Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossami (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 7 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purged into page history as of 22:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 06:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Purged onto page history as of 12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Purged into page history as of 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please accept this barnstar. I'm impressed that you never seem reluctant to handle the tough, convoluted VfD closing decisions that lots of people shy away from. Joyous 03:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

"malfucntioning" signature - thanks!

Hey - I just twigged before you posted the message that the "problem" with the bold type and lack of link was due to where I was posting rather than what! (See Extreme Unction's talk page) Changing to "raw" and adding a few square brackets did, indeed, cure the other problem. Signature back to normal (phew). IainP (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Afd review

Just wanted to say, I'm impressed by your excellent review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Body_parts_slang. I wish we had more folks like you closing controversial Afds. I like it when people actually describe the situation instead of just slapping a "no consensus" on things. I believe there are some particularly difficult Afds coming up, many related to the mass-nomination of weblogs. I've been distressed lately at the "first come, first serve" nature of Afd closures. I've halfway been tempted to start a discussion on the talk page about getting consensus on who would close particular Afds, so that someone doesn't just snatch it up and close it however they want with only a superficial review. I wondered if you'd be interested in 1) Volunteering ahead of time to close certain Afds which may require a detailed review, and/or 2)Suggesting other people equally skilled to close additional Afds and/or 3)Anything else you can think of that may be helpful. Friday (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to List of YTMND fads

I was wondering what you meant by "Topic deleted per AFD" in this dif? It seems the only thing you did was remove spaces. Did you mean to delete something, or was this just an error? Thanks in advance, Mysekurity 07:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course and thanks. I didn't notice you had contributed before, as the previous edit was by someone else. Thanks for formatting the page and happy editing, Mysekurity 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Make only links relevant to the context#Titles?

Hello there! Thanks for your note; perhaps some wordsmithing is in order, as I built the former statements based on what was already in place (somewhat). I have edited the point and hope the response is informative. E Pluribus Anthony 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Selective restore

Hi Rossami. In case you don't call by Del Review soon, I left this for you. -Splash 18:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Got your note about talk page etiquette. First off, I'll note that I wasn't the first to start interrupting the other's comments – I did that only after he started interrupting mine. Secondly, I'm appalled that "talk page etiquette" is more concerned with coherence than with ignorant stereotyped generalizations about "anglosaxon culture." Buddy doesn't hesitate to insult anyone he feels like insulting, but you're worried because his text is interrupted! There's your etiquette, eh?

As should be clear from my last comment on that page, I have washed my hands of the whole stupid business. However, I will "refactor" by adding a concise statement of my position. Hope you'll be able to sleep better. John FitzGerald 13:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the end I did what I expect you preferred – I put all my replies to LtDoc's last post in one place. Whether the debate is worth following is a good question to consider, though. John FitzGerald 13:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out to me. I tried to re-edit my comments at the end of each posting, but I messed up the first time, so I just decided to leave the ones in the middle that way, and any new replies will be added at the bottom, as you suggested. I did that believing that an argument would be more productive, each part dissecated and debated point-for-point, despite what others can say about it.LtDoc 14:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks removed

Thank you to both of you for helping to clean up the discussion so the rest of us can try to follow it. I promise to read carefully and to do my best to understand both sides of the arguement. Now I do have to ask you both to take the rest of the disagreement off my Talk page, please. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics

Hi Rossami! Any opinion about this ArbCom case? It is looking more and more like a deletion policy case now... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

PotterCast/Pottercast DRV

PotterCast is already mentioned in the The Leaky Cauldron article and it seems reasonable to mention the live podcast they did at the latest film premiere. If we do that, GFDL requires us to credit the original author, so I think a merge of some sort is required. Perhaps move it to the leaky cauldron talk before merging to avoid an article in the main namespace although, I think it should redirect to the site that runs the cast anyway. Would you please reconsider your vote for merging purposes? - Mgm| 10:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism watch - user:156.63.181.3

Hi Rossami. Sure, I'll try to check the contribs from this anon from time to time. You're right, I should have looked a little harder at the previous test warnings. I tend to shy away from the harshest warnings - I'm confident with my decisions, but not so much with asking admins to block/look in on a user! Cheers--Bookandcoffee 10:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

About what the attribution requirement demands

Following my claim on WP:DRV that linking to another page with the edit history suffices, you said:

To answer Charles above, no, moving the text to a userpage and then linking to the userfied page would not be sufficient. Contribution history must be tracable back to the original contributor, not merely to Astrokey44. The full version would have to remain (as OwenX proposed) but as Splash points out, could not ever be deleted. That would defeat the intent of the AFD decision. To answer Astrokey44, yes, we could post the sections but you'd also have to cut-and-paste the contribution history. Again, that would seem to defeat the intent of the AFD decision.

The contribution history would remain at the userfied page, and is still available if the user page is deleted: at least the list of contributors and their dates of contribution are visible, even if the diffs are unavailable to non-admins.

Saying that simply linking is not good enough means that any use of the GFDL that does provide the kind of detailed edit history that mediawiki provides is infringing, which is onerous, means that infringement is uncommon (eg. most syndicates of WP), and is, I am fairly sure, not what the FSF intended when they formulated the license. --- Charles Stewart 15:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You replied (and I've bookmarked your user page, so no need to split the discussion): But it's a great question. Does the contribution history of a deleted page satisfy GFDL if/when parts of the content are resurrected and re-used?

I'd say there should be pointers to the page that provides the source. One could say "it's all on WP, so why bother?", but that makes the work involved in figuring out attributions too great to be practical. But the deletion history is two prominent clicks away from the content, so it really should count; I can't imagine how one would go about arguing it did not. --- Charles Stewart 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

For your list of surprising VfDs

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade then DRV then Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade (second nomination) is about a nice progression from "non-notable" to "decent article" as I have seen. --- Charles Stewart 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Review

No problem, we're just giving ourselves a wonderful time with edit conflicts here. Do you use IRC by chance? We might get through this a little better with a quick discussion. --Michael Snow 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought by your reference to Australia you were located there. Have a good night then, we can continue debating this at our leisure. --Michael Snow 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

your grammatical correction

Sorry, my mistake—I misread the forest of piped links in the editing box. Tony 12:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism watch

Found it at Template:Repeat vandal. Seems pretty handy. McNeight 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is better than the standard templates, that's for sure

Link 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rv spamming

Dear Rossami, I am utterly sorry for having delted three relevant comments. My aim was only the very last comment, by User: EffK, who has been spamming this post across Misplaced Pages, at roughly forty pages (user talk, article talk, wiki pages). I deleted those at the article talk pages and the wiki talk pages where there were not relevant. The page you thankfully had under surveillance was number 20 or so of the ones I deleted. Again, sorry about my mistake and thanks for your correction. Str1977 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A vandal blocked

This vandal, 169.227.253.3, was blocked by you earlier but still continues to vandalise.

