User:Bielle/Archive 2

am i minging?

hi bielle, soft g, the word minging in our family at least became a funny word due to this [1] my wife likes watching BB (she is a people watcher and having people trapped in a house to watch is fun for her) jade used this term and it came into everyday use (at least in certain social circles) and we say it in a cockney accent, i assumed that our daughter picked the term up at nursery, but she might have heard my wife and i using it - we have learnt to watch what we say in front of her after she told someone she was 'motianal carrd' (emotionally scarred) bless :) X Perry-mankster 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

further thoughts on pronoucing, it sounds the same as 'Ming Dynasty' or 'Ming the Merciless' just with the 'ing' sound at the back, in a fife accent you drop the last g. Do your best to fit this into your everyday conversation ;), what would be the canadian equivalent? love Perry-mankster 09:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

i stand corrected

dearest bielle, apologies for thinking you too nice, rest assured it had nothing to do with your gender or age {i recently had to explain to a 85 year old lady what that the phrase 'giving head' meant} My only issue was the context of the use of the word 'Minge'. The phrase we used the word in was 'Yer Minge is a' mince' (i hasten to add that this was at High School, 20 odd years ago) and the mental image conjured up by this made me reluctant to share the word, but no more dear lady, i will gladly share, discuss and expound on the delightful language we share and please share some of the french phrases you mentioned i only know the basic french swear words, merde! X Perry-mankster 09:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Small type

My remark was completely facetious, spurred by David D.'s use of small type for a significant remark. I'm sorry for any discomfort I have caused, but I can assure you I have no intention of doing this more in general. Although I can't complain about the acuity of my eyesight compared to most people I know, I still find it useful to carry a lens to read the fine print on product labels or some maps, and I regularly use Ctrl-+ to increase the text size on web pages for the convenience of reading, so I'm acutely aware of the problems caused by small print.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Castro and Nixon on the Humanities Ref Desk

Although I know I shouldn't make fun of the questions, I couldn't help myself seeing as how the questioner apparently supposed the exchange that took place to be known exactly; at the same time I was also poking at movies that present pure fabrication of details filling in what we don't know as "based on true events".  --Lambiam^Talk 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Goodman

If you look here you'll see this username hasn't edited since I blocked it (as it is actually properly blocked). I will however look into the situation (if it hasn't been looked at already) and make more blocks. It seems this user is jumping IPs making it impossible to autoblock. Thank you for your concern though. Sasquatch t|c 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were talking about this edit note the date on it is June 12 (UTC) which makes it about a week ago... Sasquatch t|c

Haha, no problem. Cheers and happy editing :-) Sasquatch t|c 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Color

I don't know when you sent me the thing about the red background being hard to read. I haven't been on the site in a while since i got a myspace. Well... sorry it gave you a headache. But thanks for bringing it to my attention, 'cause all of my other wiki pages have a red background also. Mabye its hard for others to read too. So, thanks, I'll be doing something about it soon. --James W. 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signatures

Well, the 255-char limit is new (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-18/Technology report), and I assume it came from a community consensus that no signature should be longer than that. Additionally, we have Wikipedia:Signatures, a guideline that tells us to "Keep signatures short, both in display and markup." Other than that, users with annoying sigs will probably be asked often to change them. And finally, I've seen some RFAs opposed on the basis of signature length. Λυδαcιτγ 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page?

This conversation has been recombined, for ease of following the discussion, from text on Andre (talk) and here.

Hello Andrevan: You asked for a consensus before making a change from "Discussion" to "talk". The proposal has been open now on the Village Pump for three weeks, and the balance, as Omegatron said, is on the change side. Given that even you refer to Talk pages and have a Talk page, could you let me know what you concern is about labelling all Talk pages as talk, instead of "discussion"? Bielle 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues:

• Wikipedia works on a consensus system, not a majority system, and certainly not a plurality system. There's insufficient agreement for the change. There are also very few users even in the discussion.
• The Village Pump is a good place to float an initial idea for a proposal, but for enacting one that would have such large changes to the encyclopedia's interface, there should be a separate page that can be advertised on the community portal, maybe in the sitenotice, and so on.
• Talk is a shorthand, namespace term, but it is not very descriptive, and discussion is much more professional and clear. Regardless, my opinion's not important -- if a consensus is found to change it, that would override any one user's opinion. You don't have such a consensus.

