User talk:Harej/Archive03
Chris DeJoseph
[edit]Christoper DeJoseph must be re added to wikipedia immediately, has appeared several times as "Big Dick Johnson" on WWE Programming including November 6th edition of Raw, for DX. He must me accounted for.
Looks Good, Help
[edit]Your User page looks amazing, can you help me out? :P btg2290 02:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
British Royal Family Article
[edit]It's annoying to enter an article and meet a low-resolition image (specially pictures). If there was a high resolution of the British Royal Family in the respective article, what did you upload a low-res one for, erasing the high-res one? There was no need, and the proof that you've done that is that below the image says:
"Image based on Image:British Royal Family.jpg with image resolution reduction by Messedrocker."
Please put back the high-res image in the article, or shall I, in a one-week term, replace the picture with a new high-res one.
Sincerely, Darío
- Hello, Dario. I had to replace the old, large version with this smaller one because it is not a copyleft or public domain image: it has to be able to comply with out fair use policy. In order for our use of it to be considered fair use, the image has to be a small resolution so the copyright holder will be able to distribute a higher-res version with no problem. Is there anything you would like me to clarify? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing, thanks and sorry for the waste of time; anyway, I'll get a few pics for Wikipedia with no rights on it.
Sincerly, Darío
Your revert of my user talk using rollback
[edit]Highly inappropriate use of rollback, Messed, and you should know that. I've seen it, and from my discussion with the user on IRC I am disregarding it as a trollish attack. (Definition of troll here to be from troll (internet): disruption, in the form of posting inflammatory comments.) Please don't use rollback incorrectly, admins have been punished in the past for such. – Chacor 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding where I'm coming from. I'll leave the message alone now. P.S. good epsiode of WEEKLY, hopefully you can make it to do a piece on Esperanza soon. – Chacor 12:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | 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 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stay here
[edit]I don't know what your problem is, but please don't go. You are very valued here, and we all appreciate your work. If you need to talk, we are all open.--Chili14 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nice words. I'm just concerned because a person who I like, a very insightful person, flat out told me that they don't trust me because I happen to like a certain person. See, this is a blow to me. Trust is the only reason I've managed to make it this far: I can't say I've done a large amount in terms of encyclopedic contributions. If you could remind me, that's great. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I would really like it if you would email me, so we can discuss this further without everybody seeing it.--Chili 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, though my withdrawal from the ArbCom campaign has lifted my spirits considerably, and has given me a renewed interest in writing. Thanks for the kind words when I needed it, now life is skittles and beer. (Pass the Skittlebrau!) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you think is best. Are you going to take yourself off of the EA Alerts page now?--Chili 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Another Please Stay
[edit]You were one of the first users here I looked up to in a way, please stay, it would be a great loss to the encyclopedia. Canadian-Bacon t c 04:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- What can I say, I am an elder to a lot of people. :) Luckily, you commented just as I was about to remove myself from the Esperanza alert page. In any case, thank you. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to see that you've taken yourself off. You are like a family member here, and I wouldn't stand it if a member of the family left us. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?•meow! 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hoorah!
[edit]Adding another section, just so I can feel special :-P
I'm so glad you decided to stay... I had a "please don't go" message all written up for you last night, had it open ready to be saved, fell asleep, and then woke up this morning to find you'd changed your mind. I'm so glad to hear that! You would've been missed, you do lots of good work here. I certainly hope you don't feel like that again, since it is completely unwarranted! Cheers, — Editor at Large(speak) 11:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just curious - why isn't User:Messedrocker/Stablepedia in the Wikipedia: space? Sounds like something that should be. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'm in. I'm a bit fuzzy on what the criteria and process are. Is someone reviewing the entries? Is there some minimum level of notability required? I've put a lot of time into some peculiar subjects and I wouldn't be surprised (or offended) if the level of notability was deemed unworthy. One of the first baseball cards I ever had was of Tim Foli so he was the coolest to me and, 25 years later, I put a large amount of time into his article here. But I'd guess anyone not knowledgeable in 1970s baseball would have no clue who he was! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- My last post is related to your edit summary here. I didn't know me putting it there meant that it had been "reviewed" as that count says. I had it in my mind that the list I added to was the list of articles to be reviewed. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, you asked for it! Another side-effect of adding and editing obscure articles is that I'm pretty much by myself so they're all stable! :) I'll go ahead and add a bunch. Feel free to take them off if you want. But do please let me know if you do take them off so I'll have an idea of what needs improvement. I read some of my old contributions and they sound like crap to me now - so I won't be offended. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- My last post is related to your edit summary here. I didn't know me putting it there meant that it had been "reviewed" as that count says. I had it in my mind that the list I added to was the list of articles to be reviewed. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit]I was just browsing around, and saw your sig, and decided to click it, and looked at your userpage and saw you started editing 26th of November 04. Happy First edit day!
| HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! | from Deon | |
|---|---|---|
  Wishing Harej/Archive03 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From Deon | ||
Blocking the government
[edit]Yeah, I wrote to Uninvited company, as I couldn't find instructions for contacting the committee wholesale, and he's a member who's been active lately. Do you know of any other way I should proceed? Mangojuicetalk 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Macca
[edit]You didn't just move McCartney's solo career (from Paul McCartney) to the relevant page (which is a good idea) you also moved a whole mountain of stuff that deals with John Lennon's death, the Anthology CDs, the death of George Harrison, his 64th birthday, his unreleased collaboration with Yoko (with Linda) and his Grammy award. You also have an opening line that reads, "Following the breakup of The Beatles on 10 April 1970, Paul McCartney then persued a solo career", which completely negates Wings. Then you ask "someone" to write a summary. I am speechless... --andreasegde 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- No - You do it. Put the relevant bits back and write a summary. We all work together on the Macca page, and it's a great/new experience for us all. Join us, and make a contribution (you will be very welcome) but don't forget that we do it together :) --andreasegde 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting it back. Your idea of creating a fork is a good one, but we're still writing/polishing the Macca page... --andreasegde 12:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 27th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | 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 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Live Collaboration
[edit]Hello, friends! If you are here it is probably because I pressured you to go here, or you saw my Village Pump post, or for any other reason. In any case, I am interested in spending a night doing a live collaboration on an article that can use some help from plenty of people editing it. Simultaneously. What I am talking about is the Google Docs & Spreadsheets feature (formerly Writely), which allows multiple people to work on a document at once. I figured thisd could be used for a live collaboration, so who would be interested in spending a Friday night doing this? Any ideas for articles we could work on? Or perhaps a time? (I'm interested on keeping it as a Friday-night or Saturday thing. I wouldn't mind Saturday 0100 UTC, which corresponds to 8PM Friday Eastern Standard Time.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear on what you intend to do.... ---J.S (t|c) 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why is working through Google Docs & Spreadsheets going to be different/better than working in wiki? --JWSchmidt 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Spotlight is a different way to do live collaboration. MediaWiki already has versioning built in, and most people are familiar with that already... why not stick with that? --Interiot 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- With Google Docs & Spreadsheets we can be working simultaneously. Imagine that. Anyays, we still should pick out an article if you're still interested. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Spotlight is a different way to do live collaboration. MediaWiki already has versioning built in, and most people are familiar with that already... why not stick with that? --Interiot 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why is working through Google Docs & Spreadsheets going to be different/better than working in wiki? --JWSchmidt 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
re:Sprotect2
[edit]Well, it's going to be blocked for a long-time, no doubt. I think semi-protection indef is against policy, so I guess if things quiet down after a while the article will get unprotected. Guess Sprotect2 is best for now :) semper fi — Moe 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm.. reading WP:SEMI it doesn't say anything about indef protecting an article. Strange, I thought it did :\ semper fi — Moe 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I know thats what you meant :) semper fi — Moe 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It has been three days since the protection, so I was thinking it was time to unlock it perhaps. I will keep an eye on it for awhile either way, just in case. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I need the page undeleted so I can see the history and text. I intend to refine the text and source it. --Cat out 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Unprotection request
[edit]Do you think it's reasonable to unprotect Template:Proposed now? I believe from the talk page that the issue of how to link to WP:CON is resolved now (I don't mind either way, really). The issue that people should be warned against calling a formal vote is unrelated to that. (Radiant) 12:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, created it! Please add it to your whatclist and/or todolist :) --Cat out 05:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
longer comments please... 100 characters is enough. - crz crztalk 05:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a 'Famous Wiganer'
[edit]- Please include Arnold Schwarzenegger at the top of the 'Famous People' list in the article on 'Wigan'. He lived in Pemberton in the 1970's, with his ,then, girlfriend, in her parents house, before going on to America, with Frank Richards, where they both worked in Joe Weiders factory. Pemberton is a place next to Wigan. Please put that he lived 'in the Wigan area in the 1970's'. Thanks.
