Misplaced Pages

User talk:SlimVirgin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelly (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 7 June 2008 (→Image issues: strikethrough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:31, 7 June 2008 by Kelly (talk | contribs) (→Image issues: strikethrough)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
War on Bad Writing
1. There is no such word as "incivil." You can be uncivil, and you can be accused of incivility, but you cannot be incivil.
2. There is definitely no such word as "definately."
Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. Many thanks.
File:Animalibrí.gif

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

MfD I'd be interested in your opinion on

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Disavian/Userboxes/Peace Drugsspecial, random, Merkinsmum 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

there is a discussion on the current image of the Michael Jackson page. This may result in an edit war or at least a disruptive environment. Would you mind leaving a note on the discussion page under "current image"? If you choose to do so, thankyou in advance. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Block on Mongo

See comment at my talk page. Orderinchaos 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

designated agent

You ask who the designated agent is. This is the current legal designation. This is what must be done to change that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Well done, SV. Risker (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the standard you used to argue Tango was previously involved here, wouldn't you count as previously involved as well? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Help in copyediting an article

I was wondering if you would be willing to copyedit an article, Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes. I'm trying to get the article into good shape, and you're a better writer than me. Jayjg 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please log the MONGO unblock

Hi Slim, the ArbCom ruling asks that all actions in relation to the ruling be logged there. It will help the further process if you do. Thanks in advance.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While I completely agree with the unblock, I take offense at the assertion that incivil is not a word. I've been accused of incivility, but I mean, come one, it has to have a derivative, right :) the_undertow 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I've been accused of it so many times (little secret, I have a bone to pick with wiki-lists, etc), you cannot argue with Webster, right? I'm incivil, damn it. the_undertow 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I block you? Please? After all, you said "damn." And you told someone "you cannot argue" which might possibly somehow (in this or some alternate universe) stifle debate. (What I came here for was to tell Slim that this was a good move, and it was best done by someone who was fresh to the situation.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free. After all, given my reputation, you know I'll simply unblock myself. the_undertow 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please intervene

Please intervene on this matter, but not as an admin. It can be found here. I ask you because of your previous involvement with the user in question. The above user has made an unwarranted comment on an FAC review that I am involved with. The user refuses to WP:AGF, accusing me of harassment, and is acting in a potentially problematic manner. FAC are to review pages and not make claims about other user's editing habits, and this user is showing a moderate level of disrespect that is out of character. Thank you for your time. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

who (?)

Who's on first .... try reading it long/slow....I believe the edit is needed, on an otherwise great read. And need I say, I totally love the page, and have sent it to 15-20 people today at work, with some acclaim already....io_editor (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-raising the author-date system issue

I've reraised an issue at Harvard referencing on changing Harvard referencing to author-date referencing before Misplaced Pages changes the reality. Author-date is a much more intuitive name. OptimistBen (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

your advice, please?

Hi Slim

I'm writing the WP Signpost dispatch for featured content this week, and thought of using Image:AnimationWIKIPEDIA001.gif, (entitled "Français : Logo Animation Rotating"), which is at . I notice you've used a bouncing gif icon from that page. The info page of the gif I want to use says that permission is required. The uploader doesn't seem to have been around for months.

What is the situation here? TONY (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks, Slim. TONY (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FCDW

You're mentioned here! TONY (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that I spoke too fast: mention will have to be removed because of my goof in date diffs, and it's been pointed out that the point in question you added to MOS is already covered in the same section (inclination of eyes/heads). TONY (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

milti coloured bird

do do you get the bird?Grandoldman (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New Anti-semitism mediation

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi there, I notice you've begun to edit the homeopathy article. I hope you can help damp down some of the aggravation in this area, which as gone so far as to put the article under general sanctions. The whole discussion about "magic" on the talkpage is the major point of contention at the moment, if you had time to comment on that it would be much appreciated. All the best, Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some very creative use of sources is involved in that argument, particularly the pieces relating to Frazer's The Golden Bough, a book which I admit I never got around to finishing! I'm glad by the way, that animal testing finally got to GA, so thank you again for all your help with that. If you need Pdfs of any restricted-access journal sources for similar articles in the future please don't hesitate to ask, I'm always glad to help. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about using source excerpts being a copyvio

Hiya Slim. Can you clarify whether or not I need to do rewrites when I repeat sentences from sources? I thought you (still my favorite policy wonk!) once told me sentence long excerpts were OK even if not wrapped in quotes, especially when there's not a whole lot of other ways to get to the point. I'm doubly screwed on one quote where one source says "A said 'B'" and another source says "'B,' said A" so my protagonist insists I'm copyvio'ing either way. Of course, he's not helping to rewrite the other material, he's just deleting stuff he doesn't like.... See Talk:Pentagon message machine#Copyvios. -- Kendrick7 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Issued a response on talk page. Cheers. MrPrada (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Myron Sharaf

I have nominated Myron Sharaf, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Myron Sharaf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

smile!!!