Link 20:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Afghan people

I am intersted in your opinion regarding the last point in Talk:Afghan_people#This_artiucle_should_be_moved_to_People_of_Afghanistan. -213.39.200.218

Vandalism blocking

Good afternoon. About an hour ago, you blocked user:216.26.205.9 for 24 hours for vandalism to the George Bush page. Unfortunately, you didn't record your action on the user's Talk page. I came along cleaning up a different batch of vandalism, saw all the warnings and also blocked the user (and because of the time-zone differences in timestamps, thought that it was still on-going). Not knowing about your block, I set mine for only 1 hour. As I'm sure you know, when two blocks are set, the most recent takes precedence. That means that I essentially unblocked the user earlier than you'd intended. I would have deferred to your judgment if I'd seen it. In the future, would you mind tagging the user's page with {{test5}} when you block? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. In practice, I make a habit of notifying the IP address they have been blocked for vandalism, so I must have missed that one (or been logged out while leaving the message; Misplaced Pages has been acting strange today.) Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal blocks pt 2

I'm not one who uses {{test5}} often, but I'll try to remember. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will

Thanks for the speedy delete of the peer review! Palm_Dogg 07:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

DRV backlog

Wise Rossami,

So few admins are about these holidays, and DRV had a tremendous backlog of moribund discussions. I have been bold concluded and removed those which clearly endorsed the status quo, and those which have been superceded or concluded on their own terms. A few remain there that are beyond my competence as a mere mortal. I have seen you around during the holiday, and so ask you to apply your fine judgment to these difficult cases. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for backing me up. With love,

Parys 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:VP(policy) advertisement

I've done this, and put a link on WP:CENT as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your views on the proposal. --- Charles Stewart 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Once Moore

I was not the one who moved the original AfD (check the history!). I was just as upset as you are about the way it was done, which is why I replaced the redir on the Talk page with a proper link. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Brad Wilson

Hope that helps...the point being, don't delete valid contributions just becuase they are made under the wrong title. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD Problems

The AfD today page (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today) is broken again, pulling in old closed nominations. Thanks for fixing it the first time, hopefully the source of the problem can be found and fixed. If this is something I could be fixing myself, let me know that too, I'll be glad to stop bugging you. :) Turnstep 16:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, I'm on it. Turnstep 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

The page still needs a first line explaining what it is. It's just putting it in a box that's not helpful. See what it looked like a few days ago. Ashibaka tock 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just in case I never said it before

This isn't regarding any one event, but I always appreciate your comments even in the rare instance that I disagree with them. I reckon you're thoughtful and careful, and generally a top bloke. - brenneman 06:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

I thought I was trying to impose some discipline and lawfulness around here when I blocked Tony for the undeletion of SuperOffice et. al. Then what do I see when I log on this morning? Jimbo unilaterally declaring a CFD discussion as invalid and speedy closing it. LOL. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

199.43.172.254

This is my schoool board's IP. I noticed that you blocked it, and that the block expired today at 15:04 UTC. When I tried to edit just now though, I was still blocked, so I unblocked it. Current UTC time is around 18:30. Please tell me if I've done something wrong, or if there's something I'm missing. Thanks. --Shanel 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will help monitor this IP. I hate that kids can be so stupid sometimes. Just wondering, have you or anyone else ever contacted scott.bremner@dpcdsb.org before? I'm sure they'd listen if it was a student from one of the schools complaining! --Shanel 21:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a working email address for any tech person, but I did find the email of the trustee for my ward. I will try to email him and see if he can help. --Shanel 07:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomi Sunrider

This is in regard to your comment at the AFD for Nomi Sunrider- she would solidly be C-canon, as she is mentioned in, and pivotal to, a number of EU works, and indeed practically the entire ancient Old Republic era (through Ulic Qel-Droma and Exar Kun). --maru (talk) Contribs 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

You were kind enough to offer your comments on my proposed tweaking of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. I've clarified at Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a usage guide exactly what I had in mind, and I would appreciate your further thoughts. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: signatures

Your comments on WP:DRV are articulate and well-made. Thank you for helping to keep the abuse of the speedy-deletion process in check. Your signature, however, is really hard to look at. If I asked very nicely, would you consider toning down the colors? Sorry I'm such a stick-in-the-mud. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Go to User:Mathwiz2020/sandbox and edit my signature. When you get a version you like, just leave me a message and I'll consider it. I would do this myself, but it would probably still be too colorful. --M@thwiz2020 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft attempted. You've been more patient than my comment deserved. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my signature to make the "@" orange. Now that I look at the newer version, I can see that it is better and glares less. Thanks for bringing this up - I don't mind! It's a very minor price to pay, especially considering I could just use the standard signature (Mathwiz2020). As for the patience, I just like contributing to Misplaced Pages and if there's anything I can do to help improve it, be it welcoming new users or reviewing deleted pages, I'll do it. Thanks, too, for your 10,000+ contributions to Misplaced Pages over almost three years. It is the truly dedicated such as you who keep Misplaced Pages from collapsing, and making it even better than Britannica. --M@thwiz2020 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Slang

• Gyp (slang) (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria

Hi Rossami! I wonder if you have an opinion on Seth Ariel Green. Does it meet any of the speedy criteria? It was speedied once as "patent nonsense", but when it was recreated and then tagged again I declined to delete it since... not all nonsense is patent nonsense. It could perhaps be construed as a piece of A7 vanity, or A6 attack page made to tease someone with the same name. It should definitely go, no question about it, and when it goes, good riddance. Does the A7 need another slight expansion to say "no plausible assertion of notability" maybe (The claim to notability in this article is being drafted into the army at the age of 4)?

Or perhaps I should pick my "uphold the deletion process" battles a bit better, because it is not this kind of article I'm trying to save by upholding process.

