What's your basis for that? I'm going to unprotect unless you can explain what aspect of the protection policy you're applying. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What's your basis for that? I'm going to unprotect unless you can explain what aspect of the protection policy you're applying. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
:I have [[WP:IAW|ignored all rules]] for the betterment of the project. Please do not [[WP:WHEEL|reverse]] the protection. [[User:Mercury|<strong><font color="#8B7B8B" face="Verdana">M<font color="black">er<font color="black">cury</font></font></font></strong>]] 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for all your work protecting wikipedia from the vandals, in particular the revert and protection of my talk page, Thanks! Tiddly-Tom 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Invisible Barnstar
For being with us for so long, and for fighting for this cause for years to come. Come, celebrate, raise a blass MarlithT/C 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Resilient Barnstar
Good to see you back. Hang in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catastrophe averted. Misclicked twinkle? Will(talk) 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, messing with the scripts. Apologies, Mercury 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pandora's box indeed. (:-)- Mtmelendez(Talk) 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorn Confederation
You marked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorn Confederation with the {{closing template but did not actually close the discussion. Since it had been longer than the 1 hour recommended by the template and something seems to have come up for you, I removed it to encourage someone else to close. Hope you are well. Eluchil404 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection of RuneScape
On WP:RPP, you said you had semi-protected RuneScape, as I requested; however, the page's log says you unprotected the already unprotected page instead, and it still isn't semi-protected. (I checked this by logging out and trying to edit it.) Could you please semi-protect the page? Pyrospirit (talk·contribs) 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had three misses with this new script. Bear with me while I get used to it. Protected. Regards, Mercury 17:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection requests
I apologise for requesting those. I thought I was trying to be helpful, but I've done it wrongly requesting those. Sorry. --Solumeirastalk 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your request was civil and logical. There are guidelines and such the help us determine where to apply protection. There was no harm in the request. No apology is needed. Keep up the good work. :) Mercury 18:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're an excellent admin yourself. Feel free to review me at my editor review soon... --Solumeirastalk 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA for Jonathan
I just wanted to let you know that I was actually able to see where you were coming from when Acalamari put it in terms of WP:Assume good faith. By the way, I just saw his RFA was closed, should that have been done? It was closed by a non-admin, which is unusual. Drop me a line and let me know what you think. Happy editing! Icestorm815 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. SNOW is not a policy, but something that we sometimes use. The RFA was highly unlikely to pass. Before I became an admin I've closed a couple that were highly unlikely to pass. It serves to prevent hard feelings and cuts a discussion short that has a particular end in sight. Only those experienced editors, admins or not, should be closing discussions as SNOW. Anymore questions be glad to answer. Mercury 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're usually good at these things. Can you protect the article. We've got me and bunch of others (some of whom are now participating admins), and some others on the other side edit warring. I'm at 3RR (no warning or blocking necessary). Can you protect the article and help build a consensus? The other side is wrong BTW :) OrangeMarlinTalk• Contributions 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the article, I'll see if anyone is interested in some informal mediation. Mercury 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E kala mai. You have an email. --Ali'i 13:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As do you. Mercury 13:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a monster
Best wishes with your candidacy! It was a pleasant surprise to see you'd thrown your hat into the ring. Warmly, DurovaCharge! 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and you as well. I think I'm clueful enough to be an asset, so we shall see if the community will permit me to do this. I hope so, I have the desire. Mercury 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whig's back.
