Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 26 February 2009

Awards and articles I created.

view edit I have pressed the "Save page" button, over 45,907 times, making me editor number 320 for number of edits. I now have 20+ barnstars, but like a good monkey, I had to press the little button 2,869 times before I got my first prize.  :( The BLP Barnstar I hereby award you this shiny barnstar for your efforts to alert Wikiprojects about how to locate BLPs for their projects and invite their participation in the discussion that would affect potentially all projects with a mass deletion (50,000 by most estimates) of "unsourced" BLPs. Your notice was such a good idea and sharing those links will help push some of those most familiar with the topics to help the articles at risk. Keep up the great work! -- Banjeboi 12:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC) What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar To the artist formerly known as Ikip, for coming up with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest as a productive means to tackling the backlog of unreferenced BLPs. Let's focus our energy and get this puppy off the ground J04n(talk page) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For perpetually defending Misplaced Pages's intended and most valuable purpose: catalogging human knowledge. I hope you had a nice Valentine's Day! Sincerely, A Nobody 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Defender of the Noble Spirt of Misplaced Pages For your noble and unbreakable spirit of inclusion, mentorship and fraternity towards your fellow editors and the Wikipedian community. --Grancafé (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Barnstar of the Lamp For The Huddled Masses For your pure intentioned dedication to speaking for those who do not speak, the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of the internet, providing a lamp of illumination. ----Milowent (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For all your work in these difficult days: notifying Wikiprojects, discussing on the RfC's, exposing rogue editors/admins behaviour and also for this exceptional comment, which definitely proves what is the real problem of Misplaced Pages these days. We need more brilliant editors like you! Cyclopia 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) The Guidance Barnstar Hi Okip, this barnstar is for your tireless efforts in helping, orienting and encouraging newcomers and novice editors, like me. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Grand Coffee Vizir Barnstar For your generousous hard work, courage and distinguished dedication to the noble cause of coffee, you are conferred this Grand Coffee Vizir award of high distinction and accomplishment. Congratulations! --Grancafé (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The Barnstar of European Merit I can not thank you enough for the work you put into Albania-Serbia relations, there is no doubt in my mind that you have earned this barnstar. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) this WikiAward was given to Ikip by Marcusmax(speak) on 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked Even though I almost always seem to disagree with you, I admire all the hard work you put in to whatever controversy seems to be engulfing Misplaced Pages this week! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Awarded 20 January 2007 to Travb for his valiant defense of   the Misplaced Pages mission to produce a neutral encyclopedia. Athaenara The Article Rescue Barnstar For your tireless effort to save notable articles at AfD. Honestly, your commitment to fighting unnecessary deletions is extraordinary! SMSpivey (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC) You deserve this Wikidraco scholasticus award for taking on current AfD policy at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution - and for having the patience to plough through AfD looking for articles worth saving. --Philcha (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) The Philippine Barnstar ... for your advice and assistance in the development of a Philippine-related article. -- Sultan-Commander (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I award you this barnstar for your continued and tireless efforts to keep Misplaced Pages a welcome place for all editors... from your graciousness and guidence to newcomers who might feel "put off" when their own initial efforts end up at AfD... to your efforts to maintain the integrity of the project and its articles. The job is never-ending, and yet you continue... even when your efforts are sometimes considered as overzealous. Keep up the good fight, but with patience... as Don Quixote is not the only one to find honor in tilting at windmills. Schmidt, 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC) A Lucky Penny In the spirit of funding that is sweeping the country this penny is offered to Editor:Ikip for his incredible WikiWorld endeavors:----Buster7 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) The Working Man's Barnstar For all your hard work keeping an eye on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)#Final adoption as a guideline and following up with the people who have commented there. Politizer /contribs 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Misplaced Pages Motivation Award have noticed the announcements at several pages and applaud your courtesy in sharing the news that such a discussion is going on, as thousands of affected editors would otherwise have no idea that the fates of so many articles was being determined or where to even look for such a discussion. Well done. I am surprised that others have not themselves been as proactive in seeking a wider consensus for such an important and far-reaching proposal. This thing could impact nearly three quarters of a million articles. Good job!!! Wow. Schmidt, 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Articles I have created Using: http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php Tool. Tool does not count templates. A_New_Life_(The_Outer_Limits) A_Test_of_the_News Template:AbUS --archive box for American terrorism page. Abdellatif_Laabi After_the_Empire:_The_Breakdown_of_the_American_Order American_civil_religion American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia Army_Foreign_Intelligence_Assistance_Program Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians Axis_of_Evil_(film) Balloon_effect Bell_Trade_Act Benevolent Assimilation Benevolent_Assimilation_(book) The Book of All Flesh as RWV. Calder v. Bull as RWV. Boring law school case. Case-Church_Amendment Charles_Henry_Dietrich CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US Clark_Amendment Commission_on_Industrial_Relations Commonwealth_v._Pullis Control_(2004_film) Costa_Rican_Civil_War DeLima v. Bidwell Democracy_in_Marxism Domestic_analogy Dreamland_(2007_film) Drew_Griffin CNN reporter Duck_Hook Nixon threat, called for the possibly-nuclear bombing of military and economic targets in and around Hanoi, the mining of Haiphong and other ports Edward_Atkinson Enemy_Nations Estate_of_Rodriquez_v._Drummond_Co. Fablehaven children's books. Firefight_at_Yechon:_Courage_and_Racism_in_the_Korean_War G._Robert_Blakey Green_report Guenter_Lewy Heroism Research Group Hitler's_Willing_Executioners Hughes-Ryan_Act Human_rights_in_Colombia Identical_Strangers...twins were given up by their mentally ill mother and separated as infants...met for the first time in 2004 at the age of 35. Intelligence_Oversight_Act International_Journal_of_Political_Economy, socialist perspective acedemic economic journal. Is the Holocaust Unique? Jacob_H._Smith Joseph_Lafayette_Rawlins Julian_Codman Kerry_Committee_report Kill_the_Messenger Kill_the_Messenger_(film) Klaus_Mehnert La_Violencia Leahy_Law Little_Eichmanns Lodge_Committee Looking_for_Love_(film) a 1964 romantic musical-comedy movie Michel_Garder My_Country,_My_Country Onyx_Project Operation_WASHTUB Operation_Whitecoat PCCC Plan_Cobra Power_Play_(1978_film) Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. 1995 Rhode Island Supreme Court case often cited in tort law text books to explain the legal concept of battery. Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse Problems_of_Communism_(journal) Psychological_Operations_in_Guerrilla_Warfare San_Francisco_Call Senate_Document Simon_Sisters Sixto_Lopez Talk:American terrorism/Past disagreements Template:AmericanEmpire Template:Colombia conflict Template:Soatitles Template:Stay focused as RWV. This talk page is not a web blog. Template:U.S. Congressional opposition to war The_Saint_Patrick's_Day_Four Sturges_v._Crowninshield as RWV, dealt with the constitutionality of New York creating bankruptcy laws and retroactively applying those laws. Theodore_Schroeder They_Came_Back Thomas_MacDonald_Patterson Thousand_Days_War Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events Timeline_of_Philippine-American_War Tom_Engelhardt the creator of the Nation Institute's tomdispatch.com, a liberal web blog. Total_Denial a 2006 documentary film about fifteen Burmese villagers going up against oil giants UNOCAL and TOTAL as they build the Yadana Pipeline. Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom TV-6_(Russia) TVS_(Russia) U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals Union of Banana Exporting Countries as RWV. Attempt to create OPEC like cartel for bananas. United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Philippines United_States_v._Stanley the United States Supreme Court found that a serviceman could not file a tort action against the federal government, even though the government secretly administered doses of LSD to the serviceman as part of an experimental program, because his injuries were found by the lower court to be service-related. War_Feels_Like_War War_referendum a type of referendum in which citizens decide whether a nation should go to war. William_Lindsay_Scruggs (1836 - 1912) a scholar of South American foreign policy and U.S. ambassador to Colombia and Venezuela. The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule The Original Barnstar For keeping both your integrity and a cool head in the most trying of circumstances. Ireneshusband 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) On 27 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludlow Amendment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. The Guidance Barnstar Ikip, you have helped me in many ways over the past few weeks, thank you once again for your assistance. Marcusmax(speak) 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Awarded to Ikip for volunteering to cleanse the Augean stables. —S Marshall /Cont 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar For your elegant and clear solution to some vexing situations I hereby award you this shiny barnstar you can play catch with or trade for superpowers or even put on a display shelf for all to behold and admire. The Article Rescue Squadron is a band of troupers who work in stressful environments to save content worth keeping and your help is very much appreciated. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar This is an excellent idea for Foreign relations of Argentina by country to deal with the minor bilateral relationships, just 1 suggestion for improvement can we sort by continent/region? LibStar (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC) The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thank you very much for your successful efforts in strengthening the content and character of Misplaced Pages. Your work is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I hearby award this barnstar to Ikip due to his heroic campaigning for the noble cause of including valuable and interesting articles in the peoples encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thankyou for being so nice to me! ScythreContribs 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar I hereby award this Barnstar to Ikip for his excellent idea to reduce conflict by pre-empting potentially heated AfD debates with a suggestion that articles be userfied, so new users can still work to improve their work, while deletionists are happy as problem articles are removed from mainspace. Everyone's a winner! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) andyzweb (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins! Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all. The Original Barnstar For cutting process, getting crap out of mainspace and helping newbies not to feel bitten all at the same time, a singular achievement. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC) This user played a significant role in helping Eddie Kilroy graduate from incubation. This user played a significant role in helping Downtown Emergency Service Center graduate from incubation.