Also, an arbitrator has announced that Arbcom can be described as a game of Calvinball and that people can be reprimanded for following the rules if their actions are interpreted to be harmful. I am wondering a bit who's interpretation that is, and am a bit worried that this will make the Arbcom results unpredictable leading to more Wikistress among those who try to follow the policy as well as they can while they're making the encyclopedia. Am I harming the encyclopedia when I keep a poor article which should be deleted because there is no consensus to delete it at the AFD debate? Certainly many people thought so on the "persecution by Jews" issue (BTW, deleted now, within process). Any thoughts? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD talk page discussion

Just wanted to say thanks for the time you took to try to explain how AfD works on the talk page last week. I've been watching more and saying less (well, except a couple tiffs with Jimbo), and trying to get a grip on this 'rough consensus' idea that exists here. Just wanted you to know I didn't blow you off. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

firing squad

You may notice that I specifically reduced the length and some of the statements which you restored here. I don't feel that it is verifiable, neutral, concise prose. I don't feel that you needed to expand three words into an entire paragraph. I also don't think that people "will tend to remember the recoil as soft" over time. That's entirely subjective, and I daresay apologetic. I won't revert it because I don't care enough to argue about it. However, I'd like to tell you that your edit makes it a poorer article. For contrast, what do you feel is wrong with the way it was? Food for thought: have a look at the "eliminating wordiness" link off my user page. Toodles, Avriette 15:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point that the copyedit I made included the notion of a blank cartridge, and did it far more succinctly. If you feel that it didn't convey what the article now conveys, that's fine by me. I think it was better the way it was (and conveyed the same information). Avriette 16:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

HANE

Also, the June 2005 Scientific American has a lengthy discussion of HANE's. They actually define the term as "High Altitude Nuclear Explosion," and specifically cite Starfish Prime. "Nuclear Event" is a lot less specific, and I think "Nuclear Explosion" is more accurate. I may be pursuaded to create the article if it's been sitting on your to-do list for a while. Avriette 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can work on this. I've done quite a bit of recent reading on this subject. Would it be easier for you to contribute to the article if I made it to begin with? Avriette 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at High altitude nuclear explosion. I'll be adding more to it as I have time. See also Program 437. aa v 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

DC Streets

I closed the debate because it was made solely for the purpose of nullifying the concurrent debate at DRV. Tony Sidaway seems to be on a mission to make DRV useless by pre-empting any decision there with an AFD, which, according to his theory, trumps DRV. While he objects to my use of the term "bad faith" when describing the nomination, it is at least insincere. He nominated the article for deletion when he had no reason to do so (and one very good reason not to do so) and then stated why it should be kept. In any case, I originally mentioned in my closing of the AFD that it was a bad faith nomination. Tony removed that as a "personal attack". In any case, the DRV was more about whether AFD is a vote or not, and less about the article itself. I guess I'm getting my answer, it might not be the rule, but it's always the case. -R. fiend 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I like some of your phrasing. Summed it up well. -R. fiend 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana baptists

Oh, I looked and saw the {{deletedpage}} template. I didn't realise it had a history behind it. Sigh. I'll delete it now. -Splash 00:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CENT

Rossami,
Ahhh... I was hoping not to lead people right to the straw pole , prefering that they read the page and make an informed decision. Given my druthers, I'd have skipped the "voting" entirely, but there seemed to be such a yawning chasm between the consensus as I saw and what others were seeing. I'll wait a while before adding anything back to CENT.

Is it just me, or do we seem to be moving faster and faster in more directions with less thought every day? I'm certainly guilty of firing back hasty responses, but it seems like we could all stand to slow down. I miss Encephalon's brand of discussion.

Thanks for the note,
brenneman 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange VfD notice

Hi, I was looking at Acousmatic and on it's talk page I found this: "On 22 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/British American Institute." The Page was edited by you as far as i can see... was Acousmatic nominated, but you mistakenly inserted the link to another VfD or you pasted it on the wrong page, or somthing completely different? --A/B 'Shipper 女 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

hehe, I imagined it was a case of a hard working wikipedian =) keep on doing such a good job --A/B 'Shipper 女 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting application of consensus

I think your summary is correct. It seems that we applying a lower standard for early closure of a AFD discussion than for a deletion. It seems to me that guidelines are intended to err on the side of retaining information and allowing discussion if there is any doubt. Yet you'll see that there is a stronger movement toward not deleting articles that at least have a rough consensus to delete; and at the same time a stronger movement to close a discussion that has less of a consensus to keep. My point is that those admins who choose to deal with deletes should make sure they apply at least closely approximating standards - as it is, it seems that there is a tendency to simply affirm whatever the preceding admin has determined as a matter of course. --Leifern 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Failing WP:BIO

Hi,

I think we need a stronger statement on the relationship between WP:BIO and WP:AFD. Your statement ("Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted") appears clear enough to me. An article should not be deleted on the grounds the subject doesn't fall into an AFD category. Yet you still see "Delete -- fails WP:BIO" a lot on AfD.

I think we need to say straight out that there is no such thing as "failing WP:BIO."

Mwalcoff 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections

Hello,

I'm disappointed that you did not respond to my comment on the WP:BIO issue. Nonetheless, I would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections, my proposal to bring some order to the candidates situation. I plan to soon create sample articles to demonstrate what I mean on the page. Please let me know what you think on my talk page. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 05:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I would say that I don't think I'm necessarily in a disagreement with you. I do think, however, that the role of WP:BIO should be better explained on that page. -- Mwalcoff 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. US congressional primaries are coming up, so I think it's a good idea to take care of this now. -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blumpkin

The article "Blumpkin" has been listed on Articles for Deletion on the grounds that is a neologism already found in Wiktionary. You are being notified as a contributor to "Blumpkin." BrianGCrawfordMA 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comments on Blumpkin's AfD page. I just wanted to thank you for being a voice of reason in the wilderness of trying to get rid of the multiple dictdefs that are cropping up here. James084 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The userbox war

Hi again Rossami! I'm feeling quite tired of this userbox war, and looking for someone sane to share some thoughts with. I'm wondering what your interpretation of WP:CSD T1 is. I removed a number of speedy tags from a number of boxes earlier today, believing that speedying them would bring about more fighting. I think they would all go to DRV for some fighting, then they would go to TFD for some more fighting (how fun!), and then a nice RFC and RFAr for dessert.

• Template:User Userbox Saver
• Template:User queerrights
• Template:User queer-4
• Template:User not narrow
• Template:User marxian
• Template:User feminist-alt
• Template:User feminist alternate
• Template:User feminist
• Template:User feminism supporter
• Template:User feminism
• Template:User ally
• Template:User Socialist
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage
• Template:User SOFFA
• Template:User HRC
• Template:User Gender Equality
• Template:User Economic Liberal
• Template:User Distributist
• Template:User Consistent Life Ethic
• Template:User Communist

I fully realize that the boxes are arguably useless, arguably polemic, arguably not beneficial to the encyclopedia.

The way I see it T1 has the following problems:

1. It is vague. What does "inflammatory" mean. I know that saying "This user is a communist" can be inflammatory to some. Yet to me, communism is just another political viewpoint which I disagree strongly with, and have no hatred against those who declare themselves as such. Yet I view "This user is a neo-nazi" as inflammatory, but some people might not. Who gets to decide?
2. It is not supported by community consensus. Had such a speedy deletion criterion been proposed, I don't think that it would not garner a majority, let alone a consensus.
3. Unlike the other speedy criteria, this one is used to remove templates which would have been kept on TFD. A7 also has problems with vagueness, but when used properly it doesn't matter much because the speedied items would have been deleted overwhelmingly on AFD anyway.

