True. But this particular poll is not particularly helpful, for a variety of reasons. R adiant _>|< 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello--I am already messing around with the Userboxes and other fun things--Wikipedia as MySpace!:P
Clemson University T-shirts are really cool. My dad was traveling over there and got me one, I get lots of good feedback when I wear it.
Hello--I am already messing around with the Userboxes and other fun things--Wikipedia as MySpace!:P
Clemson University T-shirts are really cool. My dad was traveling over there and got me one, I get lots of good feedback when I wear it. -- Hermgirl 07:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you're down as being an an active cabalist. Is that still true? There are plenty of cases awaiting mediator response, please drop by if you can! Dan100 ( Talk) 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I encourage you to thoroughly read the comments on the discussion for my RFC. Actually, dont even read the comments, just read the section headers. Then you will understand that this is not a content dispute. I have tried to get this point across, but people just dont listen. freestylefrappe 11:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Was there a specific reason this image was deleted, other than the fact that Scott Fisher uploaded it? I know Scott Fisher is a notorious vanity hound, but that particular image was worked out as a compromise after I carefully explained all the Wikipedia guidelines to him. Has he reverted back to his old habits? Kaldari 15:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This did. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 05:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I just wanted to drop by and thank you for supporting my RfA. I'll do my best as an admin to help the dream of Wikipedia become the reality. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll post my last comments now. Key words are "fought as a unit in battle." As a military man, I can assure you that the citadel folks are trying to say that they had cadets fight in battles, and that is fine. That the citadel had cadets fight in battles is not being disputed. "Fighting as a unit" is different altogether. Dozens of schools had students fight in various battles in the Civil War, that was the nature of the war. Only one school fought as a unit in combat, ever...and that's VMI. Sorry for being heated (I'm a South Carolinian myself) but I continually see citadel folks latch onto VMI in virtually every regard, and they are definitely stretching the truth here. It's just plain "cheezy!" Tac1 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
When you updated the list of Active bans you gave 2006 as the year in which that ban would terminate. Linuxbeak mentioned a duration of one week, so I think that you might like to change that '6' to a '5'. 131.155.229.224 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Please direct all further discussion of Pigsonthewing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation. Thank you.
Well, looks like my RFA will pass very soon. I just wanted to thank you for your nomination, and for your last minute nominator support. ;-) I will try and use my admin powers for good rather than evil. Anyways, I just wanted to bring this particular thread off the RFA in my response:
Greetings right back. Thanks for message. Wikipedia's great. easyer 05:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I just got an email recently from Scott Fisher, who I had some contact with back when he was editing physics articles. I offered to inquire into his banning; I looked into what's been posted about him, and it seems to me like he might be a productive user if he could just stay away from uploading/adding images completely. (He clearly can't or won't avoid copyvios properly, but maybe avoiding images completely would be a simple rule that he could follow if it was made very clear that it was absolute.) Do you think it's worth giving him another shot, or has he already been given enough chances to clean up his act? Thanks, SCZenz 06:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
So, to respond to your comment, personally I'm not in favor of Scottfisher editing on Wikipedia. He has uploaded images claiming {{ pd-self}} on images that were clearly not taken by him. He ended up indefinitely blocked by Fvw for it, but I unblocked him in order to give him a chance to reform. He managed to cooperate somewhat, but I also warned him to not upload or add images to articles under any circumstances, and he continued to do both despite being warned, and so I blocked him indefinitely for it. Being as no other Administrator has chosen to unblock him, that essentially amounts to a ban, unless an Administrator chooses to unblock him. However, he has lied about the provenance of uploaded photos, which is according to Jimbo a bannable offense, and he also created a sockpuppet in an attempt to circumvent his ban, and edited several images that he had uploaded as Scottfisher to attribute them to his new name. This does not encourage me that we would obey a restriction on image uploading. I would suggest you also speak with Fvw, and get his input. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you'd say such a thing without seeing this, but I suppose it's my fault not for putting that there right away after such a hostile comment.
Also, if you could, please answer these two things that the Fair Use people don't seem to want to tell me...