Andre (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a very speedy response. I thought that the Village Pump was where one went to try to get concensus. In the same thread there was the change proposed to the "+" sign, which appears to have a concensus, as that change has been made to "leave a comment". I have no interest in wikilawyering, so I am not going to count the number of editors who responded to the "+" debate, as opposed to the "discussion" debate, not what happened in the votes. No one has countered the only reason I gave for the proposal:it makes it transparent to a newbie what a "talk" page refers to. If that's not a good enough reason, then, indeed, there is no reason to change. Thanks again Bielle 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, another way to get a consensus for something is to just change it, and if nobody changes it back for long enough, you have a consensus. That seems to be working for the "leave a comment" tab, because I didn't find it sufficiently objectionable to change it back. Andre (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. That's the odd part. Omegatron writes both on the Village Pump page and on the Mediwiki page that he/she has made the change. I can't see it, nor would I know how to find out if it had been done and then reverted. Bielle 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are special pages at MediaWiki:Talk and MediaWiki:Addsection, which are protected so only admins can edit them. You can view the history, though. Andre (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And since I noticed that at the village pump, most people want the "+" back, I changed it back. Andre (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be sure that I understand this: you reverted the Omegatron change of "discussion" to "talk"? (I am having trouble following this, not being any Wiki expert.) If that's so, why didn't you just tell me that you were over-riding Omegatron's decision? What you led me to believe was that a "bold" trial run was still a possible option. If I misread the page history, then I apologise for being annoyed at something that was not your doing. When a Bureaucrat over-rides, the rest of us step back. As for your recent reversion in respect of the "+" sign, the people who have commented are likely to be only those who don't like it. Those who like it are mostly inclined to say to themselves "Oh yeah, hmm, that works" and go on about their wiki business. I know that you will have considered why the "no" sayers have objected in taking your action. I wouldn't myself think you could assume much from a few hours' trial, but your experience is much greater than mine. Most users have not had time to notice the change or to assess it, so you have cut off even the potential for a "Hey, wait a minute, I liked that change" vote. Bielle 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "overriding" anything -- I don't have any greater decision-making power than anyone else. The bold option is an option, but it only works if nobody (i.e. not me) reverts it. Check out Wikipedia:Consensus. If you really want to make this change, you need to advertise it better like I said. Andre (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Consensus link. I did know the concept, and had read it , but a review never hurts. We have tried the Village Pump and by your assessment we did not get consensus and did not have enough editors involved, and, as a consequence, you undid the second option, which was to try it out and see what response we got. Now, you are recommending we "advertise" the proposal better, presumably to get a bigger audience and a possible consensus for change. I need your knowledge. Letting people know about an issue via their talk pages is considered spamming and is a sure way to get shot down or blocked; we've already done the Village Pump which I thought was the way to advertise. How do I advertise it better? This is not a rhetorical question. I would appreciate your advice. Bielle 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, make it its own page, something like Wikipedia:Changing the talk page and add comment titles, and then send it to the various Wikipedia mailing lists, link it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies, the main community portal page, the various applicable village pumps, etc. Andre (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was just a simple idea to help some newcomers connect the wiki talk with the wiki discussion. What you are telling me is that the process to effect such a small change is enormously bureaucratic. I have spent enough time already. I will leave it for another generation to try. I am overwhelmed by the promptness of all your responses. (I am copying the paragraphs from this page onto my Discussion page so that the whole of the conversation is in one place, should some stronger editor wish to review it.) Bielle 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find the process difficult. If you need any more explanations or help with anything, let me know. Andre (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be difficult, though that was not what I said. "Enormously bureaucratic" means, to me, "extremely tedious". If you know a way to get around tedium, I'd be very grateful to hear your suggestions. Bielle 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think taking shortcuts through the process is a good idea. Andre (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking, somewhat facetiously, I'll admit, for a way around "tedium" in general; otherwise I would likely have written, in the prior post, "the tedium", instead of just "tedium". Given the context, however, there weren't many clues, and it is not surprising that you should think I was looking for a shortcut to a recognized process. It will take someone younger and with more time on Wiki if this is to go forward. Bielle 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus for "talk", but there's also no consensus for "discussion". You (Andre) seem to be defending that something is better or should be kept just because it got here first. A.Z. 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By happenstance, I came across the following comment you left on A.Z.'s discussion page:

Like I said, one way to get a consensus is just for something to be around for long enough with no objection from most. Also, I find Bielle's message above to be overly adversarial and antagonistic. Andre (talk)

In respect of the first sentence, it is difficult to have something be "around for long enough with no objection from most" when the attempt by Omegatron to do just that at WikiMedia was deleted by you almost immediately. That is, of course, your privelege and the privelege of any other admin who took exception to the "test". It does seem a little disengenious of you, however, to make the suggestion to A.Z. when that very process had already been tried by Omegatron and stopped by you. I am sorry that you found my comment on his page to be "overly adversarial and antagonistic", but I am completely baffled as to why it struck you in such a way. I had already said the same thing to you above. ("What you are telling me is that the process to effect such a small change is enormously bureaucratic. I have spent enough time already. I will leave it for another generation to try.") I don't see either "overly adversarial" or "antagonistic" in either this statement or the one on A.Z's page. It is only adversarial in the sense that the complications of the process have defeated me; it is a turn of phrase, a common metaphor, unless a process can be deemed to have attacked. I am tired of the entanglements, but certainly not antagonistic, and A.Z. is certainly "another generation", if not two. Perhaps I just need to polish up my writing skills. Bielle 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (Copied to my discussion page).

(Copied from Andre's discussion page:

I just noticed something. My statement on A.Z.'s page was "The bureaucrats won." It was not meant as a personal remark, being both lower case and in the plural, whereas when I used "Bureaucrat" to refer to you, specifically, above, I used a capital letter and the singular form. However, I can see where "The bureaucracy won." would have been less open to misinterpretation and personalization. I will make the change on A.Z.'s page. It was a matter of writing skills, after all. I am sorry to have created an occasion for unhappy confusion. Bielle 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. That's what the issue was, and I withdraw my objection. Andre (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I said that there was no consensus for "talk" and there was no consensus for "discussion". Andre said:

"Like I said, one way to get a consensus is just for something to be around for long enough with no objection from most."

Then Bielle replied to Andre:

"It is difficult to have something be 'around for long enough with no objection from most' when the attempt by Omegatron to do just that at WikiMedia was deleted by you almost immediately."

I keep my original remark. Bielle made a valid point above, adding yet another argument against Andre's rationale: there's no way to ever get consensus by having something around for long enough if he doesn't let anything be around for even five minutes. Plus, "discussion" does not have consensus, according to this view of consensus-reaching: it does not have no objection from most! A.Z. 23:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Now Andre said on my talk page:

"Discussion" has been there for years, and most people have no objected in any way. It definitely has consensus. Andre (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "discussion" has consensus. The first time anyone (Bielle) brought up the subject, 60% of people said they were in favor of "talk" and against "discussion"! Even if there had been consensus about "discussion" before, which it hasn't, people's opinions change. (I suggest from now on we discuss this only here on Bielle's page, and stop discussing this on Andre's page and on my talk page.) A.Z. 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You need a lot more people and much higher support for a change that will affect the whole encyclopedia. Andre (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best that we stop referring to "change" altogether: it doesn't matter whether "discussion" has been there for seven years or for seven minutes: the fact is that there is no consensus that the tab should have this name. We just didn't know that because no-one had asked. Now, a lot of people are bothered by "discussion" and prefer "talk". There's not a high support for discussion at all. Changing is as important a decision as keeping it. The omission bias article says that "the omission bias is the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions". You are defending that not changing the tab would somehow require less support than changing it. I disagree, and I think that not changing the tab needs support as much as changing it does, because both decisions will equally affect the whole encyclopedia. Your decision of not changing the tab is affecting every second of this encyclopedia, and it is not a consensual decision, nor a decision that has a more than 50% support. A.Z. 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to rebuild a consensus to keep the status quo. If there's no consensus to change it, it stays by default. Andre (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have just disagreed with. Do you have an argument for defending such a position? A.Z. 01:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand how it could be any other way. Wikipedia's not a democracy, or a system where majority rules. If users don't agree to change something that's been a certain way for years, it's not going to change. Andre (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your second sentence does not imply your third sentence. I can as easily say: "Wikipedia's not a democracy, or a system where majority rules. If users don't agree to keep something that's been a certain way for years, it's going to change." A.Z. 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We can go back and forth about this for ages, but this is the way Wikipedia policy works. It's the same theory as, for example, an articles for deletion discussion. If 51% of users want to delete and article and 49% want to keep it, nothing happens -- it is kept by default. People don't say "well, there's no consensus we should keep it, so let's delete it!" The status quo obviously has priority. Andre (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you bielle

hi bielle, thank you for pointing out my harshness, i have posted an apology on the ref page and wished to personally thank you for reminding me not to bite the posers. In my defence i am a little stressed as Perry Jr has not yet appeared and i jumped on 70. for presuming that you can learn something easily which by it's definition takes years to master. It was no excuse for my response and for one so usually flippant with his own posts/answers, entirely (as you noted) out of character. Thank you again for your patient and kindly worded rebuke love always Perry-mankster 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC) P.S any good french swear words?