Also include 'Frank Richards', 'bodybuilder, Mr Olympia contender'. (Arnold's mate from Wigan). 80.192.242.187 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.
- Thank you for the suggested edits. Do you have sources for this information? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- IT'S TRUE!! if you look at my IP histories then you will see that I have done nothing but disagree with things that the above poster has said, however I strongly agree 100% with his claims above about Arnold Schwarzenegger and Frank Richards.
Frank Richards - Bodybuilder, Winner of Mr Universe (Tall) 1970, Winner of Mr World (Tall) 1968, Winner of Mr Britain 1969, Top 10 Mr Olympia 1985.
Link:- http://www.musclememory.com/show.php?a=Richard,+Frank
Pictures of Frank from Wigan here (bottom of page):-
Link:- http://www.classicbodybuilders.co.uk/r2.shtml
Although the pages linked to quote his name as 'Frank Richard' it is indeed 'Frank Richards'
- The fact that Arnold Schwarzeneggers name would be immediately removed, if it was included on the list, was spoke about before it was put on there. And it's true. It was removed immediately because it was thought to be a pisstake. Actually, it IS true. Arnold stayed in Marsh Green/Kitt Green at his then girlfriends parents house. He also stayed at Franks.
Why does proof need to be cited? Theres no proof that some of the other Famous Wiganers have lived in Wigan.
Arnold Scwarzenegger HAS lived in Wigan/Wigan area for a very short time during his bodybuilding days (before he was a famous actor), unfortunately there is no source on the internet that I can find. However I know Frank Richards and will find out the exact information, why? when? where? how long etc
Watch this space
82.33.171.111 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe every fact inserted into Wikipedia should have a source. (The exception being the extremely obvious, like 'living humans breathe' or '1+1=2'). The fact that these two gentlemen lived in Wigan isn't "extremely obvious" so I would like a source. (All I need now is a source for the bit about Arnold.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 4th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | 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 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
On deleting revisions
[edit]Well, I had the possibility to delete revisions before I handed in my sysop bit :-). Anyway, the way I deleted revisions is not entirely irreversible (it is the people with oversight access who have that capability), they are just split off from the main history and moved to a different title and deleted there. I did this only a few times, and only when there was libellous content in the offending revisions which needed sterner treatment than merely reverting. The process is as follows:
- Delete the article you wish to delete revisions from.
- Restore the offensive versions.
- Move the offensive versions to a throwaway title (the last time I did this it was River Dell Regional High School to River Dell Regional High School/dump).
- Delete the offensive versions at the throwaway title.
- Go back to the original article and restore the remaining versions.
- There will be a vestigial redirect at the top of the page history, so just revert back to the version which has content, you may need to reload the page bypassing your cache (Ctrl+Shift+R) in order to get access to the full history.
One word of caution about this, deleting and restoring very large articles with thousands and thousands of revisions, such as George W. Bush or Wikipedia, may drain the system servers and slow down the website considerably for a while. If you need to delete something from articles of that nature, go to someone with oversight access (these are usually the same people as those on ArbCom) and ask for help.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Meetup
[edit]It was a pleasure, likewise. Pretty cool, no? Lots of geeks in a small space. Long live the internet. - crz crztalk 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also had a great time and hope we'll all do something similar again soon. Give my regards also to your chauffeur. :) Newyorkbrad 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
French Translation
[edit]I thought I should let you know I put a line on the English "Phalanx Formation" Discussion page that you should verify. By the way, thanks for the talk page note - I don't have many notes from other Wikipedians (unless I'm looking for help). Thanks!
-ExNoctem 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:WTC In Memorium.png listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WTC In Memorium.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you do upload a sourced image, please note the spelling is "memoriam." Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 11th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | 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 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Meetup NYC
[edit]Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
NYC Meetup
[edit]It was nice to meet you too! -Reagle 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"Guest of honor"? Good thing I didn't know about that beforehand; the pressure would have killed me. ;-) Cheers and good to meet you in person. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | 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 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: Block messages
[edit]Okay, I'll stop. I was think that I should stop now, any ways- if the user evr wants to do it again, they'll have to go through a lot of work for it. Cheers! —¡Randfan!Sign here? 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, what fun.