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Misplaced Pages from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Misplaced Pages Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225) This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report ...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances. Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1 wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

Misplaced Pages:ARS/Tagged

"Useless Tag" Tag

RE:

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

I'm glad you liked it, and I'm glad to see someone else who detests deletionism as thoroughly as I do. Though to give credit where it's due, I got the tag from User:Hobit. McJeff (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I too stole if from someone else, but I'm bad and don't recall who. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Duke53 has it too, but only since 10:22, 9 August 2008.

Hobit, you added your on 02:33, 25 March 2008.

User:Fyre2387 added it to his page on 21:12, 21 January 2008.

User:PatrickFlaherty/later has had it since 04:37, 2 August 2008.

I asked Frye if he made this tag. User_talk:Fyre2387#Creator of the useless tag?

Ikip (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderfull tag, I immediately copied it Power.corrupts (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

LMFAO ... absolutely priceless - literally laughed out loud. ;)— Ched (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote that up originally in a moment of higher than usual irritation with various Wiki process and so forth. Glad so many people like it. ;)--Fyre2387 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Vladimir Putin article

Thanks for the heads-up on the Criticism article. I hadn't logged in for some time; I usually just wiki-troll and only log in when making a potentially controversial edit wherein my full edit history might be called into question. I'm making my comments to the Talk page now.
In this particular case, the criticism of my Criticism article is funny: I started that article precisely to give an outlet for the ongoing edit wars that were, and are still, preventing that article from attaining a high standard of quality.
Thanks again! Ender78 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Always glad I can help, albiet I forgot what I wrote :) Hope we cross paths again. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chico's

You appear to have salvaged the text I wrote at Chico's (restaurant) at User:Ikip/Chico's (restaurant). Merely out of curiosity, why did you do that? JIP | Talk 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-Welcomed Iswearius

Hi Ikip! Thanks for the welcome! I look forward to collaborating too.--Iswearius (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ikip! Thanks for the praise, but I'm afraid I'm not quite there yet. Hopefully collaborating will keep me on the path.--Iswearius (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks!--Iswearius (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to working with you. Ikip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squardron

Yes! I would be glad in assisting you in the Article Rescue Squadron. Leave me a message after the beep! Bb515200000001 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for offering me the chance to work with people like you. Thank you. Bb515200000001 (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rescuing articles

As soon as I saw your message on my talk page, I signed up. I certainly do want to be part of your group -- too much has already been lost. -- BRG (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Article Rescue Barnstar

Thank you! Smallman12q (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

Hey Ikip, re: your note on my talk page. Sounds good, to be honest I thought I had already added my name to the list. I'll spend a little more time on article rescue over the weekend. Thanks for the info ... have a good one. ;) — Ched (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

no real-world notability established

Hi Ikip, perhaps you could help. I have come across this argument a few times, is it rooted in a policy guideline of sorts, or is it WP:MADEUP? Power.corrupts (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a confused combination of two ideas.

First, WP:WAF, or "Writing About Fiction". WP:WAF counsels us to write about fictional subjects as fictional stories that exist in our real world, not histories of some fictional world. Prince Hamlet, for example, puts as much emphasis on what we know of his conception and creation, as well as notable performances and whatnot, as in the fictional setting of Hamlet. Rewriting fictional articles to conform to this style, particularly for sprawling licensed settings (Star Wars is a chief offender), is a major cleanup task, and an article that cannot be cleaned up to meet WP:WAF is a likely merge candidate.

Second, WP:N, or "Wotability". WP:N requires that article topics be the subject of significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the article topic.

In theory, having enough coverage to satisfy WP:N will give enough content to rewrite the article in the style WP:WAF counsels. Fictional works aren't typically independent of the article topic. Hamlet isn't commentary on Prince Hamlet; rather, Prince Hamlet is a part of Hamlet.