Anyway, any thoughts about what can be done to diffuse this problem, or is the salvation and truce beyond the realms of the mortal admins? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Why?Geni 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Brain Peeper

I was going to use odecay because this is such a tinderbox subject, but I'm too lazy. This might have been a mistake? We're neck deep in calls for revolution based upon this userbox stupidity... any way I can convince you to restore this and use the article's talk page? - brenneman 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It was very, very bad judgement on your part to delete this article after the recent AfD had 60% keep. I strongly suggest you restore the article. VegaDark 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "do I at least get partial credit..."

Rossami, you are one of the most thoughtful and careful administrators we have. Five more like you and we'd weep with joy. You always always get full credit from me, even when I disagree with you. My feelings on this are almost exactly like my fellings on the userboxes: It's best if they go away in the long run but that trying to push them out in the short run doesn't help. Thank you for responding to my query.

brenneman 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidates and elections

Thanks for the mention on that page. I'm traveling on business right now and won't be able to work on anything until Sunday at the earliest. -- Mwalcoff 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Please see additional info on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review re deletion of my user page. Thanks J1838 20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeat vandal blocked

FYI, 156.63.253.3 (talk · contribs) came back after your latest 1 month block expired and started again. The talk page and block logs are disaster areas. I have blocked for 3 months. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and protecting

Hi, Rossami, I saw a question that you asked another admin. Hope you don't mind if I jump in and answer. The editor whose user page was deleted and then protected-deleted first registered as John1838 (talk · contribs). Under that name, he has twelve edits, plus eight deleted edits (which don't appear in his contributions, as they were to his user page, which was deleted). Of those twenty edits, two were minor edits to articles. All the others were either to his user page, his talk page, or article talk pages, and the main theme was that the Christianity article was being controlled by a cabal of trolls, and that he, John, was documenting all the abuse that these Christians were carrying out against atheist editors. His user page was deleted, and he simply created it again. It was deleted a second time, and then protected. He then abandoned that account and registered another under the name J1838 (talk · contribs), and made his new user page into an attack page. I imagine that the protection of the deletion of User:J1838 was made on the grounds that he had already, as User:John1838, re-created his deleted user page, and was therefore likely to do so again. Under his new name, he has seventeen edits, plus one deleted one to his user page. None are to articles; they're all either about the trolls (presumably KHM03, Str1977 and yours truly) that he's keeping an eye on at the Christianity article, or about the deletion of his user page. Hope that helps. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Table help, double-border spacing/filling

Thank you for your help on my table spacing problem. I love the streamlined code. There's only a couple more things I need to implement:

1. The double border I was after was to be adjustable, and fillable with color. I don't know how to do these things on the example you provided. Would you please show me? Here's the link, for your convenience: User:Go for it!/table test 1
2. I'm after modularity, for this model will be used as a starting point for many projects. How do you insert another table inside a cell, retaining the cell's border?

Thank you for getting me this far. I would still be stumped if it were not for your help.
--Go for it! 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still on-line. By fillable, I mean retain the two borders that are there, and fill the space between them with another color. I'd also like the space between the two borders to be adjustable. --Go for it! 06:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your last two examples on the test page seem to nail it. --Go for it! 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Table modularity

Thanks for the tip on nesting tables. You mentioned control, using rowspan and colspan. I've been trying to further modularize the table, but there must still be some pieces of the coding puzzle I'm missing. What I'd like to do is:

1. Split the bottom box in the right-hand column into 2 boxes, sitting side-by-side.
2. Split the rightmost box just created into 2 boxes, one above the other.

After that, I think the only issue remaining will be how to vary the placement of a nested table within a cell.

Once all the above is figured out, I can go back to actually building pages. Thanks for your help so far.
--Go for it! 06:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for editing The Holy. -User:General Eisenhower

Table cells

How do you merge table cells? --Go for it! 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Table application

So far, I've used the table design you taught me to rebuild the Community Portal page from scratch, to clean up its code, and to understand how it was put together. (And to prepare it for future changes). --Go for it! 15:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day project

Do you have any favorite tricks you use in conducting your activities on Misplaced Pages? I'd like to invite you to share those with other Wikipedians via the Tip of the day project. I resurrected the project and now I need to build a stockpile of tips to fill the template's scheduling queue. Even if you don't have time to write them, perhaps you can stop on by and provide us with links or tip titles and we can do the rest. Here's the project's announcement:

Tip of the day... Troubleshooting Misplaced Pages's look and feel with skins Misplaced Pages should function and look right in any web browser. However, depending on the layout of an individual page and the Misplaced Pages skin set in your User preferences, a page layout might be broken in your browser. If the problem occurs on a single page, edit the page to fix it yourself. If you cannot fix it, put a message on the Talk page for the page (a screenshot always helps!). If the problem occurs on all pages, try a different skin. Your browser might have some minor issues. These are listed at Misplaced Pages:Browser notes. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more:Help:Preferences  Manual:Gallery of user styles   Become a Misplaced Pages tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{tip of the day}}

--Go for it! 15:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of my close

Could you a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism and Talk:Amin_al-Husayni#Results_of_nomination_for_deletion to see if you think that I handled it correctly? The intention was to put editorial decisions back onto the editors of the page as opposed to the DRV venue. Thank you! - brenneman 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I do like you asked me. Therefore, I will also delete your messages. I hope this is the right way. Please, don't hesitate to correct by yourself if you consider not. Christophe Greffe 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on SNI

Thank you for your attention to this and your comments, notably about wikisource. The text is at wikinfo now, anyway, but will check out that other venue some time. Someone suggested that I put a GNU label on the article on my website, but I'm at another location now where this is less easy to do. Eventually I could do so. People can always reach me there by email. Best regards, Colignatus 03:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed help

Hello. I think the discussion is blocked about these quotes concerning Haj Amin al-Hussein. May I ask you to help me to move forward ? I also ask to jayjg. Thank you in advance. Christophe Greffe 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your help on the table formatting. Thanks to you, colspan and rowspan are a breeze! If you ever need anything, let me know. In case you are curious, here is the project your advice was sought out for and applied upon: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Community_Portal&oldid=44415524
--Go for it! 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

David Freeman (2) MfD

Hi Rossami,

I have done something a little tricky, so I'll submit it to you for review. When you deleted the redirect, the object technically linked to the header of the MfD was no longer in existence. I considered the debate therefor obviated, and closed as supercession by events, because senso stricto, there was nothing left to debate. I have so stated in the close. Alternatively, I imagine the MfD could be closed on a rationale of malformation (since the transfer from AfD was flawed, we can't really be sure whether the MfD was on the User page or the redirect.) Ultimately, one motivation for this was my feeling that an MfD on a userpage commenced so shortly after the moment of its creation was bad form, and possible newbie-biting.