men need to be occupied...

just had a discussion with my colleagues, Re the Man's role during childbirth (please don't think that i am at work whilst my dear wife is enduring labour, nothing has began to happen as yet[which is of course the damn problem]) and from past experinces all i can really do is provide comfort, make sure my wife's wishes are adhered to and keep out of the way of the medical staff (my wife requires more intervention than most births), but i feel that if the father was given something constructive to do (and i mean this literally as well as fig) i.e. some flat pack furniture to put together (with the wrong number of screws and the instructions not printed in his 'native tongue'... as with children keep them distrated and they will be no bother.

My knowledge of tabernacle is in the catholic sense for keeping the host in, and i know catholisim can be very strict in what you can and cannot say (i was raised in a non-religious house, although baptised a catholic, and i did not recieve my full indoctrination untill my wife and i where to be married (she was born, raised and practices a lot more than i ever will) so i have the habit of saying'jesus'as an excalimation, something which seriously annoys my wife) but i did not realize that the word can be deemed blasphemous (espically not by the french whom i know are a catholic nation (well you know what i mean) but i always thought as liberal, you live and learn...

as for your manners bielle, my biting of 70 was done on the ref desk so any rebuke should be posted there as well, you recognised it as out of character and said as such, and i was glad that someone pointed it out, the last thing i wish to do is deter someone from using the ref desk as i love it so much and wish to share it as much as possible

As for Perry Jr, my wife and i have a child of each and have made sure we where not told the gender this time, only guessing by the way my wife is carring the child and her cravings (lime flavour fruit pastilles and sausage rolls with jam spread on them mmmmmmm)

in anticapation of your list,...Perry-mankster 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RevoPower

Hi Bielle. Strange one this. At first glance it appears to be obviously WP:SPAM and I assumed the author would be a single purpose account. However, it turns out the the editor is the new account of User:Feba who has been around long enough to know better than to spam articles. It does seem a bit extreme for an unlaunched product (though Feba admits to having ADHD, which might explain the extent of the article), but it does seem to tick the boxes: it is referenced and has (one) independent source [2] establishing a claim for notability (and there is more linked from their website, incidently) and is written neutrally. Therefore it can't really be speedy deleted. However, if you don't think it is an example of WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles, then you could always {{prod}} it. Rockpocket 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

lol. I noticed your comments on Rockpocket's page using the "What Links here" button". Just for clarity, my name was Usurped, not a new account :) Anyway, this doesn't really have anything to do with ADHD, I just find it a very interesting product, and the article has become somewhat of a hobby for me to get it to the highest quality I can. I can however promise you that I'm not employed by or affiliated with RevoPower, Inc. in any way, and my only discussion with anyone who does work for them (to the best of my knowledge) was to request a free use image, through their email forum just like anyone else would. I don't have anything to benefit or lose from them. Next time you're concerned about this, try asking the author of the page too, they can generally clarify things easier --lucid 08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

element

lol, I was indulging myself. Subcontinental cricket teams have always had a strength in spin bowling, particularly because their pitches tend to be dusty and crack as the match progresses - the ball will spit at unpredictable angles and teams like Australia and South Africa, used to hard, bouncy pitches would struggle. These days, the cliche is less true, but it's still the case that India especially overperform at home and underperform away from home. --Dweller 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

close, very close

hi bielle, quick update, your prediction was close, only out by a day (born 26th july) and short of two testicles (perry jr is a boy) - as for the name, his father made god smile and one of his son's had a very colourful coat love Perry-mankster 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

close, very close (sic)

ah, sarcasm never does translate well into the written word. The current age difference between your (delightful sounding) grandchildren is the same as Perry Jr No.1 and No.2 (Mrs Mankster Jr is 3 going on 30) and their enjoyment of loudness is similair. Both Mrs Mankster and i like a busy, hetic house and the children are allowed (within reason) to be children (not at all like some, whose children must be well behaved, well mannered and miniture adults!). on the subject of grandparents, i have noticed my own father change quite radically since his first grand child came along (our daughter) he was quite a stern man, authortive but loving, although not all that demonstrative of his love. Since Miss Mankster came along he has considerably 'soften' is very demonstrative of his love to her and she has the ability to wrap her grandpa around anyone of her fingers ( My father has never liked dancing, but she merely has to say the word and he will jump around for her entertainment {and mine i have to add!}) as for sleep Bielle, i gave up on a full nights sleep a few years ago and am looking forward to such sometime in the distant future love always Perry-mankster 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad

Consider the phrase "the bad" (such as in The Good, The Bad, The Ugly). Unfortunately, I don't know which dialects in particular use this, but I know I've across sentences like "it was the bad in him that done it" and "he's got a lot of bad in him" before. The Jade Knight 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

a username without a link...

Hi Bielle. I appreciate your efforts in finding a way to communicate with me. =] To answer your question, I never really intended to stay with Wikipedia. Once I started seeing how the community worked (or didn't work), I decided it was time to back out. Since it was no longer new or fun, I just eased off and exercised my right to vanish.