That said, it's a confused way of making your point, and is chiefly used by people who are used to using it from waaaaaay back when "Can we write an article that satisfies WP:WAF?" was more or less the inclusion standard for fictional topics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think dear Man in Black said it best. Nice job Man in black. What a pleasant surprise :) I will User:DGG to comment. DGG is considered the intellectual giant of inclusionism. Ikip (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very comprehensive and thoughtfull, takes some time to digest and grasp implications, I get the point what "no real-world notability" intends to convey, I had taken it at face value as some sort of Kafkaesque argument, bound to fail for fiction, very good, thank you. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ikip (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AMAB and I have somewhat different views on this, as we've both said quite a number of times. But one thing he's said here which I very much thank him for and shall adopt, since it should lend clarity to all of the discussions: Wotability for Notability with respect to Misplaced Pages. Based on the months of discussion at WT:FIUCT and elsewhere, I don;t think there's any consensus at all, and though reasonable compromises have been sugggested, none of them have yet been adopted. To recapitulate my own view briefly, it is that the general notability guideline (GNG) in WP:N does not apply for either inclusion or exclusion to anything for which we can have reasonable specific rules. Don;t confuse the general principle of Wotability with the GNG--we could and in my opinion should have a N guideline omitting the GNG entirely, though such is not yet the consensus. My preferred rule for characters in fiction is that major character in really major fiction can get an article, minor ones in such fiction a paragraph in a combination article; progressively less for trivial characters and less major fiction. This can be harmonized with those who think the GNG does apply to fictional characters by the observation that major characters in major fiction will generally have such sources--certainly in classic fiction, though they are considerably harder to find in other genres. If the fiction is notable enough, every named and some unnamed characters can be notable even under the GNG, for, as with Shakespeare, there will be sufficient sources for every one. I note, and i think AMAB will agree, that "can" get a separate article does not mean "must" get a separate article: factors such as the amount of available material and the like are relevant also. As a practical compromise, I would support a great deal of merging, if the merged content were complete enough. At the moment, merging tends to lead to loss of significant content. AMAB is not among those who want to reduce coverage of some sorts of fiction to the minimum, but there are such editors, and they are very active in trying to impose their views through destructive merges. I also think we would both agree that great many of the separate articles on fiction are very poorly written and way over-expansive and over-detailed & quite possibly copyvios to boot. If we could find a compromise to avoid arguing about Wotability each time, we could work better on that. It's not separation into articles, but quality that counts.

I disagree also about real world notability and the use to be made of WP:WAF. Fictional characters are primarily notable because of the fiction--their notability outside the fiction is secondary. But I certainly agree with him that all aspects should be included fully; the balance will depend on the subject. Prince Hamlet is a special case: There is occasion for a very full discussion of the various hypotheses of his motivation and behavior and how the play is written to show this and the intent of the author--there are many entire books, both popular and scholarly. The notion of his character is also a major topic totally outside the play, with the play being used merely as a starting point, eg. Freud's Hamlet and Oedipus, one of the most influential book of the 20th century. There won't be entire books about either the fictional role or the extra-fictional significance of most other important fictional characters, but there will be substantial discussions in books and articles, again both popular and scholarly. I'm not sure there really is a sharp distinction between the real world and the fictional world aspects in many cases. I interpret the RW requirement as meaning only that the fiction cannot be discussed in the style of fan fiction, as if they were part of the actual universe and one believed in their existence (though again Hamlet is an except, as there is a possible historical RW character, which needs to be another major aspect of the article.

However, I certainly agree with AMAB's practical advice, which is to get good secondary as well as primary sources and include all aspects. Such articles unfortunately are still likely to be nominated for deletion, but they will be kept if enough attention is paid and there is a fair close--two conditions not always satisfied at AfD. DGG (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you get AMAB out of my name?

We can argue up and down about the rightness of the argument or whether it's sufficient to delete an unreferenced article written in a completely in-universe fashion, but I don't really want to inflict that on Ikip's talk page. My intent was simply to explain, as no reasonable person can be swayed by or effectively argue against an argument they do not understand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Inflict away, if it gets too long, I can simply put it in a collapsed template. Ikip (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also don't really want to get into a big long fight in the abstract when I don't yet have a coherent position to argue in the abstract. I know when an article feels wrong or right, and I can almost always articulate why it feels wrong or right. (I don't always convince other editors, but that's part of a collaborative project. I'd like to think my track record is pretty decent.) The problem is that I can't yet put my finger on a unified system of wrongness or rightness. All I have right now is that DGG has a much broader definition of "useful content" than I do, and I don't yet have a complete articulation of why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

THANKS to both of you - in a nutshell, aren't you both saying that "significant coverage in reliable sources" justifies inclusion, because it to AMIB satisfies the additional requirement of "real world" coverage? Power.corrupts (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The main point of contention is what constitutes "independent." To use my example above, I believe DGG holds that Hamlet is commentary on Prince Hamlet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My first exposure to the concept was when an editor around 11 Jan 2009 PRODded a range of Doonesbury character pages (and other pages), solely based on this lack of "real-world notability" argument. Reading the pages, I see the controversy. IMO, this undisputedly a notable comic strip, but it's not Hamlet, and "Freud and Jung" have not yet written extensively about it. It's of course more complex than what immediately meets the eye. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's requiring Freud and Jung, but the idea is that more than Trudeau or Bob-the-fansite-owner is needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm still a bit new here and I have an odd question. I have managed to compress a number of the images found on the main page(saving ~2kb) (including the actual wikipedia logo). All of the pictures are protected. I wanted to know who I should ask to update them or where I should post such a request. I have posted the request on the technical village pump, but I don't know if that's appropriate. (I don't want to ask random admins.)=P

Thanks in advance.Smallman12q (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your response: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Smaller_Wikipedia_Logo_files.

I appreciate your efforts. I hate how nasty people are when other editors attempt to do something nice for the project. I notice how some editors are really nasty with you on WP:VPT.

I hate uploading images, and never do so because of the nasty way editors treat photos now. (notice who you already are getting nasty notices about your image from those nasty bots?)