[edit]I have about had it with these threats from other users angry over this "Sam Andrews" troll. What do I need to do to see this matter dropped? - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom clarification
[edit]Thank you for unblocking the user in question. See this thread on ANI for more background if you are interested. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
*Is Very Confused*
[edit]Either I have been doing something wrong without knowing it, or someone has been misinterpreting what I've been doing, or both. I have left a message on the incidence board that (hopefully) explains my part in this accurately. All I'm asking is that if I am doing something that isn't in accordance with policy, that someone tell me so on my talk page. Since if I have, no one has talked to me yet. >_> -WarthogDemon 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice jorb. :) ~ EdBoy[c] 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded! :) Tkenna 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Winterval(s)!!!! (12-22-06)
[edit] |
- God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Randfan!Sign here? 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-Note:I was planning to hand these out on the 22 of Dec. Happy holidays —¡Randfan!Sign here? 23:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | 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 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The historical option for Esperanza
[edit]Your solution seems to be getting a fair bit of support - I've also seen other alternatives, ranging from deleting & salting the lot, or tagging everything historical, to writing a quick paragraph, or even a full essay about it. Should that essay replace the main page, or be somewhere else? Some people have said to tag all the historical pages that are "relevant", but what's relevant is an open question. I've tried to write up a more detailed option on Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza which tries to cover all these points - I'd appreciate any feedback. Cheers! Quack 688 06:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's one thing to write an essay somewhere, which makes the point that an AfD that nominates too many different things at once could lead to a "no consensus" trainwreck. However, it's better to have an example like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles to point to. I'm using the same logic here. It's one thing to tell people in the future, "Don't make WikiProjects too bureaucratic". But pointing them to Esperanza will let them see with their own eyes. I suppose if the sub-pages are blanked and re-directed, anyone would be able to look at the edit history and see this for themselves. But as long as they're able to see the history somehow, they'll be in a better position to figure out for themselves that too much bureaucracy is a bad thing. Quack 688 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your investigation
[edit]The Lucky 6.9 case has now been archived. Did you reach any conclusions? — Sebastian 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wonder the same thing too. I'd never heard of Lucky 6.9 until yesterday, until he caught my attention by unilaterally deleting a page I created that I know doesn't fit WP:CSD. Then when I went to warn him about it, my warning mysteriously disappears. It seems WarthogDemon (talk · contribs) now does all the dirty-work of removing things from his talk page that he doesn't like, at Lucky's direct request (example where WarthogDemon notes in the edit summary that he did so at Lucky's request), citing "personal attacks" for even the slightest criticism. Another recent example.
- It seems that instances of these complaints go back all the way before Lucky's RfA days, when his first one, two, three, RfA's went nowhere and his fourth succeeded only with people expressing concerns that he inappropriately tags material for speedy deletion, supporting only under the condition that he apparently would change. Well, guess what - it seems the problem rages on.
- Clearly, whatever problems there are, are still going on and haven't simply settled themselves over time. Reswobslc 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your reply. I trust that you are trying to do the right thing, and if nothing else happens, my "gripe" has been handled better than I could have expected. I would like to make a couple comments for your consideration.
- 1. Let's assume that my article is a candidate for speedy due to no assertion of notability. In my opinion, that's not even why Lucky deleted in in the first place. After having been an administrator this long (!!!!) there is something wrong if he hasn't figured out that he should give a CSD reason if he is going to act on his own speedy-delete proposal. "This isn't the Urban Dictionary" doesn't mean "non-notable" to me - instead, it means "This article doesn't satisfy my personal criteria of what I think Wikipedia should include" - and with either interpretation, it's so open to interpretation that an administrator who has been one this long (!!!!) should know better than to wipe out others' work, and instead of a simple "nn" or WP:N tag, go to the effort of making a comment like this.
- 2. Also consider that WP:CSD only includes non-notability for uncontroversially unremarkable articles about people, groups, companies, and web content, and recommends AfD for non-notability assertions that are controversial (see A7). To my understanding, words like "hershey squirt" don't even fit this category at all - at their worst they're neologisms - which are AfD/prod material, not speedy. This isn't an attempt to wikilawyer - as I'm not asking you to change your mind or even reply. But what I am suggesting is that the idea that Lucky "accidentally" even failed to provide this arguably inapplicable rationale isn't even his own omission and not one that should be claimed on his behalf. My article could have well been fodder for deletion, but I'd have appreciated hearing that from the community in AfD rather than for someone who still can't be bothered to follow the rules to simply decide on the community's behalf.