3 or 4 people agreeing and then over 700,000 others who don't care enough to disagree isn't a consensus to me. You can find consenseii on WP:RFA, WP:RFB, WP:AFD, or anyplace else where there's a clear and up front vote. A "consensus" achieved from a talk page is little more than a smoke filled room justification for mob rule. Sorry, but I won't be intimidated by their paranoia, regardless of its good faith. karmafist 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I hope it's alright, but I'm unblocking Karmafist since he has promised to me that he's definitely staying away from Pigsonthewing from now on. Just to let you know, Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, could you possibly explain to me the reasoning behind the deletion of some images used in Template:User Canterbury Bulldogs, Template:User Canberra Raiders, Template:User Brisbane Broncos, Template:User Bangladesh Cricket Team, Template:User Australian Cricket Team? They are each classified as "Team and corporate logos - For identification" on the Fair Use page. mdmanser 03:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why the Carnegie Mellon logo was removed from Template:User_CMU, while other userboxes such as the Template:User-hp-project and Template:User Ravenclaw on your userpage still seem to be using Fair Use images. Thanks. -- BenjaminTsai Talk 08:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. When you protect a page, please remember to add the tag to the article and list it at WP:PP. It helps keep track of things. Thanks. - Splash talk 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hiya - can I get you to take an administrator's look at the current last entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, regarding SavvyCat? The notice has been sitting there for 2 hours, and the other admin I asked about it an hour ago hasn't responded. Thanks! -- Krich (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you unrevert Template:User Alumni Somaiya MU? I would not understand reason for removing the image. Chirags 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Even though it has been 6 months since I started editing, I feel I am still struggling to absorb, learn, and apply Wiki high standards of appropriate content, style, organization, fair use etc. and dispute resolution. Although the edit statistics show that I have had 60 deletions, I feel like I have had hundreds of edits reversed, both by higher authorities because I not yet learned enough of the basics, and by peers who have a POV significantly different from my own interpretation of how best to work towards neutrality of presentation. My roller coaster ride in terms of time availability to check things, means I can go for a few months, with time only to answer occasional Reference Desk questions, and not check what's happening on articles I been contributing to, which means I not react speedily to disputes over my efforts. So far I think my most positive contribution has been splitting Time travel in fiction off of Time travel which is primarily article on notion that this is scientifically plausible. At least my contributions THERE have not been wiped out yet, like my contributions elsewhere. I have contributed in small part to some article improvement drives. At the moment, I think it is more constructive for me to try to help improve existing articles, to help teach me the ropes, until my writing style is much closer to Wiki high standards, before I spend much time creating new articles. User:AlMac| (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Evilphoenix,
I noticed the Hogwarts emblem has been removed from the {{user-hp}} userbox, however the individual house emblems remain...what is the situation with these? I asked Hermione1980 and she mentioned something about a dispute over fair use and said you'd started the WikiProject and to ask you...which I am now doing. Thanks, -- Gary Kirk (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You have listed yourself as a participant in one or more of the following wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Theatre Wikipedia:WikiProject Broadway Wikipedia:WikiProject Off/Off-Off Broadway
I wanted to send out this bulletin to re-spark interest in these projects and hopefully advance their progress. Please contribute in any spare time you may have, in order to make this section of wikipedia even better.
If you know anyone who may be interested in working on this project, please say something to them.
Clarkefreak ∞ 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Meh, I've been thinking lately that I need a wikibreak, but I'm too addicted to take one. I don't really intend to leave any time soon. I probably will rm Kelly's RfC from my watchlist, though; I don't intend to comment any more and looking at it just makes me very annoyed. H e rmione 1980 01:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think the 15 subsections you've added [1] are a real mess for the page: the TOC is way too long, while each subsection is only one sentence long.
If you really need to have anchors for direct links to specific Variations, I'd suggest your using HTML here. Instead of your current
====Variation 1 (L'istesso tempo) "C.A.E."====
you'd put back the ";" prefix and add an all-lowercase anchor (with a comment to prevent others wondering if that's to be kept):
; Variation 1 (L'istesso tempo) "C.A.E."<DIV ID="variation1"><!--ANCHOR FOR LINKS--></DIV>
As an added bonus, your anchors would now be like "#variation1" which is:
Note BTW that in HTML, you can add an ID="anchor" attribute to any tag, even such as
<B ID="anchor">bold text</B>
Regards
--
This user is an admin who has contributed materially to the Math sections of the encyclopedia. It is understandable that you do not know him as you are in different spheres. But he is held in high regard by others. Have an Admin star. Regards -- Ancheta Wis 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As I seem to have missed the memo, I'm sure you'll be glad to remind me just when one person's support or lack thereof became sufficient reason to reverse another administrator's action without having the courtesy to contact him about it first. Regards — Dan | talk 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
With regard to your decision to unblock User:Mistress Selina Kyle, I see no justification for an unblocking here. I have restored the block and taken the case back to WP:AN/I for review [2]. I find your comments suggesting that the arbitration committee elections may result in a different view being taken towards this troll to be in poor taste. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. My understanding is that MSK is appealing her block / filing a case against me sometime when the Arbitration Committee becomes stable after the election. Thank you again.-- Sean| Bla ck 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked her and advised her to choose her words more carefully. I agree with the spirit of her message, that editing through an open proxy generally indicates that one is not up to any good. I'm not an ardent supporter of Kelly either, but I do find your blocking her to be inappropriate, given the context. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 01:16, Jan. 13, 2006