Of course, you can't stay on the Internet and avoid Wikipedia. So I decided to return only to my favorite place--the reference desk. Since I am inactive everywhere else, I just asked for my user and talk deleted. And with a deleted talk, there is no reason to have a link in my signature. That's all there is to it. =] HYENASTE 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks

I appreciate your note. I am running out of ways of saying the same thing - cut and paste is starting to look appealing! I don't seem to be getting through, though. Must say, it's getting a bit lonely over there - if you have any thoughts, feel free to share them. Or if you have any suggestion as to where I might get some help explaining this, I'd appreciate that too. Thanks for writing! Tvoz |talk 03:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the mediation request (which was ridiculously premature, by the way) was done properly - I have not received any official notification, and I suspect it would be rejected anyway because you don't start with mediation - next he'll go to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin might be a help here, or even uninvolved editors, But we'll see what happens. Now I'm being accused of ad hominem attacks because I said I am amazed he doesn't understand what I'm saying. I thought that was pretty restrained, actually. By the way - "willfully obtuse" has a familiar ring to it - I have probably been called that myself! Tvoz |talk 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaack!!

Hi Bielle. Thanks for the welcome home. My partner and I had a great time visiting his family in Sri Lanka, and we also took a side trip to India. I'd never been to either country before, so it was a great experience. What's been happening at Wikipedia? Any wars I should know about? Cheers. -- JackofOz 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Me - Articles Being Considered For Deletion

{{helpme}}

Hello. Question 1: Is there anywhere on Wikipedia (some list or some link or some page) where a reader can see all of the articles that are currently being debated / discussed / considered for possible deletion? Question 2: Oftentimes, I find out "too late" that an article was already deleted and that the 5-day period (or whatever) is over and done with, and I was not able to particpiate in the discussion. How do I avoid that scenario from happening, without putting every single article of interest to me on my Watch List? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

You can find the current list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For AfD, no there is not much you can do after the discussion is closed (but you can talk to the deleting admin to ask if your argument can convince him to undelete the article). If the article was deleted during the proposed deletion process, when there is no discussion, just contact the admin and he should be able to undelete the article (but anyone can bring it to AfD afterwards) If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For Question 1 (above), I did not see any article names on the page you referred me to. It was just a bunch of rules and policies about deletion. Please redirect me. Thanks. For Question 2 (above), how do I avoid that same scenario in the future? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

In fact, they are on subpages organized by date Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions. For AfDs, unfortunately I don't see any other way than checking your watchlist often enough. It is common practice to tell people when an article they created is put for deletion, but this is not a requirement. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am still unclear, so let me re-phrase my question. If I want to be aware of an article's proposed deletion ahead of time (so that I can participate in the deletion discussion / debate before the debate closes) ... I have two options. (A) I need to have that specific article on my Watch List. And whenever someone edits the article (for example, to propose it for deletion), I will be notified through my Watch List. Or (B) If a specific article is not on my Watch List, I would have to keep checking and re-checking those AfD sub-pages continuously to see what, in fact, is being considered for deletion on a day-to-day basis. Question 1: So, is my understanding correct? Question 2: If my understanding is correct, isn't there any other easier way than to (a) put every single article of interest on my Watch List ... or (b) having to keep checking that AfD page a million times a day on the off chance that one of my articles of interest might be on the list? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

If you go to the AfD sub-page for the previous day, then you need only check it once a day, or even once every 5 days as no new articles will be added to a day that has passed. Of course, if you find and AfD that concerns you, you will be checking it more often and watching how the argument progresses. As for tracking each page in your Watch list, "Speedy Delete" and AfDs are not likely to come up over articles with a long history or obvious relevance. If you just keep new articles on your list, you can likely cut down the numbers considerably. And, no, in spite of some thinking about this issue on my own behalf, I have found no easier way - yet. Bielle 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What I do personally is keeping a list of the articles I want to keep an eye on (separate of my watchlist), and look at them every few days. In case of deletion discussion, there will be a big blue notice (either {{afd}} or {{prod}}) at the top. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately notifications of AfDs are very human-Dependant and not fool-proof. Categorized discussions uses human-sorting of AfDs according to topics of interest. In some WikiProjects participants specifically monitor and maintain a AfD-list on the list of articles that may be of the project's interest. Articles with no edits after AfD would indicate that it is being AfD'ed provided the nominator correctly includes 'AfD' (or anything similiar) in the edit summary. If you have created the article, some editors may choose to warn you on your talkpage of the AfD out of goodwill. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for the helpful responses. I understand the process much better at this point. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Supervising the Deletion Process

You are quite welcome. Bielle 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Re: Advertising and Wikipedia

Sorry the last one was hard to find, I know how that is. That's why I usually look at the diff instead. Anyway, I agree with you very much, many of my CSD taggings are articles that are promoting someone's band or company, I've even dealt with a company that kept persistently vandalizing their own page. Given how easy it is to advertise on the internet, I find using Wikipedia to do it very low. Anyway, as the links on RevoPower will show you, it is obviously very notable and real :) Happy editing --lucid 14:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Concensus

Hi, Bielle. I notice that you have been writing "concensus" today. I think a more consensual spelling would be "consensus". A.Z. 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, A.Z. I having been wandering back and forth between the spellings lately, for no sensible reason at all. Given your comment :-), the consensus for "consensus" on Google is 67,000,000 to 1,000,000 for "concensus". Of course, I'll have to wait until I have read all the arguments before I can make a ruling; however, in the meantime (about 11 years, I think) I will opt for "consensus". Thanks again for your gentle copy edit. If you see the word in my stuff again, please feel free to make the fix and direct anyone back here who wants to know why. Have a pleasant Labour Day! Bielle 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I didn't know it was Labour Day. I'll read Wikipedia's article about it to know what this means. Tomorrow will be Brazil's Independence Day. A.Z. 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Donnalangton

Hi Bielle. This looks very much to me like a WP:NOT#WEBSPACE violation. I have left a polite notice on the editor's talk page suggesting he should probably contribute to the project if he wishes to use our site to host his material. If there is no response, or significant editing activity in a week or so, I will remove the page. By the way, I wanted to award you this:

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For always striving to learn the ways of the Wiki; and taking criticism, even when undeserved, in the most positive and gracious manner. Rockpocket 06:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are verly welcome. Also, please accept my apologies for using the masculine personal pronoun in reference to you. For some reason I was under the impression you were of the male persuasion. Rockpocket 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ballad of Reading Gaol

Very thoughtful of you, Bielle!

Mr Wilde, we 'ave come for to take you

Where felons and criminals dwell.

We must ask you to leave with us quietly,

For this is the Cadogan 'otel.

