This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for that. Um, unsurprisingly sucessful? :) Heh, heh; to be honest, I was surprised at how successful it was, in all fairness. Acalamari00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job in protecting Carlos Tevez, but I must say you made an incorrect edit, sorry im new to posting on user pages so I dont know how to lay this message right but, you put that he played for Uruguay in Copa america, but hes Argentine, and plays for Argentina...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.111.108 (talk • contribs).
Also, if your going to protect it you should probably revert the club bit back to West Ham until anything is actually confirmed—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.111.108 (talk • contribs).
At the bottom of Carlos Tevez International career it says he is playing for Uruguay in copa america, i'm a new user so I can't fix this, and same for the Manchester United part—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZeMaestro (talk • contribs).
I found the entire process to be quite informative, and I've already found that many of the comments from those who opposed -your's included- were very constructive. Obviously, I would have loved to have passed, but I really feel as though the thoughtfullness of much of the discussion has positioned me to know where to improve so that I can try this again sometime down the road! Thanks again! Hiberniantears17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I disagree with you on this particular AfD closing (or that anyone else disagrees with you) should not get to you. Admins and b'crats have to make decisions, and if the decisions were all easy, we wouldn't need to have admins and b'crats - we could use bots. It's easy for ordinary guys like me who don't have to make those decisions to pick over the decisions of those who do.
While it may appear to you that my "oppose" on your RfB was based only on this single event, that is not the case. If you look closely, you will see that I weighed in my support on the other RfBs (filed after yours) more than a day before I weighed in on yours. I was already struggling with my position on your RfB. Admittedly, your closing decision on this AfD did help tip the scales because I don't think it is fair to discard opinions (or at least severely underweight them) simply because you don't agree with the logic. Once you start down that line, you can say that having notable alumni doesn't make a school itself notable, winning state athletic championships doesn't make a school notable because high school athletics isn't important, etc... and that anyone who thinks it does is, in reality, voting "I like it." At that point you are simply substituting your opinion for the opinions of others. I am not saying that some "opinions" cannot be discounted if they are clearly not relevant, but you are walking down a very slippery slope when you start devaluing opinions and it is important to recognize the difference between what is completely inapposite versus simply at odds with your own view of the world of Wikipedia.
If it is any consolation, I plan to sleep on my decision on your RfB and may remove it if I think that I am letting this single decision rule my opinion of your current candidacy. In any event, please rest assured that you have not "lost my trust" and that in any future RfB there will be a completely clean slate. One article out of 1,866,344 is not going to make or break the encyclopedia and one decision in isolation that does not mark a pattern of disregarding opinions that you disagree with is an aberration soon overtaken by all the good work you do. -- DS1953talk06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding my position. Honestly, I am more dismayed by some of the comments of other editors at the deletion review than I am by your closing decision. At least you only disregarded the people who hold the good faith view that "schools are notable". Some of the comments go so far as to imply that a closer should also disregard comments that say that notability has been established if the closer disagrees with that conclusion. If that is the case, then the concept of consensus now means "your view counts as long as I find personally find merit in your view". That is not consensus. If I am sitting in a meeting and 7 people clearly want one result and 6 people clearly want the opposite result, even if I think that the 6 people have a more compelling argument, I cannot claim that there is consensus. If people do not think the test should be "consensus to delete" (as WP:DEL very clearly requires), they should argue to change the policy, not to define consensus to mean ignoring good faith views that they disagree with. We are not in Wonderland and, unlike Humpty Dumpty, when we use a word, we are not free to choose exactly what it means. -- DS1953talk17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Amistades Peligrosas, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Amistades Peligrosas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Yeah, sorry about templating you. It wasn't meant as an insult-- quite the opposite really. I try to make sure that I never put a CSD tag on someone else's work without letting them know, and it's just sooo rare I'd hit an admin or longtime contributor while on new page patrol I didn't notice! :-)
As far as notability for the band goes, however, I still think the A7 is warranted. Notability isn't transitive; would it make sense to include a short-lived garage band nobody ever heard of (I'm not saying that's the case with Amistades Peligrosas!) simply because one of the musicians in a notable band once played in it?
As far as I can tell, having a blue link for a member doesn't actually meet WP:BAND, and I doubt it qualified as an assertion of notability! :-) But you are a regular, so I think I can trust you to work on the article and not just abandon it in this state.