Anyway, I closed it. Since I am not an administrator, and I was actually interpreting your action as having ended the debate, I thought I would submit this to you for review, to make it was proper. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

Hi, you expressed an interest in link policy in the past. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates and vote whichever way you think is best. Thanks. bobblewik 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No longer stub

The article The Holy is no longer a stub. It has 4 headline texts and the book-stub notice was deleted. --User:General Eisenhower 11:50 March 21, 2006 (UTC)

Vacuum propeller

Hello Rossami! You have commented on a previous Vote for Deletion for a Vacuum propeller article, and I have made another attempt at producing one, which has also been nominated for deletion. I would welcome your participation in the new debate. Regards, WLD 10:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Hi, I'm sort of new to wikipedia, so I do not understand what you said in the myg0t Deletion Review request ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t ). Is the article going to be recreated? There seems to be enough people who want it undeleted to warrant it so. Thanks, USER-cacophony 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rossami, thanks for letting me know about the vandalism. I reviewed the page as it appeared when the VfD was closed. The case for overturning is definitely weaker, but I continue to support an overturn for the deletion. I believe most of the votes for deletion were based on the recreation of deleted content criterion, which was shown to be not applicable by Plek. I think that was sufficient for a No Consensus call, rather than either Delete or Keep. Again, thanks for letting me know. Powers 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not

About Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not: I noticed you don't like wiktionary shortlink. I am not sure why. My reasoning is that one would like a direct link, and not a wikipedia-explanation first. However, if you would prefer explanation, then how about compromise and show both? Possibly change sentence to this:
For a wiki that is a dictionary, read up on background about our sister project Wiktionary explanation or visit directly here: Wiktionary.
JohJak2 16:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Planehugger

I saw you were the last to have speedy deleted the recreation of this article, which has been recreated again as Planehuggers. I then got sidetracked on your user page by the "surprising" VFDs, which were interesting. Where is the AFD for Religious persecution by Jews after it was kept, though? Esquizombi 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind reconciling these two opinions you stated?

I am trying to understand the issues around ROGNN...'s User pages. I found some of the views expressed there gave an appearance of inconsistency. Now maybe this is because I have no experience of deletion review. But I would appreciate it if you returned to that discussion to reconcile these two opinions of yours. Thanks. -- Geo Swan 16:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your Talk page. Rossami (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A closed afd which is in a different state

You closed this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Rankism

SHould it be revisited? I'm unsure how it changed. Midgley 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

re: your comment to me re: Requests for content review

No worries, I'm just new here and not entirely used to procedures so am just going by what I'm told. I figured it couldn't hurt anything to list it in both places. Thanks for clearing it up though.Nathanfk13 04:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD Spam (3)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election

Forgive me father for I have spammed. The above looks to me like a push to create a precedent by claiming there is a precedent. Keeping is fine, but the existing reasons seem rather weak, so I'm trying to get some wise heads together

brenneman 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not interweave comments

In this edit, you replied to another user in a debate on Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please do not interweave your comments into the comments of another person like that. It may make sense to you but it destroys the attribution of the original comment and makes the conversation impossible for the rest of us to follow. If you absolutely feel that you must rebut someone's comment point by point, please recap their points below and interweave your rebuttal into your recap. Leave their original comments alone. Rossami (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I used to do (complete with color-coding), but several users complained. (You're the first to complain about the interweaving.) Is there a specific guideline that I could follow and point people to? (I was unable to find one.) If not, one should be proposed. —David Levy 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone commenting that my point-by-point replies seemed adversarial. I believe that the chief complaint pertained to the amount of space that they consumed. On the other hand, several people praised the color-coding. Unfortunately, it's impossible to please everyone.

I've found that disagreements can be resolved with considerably greater efficiency when each point of contention is addressed separately. In my experience (both here and elsewhere), this actually reduces the perceived level of hostility by accentuating the constructive nature of each comment. Otherwise, they may collectively come across as a long-winded diatribe.

In any event, your advice is welcome, and I will try to post uninterrupted replies (such as this one) whenever feasible. —David Levy 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE

Thanks for the note!

I'm working on an example right now. Our first IP looks promising: if after investigation it goes well I'll use that. Thanks for the suggestion, that's exactly the kind of feedback that we're looking for.

Wow, that's quite a list! If you see any that seem appropriate to post on the reports page, please do so. Thanks again for your interest! Snoutwood (tóg) 04:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K. The first one, 156.63... is perfect, if it was still vandalising. As it is, it's blocked for three months by Doc glasgow. If it starts vandalising again then it should definitely be listed. The second one, 66.203... doesn't have enough of an edit or block history to be worth listing (no blocks at all). Here's an example of an ideal case that I'm investigating right now: it doesn't need to be quite that bad, but that's the idea. Registered to a school, long history of vandalism, unlikely to end without a permablock.

On the template: it could be useful when there's a massive amount of vandalism, as it will allow us to more quickly identify whether or not we should accept a case. I think that it also may be useful to others who want a brief summary of the vandalism so that they can better judge a block duration. However, if it takes a great deal of time for you to build it, then I wouldn't bother (as far as WP:ABUSE goes, I mean), as we have to go through the contributions anyway.

What would make that template more useful is if it summarised all of the warnings and blocks (i.e. test x4, test 2 x4, test 3 x3, blocked 8, etc.). That would be much more useful for my purposes, but don't feel at all like you need to go out and do that. Only a thought.

Thanks for the interest! Snoutwood (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Indescriminate lists of information in articles

Hi. I recall having a conversation with you here about such information being introduced into wikipedia, and I've transwikied some info from One Piece character articles. See Talk:Roronoa Zoro#Incriminate information. There seems to be a new user advocating the inclusion of the stuff. I'd like another comment from a third party on the matter. -Zero 04:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Keith Marlowe

Good point. I'll get back to you on this, but for now could you take a look at the talk page? I left a much nicer (IMHO) message there; feel free to edit. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

People keep vandalizing my user page. Thanks for fixing it the first time, but apparently its popped up again. Can you do something about this? Is there anything I can do to protect myself? --Blogger82 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, sorry about the confusion. Thought you were someone else. Anyways if it happens again--I'll let someone know. Thanks again.--Blogger82 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Economic history

May I know where had the materials been merged to ? Thank you. — Instantnood 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just meant to confirm whether the material has been merged anywhere. — Instantnood 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish

About a week ago you posted on WP:DRV under history only deletion that you were against restoring the history of User:Freestylefrappe. Please reconsider, as I have no intention of misusing this info - my one interaction was positive - and I wish to add some of his/her userpage content onto my userpage. KI 00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Help remove wikilinks from quotations

It seems some editors robotically disagree with the Misplaced Pages:Quotations should not contain wikilinks proposal over on the Kimberly Strassel article, please help remove them. Hollow are the Ori 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Some cross-namespace redirects

Hi Rossami! Could I ask you what I should do in this situation? I thought DRV decisions were supposed to be respected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

from Misplaced Pages email

SYSS Mouse <email address redacted> wrote:
Just need to tell you that the IP 199.43.172.254 is from a high school based in Mississauga, Ontairio, Canada. Blocking trhe IP may prevent many users from editing.

reply sent by return email

I sympathize with your concern but please look at the contribution history for the IP user. The pattern of vandalism was persistent, recurring and unrepentant. If you check the block log, you'll see that this IP has been blocked over 20 times, yet the message is not getting through. The vandalism restarts as soon as the last block runs out. Misplaced Pages will not survive if we allow vandals to continue abusing the project unchecked. We value good editors but we pay a tremendous cost in combatting the vandals. At some point, the cost-benefit to the project is negative.

