Misplaced Pages

RfA

Oops, looks like I beat some else to it! The nom. is ready for acceptance. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the nom. is up, I suppose you can accept it whenever you like, and reset the clock to run with your acceptance. I stand ready to sign my name anytime you wish. After asking you a few times in the past, I thought more aggressive action was in order this time. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vote in your first RfA LV, but recall that we had a discussion about edit summaries. And now, in the last 500 edit summaries, you're at 100% :) Nice work :) --Durin 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

When a Wikipedian dies...

Re: the green box at the top of your user page, have you checked out Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I feel good

I just like pointing out the obvious. I can't think of a time that Splash and I agreed on anything so I do all I can to avoid him. But when he comes in with his (as I percieve it) "panic over" and attitude that a discussion page isn't to be used for discussion, then I see it as being condescending. I'll refrain from responding to anymore of what I see as his talking down to others attitude.--MONGO 05:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Essjay

Essjay can speak for himself. Anyway, he wouldn't like it if I put something that he found offensive, but is not a direct personal attack.--Anti-Anonymex2 19:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Pax Christi.--Anti-Anonymex2 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Warren

Thanks for the note. A number of people have been somewhat incivil on that page, including me. So I also would like to apologise. I've seen you around the 'pedia before, and you've always seemed level-headed and polite. I guess we've just seen each other at our worst in this AFD.

Regarding Warren, I feel strongly that the information in the article is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, and I really do think that merging people into books is a stupid idea. It appears this AFD will fail to gain consensus, so the article will be entitled to remain. However, I have no appetite for these confrontations, and I have no intention of bringing more misery upon myself by creating more such convict school teacher articles. I intend to create Convict school teachers of Western Australia, and any further biographical information on convict school teachers will be placed in a section of that, with the exception of James Elphinstone Roe, who was easily the most famous of the convict school-teachers and merits a separate article. When I have done so, I will have no objection to merging Warren et. al. into that page. Meanwhile, I will continue to oppose deletion of the article. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An article about the book is an article about the book. It should state what the book is called, who it is by, when it was published, what it is about, anything we know about the reasons the book was written, its critical reception, and so on. With respect to what it is about, it should meet encyclopaedic standards of relevance. The statement

"The book contains biographies of a number of convicts, such as John Warren"

is acceptable in an article on the book. In a lengthy article on the book, it would probably be acceptable to state

"One chapter of the book contains biographies of a number of convicts who later became school teachers, such as John Warren".

However, the statement

"Born in 1826, Warren worked as a clerk in his youth, but in 1850 he was convicted of forging a bill of exchange, and sentenced to a lifetime of penal servitude."

is most certainly not relevant to an article on the book. It would be unencyclopaedic to place such information into the article on the book. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Quick Note

Cheers for that, I've been expecting it, but never saw it put into motion. Given pgio has never come into contact with me, if he's the coinitiator I will have things to say. NSLE _(T+C) 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

On your User Page, you say that you would like it "changed for the better". I enjoy doing user pages, and would be happy to improve it a bit, but I was wondering what you don't like about the page? smurrayinchester 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was "what would you prefer"? With the name, I'd guess something dark? smurrayinchester 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'Owzat? I hope I haven't made the colours too dark? I hope you like green... :-) smurrayinchester 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's alright. I think it probably was too hard to read. Never mind. smurrayinchester 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not unsympathetic

Sad to see it, but I understand, I think. My own feelings about the project are rather downcast also, for which see Nandesuka's talk page, circa Jan. 3. I am all-but-off Misplaced Pages, and am just hanging around to see the Arbcom election play out, and finish up some things, foremost among which was your now-declined nomination. One less reason to hang about -- next Monday or Tuesday, I'm out of here. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped that by referring to an older comment, made before I even offered the nomination, you would realize that my leaving was unrelated to your nomination, although my leaving inspired me to offer it when I did, perhaps. :) Anyway, I am not dead (yet), and may always be reached by email. Regarding deceased Wikipedians, by the way, and your userpage, I have often wondered about my erstwhile colleague at VFD, User:James Burns and hoped that he's ok. I'm not sure whether this will make you feel better or worse, but (as I've aged), I've had similar worries regarding high-school and college classmates -- it's not a problem unique to Misplaced Pages. People fall out-of-touch, and it isn't always possible to reconnect. I suppose the problem seems more acute here, given that we don't even know each others names necessarily, but I'll often think of a friendly face I know from real-life whose name I cannot remember, so that's a practical equivalent. It's calming to recall that death is hardly a finality. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected user pages