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot)04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olá, Húsönd. Thank you for your kind and funny message. Unfortunately, I believe my departure at this moment is necessary for me. I am tired and have had some personal losses in the last month. This, along with the unpleasant moments I point out at my talk page, have made me take this decision. I really need to rest for a couple of months. If I feel better then, maybe I'll come back. Good luck with your RfB. I'm sure you'll make a great b'crat. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Congrats on getting nom'd for 'Cratship! I voted for of course! ;) I'm sure you'd make a great crat Husond - just don't let Durin (& the others) get you down; I've had my "run ins" with him before & he isn't very pleasant to deal with. Personally, I don't think that the opposition arguments have much weight. Anyway, I think I read an article on Basque somewhere about their language or something; maybe an article can be built from it? Anyway, don't get too stressed out - just think; your nom could never be as stressful or cataclismic as mine lol! Anyway, cheers - Spawn Man08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Husond. But when we are called "spanish" around the world, sometimes we (and people from Catalonia or the Basque Country) feel hurt. Sorry for the message.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.117.19.253 (talk • contribs).
Although I'm quite angry with your actions at the Goetz school closing, I want you to know that I have no personal animus against you at all: I think you made a serious mistake, nothing more. I do wonder if you acted out of anger, and I think those suspicions have a proper role to play in the deletion review discussion. Even if you had acted out of anger, you still seem to have acted in what you saw as the best interests of Wikipedia, and I respect that. I hope you enjoy your vacation.
I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments at the Alansohn RfC forum noted that you had been familiar with his actions for some time, so the timing of the posting didn't matter. You say you took this extraordinary action of closing the deletion discussion for the reason you did to make a point. You're not supposed to do that: See WP:POINT, which specifically prohibits it. By doing what you did, you made future consensus on these matters much more difficult because you riled up people on my side -- it's much harder now to try to reach out to the people we disagree with. Since consensus is a goal, you've acted against Wikipedia's interests in promoting consensus. My language was what I consider "stern", not abrasive, and it both expressed my justified anger at having my participation effectively disenfranchised and my judgment, made after considerable thought, that you had acted irresponsibly even if there was only an appearance of impropriety on your part. I write in that stern tone to try to ensure that a stern message gets across to you and to others. I really do think that your actions were highly improper for an administrator and extremely improper for a bureaucrat. You shouldn't take actions that raise suspicions about fairness if you can possibly help it. You might take a look at the administrator nomination page for Butseriouslyfolks, because I think you could learn from it. My comments at the bottom of the deletion review page are in part an answer to your view that violations of WP:Notability trump consensus. If that were the case, it would be so stated at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough Consensus. Instead, that section only mentions three other policies.Noroton18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Husond - I'm sorry to say I've closed your request for bureaucratship as unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you though - you are a fine user and should not take this as a slight against the good work you do. Raul65418:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded (don't know if that's a word). I think you were the most qualified of the 7 candidates. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a ton of flowers to let you know how much we love you, friend? Don't be sad, you're the one finest editors ever, and one of the kindest, greatest persons to ever grace this place. We love you, dear Husond! Love, Phaedriel - 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that :(. I hope you'll get through it, I obviously disagreed with some of the concerns expressed during the process. Keep up the good work, though! -- lucasbfrtalk23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked through all of my comments there, and couldn't find any undeserved praise. Sure that wasn't a typo? Giggy soaks Husond with cold water so he is no longer bright redGiggyUCP23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some banana slugs for you! Banana slugs somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! GiggyUCP
Excellent! Enjoy the fresh air, but don't let it get to your head. Remember, we're all pale computer nerds who haven't seen the sun in days, and you shouldn't ever forget it ;) GiggyUCP02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a good duck, Husond. I look forward to seeing your fine work as editor and admin continue and I fully expect to be able to support you if you decide to subject yourself to this paddle line again. -- DS1953talk01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have my definite support next time you want to try for the extra tools, I'll be sure of that. Keep up your excellent work on the project, and maybe a future RFB will prove more successful. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Husond, I know that things didn't go the way you planned, and you might be feeling a bit blue, but there are plenty of us who respect you enormously as an editor and an admin and love you as a friend! Maybe a future attempt will be more successful. Take care, and all the best :) ~ Riana ⁂04:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw - better luck next time Husond. I'm sure if you try again in a few months or so, there shouldn't be as many opposing arguments. In any case, you have my respect for being willing to go through such a process as RfB. Regards, Spawn Man04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed you, but I thought your long history of genuinely-useful hard work on the Project would outweigh my oppose !vote. While I'm happy to have had my voice heard, I hope you take it not as a repudiation of your efforts, but as an incentive to redouble them and to closely evaluate the issues brought up by your detractors (and to look critically at what caused your supporters to support you, as well!). Best of luck next time around; I'm watching and hoping that you can address those issues and that you'll be my first-ever support for a 'crat. And don't let it get you down. If it does, see if Magnus can send you some herbal tea! Jouster (whisper) 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could have seen your RfB through, but I forgot to put it on my watchlist. :( I'm sorry it failed, due to some s who don't like anybody higher than an admininstrator. You'll make a real good bureaucrat, though, ifwhen your next nomination passes. :) — $PЯINGrαgђ 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Maybe you'll join the ranks sometime soon. Cheers.[reply]
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way.