I would suggest going to the editor who uploaded the last image. User:David Levy was the last editor to reupload File:Wiki.png stating "better compression" I would talk to him. I am linking this entry to him. Ikip (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

K will do. And ye, I've noticed that some editors are very polite such as you and a few others, but there are a number of truly rude and ignorant people. I will give it a try, thanks again.Smallman12q (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if you need any other help, including with this project also. Ikip (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have a question regarding {{hangon}} and {{rescue}}. Do I tag articles with both, or just rescue? I'm trying to rescue this article List of the verified oldest womenSmallman12q (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK Hook Help

I'm having trouble coming up with a hook for my first DYK article at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Federal_Reserve_Bank_of_Richmond_Baltimore_Branch_Office. I would appreciate any help. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain Picture

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I don't know many people on wikipedia...and the village pump doesn't do much good sometimes. I want to know if the pictures at the Richmond Federal Reserve website at http://www.richmondfed.org/ can be used on wikipedia. There terms of service at http://www.richmondfed.org/terms_and_conditions/ which says

The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond hereby grants permission to reproduce written materials in which the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond owns the copyright, provided however, that reproduction is not for the purpose of private and/or commercial gain and these materials are appropriately credited to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. If you wish to utilize Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond copyrighted materials in any other way, such as republication or distribution, you must contact the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and obtain written permission to do so

At the bottom of the page, they have a link to http://license.icopyright.net/creator/tag.act?tag=federalreservebankofrichmond which shows a free use permissions license.

Free Use Permissions Reproduce for Non-Commercial Use A license to reproduce and/or distribute the work unchanged, for non-commercial purposes.

They also have another TOS at http://license.icopyright.net/creator/tou.act?tag=federalreservebankofrichmond

The picture is from http://www.richmondfed.org/press_room/press_releases/about_us/2009/mmartin_20090205.cfm where it says Photo of Matthew Martin (Print Quality)... the direct link is http://www.richmondfed.org/about_us/who_we_are/management_team/images/matt_martin.jpg

I have a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Public Domain picture but I haven't gotten a clear cut answer. I would greatly appreciate your input as most of the federal reserve branches have a very similar set up.Smallman12q (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

re A Nobody

I don't think that this was very good advice, as there's nothing particularly "attacking" about the list of diffs, and I'd think that drawing additional attention to AN's patterns of behavior might end up being counterproductive, to say the least. Deor (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not keep attack pages mocking other editors in our userspace. Period. Just as I don't approve of editors vandalizing your userpsace and will revert them as I did here, I would hope that you would at least not support someone using their userspace to mock me either. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a lot of precedence about this issue. If this editor is not preparing a RfC in the near future, there is no reason to keep this material.

There have been a lot of AfDs on this issue. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing linking that page to you is your edits to it. If you persist in this, it's criticism of you that many more people will see, since you'll need to get some sort of wider view to make a deletion stick if Edgarde wants it there. If you don't, it's criticism of some other guy who hasn't edited Misplaced Pages in a while. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed usernames to remove references to the old username due to real world matters that DGG, Randomran, and Durova can back up I wasn't kidding about and that are more than just some posting on ED or WR. If we are here to build an encyclopedia, then that is what we should do. You can probably imagine there are a number of editors I wouldn't be a fan of; however, I absolutely would regard as 1) a waste or misuses of time and 2) less than mature to keep diffs in effect mocking any them on some user subpage. It is totally unconstructive and uncalled for, whether it concerns me, you, or any of us. Whatever we are here for, that is not it. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's some guy who left Misplaced Pages. He's gone. There isn't any reason he has to be you, unless you go around linking yourself to him. Decide whether the wound to your pride is more important than dissociating yourself from this older name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO

Your edit at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion has been reverted. Please read the full instructions before filling for a 3rd opinion, and be much more careful with what you delete. NJGW (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When you ask for a 3rd opinion, it should be a neutral statement of fact about the disagreement. Stating "Editor removing large portions of referenced material" about a content disagreement is not neutral. For vandalism or other clear disruption cases, please use the Admin noticeboards instead. NJGW (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest then? that is the crux of the dispute. Ikip (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A neutral statement would have been "Editors disagree about removal of content." NJGW (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome2

Okay, what am I doing wrong here. See User talk:Mmalavepa50. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

there is this really cool trick add: subst, to the beginning of any template, and all of the coding of the template is superimposed on the page. So the correct form is: {{subst:Welcome2}} With many templates, like the barnstar templates, you have to add the subst: or the template doesn't work correctly.

I have thought of making a bot to change all of the '''Welcome!''' to ==Welcome== Ikip (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that next. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar, and for your very kind words along with it. MuffledThud (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC Collect

Yes I would endorse but have never done it before. Please advise the link and/or process. Abbarocks (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me think about it, I will get back to you. I have calmed down a bit and wonder if this is the wisest route right now.

