→Old RfAs: cmt |
Jdforrester (talk | contribs) →Email req: new section |
||
Line 385: | Line 385: | ||
As I understand it, it was your idea to create "archive" subpages for them from the old process page? I think it's handy to have them available by intuitively looking for the subpage in WP:RFA. However, I think a hatnote of sorts would be a good idea, with a link to the source page that contains the actual history. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
As I understand it, it was your idea to create "archive" subpages for them from the old process page? I think it's handy to have them available by intuitively looking for the subpage in WP:RFA. However, I think a hatnote of sorts would be a good idea, with a link to the source page that contains the actual history. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Nope, my idea was the categorize them, I think Majorly's was to subpage. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
:Nope, my idea was the categorize them, I think Majorly's was to subpage. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Email req == |
|||
''cross-posted'' |
|||
Have you had a chance to review my email request? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 11:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Sorry, only just now. If you want faster responses on matters like this, you should ask me directly by e-mail as a GC (which I review every day), as opposed to as an Arbitrator (once a week when things are very busy, as I need a few hours' concentration). :-( |
|||
: Yes, I'm happy to release you from the convention for this matter, if you think it necessary. It will be considered whether or not you post it publicly. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:16, 14 September 2008
Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Category tracker for CAT:DFUI | |
---|---|
Category | # of items |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 28 July 2011 | 4 |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 30 July 2011 | 1 |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 2 August 2011 | 1 |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 3 August 2011 | 6 |
Updated: 08:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
YOU!
TUSC token fa25b957c9efa54ee67b217d20c2934e
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Hello
Let's be friends
This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions
RfA thank you
— JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008
Autoformatting moderation
Thank you for doing this. I need to go to sleep now (it is late in my timezone), so I leave this matter in your capable hands. — OranL (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that the proposals idea has been rejected at the autoformatting dicussion page. Hopefully the discussion doesn't get too chaotic again. Thank you for your interest and support in trying to organize the discussion! — OranL (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Rollback? Hmmm.
So far, I haven't found the (undo) to be too burdensome. I do appreciate the thought, as it would not have occurred to me that rollback would be available except as part of a more general admin role which I certainly would not qualify for (I don't know enough and won't be doing enough work to learn). I mostly get involved with vandals only if they capture my attention. Glad I spotted the vandalism, and happy to zap it, always.
While I am not yet sure that the Wikipedia model is quite "It"... I am sure it is a magnificent tool and it pleases me to see so very many people building it up, and offends me to see others tearing it down.
Thanks for doing the Admin thing. :)
Barak Obama's Pastor
The page was deleted. I can not find the discussion on the page you provided as a link.EricDiesel (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin, Descriptions becoming names, Wikipedia General Notability Guideline
Could you weigh in on these issues, re descriptions becoming names and the the Wikipedia:Notability policy?
- Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and Sarah Palin
A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.
I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.
The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.
The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.
For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.
If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.
But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.
Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.
All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.
They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.
Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.
Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. These kinds of problems are going to recur, so a general policy for handling these should be arrived at. EricDiesel (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- We write articles about subjects who are notable in and of themselves, we do not create connections between living people or use generic names like "Friend of X"in titling our articles. We have a policy on biographies of living persons that requires we source any statement about a living person to a reliable source, I cannot ever foresee the day that we would define our own original research into what connections exist between people as a valid basis for naming articles. MBisanz talk 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Old RfAs
If you're going to categorise old RfAs, don't use the modern headers. Just stick the category at the bottom. By the way, you've missed loads out. Might be better to work on more of the successful ones. I'll eventually have every successful RfA in its own subpage. Majorly talk 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for being aware of Wikiversity and taking the time to help point people towards Wikiversity when their goals do not match the Wikipedia mission. Wikiversity started out as part of Wikibooks, but Jimmy Wales decided that Wikiversity should be an independent sister project. --JWSurf (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that is is a massive mistake to protect that article. Massive, and un-needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Sarah_Palin. MBisanz talk 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was the correct thing to do. If it was a mistake, it surely was not a "massive" one, but one that was reasonable to make. It appears that a consensus is emerging that the protection was correct, but that the time duration should be discussed further. Chillum 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. GRBerry 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A user with an OWN issue.
I thought I'll raise this for you. Sardaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a OWN issue on Sydney[1] over a category (Sydney Architecture) which also happens to have their images only within it. And then they sort of made a threatening sound comment on Talk:Sydney[2] and on User talk: Mvjs[3]. I've also posted an comment saying that I can see an OWN issue[4]. Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, which lists you as a party, has been opened.
- Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
- Your contributions are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.
If you have any queries, please drop me a note and I'll try and assist you.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Will present in due course, thank you for the notification. MBisanz talk 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
DYK!
Congratulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Protections of RFC pages
Could use a comment here. Thanks — Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have commented on User talk:Bidgee, [5]. From an AN/I report he filed, I became aware of this editor's activities with 104.1 Territory FM, where what might have been easily resolved with some civil negotiation turned into an edit war, resulted in the block of an editor, what should be a familiar story, all too often. When I intervened (with what became, hopefully, a consensus edit), he responded uncivilly, referring to some prior history between us as if it were a cause of this. I don't recall ever seeing his name before. But because he'd referred to prior history, I reviewed his contributions, and noticed a disturbing tendency to become involved in conflict that he may be creating by an aggressive approach. He uses edit warring to enforce his view of correct content; in a current situation, he referred to apparent good faith edits (albeit unsourced, turns out the source was personal knowledge verified by organizational records, the edit is the President of the organization -- yes, I've notified that editor of the problems with this) as "vandalism." Which they clearly were not. This kind of claim alienates inexperienced editors. If you have time, please look at Bidgee's edits. I warned him about his 3RR violations on Nathan Rees, and he reverted with "Stop harrassing me and stalking me!". (of course he has the right to delete from his Talk page, that's not the issue, the issue is the general behavior, and I'm not seeking to have him blocked, just that his behavior become less disruptive.) Obviously, this may take some assistance, he's not at all responsive to me, right from the start. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Abd is stalking my edit history which all started with 104.1 Territory FM article and is using this to harass me and ddrive me off Wikipedia and I'm not far from it. All this is about is the old CarolSpears/Blechnic issue back on AN/I a few months ago and is trying to under mine my work here. With the Nathan Rees article the content added was unsourced[6] and I even posted a message to help them which seemed to go un-noticed[7] which is why I then went to [8] then [9]. WTF at a editor being block? How I understand no editor from 104.1 Territory FM has been blocked. Bidgee (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I'm about to take a nap, so everyone, feel free to talk as much as you want here, just remember I am an involved administrator on both of you from past actions, so I can't do anything administrative to either one of you. MBisanz talk 16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggested you look at this as an administrator whom Bidgee might trust, seeking to resolve the issue (of editor behavior, there is no content issue at this point that I'm aware of and, in fact, I've basically agreed with (Nathan Rees) or compromised with (Territory FM) Bidgee's position. Edit warring, though, breeds edit warring. Lanatanabelle was apparently edit warring on the Territory FM article. Why? Because Bidgee was edit warring (I count 4 reverts on August 29). Was Bidgee correct on the content? Possibly. But we don't need to make that judgment. 3RR isn't permitted based on correct content, except under some circumstances with BLP, which don't apply with Territory and possibly not with Rees. Complicating it is that Lanatanabelle may be an SPA, etc.
- Mbisanz, though, yes, you should not block me because of prior involvement (though I'd actually waive that, it's not necessary for me to do so), you can certainly warn me if I'm off-base. And I assume we would discuss it civilly and come to consensus.
- Meanwhile, Bidgee has retired. See [11], [12] (in which Bidgee apparently takes Minkythecat's sarcastic supportive comment as meaning the reverse of Minky's intention) [13], [14], and [15]. Bidgee was under no threat from me, so his retirement is a mystery, unless he is one of a class of editors who bail when they find that others can see what they do, and sometimes intervene to reduce damage. Absolutely, I did not seek his retirement, nor did I make any charges against him, beyond noting 3RR, but not reporting it, that would rise, in my opinion, to blockworthiness unless a pattern were repeated after proper process to effectively warn.
- The Carol Spears/Blechnic connection is mysterious to me, certainly I wasn't aware of it, I'll look back. Blechnic apparently also retired when I became involved; there, I was definitely hard on Blechnic, who nearly harassed and hounded a very productive editor off the project. Blechnic made no retirement announcement, he simply stopped editing, abruptly. Even with Blechnic, I wasn't pursuing him and merely mentioned him and his activities when arguing for the lifting of the topic ban on User:Wilhelmina Will, a project that succeeded, even though I was blocked in the process. Now, with Bidgee retired, I wonder what we would find if we actually look closely at what he was doing? From what little I've seen, there might be a lot of cleanup. Not article cleanup, but editor cleanup, editors who were damaged needlessly. It may be possible to undo some of that. --Abd (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Now, with Bidgee retired, I wonder what we would find if we actually look closely at what he was doing? From what little I've seen, there might be a lot of cleanup. Not article cleanup, but editor cleanup, editors who were damaged needlessly. It may be possible to undo some of that."