- 3. As much as I'd like to WP:AGF, there is no escaping that complaints of this guy deleting things that shouldn't or probably shouldn't be deleted are not only very disruptive to Wikipedia, and but so persistent over years to the point they predate his RfA that there's no good reason they should keep happening. AGF does not mean to tolerate and enabled persistent continued disruption, any more than a bank teller who embezzles only $1 every day for snacks should be given continued access to others' money. There is a problem that isn't going away on its own.
- Thanks, and I am happy no matter what you finally determine. Reswobslc 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Talk Pages
[edit]I viewed it as needlessly harsh the first time so I removed it. When I saw it brought up again, rather than simply creating an edit war, I just struck out two sentences. Perhaps I have acted in bad faith here; it just seems to me that harrassment of Lucky 6.9 is starting to come in the form of arbitration threats. I am not biased (at least I hope not) and have been unsure if my helping out with Lucky is causing more problems than it is solving problems. I have recieved little feedback on this so I've decided to open up a Mediation Case on myself: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/WarthogDemon's Help With Tidying Lucky 6.9's Talk Page. I'm hoping it will provide a definite result with regards to my behavior on Wikipedia. I do agree with your statement on my talk page, and reflecting back, perhaps my edits were out of some bad faith and bias. If it's deemed okay that I do help Lucky in this regard, I'll try to be carefull of what I remove and, if its possible, get feedback should I make any further editing mistakes. -WarthogDemon 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Still, I would like to have some feedback. I'm not sure if I know where I draw the line at abusive/acceptable. (For example I actually considered deleting the two aformentioned sentences but that would technically have been tpv). If it somehow does become a big messy problem, I'll simply stop helping out on Lucky's talk page. Aside from general Wikipedian disruption, it'll do no good if I'm doubling the conflict Lucky has to deal with. -WarthogDemon 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This has gotten absolutely ridiculous as evidenced by the comment some user just left regarding my deletion of his "Hershey squirts" nonsense. I have about had it with this site eating its own. - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Double Redirect Bot
[edit]Seeing as you did it for Wikinews, could you do it for Wikipedia? Please? =) -Slash-μιλώ 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, my bot is authorized to fix double redirects. It's just that there's a bunch of bots out there that beat me to it. I'm going to see if I can whip out my bot and sic it on some double redirects. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comments is one example; don't worry, your bot will do just fine. =) -Slash-μιλώ 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, my bot is authorized to fix double redirects. It's just that there's a bunch of bots out there that beat me to it. I'm going to see if I can whip out my bot and sic it on some double redirects. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
historical essay
[edit]Hi Messedrocker, I started to write an essay about Esperanza, but my participation within it was relatively brief. You're welcome to use any of what I wrote. I do believe that the essay will have to include input from people who wanted to keep it, those who wanted to delete it, and especially those who know its history. If I can be of any help with writing it, please tell me. --Kyoko 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, what I had planned was intended to be much longer, but I wanted to get down at least an introductory sentence. Primarily I wanted to explain how the group developed, how it apparently had a debate about leadership in 2005, the various initiatives (stress alerts, coffee lounge, userpage award, etc.), and how it eventually (in the eyes of many) became a community within a community rather than its original intent. Or something like that. --Kyoko 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Messedrocker, if you thinking of including any history about it, it was always interesting how the creation of the logo came about; the info is on the image's page (Image:Esperanza.svg). I'm sure it's too detailed to talk about specifically, but it might give you some background information. -- Natalya 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- You may wish to include the new locations of Esperanza's surviving programs, so as to allow the community/ex-members to migrate accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Where are you writing your essay? Can we see any of it?--CJ King 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nice job with that, Messedrocker. You've written up the positive and negative aspects of the entire thing in a nicely non-biased manner. Thanks for doing that. -- Natalya 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome - they are deserved! -- Natalya 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats on the two and a bit years, that's pretty exciting. -- Natalya 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome - they are deserved! -- Natalya 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Great job with the essay! I hope my edits to it haven't detracted to what you wrote. --Kyoko 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nice. One small nitpick: the essay says Stressbusters was deleted, but it's still around: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Wikidemia/Stressbusters. >Radiant< 08:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | 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 07:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
State legislators
[edit]Here's a few lists of lists of state legislators and websites with biographical information. Daniel Bush 21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Alabama Senate http://www.legislature.state.al.us/senate/senate.html
- Alaska House of Representatives http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/house/24/house.htm
- Alaska Senate http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/senate/24/senate.htm
- Arizona House of Representatives http://www.azhouse.gov/
- Arizona Senate http://www.azsenate.gov/
- Tennessee House of Representatives http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/house/members/hmembers.htm
Re: An assistant to Wherebot
[edit]Your suggestion is a good idea, is technically possible, and I would be quite willing to do it. Unfortunately, as I will be studying for exams for the next few weeks, I will likely not finish this task for quite some time. If a month or so is too long for you, I will be willing to supply the source code so you can make the modifications.
