failure, which I think will help you if you ever decide to run again. My condolences, and I'm glad to have helped. Thank you for your kind words above. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Looked through your contributions, and found something I think you deserve. :) Thanks for giving me a barnstar, but you earned this more than I did mine. · AndonicO Talk 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Brady photo

I hope this clarifies the picture. Let me know if you need any more info. Michigan10 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That photo was not taken from a website. I can attest that it was taken by a fellow federal official. Michigan10 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I won't dispute it then. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me? I have problems with my monobook.js I can't do many things, like reporting a vandal or requests for speedy deletion. Something must be wrong with my monobooks.js Can you repair it? It would be very nice, thanks. -- uniQue tree →talk← 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks a lot for the Barnstar! Brianga 07:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for the award! It's my first. Regards, Xdenizen 08:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm honored to receive it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 08:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:The Editor's Barnstar

Thank you a lot! It means a lot to be appreciated by other wikipedians. kalaha 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Thanks v much for the Editor's Barnstar you gave me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Woop! Woop! My first barnstar! Thanks very much, nice to feel appreciated. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I had never been given one before so I finally know my edits were for something. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 08:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Thanks heaps for the recognition. Vandal-fighting can be almost as thankless as housework. Good luck with your Adminship! Best wishes - Ben

Bennyboyz3000 08:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars et. al.

Hiya mate. Thanks again for that - that makes 3. Look, I'm really sorry about my oppose, now neutral at your RFA. I'm more regretful now that opposers are also citing it - I hope the closing 'crat takes note of Giggy's comment regarding this, and that I have moved to Neutral and requested it be ignored. To strike it out now would be wrong, sadly. Chin up, and I hope you get the tools :) Pedro |  Chat  09:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

re: zro's First Barnstar

Wow! My first ever! Thanks! ._-zro 09:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for the barnstar! My first one ever also. Made my day and gave me a smile =) Cholga^talK! 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I've been having a rough morning, and it really cheered me up. It's much appreciated. Best, DanielEng 09:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Much appreciated. Many thanks. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for my barnstar as well! It is always good to feel appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn/ ^talk 10:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuing this thread of good tidings, I would like to extend thanks for my barnstar award as well. Happy Editing... Dust Filter 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My barnstar thanks you for awarding it an editor. Clarityfiend 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks here to :) Cheers. -Icewedge 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesen't work

Sorry, but it doesent work. I have copied the text you wrote on my user talk page into my monobook.js But it doesent work, as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_B._Murray

There is written these:

Updating the page
Getting data for first contributor
Opening user talk page
Checking for tags on the page...
Updating the page...
Page tagged

Can you help? -- uniQue tree →talk← 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I tried out that tool last night and I think I have determined why I beat you to reverts. Lupin just updates too slowly and by the time something makes it to Lupin, it has already been shown on Recent Changes for about twenty seconds. I think I prefer my own intuition - I have already learned just by looking at a list of articles which are the ones that are most likely going to get hit. Trusilver 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Commiserations about your RFA not succeeding. I think you would have made a great Admin. Better luck next time! Xdenizen 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I uploaded my photo, but verifying that it is mine is too complicated

Yeah, I uploaded a picture that I myself took, to the article I wrote on "Douglass High School, Kingsport, Tennessee," but the system Wikipedia has to verify that it is indeed my picture and not copyrighted is so difficult, "a caveman CANNOT do it." If it gets deleted, c'est la vie. It's easier trying to figure out the biological structure of the amoeba, than getting through Wikipedia's verification system.Csneed 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi WDM,

My nomination, had I eventually posted it, would have probably said "Neutral. Given six more months of solid editing, I have no doubt that WDM would make an excellent admin."

Try again in six months, and unless you develop a significant tumour in your frontal lobe, I have no doubt that I would support your nom. WLU 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding my commiserations as well. All the major objections were based on events quite some time ago and nobody seemed to have anything but praise for your recent actions. Keep on as you are and I'm sure things will go better next time. Tim Vickers 01:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it for at least a few months, certainly. The longer you leave it the easier it will be. Tim Vickers 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tim and WLU are right. A few months from now you should make it. Try working on the points (if there's substance in any of them.) Take Care. Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA & Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, Pedro give you the resilient barnstar, for slogging through the harsh environment of RFA. I feel certain I will be supporting you in a future request for the tools. Pedro |  Chat  07:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Sorry to hear that you had to withdraw your RfA. I apologise for initially going Neutral; at the time, you had near-unanimous support and I assumed you would pass. I certainly didn't want your RfA to fail, and I would have supported straight away if I'd known it would be close. Anyway, I will certainly give you my full support next time round, and would even be happy to nominate you myself in a couple of months. Walton^One 11:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for the barnstar!--Just James ^T/C 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Danke

The barnstar you gave me is much appreciated. This inspired me to copy various templates from your user page and to learn a bit of template programming in order to build me a cooler user page myself. It looks much better now, thank you very much. --KYN 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