- This is what I thought it was. Your using me as a witch hunt. My edits are fine here and I've not damaged the project. Stop your stalking and harassments.
- "[16] (in which Bidgee apparently takes Minkythecat's sarcastic supportive comment as meaning the reverse of Minky's intention)"
- That comment wasn't for Minky (My net lagged when posting and seen the comment made by Minky and thought it be best to remove). Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. I don't find the parenthetical explanation above comprehensible, like a fair amount of what Bidgee has written.
- Bidgee, if you unretire, I'd suggest finding an experienced editor whom you trust to advise you when you find yourself in conflict, because it seems reasonably likely to me that you aren't understanding much of what's going on. I did not attack you and have not been harassing you, had no goal of driving you off or of interfering with your legitimate editing; I merely noticed two incidents where you might have been more engaging and civil, and intervened to help resolve the issues without any further blocks or AN/I reports or the like.
- The connection with Carol Spears/Blechnic I still don't understand, but for sure I had no idea that you had been involved with me in the past or who you were. My comment above about reviewing your work was in the first person plural, and not necessarily something I'd do myself, but this kind of thing isn't harassment at all, it is prudence; consider, for example, those who felt it necessary to clean up after Carol Spears, rightly or wrongly.
- If your behavior in other situations was like that in the two incidents I've seen, I'm saying, there is likely some work to do. Your edits seem to have been technically correct, so the "work" would not be an undoing of your article work, but identifying, possibly, editors who may have been blocked or otherwise frustrated without necessity, like the two involved in these two incidents. What I'd do there, if it's me, is to apologize for the misunderstandings, and attempt to make sure that the legitimate concerns of those editors are respected. For example, with Nathan Rees, the editor you were reverting seems, if we AGF, to have been quite ignorant of what was happening, and I'm working with him to see if his insertion can be sourced; it may be possible.
- That you removed the material isn't the problem, it's how you did it, calling it "vandalism," which is something that Blechnic also did with edits of Wilhelmina Will and, I think, Carol Spears, when the edits were clearly good faith edits, even though improper. --Abd (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
IRC logs & RFAR
FYI, I asked MZM here if he'd be willing to release what he said. Would you also send those full logs to arcom-l? rootology (C)(T) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Janna BOT?
Why doesn't this have "bot" in the name? Aren't bots supposed to have bot in the name so we know it's a bot? How many nonbots have a bot flag? What is the effect of a bot flag on a regular user account? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some bots don't have bot in there name, per [18], not many, but since this bot is only for using the HighAPILimit query function (it can read bigger chunks of the database at a single time) and not the HideRecentChanges edit function, it shouldn't create an issue. Ideally all bots should have "bot" in their name, but since this account was only deflagged for inactivity and won't be editing, I didn't see enough of an issue to ask the operator to get a rename. MBisanz talk 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK on this one, but what about Danielfolsom2? It's a real bot and I think we should enforce actual bots having bots in their name. How likely is it we can enforce this, at least from now on, and even change the names of bots like Danielfolsom2? I feel very strongly about bots having bots in their name. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd ask Janna's owner if he'd be "OK" with a rename, since there really is no reason a person can't change the name of a bot account. Danielfolsom2 also probably should have a rename. Right now bot policy says
- OK on this one, but what about Danielfolsom2? It's a real bot and I think we should enforce actual bots having bots in their name. How likely is it we can enforce this, at least from now on, and even change the names of bots like Danielfolsom2? I feel very strongly about bots having bots in their name. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- "The account's name should identify the operator or bot function, and make the nature of the account clear by incorporating the word "bot", with exception for bots already active on other wikis."
- Please approach those two about rename and go about changing BAG policy as you guys handle that. If you want other crat input, ask or ask me to handle that end. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Proposed_change MBisanz talk 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please approach those two about rename and go about changing BAG policy as you guys handle that. If you want other crat input, ask or ask me to handle that end. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Bleh, I'd rather not rename, but in the spirit of compromise, feel free to rename to User:Janna Isabot. (I hope my scripts can all handle the space.) Anthony (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the nice note on my Talk page. I think a teensy bit of my AN/I comment was that since I haven't walked in an Admin's shoes, I really didn't want to be telling an Admin what I thought was best practice. Yet I honestly couldn't figure out why that was there, other than the person wanted to vent. (Which IMVHO doesn't seem to fit on AN/I either. But again, that's where my limit of Wikiknowledge takes over.) ;) LaughingVulcan 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom
Have you considered running? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please check User:MBisanz/ACE2008#Formally_declined and [19], although I am gracious that you would think to suggest I run. MBisanz talk 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please check your e-mail too, for a message related to tonight's event. Sorry for the short notice, and thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
AOR
This question should not be used for the basis of one's !vote. In fact, the question itself is extremely unpopular as it poison's the well. General consensus is that it shouldn't be asked.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence
Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.