It seems to me that the block wasn't likley to cause any sufficient good, so I was curious as to your thinking behind it. As I mentioned on IRC on first blush it looked punative as opposed to prevenative.-- Tznkai 02:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to those of you who have commented. I'm starting tech this afternoon for a show I'm designing right now, which means I don't have a lot of time (hence my low level of activity lately). However, I would like to post a more detailed comment in response to several of your comments, so know that I will respond to those of you who have posted with concerns. Best regards, Evilphoenix 14:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Seen here, [ the Kim Il-Sung City deletion log], why did you think this was a "relic of vandalism"? Why do you call it that. I'm curious. -- Shultz 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you were one of (if not the) first person to give me some help around here. So for even if for nothing else it's sad to see you go :(
Have a good break, hope to see you back sometime. Maybe in the mean time I'll have to check out some of the 'stable version'/1.0 talk that I've seen around... Petros471 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, no! This one: [3]
Note the dash between the Il and the Sung. Just click on that very link (without changing it) and see. Why did you call it a "relic of vandalism"? -- Shultz 10:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why was Teleboards deleted and protected? I don't even see an AfD for that article, and the board has way over 5,000 members (therefore meeting the notability criteria). Wiwaxia 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Despite your talk page being locked (thbbbbt), sorry, I've got an email half-written sitting in my draft folder and I'll try to finish and send it tomorrow. Things just kind of snowballed this week, so…Cheers, H e rmione 1980 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll e-mail you, due to your wikibreak. Karm a fist 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I note that you undeleted this page after Jimbo deleted it, and I cannot find the reason why you did so either on the article's talk page, on your talk page, or anywhere else. The topic is a divisive one and the article has been deleted and undeleted many times. Would you care to explain your actions? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. The undeletion interface is indeed clunky and I can understand what happened all too easily. While I do believe that the project is best served by deleting the article, there are many who disagree and I respect your views. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Per your note on your userpage... I sympathize entirely. It lightens my mood a bit to see someone else as frustrated with the project as I am. -- DanielCD 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Note: User is referring to this revision, and removed this note after I changed my User page recently to the current version.
I just wanted to let you know so there isn't the perception that we're talking behind your back, but some of us find your block of Karmafist out of line. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
As you know, the reward for doing good work on Wikipedia is .... more work! As Phoenix is now a disambiguation page, it gives me great and perverse joy to assign you and Deathphoenix the joint task of clearing the disambig links to that page, and keeping it link free. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not watching AN/I, so if you happen to be wandering in from there to complain or comment, know that I'm staying away. If I see two people engaged in edit warring, I think that's disruptive and destructive, and I'll throw down an equal sided block on both parties in a heartbeat. I'm trying to minimise my involvement in Teh Dramah, so I don't watch AN/A, RfC, or God forbid get on IRC. But I still have a mop and I'm not afraid to use it. Cheers, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please unblock him immediately. MarkSweep's edits were a mass blanking campaign wholly unsanctioned by policy. Guanco is doing his job! See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MarkSweep.
StrangerInParadise 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Folks, there's a lot of concerns lately on Wikipedia about not wanting to risk wheel warring with other Admins. I think that's a good and respectable thing, and I appreciate the courtesy you have shown in not wanting to undo my block without discussing it with me first. However, in my mind, it's not a wheel war to simply undo another Admins's actions, no more than it's an edit war if somebody reverts my edits. If I were to turn around and re-block Guanaco after Friday unblocked him, that would be starting a wheel war, and that type of action I have a huge problem with. However, Admin actions are reversible by other Admins for a reason. Please don't forget that. It's part of what it means to be a Wiki. What courtesy on Wikipedia should be for Admins is the same for edits...don't get in an edit war, but discuss the issue and strive for consensus. If someone reverts my edits, ok, if I feel strongly about what I think it should say, let's discuss it. If someone undoes an Admin action of mine, ok, if I feel strongly about it let's discuss it, but know that A. I'm not going to be offended by it and B. I'm not going to re-block someone or stuff like that. That's just stupid, and that's what we all need to work against happening. Now, if Guanaco was in the right, and defending policy, fabulous. I blocked them both because what I saw was an edit war. I saw Guanaco and MarkSweep going back and forth. It would have been better for someone else to revert MarkSweep, rather than edit war himself. That's why I placed the block. I have no problem with Friday unblocking him, I know and trust Friday's judgement, and yours too NSLE. I may not be able to make you as comfortable as I think you should be with reverting other Admins actions, but know that with me, I assure you you are welcome to revert my actions, as I believe you have the power to do so for a reason. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin ( talk) 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems almost too obvious, but isn't SCOTT FISHER ( talk · contribs) a sock of Scottfisher ( talk · contribs)? And therefore shouldn't be editing? -- Calton | Talk 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Gee, that looks like fun...-- PabloMartinez 20:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)