(One problem is that Yahoo allows a number of queries per IP address, so all accounts on the toolserver are restricted to a certain amount of searches. Perhaps this problem could be circumvented by using the web interface, but I will have to look into whether this conflicts with Yahoo's Terms of Service.) -- Where 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you for your understanding :). The bot can run fine under Windows or Mac OS, although it probably will take some effort to set up. -- Where 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism to List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy
[edit]Hi messedrocker. You asked me to let you know if we have any more problems with vandalism to this article. We do. Somebody keeps adding mythical characters to the article, like fairies or mimes. 68.37.205.18 did it, and I issued him a final warning, as he has already been blocked for one month for vandalizing this article, and others. Then, very shortly afterward, a new user called Ronnuhel showed up with the very same vandalism. I issued him a first level warning. Please keep your eye on this page for awhile. We need help from admin. Thank you. -- Elaich 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | 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 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | 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 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixing redirects
[edit]Hi. If I move a page with lots of incoming links, do I have to ask your bot to help fix the redirects that develop, or will it take care of the problem eventually? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
About your protection of the adolescent sexuality article.
[edit]Well, Someone finally protected it. But you did so at the wrong time, right after a certain user whose name i won't mention due to fear of being lashed out at, added the following and twisted some peoples words around, (As well as literally cutting out chunks of certain viewpoints in order to decrease validity) Places of concern (Which i found on a quick scan through of ONLY the first three or so paragraphs... are below.
In the United States most teenage sexual encounters today take place outside the context of romantic relationships
Increasingly, teenage sexual encounters in the United States do not occur in the context of a romantic relationship
These are two instances, one is sourced from Leonard Sax, the other is a paraphrase Which i presume was used as an excuse to put in a qoute TWO times.
Most experts agree that "teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior.
Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents. All "teens have sexual lives, whether with others or through fantasies."[1] Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives. ... The question is whether they are going to have healthy experiences, at any or every level of sexual activity."[2] Both boys and girls are now "entering puberty at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively."[3]
Obviously POV, the orginial citation (AS admitted by this user, was a sweeping geenralization that said ALL teenagers are too young. That in itself caused me to engage in an edit war due to it's POV, but now the quote itself has been twisted into a weasel-word so that it says MOST experts) And there are PLENTY of experts on the subject who don't share that view AT ALL. The ALL part was removed, but just so it could be twisted more. I don't think Lynn Ponton, the person who said this quote even said All teens, just teens)
The lead has been filled with THIS despite my best efforts.
Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents. All "teens have sexual lives, whether with others or through fantasies."[1] Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives. ... The question is whether they are going to have healthy experiences, at any or every level of sexual activity."[2] Both boys and girls are now "entering puberty at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively."[3]
Although I had proposed (This was one of the earlier leads as posted by someone) this NPOV statement in order to try and stop the disputes.... the user reverted it multiple times.
Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms.
And lastly (There are more things but I won't bother to go over them)
While Advocates for Youth [1], a 'limb' of the youth rights movement advocates for comprehensive sex education and fully supports allowing adolescents to make sexual decisions on their own but encourages the use ofcontraception (At least condoms if Male-Male or Male-Female) every time they have sex in order to avoid unintended pregnancy and the transmission of HIV/AIDS. [2]
The above was the original, but parts got mysteriously 'deleted' so it turned out to be THIS.