Xn4 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When I was a child, back somewhere just shy of the Paleolithic Era, I used to think that "Reading Gaol" -and I did know about "gaol" and "jail" even having been born (and still live) in the colonies- would be a wonderful place to be incarcerated. I still remember my father's laugh when I asked him if he thought it had children's books. A sensible deletion, I think. Bielle 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess these are the New England colonies? (That, indeed, is where the city we were talking about is that I haven't ever visited.)

For he who lives more lives than one

More deaths than one must die.

Xn4 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the New England colonies -went to grad school there, for example- but "my" colony is Canada. Bielle 15:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They say it freezes, but there's some good fishing, here and there... Xn4 20:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to User_talk:Friday#Admin_Recall. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Bstone 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How curious of you to be so concerned about the gravitas of the commentary made by others within User_talk:Friday#Admin_Recall, even as you are attempting to have him de-sysopped! Not everyone agrees with your original purpose, however, and one of the ways of demonstrating that lack of agreement is to interject some humour into this specific instance of a process gone wildly awry and being, thus, at the risk of taking itself much too seriously (as is this sentence, for example). In this case, the purpose of the humour could not be more serious. "Readers looking for serious articles will not find them (jokes, that is: explanation mine) amusing." That is, perhaps, true, unless said readers are interested in learning about a sense of humour, for example. Generally, readers looking for serious articles will be somewhere in the Mainspace and not, I think, rooting about on an editor's talk page. If User:Friday has a problem with my attitude, I am sure he will let me know. Your concern has been noted. - Bielle 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this, and I'm rather amazed at the template message that Bstone left here. It should be pretty obvious that this is meant to apply to articles- this was a user talk page. Bielle doesn't seem upset by it, which is good, but some editors would consider this kind of message rather rude. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for more info. Friday (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, the article says

This is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s).

Bstone 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Still, I hope that you read the essay and understand why your use of this template here was misguided. Friday (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the use of the {{uw-joke1}} template here quite wrong. It's part of a user warning series which leads up to the point of an editor being blocked from editing. Although level 1 assumes good faith, there can't be any good purpose in using it here, so I think it would be grown up for Bstone to think again and take it back. Xn4 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment made by Bielle was quite possibly not in good faith. I think a level 1 warning was more than reasonable. Bstone 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this last night, I thought Bstone had awoken to the ridiculousness of the whole thread, and he had offered it as a witty continuation of the thread at Friday's talk page! Some things are beyond parody, I suppose. Anyway, I find Bielle's light tone on talk pages a breath of fresh air, so please accept:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For ensuring our readers don't mistake talk pages for serious articles. Rockpocket 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rockpocket, Friday and Xn4. (I go away for a part of the day, and all you wonderful people come by to visit. Thank you especially for the barnstar, Rockpocket.)

Unfortunately, given that Bstone's personal world view has Friday's adminship under threat for what appears to me, at least, to be trivial matters, it is not then illogical that Bstone should think a light touch on a heavy matter is deserving of a formal warning designed for another purpose entirely. Sad, but internally quite consistent. As for his claim that my comment was "quite possibly not in good faith", he is wrong. I doubt that Bstone applies his own rules to himself, however, so there is no need to watchlist this page waiting for an apology. Bielle 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of offering an apology when I have been the victim of personal insults, levity and incivility. I shall simply keep in mind that you are among a tiny group of editors which do not take this project seriously. Good day. Bstone 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bielle, I wonder if you can help me? I'm quite worried about the unencyclopedic content of that Friday page, so much so that I was thinking of putting some tags on it, just to alert the community to my concerns. Let me know if you agree with the following:

On reflection, I think I may be skirting round the real problem. You see, the only source I can actually find that the alleged Friday ever existed is here and, to be perfectly honest, I do not think it is all that reliable; it seems awfully far-fetched. Do you think I should put the whole thing forward for speedy deletion?

I suspect that you, like me, will take comfort from the words of my beloved Oscar-It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously. Take care, now; and never, ever stop laughing! Love. Clio the Muse 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First, from Bstone, a hilarious, new expression, for which I will thank him every time I use it: "a victim of levity"; then a wonderful contribution to the "lightness of being" by our amazing Clio. I think I need to have quiet lie down and a cup of tea just to recover from this excess of giddy delight. I wonder if the "tiny group of editors which (sic) do (sic) not take this project seriously" includes all of us who have participated in this badinage or just me. If it is all of us, then I am in grand, honourable and rarified company, indeed. Thank you all for helping to improve this and many a "shining hour." Bielle 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Indorayon

Yes I know. It should be in an article on the company not his biography. the content is about that company not the basics that would be highlighted in his biogrpahy King of Baldness 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indorayon is a major Indonesian firm and also a highly controverisal one - I studied it at university. Trust me an article on the compnay is more relevant than in his biography. It would be like not having a page on the Virgin group and just having it on the Richard Branson page. I'd suggest that the info in his bio is cut down -yes it does appear sophistixcated doens;t it King of Baldness 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats got to be a first. I suggest in future you wear sunglasses. I won't sign my comment now "just in case I hurt your sensitive eyes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite appropriate to have two seperate articles as the businessman has done a lot more than Indorayon and the Indorayon article can be fully expanded later. I'm kind of wondering why you are so bothered at events here and why you thought it necessary to check for copywright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First, about the eyes (and I do appreciate that you have toned down the signature for this section, though I would not ask it of you). The sunglasses would cause me to miss the delicacies of some of the very soft signatures. It may just be age that abrupt changes to extreme colour intensities actually hurt. Not a problem, unless they are dotted about a page I see a lot, like this one, and thus distracting me. And second, I picked up the Indorayon article at new pages. I am always suspicious of new articles that appear full blown and well written at New Pages. I am more suspicious of those that are also inserted by a brand-new user (which you are not). My exerience on "New Pages", albeit slight, has been that when this happens, the well-written text has, to date, always been a copy vio I could quickly find on the Web. The difference may be that you are simply a more experienced writer, and that you only did that part of the Tanoto article that you then turned into the one about the company. In that case, you would be doing Wiki a great service by bringing the first part of the Tanoto article up to the same standard. I worked for years in publishing and I have taught university courses. I am thus personally offended by copyright violations, by people taking credit for someone else's work, and was pleased to discover that Wikipedia views the matter just a strongly. I check for copyvio a lot, and not just on New Pages, and I find it almost as often as I check. Bielle 17:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. I have created many well written new articles in the past which I are actually my own work but I have to agree that most new pages are stubs and require a lot of work. The growth of this site has been monumental though and quality will improve over time. A close friend of mine User:John Hill and User:Sengkang also create quality new articles