So far, so good, but if you're not monitoring him, I'm going to have to reblock him.° Adam Cuerdentalk 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury, does this appear to be an unreasonable edit? Whig 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome back. I'm not all up with the subject, I think it would be dependent on the source. What does the sourcing say? Regards, Mercury 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google kali bichromicum and there are many sources. What statement needs better sourcing? Whig 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick google link. :) When I change or add an assertion, I try to add a reliable source. It helps me to have some ground to stand on if ever my edits get challenged. In the beginning, I used external links but as I learned Wikipedia, I started using what I believe are reliable sources. I'm not saying that this is you saying headache, but its always better to point at a source and say "This source asserts "headache". Regards, Mercury 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I add back my edit and add an RS? I don't want to provoke an edit war. Adam deleted it [1]. Whig 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an area where niceties are going to be important. Propose the Source on the talk page, and leave Adam a message on his talk page pointing him to the talk page. Ask him if he has any objections, if not, re add the edit. This prevents hard feelings in a content dispute, Downside, it may take time for Adam to respond. But hey, the article won't rot in a day. :) Regards, Mercury 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the confusion here, the edit history is concealed because there are several consolidated there. As far as it being a headache remedy, that is stated on the HeadOn article itself. Whig 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one of the defining facts about Potassium dichromate that it's used in homeopathy, funnily enough. Almost every basic substance and botanical is. Adam Cuerdentalk 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this comment:
There are a number of physical models proposed, including Bénard cells, vibrations, etc. We don't have instruments that I'm aware can prove which physical model is correct at this time, but we do know by the first law of thermodynamics that all energy is conserved, and we do know from quantum mechanics that particles and waves are physically interchangable. The atomic limit is not a real limit in physics. Whig 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In context, he's basically listing a lot of physics terms and claiming one of them is the proof of homeopathy, though he doesn't know which one. Adam Cuerdentalk 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sigh* he hasn't changed. I've reblocked him. He was starting to advocate for removing all criticism of Homeopathy from the lead again. The fellow does not understand NPOV, and is incapable of doing so. Adam Cuerdentalk 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury, as you've been working with User:Whig and probably have a better perspective on this matter than I, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this block at AN/I. MastCellTalk 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refrain from commenting on the reblock for now. Regards, Mercury 03:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why nearly block?
Why consider blocking me? You can see that I didn't take the 3RR policy as a permission to 3RR anywhere (see the St Johnsbury article), in contrast to Polaron actually committing a 4RR; and that I noted that I'd not go any farther, despite the 4RR. Nyttend 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any xRR beyond one , is disruptive. What you two were doing warranted a block, but since you are both contributing editors and I did not see any aggravating factors, I protected the pages involved. I normally issue out userblocks for this sort of thing. See WP:Edit warring. Regards, Mercury 01:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I can't be the only person who noticed this... what was that all about? – Gurch 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was multitasking. Mercury 03:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sorry for not assuming good faith – just that the last time someone fiddled with the Main Page, it was because they'd found the passwords to three administrator accounts. Important to know that sort of thing isn't going to happen again. Thanks – Gurch 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no apology needed for this. When account security is concerned, any suspicious behavior is worth investigating. Had I known that was what you were getting at, I would have sent you the challenge to my committed identity hash, and the offer still stands if you would like to verify me. Regards, Mercury 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 3RR
hey Mercury, concerning this:[2]....I think you actually supposed to list the time the individual is blocked for... Avec nat|Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 13:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. Mercury 13:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar!
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for all your work protecting wikipedia from the vandals, in particular the revert and protection of my talk page, Thanks! Tiddly-Tom 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :o) Mercury 16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon(t) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Question for You
I've looked over WP:Block and WP:Ban, and I'm still a little confused with the difference between a block and a ban? Is a ban a long, or indefinite form of a block? Could you please help me and clarify it for me? Thanks! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...the most fundamental difference, is that a BLOCK is a technical feature in the software. If I BLOCK you, then the only thing the software will permit you to edit is your own talk page. If you become BANned, this is a social construct. If by discussion involving several uninvolved editors results on a consensus to ban you from editing pizza articles, then you don't edit Pizza articles. Once you edit a pizza article, it may result in a BLOCK of your editing. There are many types of BANs. The implications of both a BLOCK in a BAN are detailed in those policy documents. Let me know you have specific questions about those. Regards, Mercury 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that just about covers it! Icestorm815 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page
The vandalism is minor and no trouble to revert, so I'd prefer to keep my talk page open for any genuine IP questions. Thanks for looking out for me though. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. And same. ;) Mercury 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Thank you for asking.
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
First and always, I'm an editor. I also do some janitorial work for the project. I indirectly help by answering emails
sent to the wikipedia/wikimedia email addresses via the OTRS system.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I've done some dispute resolution, and I have what it takes to arbitrate. I'm on every day, and I know I would like the work.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they #handled poorly?
I won't question the arbiters. They do hard work, and since I'm on the outside looking in, I don't have all the information.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I know the system, I have the aptitude, and I'm available.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315» 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
What's your basis for that? I'm going to unprotect unless you can explain what aspect of the protection policy you're applying. Christopher Parham(talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]