[12] Advocates for Youth, a 'limb' of the youth rights movement advocates for comprehensive sex education and encourages the use of contraception[13]
Far shorter, and doesn't state their MAJOR, beliefs, goals, and actions they take to make those happen. And the link to the page with their goals was CLEARLY placed next to it. That edit in itself Greatly reduced the validity of approximately HALF of a MAJOR viewpoint in the article that is NOT against adolescent sexuality.
I can't stress this enough... (This needs to be solved) And..
do you mind if i fix these so that they're in their true states of citation and so that the lead is at least GLOBALLY applicable (Not just a united states 'experts' opinion?, it Would greatly reduce misunderstandings by visitors to the page while major disputes are resolved and I can't stand to think that things like THAT will be left unfixed for... who knows how long. I hope you understand and can meet my requests. Nateland 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
ok sure.
[edit]No problem, i hope it gets sorted out sometime soon.
Thanks for the advice though.
Nateland 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's RfA
[edit]Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your very kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]Not of any general interest, but FYI, "the" is not generally used before "Western Sahara" as a country/territory name. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
adolescent page protection
[edit]Hi, I know you are the admin who protected the adolescent sexuality article. It seems to me that the lead section seems to be the biggest sticking point here, so I want you to know that I have a proposal for moving forward in a peaceable manner. You are welcome to participate. --Illuminato 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
new idea for settling or at least hopefully easing edit wars and controversial subjects.
[edit]Below i'll give you the text from a response I put on the talk page of adolescent sexuality, Although I just realized that hwta I suggested might be a GREAT way to settle edit wars etc. (Although server strain might become an issue) If you think it's good then perhaps we should suggest it to an admin or someone?
BELOW is my response BELOW THAT is my idea summary: Bare bones?, i'm not suggesting the lead be bare bones OH NO SIREE!. I'm saying that your proposed additions are a barebones start to improving the article, not to brag but when compared to the PAGES of proposals i've made (Look further up this discussion for my most recent proposal with list of fixes a etc. etc.)
And the opening is simply a NPOV summary of what adolescent sexuality IS, and a brief summary of what cultures think of it etc. and possible norms affecting it.
It mentions homosexuality as an example of cultural prohibitions on sex, if you go by that then we shouldn't include ANY mention of sex before marriage in a negative way OR positive because that not 'connected' to the article.
Explanations of sexual diversity are VERY USEFUL in my opinion in an article all ABOUT adolescent sexuality, due to most adolescents, unless you are lina medina discovering their own orientations etc.
And do you REALLY think that simply summary I proposed contributes to a 'structure'?, now i'm not saying that structure is BAD, but to go by your words and take them to their logical 'logicity' (so as to say), ONE or TWO paragraphs briefly explaining WHAT adolescent sexuality IS. NOT the views of it, this is about adolescent sexuality in itself, I think that over the edit wars we've lost that the Whole POINT of the article is to explain what adolescent sexuality IS.
NOT just the views, and If we include them, NOT to give them precedence over all the other topics and issues related to this.
Judith levine, Leonard Sax, and Lynn Ponton's views are not part of adolescent sexuality in itself.
It should be in a seperate article (And it would settle a LOT of these conflicts and allow for the progression of a MAIN informational article in itself).
I think that this branching off would also allow the various parts of a subject to be less subject to edit wars, and we can simply include linksd to the in dividual topics from the main page.
Waddaya say?
SUMMARY: This article IS about adolescence, and YES I know that saying it should just be a detailed reference for info on adolescent sexuality, orientation, and contraception.
It would EASILY get rid of the problems presented by respresenting Major points of view in the article.
Instead, they could branch off to a seperatere subarticle WHICH was ALL ABOUT individual opninions worldwide.
Plus I think that it would cut down on article length over time as more countries were added.
This could also be applied to other articles of particular debate, however without opinions in the main articles themselves, but easily accessible with plentiful links to the articles CONTAINING THOSE.
It would probably ease off the load of edit warring and disputes that plague wikipedia to this day?
Think it's a good idea? Nateland 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT
[edit]Please see WP:NOT. Your edits to User:Shaericell/Name for mom's triplets are inappropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Thanks. --Yamla 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(That is to say, if you could work to discourage pages like that, it would be much appreciated) --Yamla 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)