Grandoldman (talk) 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 and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Of all poeple on wikepidia you are the one who needs to be smiled at! Grandoldman (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Irving, David Irving

Hi SlimVirgin, would you be interested in weighing in Talk:Irving regarding the disambiguation-style description of David? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio 4 program

Thought you might be interested in this program about the 43 Group. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hello SV. How are you? I hope you are doing well. I want to promote the article Richard Dawkins to the FA status. I want your help. Please look at the article. Can you please point out the flaws? Your help will be appreciated. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Monkey5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Monkey5.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AbuNidal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AbuNidal.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Regarding your note, I am very sorry if I have given the appearance of reverting your edits more than anyone else. I have had no intention of singling you out in any way. Since I've been editing here, I have found that I have had many of my own edits summarily reverted, usually without prior discussion. I have just recently had a (very minor) run-in with a crowd from the "revert first, ask questions later" school of editing, and perhaps it rubbed off on me without my realizing it. I notice that the more skillful users of this method often quote some obscure and acronymed point of wiki "law" while doing so. That having been said, I assume you are upset about my reversion of your edit regarding User:David Shankbone. I'm sorry if that is the case, but it did seem to violate both the spirit and the letter of WP:SELF. I can assure you that you will not see me lurking around David Irving, Homeopathy‎, or New antisemitism! -- Tom Ketchum 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HI - a question

Hi Slim Virgin,

We havent met before, but I just noticed that you're one of the leading editors of WP:RS. I have serious concerns about a certain source. The details are here. Would you please weigh in on the discussion. Also, talking of SPS sources, what is a self-published source? How do we know whether a source qualifies as "self-published" or not? Also, I couldnt help notice your "War on bad writing" at the top of your page. Would you also be able to weigh in on this FAC? imho, it is bad enough not to be FA. I just want to know your views even if you dont agree with me. Thanks. And please do weigh in on that RSN discussion. Sarvagnya 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:3RRSV

Template:3RRSV 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. MBisanz 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

You labled this edit as "some tidying" in the edit summary, yet the edit removed cited material from the article. Please don't use misleading edit summaries when editing articles, as it can get in the way of collaboration and compromise in adding NPOV content to an entry. Cla68 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

  • Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
  • Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
  • If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

I added you as a party to this ArbCom case . Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate.
I have created a new area for this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. It meant a great deal to me to see your name in the "support" column. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto!

I seem to be following Risker around on talk pages quite a bit today. Anyhow,

SlimVirgin, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Little context in From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting From Dusk 'til Dawn: An Insider's View of the Growth of the Animal Liberation Movement, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do about our writing quality?

You said here "As a result, our most contentious pieces are often nothing more than, "A said X, while B said Y, but C did not concur, adding that Z."

This, so far, appears to be a necessary result of "anyone can edit". The best I've been able to do to counter this is to try to find credible unbiased reliable sources that combine/overview the various biased points and use that quote as an introduction to the more detailed example you gave producing something like: "Expert E explains the nature of the difference of opinions saying S. The difference of opinions is exemplified by A's opinion that X, while B's is Y, and C's is Z." Sometimes people are even willing to start paraphrasing at this point when we have a good source to provide an overall framework for understanding the different opinions. For example in a case where the difference of opinions is about who the land Israel controls ethically belongs to, I would look for sources that discuss the issue from broad philosophical perspectives that show both sides are "right" depending on what ethical principles are used. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lviv pogroms

I noticed that a lot of this article was removed as a "copyright violation", but this seems to have been unjustified. I've reverted these edits and added some sources but can't find all that much on Theodor Oberländer. Do you have any sources to hand? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCK question

Hi,

I think your name came up in the archives of WP:SOCK, and I've a question (and edit) that's been itching at me. Could you have a gander at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Question please? I'd love to remove the first bullet/numbering I see there, but I'd like more context before I do so. Thanks, WLU (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments at RfA

I'll try to damp this down. It really isn't appropriate however strongly some people feel about this at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's not a high-traffic article, so no need to hurry. I think it was Crum's timing more than anything that raised people's hackles. The fact that he made his first comment on an RfA this year so soon after you commented was interpreted in a rather unsympathetic light. I notice however that he tends to only comment in high-profile RfAs, which may explain this coincidence equally well. I'm editing out of my normal hours at the moment since I can't sleep - there's a storm like ragnarok trying to push my house over and the air is like treacle. Ugh, I hate the summer. Anyway, enough of my wittering. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology

SlimVirgin, I would like to apologize to you for not replying to a certain message mentioning you over a year ago. It may be this message that I'm thinking of, though if I remember right it was another message that I can't find now, one addressed to me or to a group of people including me and therefore absolutely requiring a response from me – a response I never gave. I want you to know that I was not simply ignoring your feelings. I struggled to find something to say in response, but whenever I put some words together they sounded wrong and I was afraid they would be taken the wrong way and make things worse. I didn't want you to be upset and wished I could find the right thing to say.