I wish that we had better tools to address the vandalism without causing collateral damage to the good users using the same IP. The only alternative I know would be to prohibit all anonymous editing.

On the other hand, the good editors who are affected could begin to address the problem themselves by challenging the vandals who are giving all the users of that IP such a bad reputation. Perhaps an article in the high school newspaper about the damage done by the vandals and the way the costs of vandalism are carried by everyone. Or a class project on the tragedy of the commons. I have learned that social pressure can be extremely effective at addressing these kinds of problems.

Good luck and happy editing.
Rossami

Userbox debate

I was not aware that I had voted in that particular debate, given that it had been two weeks since my vote and Sjakkalle failed to link to the debate in question. Had I known that, I would have let another admin handle it. Ral315 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And to clarify as well, I spoke to a couple other admins via IRC who agreed with me, but did not wish to handle the deletion themselves. I want to stress that this was not unilateral; I did discuss this with others. Ral315 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is such a comment field that was just added (not sure if it was before the restoration or not). What I meant, however, was that the debate is not linked from the RFD. Given that it had been so long, and I hadn't touched any debates in a while (I was off Misplaced Pages pretty much all last week), I incorrectly assumed that I couldn't have been involved. Ral315 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Credibility

You seem to be saying that caring about Misplaced Pages and wanting to make it better damages my credibility. I don't agree. If someone's ego is bigger than their concern for improving things, it's not my credibility at issue. Gene Ward Smith 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Firing squads in Finland

First, I have served myself in the Finnish army. I attained the rank of Second Lieutenant. Second, no army can work without discipline. Maintaining and keeping discipline may require the strictest possible measures, including executions. And when the army is composed of conscripts, who often are unwilling, uneasy, craven or just plain lazy, maintanining and imposing discipline is the most important task of an officer and NCO.

Execution of the deserters was widely used as a disciplinary measure during the World War Two in the Finnish Army. It is widely assumed that while we don't have death penalty right now, it will be reinstated immediately should this country ever enter in war. The principle on dealing with conscripts is to show them the war is serious business and there is no leeway for any individualism as long as the nation is in danger. You either fight or you are shot. This is not joking; a small nation simply cannot afford any dissidents, conscientious objectors or disobedients when the question is about life and death and existence of the whole nation. Just like Arndt Pekurinen, the chairperson of the Finnish Antimilitarist League, was conscripted and then executed in 1941 from disobeying the orders, that will be the fate of any unwilling in the wartime.

Please review

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/United States/References

This was closed by Jet Engines, a sockpuppet of the user Science3456, the editor currently under debate at DRV. I am unsure whether to merge this debate to the DRV in progress, to start a new one, or whether a noble admin (you) could simply revert the close and close of your own initiative. I leave the matter in your wise hands. I have warned the editor never to close an XfD unless the result is unanimous keep. Probably, this particular user should never close an XfD period (given his history), but I felt that sort of cautioning could only be given to him by an admin. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A revert

I undid this edit of yours. As far as I know, every time this has been brought up it has been rejected. See DRV talk. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Rossami, thanks for your kind note. It's very nice to know that someone notices. Joyous | Talk 00:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Osbourn Park High School

Thanks for picking up the baton on this. I was battling it for a while, as per my talk page and the other editor's talk page, but in the end it got too late here and I had to call it a night. I suppose it is conceivable that this teacher could have won some award or other for 'teaching excellence', but hundreds of such awards are made each year and this falls far short of our threshold of notability. His making-up of references did not help his case, however. Regards, --BillC 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An AFD you closed: disputed result

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rankism User:Leifern disputes that the result was merge. You might like to comment on it? Midgley 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

another from Misplaced Pages mail

<Name and address redacted> wrote:
I can completely understand why you would want to disallow the IP address at my college, judging from what the kids here are likely to do to the pages of Misplaced Pages. However, is there not any way of still allowing users who have signed up to edit pages? I can't currently get online at home due to connection problems, so college is the only place I can do anything online right now.
Anyhelp would be much appreciated!

reply sent by return email

Unfortunately, the technology does not now allow us to block anonymous users while allowing signed-in users to continue editing. That was actually a deliberate decision. The thought was that if a vandal really was doing enough damage to Misplaced Pages to deserve blocking, the project needed a way to make sure that the vandal didn't simply create a new ID and resume the vandalism. The assumption at the time was that IP addresses were relatively static and that vandalism would be very rare.

Since then, we've discovered that vandalism is not rare and that many of our worst vandals are from AOL and other services which rotate IPs. As far as I know, the design decision about the anonymous blocking policy has never been revisited. It probably should be discussed again. I would recommend sending a message to one of the developers.

In the meantime, we do try to limit the collateral damage from an IP-level block. They are supposed to be short-duration for all but the most egregious of cases.

I usually check the IP ownership before I put on a block of more than a few minutes. I don't remember seeing one lately for a college or university. May I ask what IP you edit from? I'll try to look into the case. If I missed it or made a block for longer than appropriate, I'll try to fix it.

In the meantime, another way to control the risk for an IP is to aggressively patrol the contributions made by anonymous users of the IP yourself. You can do that by clicking through the "user contributions" on the IP userpage. If you and the other good editors sharing the IP work to keep the vandalism under control by quickly reverting and noting your actions on the IP's Talk page, there is less reason for admins to feel that intervention is necessary.

That's not a great answer. This is a classic problem of the tragedy of the commons. I wish we had better choices but don't know how to do that without abandoning the whole concept of anonymous editing. Good luck.

Rossami

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

I had a horrid time closing this DRV, can you please take a look at it and provide a second opinion. If you disagree with "endorse closure" being the right result, I will most definitely listen to your always wise commentary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Amiga Virtual Machine

You wrote:

>Allow me please to caution you about the tactic you are choosing

> one that may indicate that you do not yet understand the principle of non-ownership of articles. At worst, it can be perceived by some as outright hostility. >

> Allow the group to develop a discussion rather than attempting to hold serial discussions with each participant. Good luck. >

Whoops. I never intended my comments to overcome discussion. I have bad habit deriving from partecipating too many forums. As you probably well know, there in forums comments follows other comments by any user, adding new evidences if new are found, during as discussion advances and grows up.