My user page is semi-protected not due to a wave of vandalism, but due to constant, ongoing vandalism. Whenever I do RC-patrol (which is almost every day), one in every three vandals I warn comes back to trash my user page (a "VRR"...). It makes no difference to me, since I rarely see the vandalism, but it's unfair to the other vandal-fighters who have to waste time reverting my page between 50 and 100 times a month. That's why I put a customized message on it, without the word "temporary". Personally, I don't see any reason for an anon IP to edit my user page, but if one were to leave a message on my Talk page requesting to do so (and a good reason why he won't register), I'd be happy to unprotect and let him edit it. Some other vandal-fighters, such as Curps went even further and put a full protection on their user page. As my page says, any registered user is invited to edit mine.

The definitions in my "Wikiholic's Dictionary" are all mine. Thanks for the compliment! Owen× ☎ 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you!

thank you for your time in regards to my questions on RFA. --CyclePat 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL

Very amusing. ;) Neutrality 03:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you make an unsigned tag?

Hey I just saw that on the Cindy Sheehan article you added some tag that shows who made an unsigned comment. How do you go about doing that, I looked but apparently I'm a wikidiot. Swatjester 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Email response time

Sorry to hear that you are opposing me partially due to me not replying to your email within 24 hours. This is partially due to a Wikimedia bug which is delaying my email, and I will be reporting it to the developers promptly. Please note, for the record, that I did respond within 24.5 hours.  ;-) I believe the problem is due to the length of my email address, which is about 40 characters long; it appears to be attempting to send to Can't.sleep@srv17.pmtpa.wmnet first, which is not my address, and then eventually it sends the message to me a few hours later (when I'm not editing Misplaced Pages, which explains why I did not reply to you while I was editing). For whatever it is worth, I have just installed Gmail Notifier so I am instantly notified when the Wikimedia servers finally get around to forwarding along my mail. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to forgive you for the delayed email thing. I must leave the oppose vote for right now while I go through the rest of your contribs based on time. I'll let you know when I am finished and have a decision. Thanks. --LV 04:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. I am going to try changing my preferences to an alternate email address to see how long it takes to send to a non-Gmail domain account. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the copyedit on my userpage. I'm completely useless at spelling sometimes. --Sherool (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry?

What do you mean by "Great, just what we need around this place... more people that need massage."? Knotted

Hooray!

My hero! Friday (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ya get there and see someone else's footprints. Doesn't it just suck though?? ;)) Nothing like a little cheerful competition. --DanielCD 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-prot

As a matter of fact, yes. At present, the persistent vandalism is a constant source of work and minor aggravation for our much-needed competent quality keepers and RC patrollers. If semi-protted, the only thing we lose is the contribution of some would-be vandals and trolls. Radiant_>|< 00:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that's what the policy says. However, I do think that's what it should say. Radiant_>|< 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's on my to-do list actually, but at present there are more pressing matters. Radiant_>|< 00:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cunio family