You can read about RfC's at WP:Request for Comment. Basically for a request for comment on an individual, you must have two people to endorse the RfC (before it is endorsed by the second person it is called a "Candidate page"). you then explain the behavior of this individual. The individual is invited to participate, and other editors are invited to participate also. Here is a list of current RfCs :Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#General_user_conduct, a good RfC which is maybe similar to this one is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo where the editor was "Removing references and edit warring on video game articles" and was topic banned (he could no longer edit on video game articles). Ikip (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Article Rescue Squad

This sounds like a nice operation, and I wholeheartedly agree with the mission thereof, but if I'm not supposed to flatly declare myself an illusionist, that'd be a deal breaker. I like my AIW membership. MalikCarr (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Well, in that case, sign me up! MalikCarr (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing...

You're doing it again... Themfromspace (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You tagged around 50 people since five minutes ago, please respond soon or I'll go elsewhere. Themfromspace (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I filed a report at ANI about your current actions Here's the link. Themfromspace (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, that was an impressive countretemps, thanks for the invite. i find the bullying that goes on in AfD discussions disturbing. (and i did award a lifesaver barnstar) should i use the same anti-canvasing tactics against some exclusionists, who deleted notable articles under the cruft excuse? pohick (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Defintion, countretemps: "an inopportune or embarrassing occurrence or situation."

RE: "i find the bullying that goes on in AfD discussions disturbing."

Journalists universally do too.

Ikip (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

the groupthink, and repetition of faulty reasoning grates as well. i have been underestimated by better persons. barnstar to User:Alansohn for ruse of war i'm sure you would agree that Sisyphus was happy. pohick (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What template did you use for your ARS suggestion

Because the ~~~~ didn't work, and yet it does work when you apply {{subst:WPSPAM-invite-n}}?

BTW I joined the ARS. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback. I didn't realize that about the signature (*blush*) maybe that silly mistake will intrigue people to learn more?

I actually based the template off of Template:WPSPAM-invite-n, one of the 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates. I am excited to work with you in the future, and welcome :) . Ikip (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your template messages

Not a comment on whether it's right or wrong, but it has been mentioned at WP:ANI, and I'd appreciate if you'd stop temporarily and discuss it there. Thanks -- Samir 06:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to crash out, since it is 1:47 am and I wake up at 7 am. Thanks for the kind message and concern. User_talk:Themfromspace#Comments_on_my_talk_page will probably explain the situation. Ikip (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to ARS

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

re: ARS invitation

Thanks for the invite. As much as I commend what you are doing, I'm afraid that I spend very little time here any more. I've found that Misplaced Pages leaves me in a bad mood far too often than is acceptable for me. Generally, it's the pointless back-and-forth arguing with mergers and deletionists that causes this, and I find now that I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. Anyway, if you can tolerate the maddening arguments, keep up the good fight. Cheers. The Cake is a Lie 10:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent AfD discussion

No hard feelings. Happy editing :) --Carbon Rodney 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks, that means a lot. I felt bad that I may have hurt your feelings. Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I will let you know if I need help :) DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to ARS

I learned of the Article Rescue Squadron when A Nobody "smiled" at me. It's frustrating to see how often an AfD will accumulate "delete" votes without the reviewers considering what could be done to make an article worth keeping. I'm relieved, in any case, to see that ARS exists now -- it didn't when I joined Misplaced Pages or when I first got involved in AfD and deletion reviews. It's great to see a group promoting the notion that salvaging a worthwhile article is at least as valuable a contribution as pruning an unworthy one. --Shunpiker (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ARS template

Whatever the outcome of the discussion on AN/I, could you please correct the odd statement on your template that this project focuses on "rescuing articles for deletion" to what I think you were trying to say - "rescuing articles from deletion". Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

wonderful feedback, and rather embarasssing, thank you, I will go through and change that too. Ikip (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stimulus Package

		A Lucky Penny
		In the spirit of funding that is sweeping the country this penny is offered to Editor:Ikip for his incredible WikiWorld endeavors:----Buster7 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Misplaced Pages Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Misplaced Pages as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You're right, that sounds exactly in line with my interests. Thanks very much for informing me of this group and inviting. Tyciol (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

your welcome, the opinion of editors who recieve these invitations have been universally positive, contrast that with the negative attitude of editors who tend to delete other editors work. These editors even posted a Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents against me, which is several pages long now. Ikip (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I appreciate your efforts. It's frustrating enough dealing with edit warring where the edit warrior seems to exist strictly to be disruptive, but to watch articles that have a glimmer of hope in them get the "throw the baby out with the bath water" treatment - or worse yet, a Wikistalker Afd-ing articles just to harass someone - really makes a sick joke out of the whole project, and could actually kill it if should take the upper hand.