There are a number of editors, most of whom are long-time users, who write all the drafts of their articles off-Wiki, or sometimes in a sandbox, and only create the new page when they have a finished product to show. Aside from the generally high quality of the writing, the text tends to be fully "wikified" and with almost more references than text. In your case, it was your edit summary on "New pages", expressing some surprise that there was not already some article on the subject that caught my attention. My first thought was not about any copyright issues, but about the fact that, though the subject of the article was only just recognizable to me, there might be an article already, but under a slightly different variation on the name. And so, initially, I went looking only to find a place for a redirect. And you know how "just looking" on Wikipedia goes: an hour later and still with no real answer, but with yet more questions. Happy writing! Bielle 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It May Be Too Late Already

Yes, very worrying, Bielle. I can't make head or tail of it. Not sure if that says something about me, or something about you.  :) -- JackofOz 07:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio template on USS General C. G. Morton (AP-138)

You indicated that this article is a copyvio of [3], which would be an understandable assumption, except the article clearly lists the original public domain source:

This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.

There's tons of PD content copied all over the internet without attribution, so it's risky business to presume a match equals a copyvio. Please be sure to look for PD references within articles before making that leap :) Maralia (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Bielle (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Walsworth Publishing Company

Sorry if the first draft looked like a spam post. I was starting a stub for a red link and wasn't done yet! Let me know if it looks acceptable now. --Corsair Armada (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See note on article discussion page. Bielle (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I don't understand why you're warning me about the removal of the Speedy Tag -- please check the article's edit history. The first time you yourself removed it. The second time it was removed by an admin. I only posted a {{hangon}} tag per guidelines. --Corsair Armada (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon taking a look at the article's history page, all I can say is "How peculiar!", oh, and I can apologize, too. As it all happened 10 days ago, I can't remember what I must have been thinking, or how It came about that I was both careless and, consequently, rude. I am so sorry. I suspect there is an editor out there who should have received the admonitory note I left for you. Thank you for bringing this mistake of mine to my attention, and so civilly, too. Bielle (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :) --Corsair Armada (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You were too fast with the "thank you". I had to quickly squeeze my answer, copied from your talk page, above your reply. Happy editing! Bielle (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Iceflake Studios?

Detailed explanation and how to solve this? Tankbrick 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The only references are to advertising copy, and the only links are to the compnay's website and/or press releases. If you check out WP:RS, you will see what is required, like third-party press coverage (which is not the same as a company's own press release) or journal articles setting out why this company is notable. That would be a start. Such references would likely give us a way to organize the article so that its noteworthy characteristics were readily visible. As it stands, it is a description of a company with no outside context other than its own. (Please sign you posts. It helps me to track my responses.) Bielle (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Candyman Bio

So about Candyman. I just thought if anyone was interested with Candyman there would be a bio of him just in case someone wanted to know about him. Someone saw the Candyman movies and they wanted to know more about him. What his origins, ability, bahavior, or actions was. There should be like a bio of him. Is there a problem with having a bio of him?

First, there is an article already on the actor. See Tony Todd. His role in Candyman is described in the article for the film. I should have used a different tag for the "Speedy Delete": it isn't that the man is not notable; it is that he, and his role, are already covered in other articles on Wikipedia. I will fix that part. Perhaps you can use some of your material in one of the other articles. (Please sign your name by pressing the ~ tilde sign four times. It helps me to keep track of my responses. Thank you.) Bielle (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean about Tony Todd. I wasn't talking about him, I meant the character he played. I was trying to do a bio of Candyman. When I edited it, I titled it "Candyman (slasher)" to avoid any problems to the names that had "Candyman" in it. In case anyone wanted to more about Candyman, they would find his bio in Wikipedia.

The fact that the character "Candyman" is played by Tony Todd is noted both in Candyman (film) and in Tony Todd. In each case, there is also a brief description of the role. I suggest that the correct place for more information on the role, which is what you have written, belongs in the Candyman (film) article; it does not need an article of its own. Candyman (film) is where someone who wanted to know more about the character is likely to go. Bielle (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding {{helpme}} on Candyman (slasher)

Hello, I just want to let you know that you should use {{helpme}} on your talk page and not the article you need help with. I've removed it from the article. Now if I read your help me request correctly you wanted to know how to change your speedy tag?

If that is the case all you have to do is simply remove the original tag and replace it with a new one. For example if you used {{db-nn}} and later decided that was the wrong template, then all you have to do is remove the original template and replace it with {{db|reason}} replacing "resaon" with your specific reasoning for tagging the article. Hope that helps and if you need any more assistance please put {{helpme}} on this talk page along with your question/request. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I have put the wrong tag on Candyman (slasher). It is not non'notable, but it is material that belongs in Candyman (film). I know how to remove the current tag, thank you. What I don't know is what to put in its place. Bielle (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Perhaps it is just not a "speedy" at all. Anyone out there who can help me? Bielle (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, also please place the {{helpme}} template at the bottom of your talk page. :) Now what template you should use instead, why not use {{db|reason}} as stated above. If you need a specific reason try something like {{db|this article has duplicate information that is already covered in an other article, and it does not appear notable enough to have it's own article.}} Or whatever you think it should be. An admin will come along that will evaluate the article to see if your reasoning is applicable. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thank you. I thought I had to find a pre-made template, and nothing was working for me. You did explain it quite correctly; I just had the preconceived notion that I had to replace "reason" with a single word from the template list. And I will remember to put the 'help me' tag in the right place the next time. I'm making all my mistakes in one event; gets them over with quickly, but it is a little hard on you. Thanks again, KnowledgeOfSelf | talk Bielle (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, I'm about to sleep too. Do your things later. Okay?