I have been very busy, so I am now just saying this. I am sorry your RFA did not pass. try again soon. Politics rule 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A request

Can you create Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll as per here? Then take the straw poll directly at the village pump where people can voice there opinion. From there, we can decide if this proposal becomes a policy or not. Thanks in advance!--PrestonH 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment

Hey, I really like your user page. Especially the category tracker. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all about utility. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I meant what I said at the RFA, that my oppose was reluctant. I really do look forward to supporting you in a future RFA and to that end, request that you notify me should you appear there again. As it has been requested by me, such a notification would not be covered by WP:CANVASS. Of course, the corollary is that there is no guarantee I will support you, but I'm sure that you've taken good note of the oppose opinions and your nomination will fly through. --Dweller 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Trimming" section of the Homeopathy draft talk

I've replied. Sorry to take so long. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom for better accessibility. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

homoepathy draft

there are a lot of folks waiting for you to come back to edit the draft and chew thru a series of issues if that's not too much trouble for you. If you are sick then get some help! hope to see you there soon Peter Peter morrell 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2 regards contributing to an arbitration discussion. --DashaKat 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic

This [1] do it for you? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That didn't sound convincing : ) Who knows, I might come up with a better compromise tomorrow. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank muchly

..for the barnstar, greatly appreciated Drivenapart 08:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

US history of homeopathy

one thing I found lacking in the article(s) was any reference to the influence of the AMA debunking homeopathy in the early 20th century. At that time homeopathic hospitals were thriving and regardless of the debate over efficacy, politics and self-interest (spelled $$$)won out.

signed Djbarre12 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Proposal

I tagged it as {{historical}} due to the fact it's unlikely to be implemented by the devs. Remember Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days?? That was in the same vein as this, and got rejected. This idea will go the same way.

Don't sweat it, dude, at least you tried. --Bolusball200 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the proposal very much, but have reverted the tagging by this new account. Kusma (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck

Hi, could you help Oldspammer here? It needs a bit of fixing before it can be brought back into the mainspace. Thanks! Singularity 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you get...

How do you get an Origial Barnstar award? Please leave a message on my talk page.Limetolime 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Again

you have really made my day with that barnstar and couldn't but help leave you a message on your talk page to show you how grateful I am.--Kerotan^Talk Have a nice day :) 12:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I don't get many of them, so I really appreciate what I can get!! Happy editing! --linca^linca 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I've only just returned to Wikipedia. Had a break for a while after becoming rather disillusioned. The barnstar was a great surprise. Glad to see someone appreciates the work. Walgamanus 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

It really came out of the blue. Well... what can I say but thanks very much?Rex 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks!! Punkmorten 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Working man's barnstar

Thanks! Lurker (said · done) 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the BarnStar

Thanks for the barnstar, although i was just doing what i thought was a good thing! Lots of the mathematics articles here have some inadequacies so I think I've got a lot of work ahead of me :) Uxorion 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:barnstar

Thank you, you've brightened my day! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thankyou, that's very kind of you :) SGGH ^speak! 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

Why thank you :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much! Tryde 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought i was in trouble for a second...

...when i saw that ominous 'you have a new message' info box at the top of a page. Then i discovered i had a sparkly gold star. The relief! Thank you!! extraordinary 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thank you VERY much!! I'll proudly display it on my barnstars page. Again, I appreciate it! BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My very first...

My first one! Thank you very much.  :)   justen   20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the barnstar :)

Yes, indeed thank-you very much. Quite unexpected but much appreciated! --UpDown 11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much! I'm honestly delighted by your award, so again, thanks!--NeoNerd 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Many thanks for the barnstar, it's much appreciated. I just hope it's lacquer coated as I'm not too good at polishing :) WebHamster 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. It's always really nice to receive something unexpected like that! Keep up the good work! Will (aka Wimt) 17:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me please

I read about that discussion you had on my user page. Thanks for being the only one to vote yes... i am new... and it did upset me. You guys should be a little nicer cuz that should be put under bullying in the encyclopidia. And now you are planning to rip apart my user page? Geez! I'm telling all my friends and teachers and school not to use wikipedia because it is harsh, cruel, crude, and overall not understanding. They will all listen! But thank you for listening to me. I am still very upset though. I don't even have a myspace. Those were all STORIES! I like to write STORIES! I had them there so all my friends in school could read my STORIES! Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Subpages_of_FonzieBaby BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because

Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, Because it is Saturday! Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better. You can smile at someone else by adding {{subst:smile}}, whether it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or a good friend. Happy day!

^Ariel♥Gold 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks for the original barnstar! Much appreciated. Regards, Rillian 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the Barnstar. Cheers,Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

Thank you!

Hi Wikidudeman. Thank you very much for the Barnstar! Very pleasant surprise:) Zondi 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)