Thanks for your advices. They are precious.

Ciao, --Raffaele Megabyte 10:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Why does the images gallery only show some images and not all of them, see my main usrpage Mollsmolyneux 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

icon

Hi. The reason there was an icon on the {{lang2}} template was because of feedback from users who had the template (and others) placed on the page. They said that an unadorned message all too often got missed if between the time it was placed there and the time they read their messages other messages had been placed there by other users. They made the point to me that templates should have something visual to make them notice it as being different to the other messages. The icon in question is not a warning one (like the hand) but merely a symbol indicating please read this. The resultant feedback was that with its inclusion users were less likely to miss the template. There is no point putting messages on pages if their layout is such that they get confused with ordinary messages and so, like many messages, don't get read. Given that feedback I've reinstated the icon. The complication of the icon, and the bolding at the start, informs users that this is not an ordinary user message but something they should read. It seems to work that way. FearÉIREANN\ 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Billion and Trillion Pool

Hi,

I know it is unusual; given the sockpuppet infestation at the original MfD, I felt a prophylactic measure was a good idea. If you think it's terribly out-of-line, I'll undo it; I also felt the consensus at the MfD that these things shouldn't exist until doomsday was a warrant to prevent recreation. It's not like I know what I'm doing, however! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Content review

I've signed my post now, so you know who I am. Sorry about all that! Yeah, so if we can have a content review of Badger Badger Badger Parodies so I can put it on adhocipedia, that'd be good. I accept that it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, but that's why adhocipedia was created in the first place. CMIIW 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO

I have some objections to your changes to the authorship standards of WP:BIO. Could we maybe hammer out some mutually-agreeable alterations on the talk page? -Hit bull, win steak 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful in removing boxes from around some message templates. You are measuring them against the wrong "consistency". The request accepted and request denied templates use boxes for a very simple reason. The block they are dealing with, and the request for an unblock are both boxed. It makes logical sense that the formal decision in response is also clearly highlighted. I came across a couple of incidents where the template was used after you removed the box and the message was lost among a plethora of other messages. As it is a formal response to a formal request it needs to stand out on a page, hence the box.

Similarly the threatwarn box is designed to match a series of boxes all of whom carry the same visual imprint — white box with clear one line explanation at the top. The series it belongs to follows an identical format because of their series and related content. Removing the box and the headline undermines the seriousness of the message and makes it just another message. Serious messages have to have a strong visual element to communicate effectively. Otherwise either their seriousness is not grasped or on a busy page the message gets drowned out with other messages, meaning that the user mightn't see it and get themselves blocked.

The designs are carefully formulated to achieve maximum effect where necessary. Your "consistency" changes on occasions completely undermine the template and on some occasions make the template all but useless. If a box is placed somewhere it is usually for a specific reason, not a design fad. Please check with those of us working on templates before unilaterally changing a box to a design that may have been rejected because of its ineffectiveness with specific messages. FearÉIREANN\ 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-linking from quotes discussion

Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

South Coast League

Hi Rossami, I saw you deleted and protected SCL again. The DRV situation also noted that a recreation of new, verifiable information wasn't out of the question, and I went to User:InShaneee directly to get it dealt with, including linking him to a rewritten version prior to his unprotecting and allowing me to recreate it. If I missed a step here, let me know, but the speedy was due to it being non-notable and a no-context stub, the version you deleted doesn't fit the recreation speedy, and is in fact substantially different. Please reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Take whatever time you need. Here's my unprotection request, here's what you deleted with references galore. I requested that Shane userfy the info on IRC, and he did so here, where I realized it was a non-context stub and began the rewrite. Let me know what else I can add. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Template

The template is {{Indefblockeduser}} - it's not a typical user talk message, but we're chasing a serial vandal right now. This isn't a user who's going to come back and get unblocked. (ESkog) 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User Page Vandal

Thank you for helping me with the serial vandal that attacked my user page.Spikey 05:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

You wrote:

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). This level of detail is clearly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The closing admin was within reasonable discretion when closing the discussion and clearly articulated why the straight vote-count was overruled. Note: I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

‘Sigh.’ So, this is the end – ‘’too bad.’’

I just want you to know; just as the powers that be haven't changed their minds, neither have I. I still insist that this is a wrong decision. I branched the synopsis article from the main film article in an act of good faith. This was the work of many and not any single individual. This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made; and a 196-word synopsis just does not do the film justice. -- Jason Palpatine 12:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

R unprintworthy

It is for redirects that don't make sense in print or some other webpages, such as George bush to George Bush and Goerge Bush to George Bush and the various WP: (and other) shortcuts. It is used for the same reason as {{selfref}}, so mirrors and others can easily remove things that do not apply. R from shortcut might be more appliciable (which is a subcat of unprintworthy), but I don't think it really matters. It should be on NPOV if it isn't going to redirect to a valid article (or a dab page). Kotepho 04:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Danzig to Gdańsk would be one example, mainly for an index section though. Category: Printworthy redirects seems mostly comprised of scientific name redirects. Kotepho 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sick Nick Mondo

No worries, I saw your comments and then saw the "New messages" notifier when I opened up the edit window to reverse my original vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Abodes

I picked a sentence at random, put it into Google, and found that paragraph on another site. Of course, now I can't find the sentence. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 23:55

Automatons

I'm very leary of waves of pseudo-bot edits, and am especially wary of them being used in the midst of a debate. What is your feeling on this?
brenneman 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate split discussions, so I'll reply on my talk. - brenneman 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

re: your recent comment on DRV

The "rule" isn't an actual policy (though it is a guideline, see WP:ASR), it's just what everyone citing IAR is referring to. --Rory096 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's a guideline, not a policy. RfD then decided that in this circumstance, a redirect to boldness (which has a dablink) was better than having a cross-namespace redirect. ASR also says that they should be marked. Since you can't mark a redirect, you'd have to make it soft, but that's useless because of the dablink on boldness— if you were looking for WP:BOLD, you'd get there in the same amount of clicks as a soft redirect, and if you were looking for boldness, you wouldn't be sent to some weird place. --Rory096 05:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but it's not like anyone sees that unless they're in the print version, nobody searching for it would see that they're leaving the encyclopaedia. The only way would be to make it a soft redirect, which is useless, as I said above. --Rory096 13:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I slept from 5:30 to 9:30 EDT. It would have been longer, but there had just been a wave of ceiling cat vandalism, and I thought there was going to be another. Yes, it won't be in the print versions, but a piped link is visible by hovering, and you're still in the encyclopaedia anyway. People come to read about encyclopaedic topics- the community works for that goal, but should be kept seperate from the encyclopaedia. With a hard redirect to projectspace, the user doesn't even get a warning that he's leaving the encyclopaedia, and so a category on the redirect he just went through, and he probably doesn't even know how to go to a redirect=no, that sends him to a strange page that isn't part of the encyclopaedia isn't enough. He should at least get a warning, and so it needs to either be a soft redirect or a dablink at the target. --Rory096 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DRV/conservative notice board