Skoal tobacco

I suppose it is a matter of judgement; I would say that certain brands are significant or interesting enough to deserve articles (Coca-Cola? Jeep?); many other brands probably aren't. Skoal is a brand that goes back to 1934, and is probably the most recognized brand of chewing tobacco in the US, and as such I think you could probably find enough info for an article about it that wouldn't just be promotion. As it is, I added a tag suggesting that it be merged with the company that owns the brand, since the article doesn't have much to it at the moment. If that changed, it could be a separate article again. Looking at it another way, I guess I thought that the article was not actually so obviously spam that it deserved a db tag. If you had added a prod tag, I might have let the people interested in the article respond instead, since it wouldn't be in danger of vanishing instantly. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what a prod tag is, but I still don't see the significance of this product that takes it from advertising to an encyclpedia article. Even if Skoal is the best known of the chewing tobaccos, that doesn't put it in a category like Jeep or Coke, both of which are known world wide, have huge markets and are recognizable by almost everyone, everywhere. The Skoal market, by contrast, is microscopic and its brand recognition likely not much larger. The analogy doesn't hold. While I would be happy to get rid of the Camel (cigarette) article, too, it does have a cultural significance from the heyday of smoking in America; I know of no such connection for this brand of chewing tobacco. Bielle (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You must be quite in the minority, because there are about 60 articles in Category:Cigarette brands, not including the subcategories. There are thousands of such brand categories that contain tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia. You seem to be advocating for sweeping changes for Wikipedia that would do away with much hard work by many editors. Cacophony (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am in the minority, I will find out quickly enough: consensus, you know. :-) The "hard work" isn't the issue, though, or every garage band or high-school athlete who spends hours creating a page, only to have it speedied, would have a successful argument for "undelete". I am not going hunting, but if I come across an article that really is just blatant advertising, as I do on NewPages patrol frquently, I will still mark it. Skoal is right up there, as far as I am concerned, but if the "vote" goes against me, so be it. Just because an article does not originate with a company, or is not "meant" to be an ad, doesn't mean that it isn't advertising, with no other redeeming value. Enjoy! Bielle (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A "prod" tag, by the way, deletes an article through the "proposed deletion" process. If the tag stays in place for five days, then it is subject to deletion by an admin. It is used for articles that are not super-obvious deletion candidates, but may still be relatively uncontroversial to get rid of. In either case, if there are serious arguments on each side, you would need to use an afd tag and send the article to AFD for a decision there. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Malawian new pages

Hi there,

All the info for the pages came from rulers.org.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me where rulers.org is not a reliable source?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

R.S. Drury

None whatsoever. I tend towards caution these days, as there seem to be far too many dumb admins who take out their stress on hard working editors who know crud when they see it. If you fancy putting db tags on then be my guest. Pyrope 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only met helpful admins so far. Not all have approved of my "Speedies" and changed them to some lesser tag, but I don't take that personally, and none has been rude about it. I just think of it as a difference of opinion, but perhaps I have just been lucky. With your kind permission then, I shall take out your tags and replace them with a "Speedy" and we shall see what happens next. Bielle (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you did it yourself! Thanks! Bielle (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you goaded me into rash action! I'm not saying that bad admins are even a significant minority, but they do exist. I just get sick of admins downgrading tags on articles that are patently utter drivel, or unblocking crudely abusive and disruptive users just because they whinged, or indescriminately using bot-powered editing (for which others get blocked!) and then justifying their actions by saying that their mistake rate is "only about 1%"... on 5000 articles... oh I could go on all night. But then it's late, and I'm cynical by nature. Have fun! ;-) Pyrope 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have concluded that there is so much crap on Wikipedia (though also some excellent writing and information), that I can't bring myself to waste too much emotion on yet another garage band, or self-published author of one book of "unstructured" poems, or someone's favourite brand of chewing gum, that gets past the filters. However, I do agree about the bad behaviour and the whining. There are some gems floating about, are there not? So, we move on. Bielle (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Steeerike three. But I'll put money on the admin only having blocked the account, not the IP. They will be back. Pyrope 11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Francisco Xavier Castellanos

You're right. I don't care too much, but you should probably AfD the article, seeing as it's marginally better than the old version. east.718 at 05:08, November 20, 2007

Prvi Partizan Deletion

I am not sure that the deletion of Prvi Partizan was in accordance with the guidelines as I understand them from reading WP:SPEEDY. Those guidelines seem to allow for speedy deletion of pages that are vandalism, devoid of any content, containing gibberish, or just outright useless. Prvi Partizan is an international arms corporation that is mentioned in several firearms articles as being one of the few remaining suppliers of certain calibers of ammunition. I added this page, modeling it after a couple of other corporation entries that apparently are considered to be relevant enough, since the company

• Was already mentioned with links in several Wiki articles
• Is an international company
• Is notable that it is a major company from a relatively small country

Since the article was already linked to from several pages, I believe that it should have never been proposed for speedy deletion nor deleted without discussion. Are you aware of any facts that would contract this reasoning? Tad Marko (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, there was no claim for notability in the article itself, was there? However, it appears I did two things wrong that combined, unsurprisingly, to give a incorrect result. First, I didn't do a Wiki search for what else linked to it, and second, instead of copyng the name and pasting it into Google, I typed it and, as I got no hits, I obviously mistyped. It was late; I was tired; and none of that is any excuse whatsoever. I do apologise and will haste to undo whatever I can. Thanks for your polite note; it may be more than I deserved for this one. Again, I apologise. Bielle (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I did try and retrieve my mistake, only to find that an admin had agreed with my initial assessment. In that there were no claims in the article itself, I guess my "mistake" was a little more understandable. I thought I had totally lost it. Did you put a "hangon" on it? I will try and find an admin who can restore the article to a sandbox page so that you can enter the missing claims for notability. (The admin who did the delete is only on intermittently, as you may have noticed on his/her talk page.) I will copy this to your talk page from mine, and will continue any dialogue there. Bielle (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was very late when I added it. I added it because I was working on some other pages that had broken links to it. Since it was very late my time (CST), I just made it a stub to remind me to work on it more sometime in the next few days. Since it was gone within 1/2 hour of me adding it, I had no chance to add any content to it. Since it was a legitimate stub, I didn't expect it to be flagged for speedy deletion.