Hey, Husond. Just curious when you are going to drop by for your next review of my progress? I reffering to admin coaching of course. I know your on a vacation so take your time, but just thought I would ask. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ)21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For shits sake! I always miss supporting you! Always! Next time, tell me. It's not canvassing, I just always miss it for whatever reason (I was in Sydney Photographing the USS Kitty Hawk). I would have nominated you man! Anyway, it looked pretty harsh, I few of those opposes were (to my mind) invalid. Unfortunately it's easier to be critical, but I hope you learnt alot, as I did. Anyway, take care mate, and I'll see you around. Cheers, Dfrg.msc23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Yeah, I'm still here, though my editing style has changed to "just cram it though the slot" it may or may not get done. What time is it there? It's 10:09 am here, it's beautifully sunny yet deadly cold (Gypsy curse?). Cheers, Dfrg.msc00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the limit amount of time to start a new discussion after an older one has ceased in regards to moving a page? Reginmund02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like permission to start a new RM on The O2 early. Apparently from what I disovered on the previous discussion, several people voting against the move were lying about why it should stay at its retro name. Reginmund01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the reason I made such a statement. See, Millennium Dome isn't actually the common name. The O2 is 35 times more common.[1][2] I can't determine any other argument they had besides this which is wrong. Reginmund16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, "The O2" is more popular. If you narrow the search to "The O2 Greenwich"[3], compared to "Millennium Dome Greenwich"[4], you will find that "The O2" is still significantly more popular. Reginmund20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through ten pages on a Google search of "Greenwich O2" and none of them are irrelevant to The O2. What else could possibly linked to the O2 that has to do with Greenwich? Reginmund01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then in that case, why would Millennium Dome have an excuse for being more popular? As a Londoner, I have heard The O2 replace it rather quickly. Reginmund18:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was naïvely thinking that telling a vandal that they were about to be blocked would make them stop, but it probably just makes them vandalise more ("I only have 5 minutes! I'd better hurry and vandalise a lot!"). I was wondering why I was doing that anyway. Bart133(t)(c)04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the echidna - they're quite cute eh? Anyway, I was wondering if you'd like to be one of my Wikifriends? It would be an honour... Think about it & get back to me. Sincerly, Spawn Man04:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sand dollar! Yes, it certainly has made my day better, especially after blocking socks of disruptive users earlier. Here, take the following star in return; hope it makes your day better. Acalamari01:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; it's one of two images I uploaded. :) By the way, I just sent an E-mail about a certain issue you might be interested in. Acalamari01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know your out of town and all, but I just wanted to tell you. Boricuaeddie is back. As you know he retired, but I guess all of our nice letters made him change his mind. Just thought I would let you know. Happy Editing. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ)18:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie has given you a coquí! Coquíes somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing!
Hi, Since you seem to be involved with alot of requested move proposals I would like to ask you if there is any other way to figure out the common name of a place, other than a Google test, when there is a naming conflict as this is the current problem with the article, Millennium Dome. Google search results can be interpreted in many different ways and in the case of the page, Millennium Dome there is a debate about what the common name itself is. In these cases, are there no other reliable and acceptable ways of trying to figure out the common name. ThanksTbo 15714:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Eu vi as fotos que tens de Mirandela na versão inglesa, gostaria de as colocar na versão portuguesa mas n dá, podes por as fotos no commons? assim seria mais simples... Tks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fcpp (talk • contribs).
Eu regra geral costumo meter as fotos sempre na Wikipédia inglesa porque estou pouco habituado ao commons. Mais logo ou amanhã vou ver se as transfiro para lá. Ou se quiseres, podes transferi-las tu pra ser mais rápido. Basta salvar os ficheiros das fotos e fazer upload para o commons sob o mesmo nome (a licença de utilização é a GFDL, e no sumário basta pôr que as fotos vieram desta Wikipédia e que foram tiradas por mim). Qualquer dúvida contacta-me. Cumprimentos, Húsönd13:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope at least that you will reconsider the "oh, upgrade your computer" response, which can be grating to the editor addressed, and does nothing to help any readers who have the same configuration, and therefore the same problems reading the article. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your kind words and thoughts are much appreciated. Out of respect for the RFA process I do no intend to seek the buttons until September time (to alow three months to pass). At that time if you would like to review my contribiutions again to ensure they are of the standard you expect your nominations / support will be much appreciated. Best, and as ever Happy Editing. Pedro | Chat 07:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image on the right is overdue on its deletion thingie by two days. Chaza93 06:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok just wanted to make sure it was known of Chaza9313:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the new suck-o-lux! Twinkle helps some on the A7s and non-controversial stuff, but I like to do the copyvios and vandalism-related warnings & blocks manually. Typing somewhere around 100 words per minute doesn't hurt, either. :-D (What can I say – I was a typing prodigy.) I shall display my new gear proudly, and (unfortunately) I'm sure it will be put to good use.