Thanks, LV. I was wondering how one of them managed to edit through the semi-protection, but maybe they registered their accounts some weeks ago, and just didn't really edit till now. By the way, I saw that you had declined RfA. I hope you'll change your mind when you feel ready. Cheers. AnnH 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi LV--just in case you're not aware of it, that's the North Carolina vandal who is hitting Christianity and Evangelicalism. Note that he moved on to editing his own ViP page immediately after AnnH semi-protected his other targets. I can pull the diffs out of the history establishing the exact connection if you need me to. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One stops, the other starts; correlates with ; and the NCV is obsessed with Danielle Cunio. The name occurs in his vandalism history, but it would take me a few minutes to dig it all out. It's the same vandal. Bet the farm on it. Oh, and this links the IP's nicely. Antandrus (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I heard that a family next door to ours vandalizes Misplaced Pages. Maybe they are the NC vandal and mentioned me on Misplaced Pages. I, myself, am not a vandal.IWKA 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi LV, thanks for the correction! Mushroom 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the choice you made in this edit was an excellent one. That link is so often used in a patronising way, that I sometimes feel like slapping the editors who do(es) so. So, anyway, congratulations on a good, and subtle, decision. (One of a number I've noticed from you in recent days, incidentally.) -Splash 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate the heads-up. I don't comment a lot in the Village Pump and other areas, but it drives me nuts when folks go out of their way to act up. I'll use the templates for some of the repeated or blatant vandals. Thanks again, and I'm sure we'll talk more soon... Mhking 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for catching those spelling mistakes on my user page :) Redux 12:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem... it was my pleasure. --LV 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment

From User talk:ElAmericano

First, I want to say it's awful that you get blocked along with NCV. Silly people ruining hard-working editors work. Second, I just want to say you have a nice user page. I don't really have anything to say, just thought you might like a little feedback. Cheers. --LV 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and sympathy. I do appreciate the feedback and enjoy working with you here on Misplaced Pages. - ElAmericano | talk 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By any chance does your non-wikipedian name start with "T"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duinemerwen (talk • contribs)

North Carolina vandal

I am not the North Carolina vandal. I do live in NC, but I am new to Misplaced Pages.GDFM 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am Danielle Cunio, an innocent evangelical. Leave me and my sockpuppet pages alone.GDFM 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

You wrote:

Lulu, I am sorry, I didn't mean anything snide by that comment. I simply meant that there were other contacts to your RfA opposers that I did not grab the diffs for. Like I said before, I wouldn't have had an issue with it if it were one or two users being asked for clarification, but this was a dozen or so. Also, they had gotten to the point where you were asking people to change their votes. Not seeking clarification, but more, as I saw it, out of desperation. I understand you want to be an Admin, but many of us in the oppose section have stated that we could support in the future, just not at this moment-in-time. Just keep up the good work, and I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors next time. Again, my apologies if I came off as snide. That was my mistake. See you around, my friend.

Thank you for your retraction of what I perceived was a wrong insinuation. And yeah, the people I wrote to were ones whom I hoped would change their votes... but not because I was somehow able to "twist their arm" (how could I do that?), but because I believe they are good-faith editors whose own judgement were they to actually weigh my edit history rather than follow the vote of early "oppose" votes would be "support".

Unfortunately, as I see the RfA process having evolved, without a change in the process, neither I nor any editor who works on "controversial" articles will be promoted to adminship. Or perhaps there is a certain threshold where it is possible: say after 2000 edits, but before 5000 edits. All the objections raised are either quite old (8+ months), or cast by POV-warriors whom I've encountered in trying to promote NPOV on certain pages. The old mistakes will stay old (and remain far less serious than those with grudges argue), and I will almost certainly continue to have to deal with future POV-warriors when I edit the topics I do. So those things aren't going away.

Well... that's not quite true. The WP:AUTO objectors believe what they believe, and I believe otherwise; but that's not going to change. I may coincidentally not edit my own bio in the next N months, but I certainly won't believe that doing so is wrong as a principle (and I will have done so at some point anyway). And I suppose similarly, I won't believe that cordial and professional conversation with voters is wrong. So that won't go away either.