To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.
Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence
- Okey, I had intended to mostly agree with Rootology and GRBerry in fulfilling Brad's request, but will try to craft my own section tonight. MBisanz talk 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Request
Hi there Matt. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Visibility-IT
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-IT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Visibility-CT
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-CT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Visibility-HT
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-HT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Visibility-MT
A tag has been placed on Template:Visibility-MT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A tough one to fix... though I did okay for not being able to read Croatian. Can you suggest what else I might do to improve this thing? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very cool, and thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Your MisInformed suggestion
Im taking the time to reply to everyone remarks on the ANI thread. In your case this "I'm beginning to wonder if some further level of dispute resolution will not be required here. Prom3th3an originally began feuding with Deskana, than me when I intervened as an uninvolved admin, and now AuburnPilot. It seems like there is a definite pattern of disruption and incivility developing here."
Answer:
- Deskana - Cooldown Block
- MBisanz - Punitive Removal of Rollback and Account Creator
- AuburnPilot - Not saying please.
I only feud with those who are rude, interfere or abuse thier rights, in your case all three. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have apparently committed a hat trick worth of bad things. Still standing by my ANI statement. MBisanz talk 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Im glad that you can put a positive spin on an otherwise admittedly shitty situation Ive been in for the last 2-3 months. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Prom3th3an Humour Barnstar | ||
I Prom3th3an, Almighty comedian of Wikipedia hereby award you (MBisanz) this barnstar for doing or saying something that I found extremly humourous or otherwise witty beyond expectation. Take a bow. PS: Your name has now been crossed of my whichunt list ;) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
A Little Help
Hi. I accidently loss some sort of program on my computer or I think I accidently uninstalled it. I was wondering, would it be free to upload the Adobe's Flash Player? Also the same for Macromedia Flash Player and any of the other Adobe programs. CHANLONG (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Also what is JavaScript?
- No, I'm sorry, Wikipedia only accepts free media, uploading copyrighted programs is not permitted. Please try another site like www.download.com. MBisanz talk 04:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Statest.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Statest.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Taint
Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taint (slang) (2nd nomination) as a redirect, which I agree with - just letting you know that you unfortunately redirected the wrong page! You redirected Taint, the disambiguation page, when the AfD was for Taint (slang). I've corrected the redirect and the talk-page messages, just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! ~ mazca t | c 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Relist problem
I know several people have been having a problem with a relist user script lately, so perhaps this is the case with you? I completed the relist process for you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health_care_politics, (the commenting out on the old log and the transclusion on the current log). If it was just an oversight or internet connection problem or whatever, then no problem, but if it is a user script problem, please have it looked at by the script developer. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't a connection error, so I will inform the script writer. MBisanz talk 02:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- WORKSFORME. Did it actually say it finished? Sometimes the server will hang on relists, trying to save 3 pages at once and it can take a few seconds for all of them to finish. Mr.Z-man 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Same issue for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inferno (truck); was probably from before I notified you last time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, that was after, this is very odd, I think the script is not commenting correctly. I'll avoid any more relists tonight with it. MBisanz talk 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, don't mean to be a pain, but there is another problem with some of your relists. The relist template was substed twice in a row on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Rey (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inferno (truck). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Old RfAs
As I understand it, it was your idea to create "archive" subpages for them from the old process page? I think it's handy to have them available by intuitively looking for the subpage in WP:RFA. However, I think a hatnote of sorts would be a good idea, with a link to the source page that contains the actual history. Everyme 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, my idea was the categorize them, I think Majorly's was to subpage. MBisanz talk 10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Email req
cross-posted
Have you had a chance to review my email request? MBisanz talk 11:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, only just now. If you want faster responses on matters like this, you should ask me directly by e-mail as a GC (which I review every day), as opposed to as an Arbitrator (once a week when things are very busy, as I need a few hours' concentration). :-(
- Yes, I'm happy to release you from the convention for this matter, if you think it necessary. It will be considered whether or not you post it publicly.
- James F. (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)