Hey, while I've got you, let me ask a question – I was working with copyright problems last night, and the copyright advice to admins page says to move old logs to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log. I finished July 15 and July 16, and went to move them to aforementioned Log - but that log page hasn't been updated since May 2006!
I crawled through the history of the WP:CP page and finally figured out that the completed pages are simply removed from the main page (not deleted), but it took me at least 30 minutes to come to that conclusion. So, I'm wondering why we keep all the old AFD daily logs at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates but not the copyright problems daily logs. I guess it doesn't really matter, because we can find any daily log by using the formula <Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day> as long as the page itself hasn't been deleted, but it's an interesting paradox. If the current procedure is in fact the correct one, I'd like to change the WP:CPAA page so new admins like myself won't be so perplexed. It doesn't look like its talk page gets much traffic, so as a start, what do you think? Should we go back to logging or is it okay to just remove cleared daily logs from the main page? Or should I ask at WP:AN? Or should I start WikiProject:Driving new admins crazy? ;-) - KrakatoaKatie00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only leaving this note because I just replied to an email I replied to before (which could easily confuse gmail). Oh, and it's good to see you offered to nominate Pedro! We share good taste in nomming by the looks of it :P GiggyUCP06:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to tell you earlier that I'd done Giggy's co-nomination. With any luck, it should be satisfactory. Both of us covered different topics in our nominations so that should be helpful to Giggy. Acalamari22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So ducks eat rodents, huh. It doesn't matter. Speedy is an icon in my country. Ducks, however, are very tasty and widely eaten in my country... :-) --Boricuaeddie03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI this article and related articles are currently before ArbCom. DPeterson has been ascertained already as a sockmaster of 4 socks [5] and there is an outstanding allegation with substantial evidence that RalphLender is also a sock. (There are also many counter allegations)Both editors were blocked for 24 hours yesterday evening by FT2 [6] for, amongst other things, tendentious edit warring. Edit summaries and talkpage entries that claim that passages are being changed without discussion or recourse to appropriate dispute resolution are palpably false. There would be no further edit warring today on AT and ACT as these two are blocked. Further, whether or not they continue edit warring as from this evening when unblocked is certainly something that would be watched and acted upon. Fainitesbarley09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy note -- I'd be fine with trialling removal of protection. With most of the socks gone, the article is a lot calmer, and less aggressive, and some productive editing is beginning to happen (eg Talk:Attachment_Therapy#Rewrite_of_introduction). Where the sockmaster does still try to breach policy, this now seems to be under reasonable control (by editors [7] and/or by blocking for disruption [8][9]).
I also note RalphLender went "forum fishing" to prevent others editing the article, almost as soon (1/2 hr) as his behaviorally-evidenced sockDPeterson was blocked for the identical disruptive editing [10].
With the sock army blocked, the remaining editors on both sides seem able to handle the article and its dispute now. Based on this background, it might be worth reconsidering any request for protection as a bad-faith abuse of process (POV warrior blocked; behaviorally evidenced sock of blocked account immediately seeks protection and tries to prevent others editing). More info on this here (abuse of process) and here (blocks). FT2(Talk | email)11:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Nicholson has visited you! Jack "somehow" promotes WikiLove and wants you to be happy today, and hopefully he has managed to make your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Come on now, go and make someone happy today, or Jack will hug you till you choke, dear Husond! :) Happy editing! - Phaedriel - 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will look forward to then. I’ll probably have written up a much sexier nom by then too :P Thanks for your nom, support, arguments, etc. so far =) GiggyUCP02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muahaha, meet the real Giggy! 28% sexier then your average aussie (which is already a lot sexier then..well, for example..you :P). GiggyUCP03:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn the RfA, and will probably be taking a short Wikibreak to clear my head and think about weather I'm still ok with the project in general. Hope to talk soon :) GiggyUCP03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Amistades Peligrosas, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
Unprotected--Húsönd 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