BTW, my posts on the Admin board were meant in the spirit of inclusionism, ie, assuming good faith, helping to get your template in line with policy and making it clear that the "inclusionists," myself included, seemed to be the only ones who were not complaining about being spammed! Radiopathy (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Funky barnstar thingy

We have no idea what the barnstar you put on the talk page thing is for please exlpain the page. Pleeeeeeease 'The Ninjalemming'' 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you add a link to this, I have no idea what you are talking about. thanks. Ikip (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he is talking about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

As I hate when people talk behind others' backs, you might want to be aware of User_talk:Themfromspace#RfC and User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#RfC. You can see my thoughts on the latter page. In the off chance that anything came up, on the upside, it would mean time deletionists are not spending trying to delete articles... and as such I would encourage you, me, and everyone else who wants to build the encyclopedia to ignore such a discussion and focus on improving articles. After all, nothing really came out of the ones on Gavin Collins and Pixelface, so I doubt one on you would accomplish much more. So, hang in there!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much A Nobody. Ikip (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, edits begat edits. As this study shows: We show (with) Misplaced Pages articles...edits beget edits Sometimes it is better not to respond. Every time you respond to a message or do an edit to a article: do a cost benefit analysis, ask yourself, "Is the message I am trying to convey important enough that it negates the attention raised of other users?" Ikip (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I help?

I realise that the torches are out and the bridges are already being burned, and honestly, mistakes and presumptions have been made all around, but I'd like to think that there is a way back from the brink.

To my recollection, I've had nothing but positive interaction from you thus far, and well, you can read my thoughts about MiB on his talk page.

That said, I'm not sure where to start (and for that matter, whether my offering of help would be welcome...) - jc37 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are an incredibly effective peacemaker and diplomat. This well written message just illustrates that. Three cheers. Ikip (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Responding with the hope that your response was sincere and not sarcasm : )

Ignoring the recent back-n-forths for a moment...

(And also attempting to ignore the ongoing inclusion vs. deletion presumptions of motivations/philosophy...)

What currently are your specific concerns? - jc37 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate and respect your efforts to help. I have so many concerns about wikipedia. But within this context, small problems which you can help with alone as an informal mediator, those template messages I sent out to prospective members where well within wikipolicy guidelines. The reception has been incredibly positive (see above). Only those who tend to be on the side of deleting other editors contributions seem agitated, even though I never messaged them, and I followed all the rules. Other editors in the ANI were also very positive. I have modified the template extensively, and I intend to alert other editors in the future about the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, and I would appreciate more understanding. Maybe making the template an official template, one of the 260 templates at Category:WikiProject invitation templates would be helpful? Ikip (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I'll admit to not reading the discussions as they were happening, but rather have been reading them "after-the-fact". Which perhaps may explain why my impression from that perspective may be slightly different than yours.

I don't see an overwhelming support of everything. One of the main concerns noted by several (including those who I might hesitate to place any such label on), was that your choice of wording was perhaps at least unfortunate. You yourself noted at AN/I that you'd be willing to change it if it was seen to be problematic. Perhaps that would be a good place to start?

For one thing, though you may or may not be aware, use of any of the wikiphilosophy terms these days can often be contentious or at least cause some editors to be somewhat immediately "on edge", so that at the very least should probably be the first step at refactoring.

Do you have any thoughts on how your invitation can show excited exuberance for saving articles, yet remain neutral about other editors and their editing preferences/styles? - jc37 07:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Man in black, I "change(d) the wording, for the better", here is the original:

Hello, Ikip. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Misplaced Pages. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

I added "Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory).", in the failed hope of appeasing him.

Here is the new:

Hello, Ikip. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Misplaced Pages. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Perhaps one way to help would be to shift the focus.

For example, try to express what ARS participants do (or may wish to do), rather than what they may believe (about themselves, others, or Misplaced Pages).

Something like: "Based upon what you have presented on your userpage, you may be interested in participating in the ARS. We do such-n-such, with a focus on helping build articles which may be in peril of deletion due to possibly currently not being up to Misplaced Pages standards." (Or some such.)

Focus on the articles and how the editors can contribute, rather than make presumptions on how others may counter contribute, if that makes sense?

What do you think? - jc37 08:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent ideas! thank you.

Hello, . Based upon what you have presented on your userpage, you may be interested in participating in the Article Rescue Squardon. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion, due to currently not being up to Misplaced Pages standards. You can join >> here <<. ~~~~

Better? Ikip (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Cringes slightly) I wasn't suggesting that you had to use my suggested text, it was mostly for illustrative purposes...

Anyway, If you go with that text, "focused on rescuing articles from deletion" is problematic. It suggests that anything up for AfD is automatically going to be deleted unless ARS takes action, which (presumably) isn't the case. And there are quite a few other options in an AfD than just keep/delete. That's part of why I was using the phrase "in peril of deletion". Other terms might suit you better: "at risk", "in danger", in jeopardy", etc. (There's also the grammar issue of why the indication should be included, but that's a whole other discussion : )

Anyway, what do you think? - jc37 08:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You really cringed? Sorry. I changed the text as you suggested, great ideas! Ikip (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries.