There are indeed some quite good admins working on WP, but many of the best would never have passed current standards (not just formal procedure, but how it has evolved socially). And those we get in the future will simply be ones who have interests that don't happen to attract as many POV-warriors. Which are perfectly important topics to work on, but may not reflect as much experience in conflict resolution. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you wanted to move the thread to my user talk, but I wrote a response to your latest comments there. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support for George W. Bush

Yes, I would be genuinely interested in knowing why people support George W. Bush. Kevin baas 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RFR

Hello! :) See Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Hi LV. Thanks for your post on my talk page asking about my wikistress level. (I just bumped it up to level 4, in fact.) I never know whether I'm supposed to respond on my own page or the other poster's, so I'll just respond here. Basically, I'm finding myself unable to get anything accomplished here; everything involves a fight with somebody else. And I'm also apparantly not very good at getting involved with the wikicommunity. Even on Esperanza I've got a proposal up that hasn't gotten a single response after something like 10 days or more. It's just one of those times where it doesn't seem worth it, I guess.... --Aaron 21:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== Re: DR: Rosario Poidimani ==

Right now, that's a moot point. I got rid of the article because M.deSousa was only using it as an excuse to be annoying, and the community already had it deleted twice previously.  Denelson83  22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sourced"? What evidence?  Denelson83  22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge.  Denelson83  22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for rollback proposal

Just want to say that you're dead-on. I voted "oppose" on CSCWEM's RfA, simply because a user who's been around as little time as he has probably can't answer all the questions new editors and others might pose about policy issues and so on, which an admin is expected to handle. There's no user more qualified for a rollback button than him, though. I personally really like to fight vandalism, because I find sitting down with CDVF and being able to shoot down all the little kids who've annoyed me for years in seconds. I'd love a rollback button that didn't rely on the godmode-light script (which I seem to have problems with). Maybe one day I'd be into WP enough to want adminship, but for the forseeable future all I really like to do is vandal-fight and edit my few pet articles. I'm sure I'm very far from alone on that. - dharmabum (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for the warm welcome. The thing about Star Fox and Tetris is they are both awesome, and I love them both.--Fox Mccloud 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to get the sheltie picture in the userbox to right size? http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:User_Loves_Shelties I tried making it for my user page, but the picture is big. Also, I have a picture of my sheltie that I would like to use instead for the userbox, is that allowed?--Fox Mccloud 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. :)--Fox Mccloud 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the picture of the sheltie myself, so no one else has it copywrighted. It was at Christmas. I already have the picture at the Simple English Misplaced Pages.--Fox Mccloud 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind releasing it, and anyone can use it if they like, but what do you mean by "with the right copyright tag"--Fox Mccloud 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I just go to the Liscensing thing and make it say GFDL (Self Made)?--Fox Mccloud 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you friend. :) I'll upload it now.--Fox Mccloud 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Old Newbie from Poland

Thanks for automatic newbie information put on my discussion page, but I am on Misplaced Pages from 8 November 2002 :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Polimerek&oldid=9283409

Not very active on en-wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Polimerek

as I am involved mostly in Polish Misplaced Pages, from 2001 but well it's funny to be treated as newbie after 5 year involvment in Wikimedia projects :-)

Cheers,

Polimerek 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Article Conflict

I will do my best to summarize the conflict on the Christianity article as concisely as possible and to my understanding. The conflict centers on the evolution of Christianity. One the secular side we have Giovanni and others. Essentially Gio is a well read individual that references the vast majority of his edits; however, they are very secular in nature. At times he stretches the findings or the work of scholars and uses POV language. On the other side are those who feel that the secular edits are "fringe" theories that define the evolution of Christianity. I have found it particularly dissatisfying that Gio has asked for references and has not been provided those to support orthodox beliefs. The two sides have gotten into reverting comments from each side regardless of the value of the edits.

As you may have read, I have recommended simply stating the orthodox history of Christianity and then following that section with secular or alternative theories. I think that has been accepted by many, but it is not yet a universal concensus. A few on the Orthodox side would prefer that nothing from the secular side be included; an unacceptable position. As you can see, Gio backs up his points with a profuse supply of references. My objective is to have both represented but not allow the verbosity of Gio to overpower the orthodox viewpoint.

Thanks again for asking. We will have a better resulting article, but it will take some continued work. Cheers Storm Rider 01:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)