It was bad enough that, for some days, a challenge to this deletion was entertained. This quibbling is not good. It died and its death should not be mourned. The page should have been throttled at birth, and failing that, the deletion review should have been killed. This was a pure troll. --Tony Sidaway 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold et al

Stop referring to a single mythical DRV as if that settles the issue once and for all and anything that goes against that is invalid. The fact is, as you can plainly see, a lot of experienced users with views quite different than the DRV have now stepped forward once they realized what a monumentally stupid decision was made. You can't keep referring back to the DRV to continue the reverting, because there are no binding decisions, and in this case, there is no reason to ignore policy and keep that cross-namespace redirect. The DRV actually wasn't even conducted properly and is invalid if you want to really process-wonk it, because DRV only deals with whether a page is kept or deleted, not what that page redirects to. The correct forum for this discussion would have been RFD (which actually already took place) or on the talk page of the redirect. --Cyde↔Weys 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you daft? Why in the world do you think that the deleteniks at DRV are capable of forming a consensus to override such a well-grounded policy as the one against cross-namespace redirects? Please, dude, stop acting like you got your brain at a K-Mart blue light special sale! Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. "...brain at a K-Mart blue light special sale"... When did WP:CIVIL stop being official policy? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

About the time that it became popular with the "mutual admiration society" faction of Misplaced Pages to interpret it to mean "criticism of anyone's actions is incivil". Kelly Martin (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, thanks for your support but please don't feed the trolls on my account. Rossami (talk)

Implying that I am a troll is uncivil. You just lost the high ground. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mistake me. I am not implying anything. Rossami (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me like everyone needs a slice of Strawberry Civility Pie. --Cyde↔Weys 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesse B. Davis

My sources was a book sources. How about this:whicky1978 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesse B. Davis is considered the first person to implement a school counseling program which helped intiate the vocational guidance movement in the United Sates.

In Central High School in Detroit, Michigan, Jesse B. Davis worked as a guidance counselor for 11th grade boys and girls from 1898 to 1907. Davis' primary duties involved educational and vocational counseling. In 1907, he became principal of another high school in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and required all seventh-grade students to write a weekly report on occupational interests for thier English class. The students would related vocational interests to curriculum subjects. Furthermore, he encouraged English teachers to use lessons and compositions to develop character, help students avoid behavioral problems, and get along with others. From 1914 to 1916, served as president of the National Vocational Guidance Association. Today, English high school and middle school classes are still used to help students learn about occupational interests, decision-making, and research.

References

• http://www.bamaed.ua.edu/counselor-ed/BCE511/classnotes/wk2bac.511.ppt
• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KOC/is_2_7/ai_112905222
• Schmidt, J.J. (2003) Counseling in schools: essential services and comprehensive programs. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
• Studer, J.R. (2005). The professional school counselor: An advocate for students Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole
• Zunker, V.G. (2002). Career counseling: Applied concepts of life planning. 6th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
• Brewer, J.M. (1918). The Vocational Guidance Movement. New York: Macmillan.

I think it is bad faith to delete a namespace and not even mention it to the wikipedian who started. Jesse B. Davis at face value seemed notable, and the patroler should have at least asked for more information.whicky1978 07:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

PayPal

Regarding this edit, "a subsidiary bank president is not necessarily a "key person" and may not meet the criteria of WP:BIO" he's cited as the company's president, and not as a bank president because PayPal isn't a bank. Isn't that key enough? Subsidiary or not, doesn't being president of the company qualify you as a key person? For future reference, is there a guideline for this? (I didn't find a rule applicable from the Notability page). Thanks, Bordello 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I defer to your opinion, though I still disagree. Why I disagree is trifle; I defer because I don't like to argue. I see your point of view and I hope the situation is resolved. Sorry if I sound lazy or passively indignant (though you'd be right on the first). -Bordello 10:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: your recent campaign to bypass cross-namespace redirect using AWB

Rossami wrote:

Please stop. There is no policy-level decision that unambiguous cross-namespace redirects of this nature are inherently bad. (If there is such a decision and I'm just not aware of it, I would ask you to please point me to that decision.) The redirect you are currently working on is, based on my own review, only used in the Talk space and is universally used in a context such that no user following it would reasonably expect to see an encyclopedia article.

Per Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, your automated edits are throwing a burden onto the system for no benefit. In addition to the system burden, your edits are triggering the watchlists of hundreds of users. It's not an efficient use of anybody's time.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for any ruined watchlists that have resulted from my actions. Per your request, I have stopped bypassing cross-namespace redirects, and I will not resume doing so for the time being. If suitable changes to the policies/guidelines are made, then I will resume with this account; I may also set up a bot account to continue the work of RoryBot (talk • contribs), whose owner, Rory096 (talk • contribs), is currently on a two-month wikibreak.

While I accept that this is a slightly controversial issue, I think that with the level of activity Misplaced Pages has these days, the load on the system is negligible (nobody complained when I made 13,000 typo-fixing edits at a similar speed, though a few suggested I should use a bot account).

If you believe these redirects should be left in place, I suggest you discuss the issue with Rory096 and Cyde (talk · contribs), among others. I have no stance on the issue, merely a desire to get things done. (See the last item on Rory096's talk page; I was simply responding to a request made in his absence).

Hope this clears things up – Gurch 22:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rossami wrote:

By the way, what template did you use when you added Rory's username on my page? I've often wanted to easily link to a user's contribution history. That would be very helpful in some of the vandalism watch work. The {{vandal}} tag is helpful but sometimes overkill. Thanks again for your note. Rossami (talk)

I used {{user|Name}}, which expands to Name (talk • contribs); you can also use {{admin|Name}} for administrators, which gives Name (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). – Gurch 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Temp page

You may delete user:whicky1978/temp. I prefer to create/edit articles directly, even if they are short stubs, becaue I don't want to create alot of user subpages, and lose track of them. So I prefer to create pages like Jessee B. Davis, and then add to them. I worked on Frank Parsons a little at a time.whicky1978 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Jessee B. Davis

So, is anybody going to post anything more about the article? It's not getting much attention.whicky1978 04:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. --Cyde↔Weys 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My bee photo

Feel free to use it. You may want to crop it though so the bee is more of the focus. The image is Image:Bee flying hamedog.JPG. It is now public domain--Hamedog_Talk| 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)