Anyway, it looks good to me. Next step is to see what others at ARS think. And the step after that (or even during) is to see what others not in the ARS might think.

And one nice thing that might be worth adding could be to list all the articles which ARS helped develop ("rescue") in the last week/month. Showing successes (or even just collaborative activity) often helps in a recruitment drive.

Now the template aside for a moment, how specifically were you determining if someone might be interested in helping out? - jc37 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you. Ikip (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Read all three.

Anyway, at this point, perhaps a way forward might be to have a recruitment drive, presuming that that is wanted. Ask every participant in the ARS to drop a note with 2-3 non-members and see if they're interested. I think that may go much further than a single editor attempting to mass crosspost to lots of editors. (Building the web/network, as it were...)

What do you think? - jc37 08:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not use the word "recruitment", please. WP:ARS is not very active as other projects are. Ikip (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Projects' activity varies by project...

Anyway, call it what you will, it was merely a suggestion.

I hope that this discussion has been helpful and possibly fruitful for you.

If there's anything else you wish to discuss concerning this, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. - jc37 09:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactored) thanks for the wonderful suggestions, you have helped me immensely, I will ask other ARS members there opinion, then ask others as well. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was indeed a surprise. Thank you. - jc37 09:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, speaking of barnstars...

I personally think they're great, but you may wish to consider moving yours from your talk page (to your userpage, or perhaps a subpage). For me, at least, it causes havok with linebreaks and such, making your talk page more difficult to read.

That said, do as you will (within reason), per WP:TALK : ) - jc37 09:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class

Would you consider renaming this to something like Category:Rescued articles advanced to Good Article status? That would include the deleted/recreated articles as well as those brought back from the brink. This request is partially selfish, as It would let me populate it with an article I rescued, but it might allow it to be a little more broad. Also, you may want to add {{hiddencat}} to the category (as I think there is some pushback against noting "good article" status on the article page rather than the talk page. Oh, it's a talk page cat, nvm about that last bit. Protonk (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks I was confused about that. Just one second, okay?

I want to keep this category separate, for research purposes too, but I will make one for you too.

I didn't know you rescued articles, that is really wonderful :) Ikip (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What should we call the template? Ikip (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks For The Message

Hello Ikip, thanks for the message regarding the Article Rescue Squadron. I have always known about you guys and gals, but never signed-up officially. My thoughts were that every Wikipedian should already be a member, just by default:-). If you need members for the official roles, more than happy to add my name. Take care. ShoesssS 12:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, happy editing, and if one of your well referenced articles gets tagged for deletion, please use the rescue tag. Ikip (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL - That I will, that I will :-). ShoesssS 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm

Editor:User:MastCell gave me good advice awhile back...Model the Behavior you would like to see...Remain calm. Your hardwork and the growth of ARS is appreciated.--Buster7 (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am late for work, I removed the stuff which was concerning other editors, "out of sight out of mind"? Ikip (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested to AMiB and he promptly removed, and I assume ignored, I'd suggest trying to keep some distance between you and him. Disengaging can be helpful, especially when dealing with editors who have been exhibiting somewhat troubling behavior. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know catlords where so smart. :) I removed all of the information which was causing protests myself. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ARS invitation

Thanks for the invite to join ARS -- I think I may be able to help with it from time to time, as my resources allow. However, I noticed that you said I have to state that I am not an inclusionist -- however, I cannot do that, since, of course, I am an inclusionist. I don't feel that should prevent me from participating, since I can divorce my inclusionist philosophy from the goals of the ARS. But, whatever! Magnetic Rag (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class

Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Kbdank71 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD nominator

I'm not sure what the prerequisites are for being an AFD nominator, but this user:

Nerfari: Subpages User rights Edit count Edit summary search Articles created Global: contributions log accounts

has less than 40 edits and has made 4 afd nominations. My question is are there some type of "requirements" for afd nominators? Smallman12q (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved your question to WP:AfD.

There is no requirment to post AfDs, but because of his knowledge of wikipedia policy, I would bet he is a sock, but with only 20 edits it will be impossible to prove. I will state in all of the nominations:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The nominator of this article is a WP:Single Purpose Account with 36 edits. Misplaced Pages:Sock#Characteristics_of_sock_puppets states:

"Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Misplaced Pages and its editing process than most newcomers...or participate in procedures like Articles for deletion"

Nerfari's third edit was to add this complex template to an article: {{db|advertising, essay, OR}} In those 36 edits, he has flawlessly added and argued 2 Afds.1 2 Ikip (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Ikip (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class

I have nominated Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rescued

Template:Rescued has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Brink

Template:Brink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Rescued articles advanced to Good Article status

I have nominated Category:Rescued articles advanced to Good Article status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You may also be interested in another category the user has put up... Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)....didn't notice your name there...my apologies. Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Business Plot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've made three reversions in thirty minutes. Stop edit-warring, please. THF (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)