Note that I no longer oppose anything in the first few sentences of WP:ATT, given the current version as edited by Blueboar on April 24. As I've indicated previously, I would also accept many other possible wordings. If another attempt at merging the policies is made, using the current wording, I would not oppose it for the reason I did before and probably wouldn't have any reason to oppose it. I appreciate that you and many other people put a lot of work into WP:ATT with the laudable goal of reducing the number of policies by merging two policies. After working for weeks on the smaller project of writing new versions of the CSD templates I imagined how it would feel if that work had been rejected. I'm sorry that your efforts didn't come to fruition. Coppertwig (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, SlimVirgin. I accept your apology too, although there was no need for it. I look forward to working with you. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I also replied at User talk:Coppertwig#Your note. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian Baggini

Hope you don't mind me sticking my oar in here, I've commented on the talkpage and semi-protected for one month. If you continue to have prolemns with this article please get back in touch and I'll see if anything more needs to be done. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's it, since I'd changed move protection to sysop the first time around. Weird! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabethan collar

I heard you were an animal lover so I took the liberty of coming here to ask your advice/opinion. One dog in a picture on this article is listed as having received a wound on his neck from a "grass seed". Surely this is a typo? Any ideas?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

rfa thanks

hey slim. funny, "definately" is pretty much the one typo that i just can't shake. i know, i should think of "finite" , but... alas... anyhow , I wanted to thank you for your participation in my RFA. i've prepared an in-depth RFA analysis you may find interesting (comments welcome). i've also left some templated thank spam for you below. happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam
userpage | talk | dashboard | misc

RFA

Standards

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

  • Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
  • I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
  • An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Misplaced Pages could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
  • One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
  • As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

  1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
  2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
  3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
  4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
  5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
  6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
  7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
  8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
  9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
  10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
  11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)
    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)
  12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
  13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
  14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
  15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
  16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
  17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
  18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
  19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
  20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
  21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
  22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
  23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
  24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
  25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
  26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
  27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
  28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
  29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
  30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
  31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
  32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
  33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
  34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)
    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)
  35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
  36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
  37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
  38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
  39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
  40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
  41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
  42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
  43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
  44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
  45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Main page: User:Xenocidic/RFAQ

Thanks

Thank you for your support
So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)


Sincerely,


~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Main page: User talk:Xenocidic/RFA

Animal Liberation Front images

Hi, SlimVirgin - by chance I ran across some images you uploaded quite a while ago that appear to be replaceable fair use, so I took a quick scan through your upload log. It looks like there are some problem images there, so I will go through and tag them sometime later. Please don't be upset if you see a bunch of templates here while I'm in the middle of working through them - I typically let the script do the tagging and notifications, then I promise I will come back and consolidate all the template spam into a single message.

Anyway, some of the images with missing permissions are from the ALF - is there an OTRS ticket number or copyleft notification that those images are public domain. (I am sure I've seen something like that before, but can't find it.) If so, I will add that info to the image licenses rather than tag the images with problem templates. With respect - Kelly 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an OTRS volunteer checked a ticket from ALF here, and apparently it only explictly released about a half-dozen images. Was there another ticket? Kelly 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah article, FYI

I have used your name and a diff here . The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

OK, I took a look through your upload log - the following images have problems that need to be addressed:

Nominated for deletion

Possibly unfree

These are generally missing OTRS tickets for claimed free licenses.

No source or bad source

Replaceable fair use

No fair use rationale

Fair use problems

I did not tag the following images yet, but I strongly recommend you review WP:NFCC and write/rewrite fair use rationales based on your review of that policy, or they will eventually end up being tagged for deletion by human or bot. I'll come back and review them after you've had a chance to fix them. The majority have issues with WP:NFCC#10a (copyright holder not identified) and WP:NFCC#10c (missing a separate rationale for each usage, especially those used in more than one article). Please also address, where necessary, WP:NFCC#4 (evidence of publication outside Misplaced Pages) and WP:NFCC#2 (competes with the copyright holder re any monetary value due to rights of release - I see there are cases where you have stated there is no commercial value when this is not clearly the case).

The images with good free licenses have been moved out to the Commons, and I added missing fair use rationales in unambiguous cases (logos, etc.) Thanks for your patience with the Copyright Inquisition. (Nobody expects the Copyright Inquisition!) Kelly 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)