Unfortunately, the admin that deleted it seems to be around only sporadically based on comments he has made on his talk page. If I don't hear back from him today, I guess I'll have to open a full blown deletion review. Tad Marko (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

CHEAPASS MTA

Copied from article talk page:

First, don't keep recreating a deleted article. That's immediate grounds to delete it again, with no discussion. Wait again please Bielle (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to contest a proposed deletion, read the tag. It explains what to do. I didn't delete the others. I put on the tags only. An admin reviews the tag, in this case, agreed, and deleted twice now. This is not a good thing. Wait again please Bielle (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First, your code has to be notable in some way. I googled the name and got not a single hit. "Notability" is very close to "verifiablity" and both require WP:RS -3rd=party, reliable sources, not just a website or blogs, especially if the website is your own. Wait again please Bielle (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are a part of the company or have something to do with the code, or or a friend or a relative of someone who has something to do with it, it is not a good idea for you to be doing the writing, even if you are notable. Please see WP:COI for the reasons for this. Wait again please. Bielle (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are writing about the code just because you use it and are happy with it, but have no connection with the companythen this is what Wikipedia calls original research {WP:OR and it is not allowed either. Wait just one more time, please, then you can comment here or at my talk page which won't get deleted in mid sentence on us. Bielle (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, thank you for contacting me. The whole delete the page before I could finish the discussion thing really set me off.

Okay let's go over this-

Notability - It's been entered in Google's cache but hasn't been spidered yet. If I need to wait for the spider, no problem. If you would like to download the program itself and verify that it exists and does what is claimed, you're welcome to. It's Open Source and sitting on the web site.

Original Research - Yes, I am one of the authors. Who better to write about it than someone who helped write it? The article could be left blank but, if someone who helped create it and/or someone who uses it CAN'T write and article about it, who can? Someone who has no experience with it and is going on hearsay? Not to be smart but, if that is the case, you need to check into ALL of the software related articles.

It's An Ad - The program is opensource freeware, there is no company or organization officially behind this program. There are no attempts to make any money off of this as it is a hobby project. How could this article be labled an ad when others for commercial products of the same genre are not?

My question to you is (there's no way to ask this without sounding smart (which I'm not trying to do))- How can this article be created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfon (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other articles. You can't use the existence of another article to justify keeping yours. There could be a lot of differences (as in even I have heard of Eudora) bot, the main thing is that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and this will not persuade anyone. That's it from me. I am sorry about the ditzy paragraphs but I have typed all this now three times, and I am bored with it. Please come to my talk page now. I will copy all this to there for the time being, and you can comment to your heart's content. Bielle (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was frustrated about the disappering discussions, too, but we have found a way around it now. The short answer to your question likely is: it can't be created, or not yet, at any rate, and likely also not by you. Wikipedia is all about verifiability. It is not about truth, though that is a nice by-product most of the time- and it is not about original research. Someone or company has to take note out there is the wider world, and comment upon it, and then a few more comment, and then someone can write an article here. You shouldn't write the article because you are too close to it, likely won't see its flaws and may even miss some benefits. If you have read WP:COI then you will know what Wikipedia thinks about it. It's not that you can't write it, but you are much more likely to pass a "notability" test if a third-party writes it. This is not the answer you want, I know, but we don't launch things here; we write about what is done and noted, not about what is being done and wants to be noticed. Does that help? Bielle (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For editing Pages Mr.whiskers (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I realise I ws wrong

I thought it was vandalising thats why i sent you the warning, sorry , i realise i was wrong . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.whiskers (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thank you. Enjoy the rest of your Wiki life. I am pleased that you have been adopted. Good luck! Bielle (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kilby Court

I created a stub on a music venue called Kilby Court. You put a speedy deletion tag on it, and I put a hangon tag on the article and explained in the talk page that I was planning on adding to it, but didn't have time to do it at the moment, which is why it was a stub and not an article. I was going to get on today to add to it, but the stub has already been completely deleted. I was wondering why you didn't allow me time to add info to the stub to show its validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guaxini (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Guaxini:

You left a message at my Talk page about a week ago. I have been away from my computer and in another city all week, so that I didn't see your question until this evening. I only put the "Speedy Delete" notice on the article. I am not an Administrator, so I cannot delete anything. Using the "hangon" tag sometimes doesn't work if the Admin who comes along after the tags are in place can't see any way of redeeming the article to make it not an advertisment or a review, but an entry for an encyclopedia. I don't know if you have located the Admin who did the deletion. If you haven't, and would like to see if it is possible to rescue what you did for your Sandbox while you continue to fill it out, get back to me, and I will try to check for you. Happy Editing and apologies for the delay! Bielle (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guaxini"

Akokisa, Arkokisa

Hehe, thanks :) ..but it was really just a case of looking at Category:Native American tribes in Texas (however you wikilink to a category...) and guessing. So it was really just luck. At first I thought it was Quapaw aka "Arkansa", before I reread the question more closely. Thanks for the comment though, made me smile! Here in the Pacific Northwest it is raining and flooding so much the big highways are closed due to water on the road! Pfly 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Haiti

Thank you for the alert. I've written something on the talk page; hope that helps.  --Lambiam 03:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That likely helps us all. It certainly gives me a reason to make reverts when your numbers are changed. Perhaps this will settle the skirmish. Bielle 06:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a sequence of vandal edits just before a (minor) good faith edit, which interfered n such a way that I could not simply revert just the vandal edits. Undoing them manually would have been a lot of work (and I'm pressed for time right now), so I thought t would be better to revert everything and reapply the good faith edit manually. Then I realised that all the wikilinks introduced in that edit were to disambiguation pages, and to do this properly would take more time than I've right now -- they've already dimmed the lights here and are standing with their coats on, waiting for me to leave.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish and German colonies at Ref Desk

Hey, sorry if my reply to that diatribe kinda second guessed your deletion of the "question" (it was you who deleted it, no?). It was definitely a diatribe with no clear question, I agree totally! I am not familiar with guidelines on deleting diatribes and the like, so have no opinion on that one way or the other. It just so happened that I saw the original post and thought I could answer at least some of it, so I copied it to Notebook and started drafting a reply. Then I lost my Internet link for many hours. By the time the link was back, the diatribe had been deleted, but I had finished my reply, so I figured I'd post it anyway. ..I just wanted to let you know I don't think you shouldn't have deleted it or anything, in case my reply gave that impression. All's good! Perhaps if the questioner could rewrite whatever he's trying to get at in a succinct way, and in the form of a question, it would be good. As it was the "question" was pretty confusing. But I think I was able to gleam something of the underlying topic and question, which being about toponymy is just my kind of thing! ..so, just a friendly preemptive "no worries" comment. I always like your Ref Desk work. Pfly (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Pfly. I did delete the "diatribe" part, but there was an amendment by the OP occasioned by my initial query about what the question might actually be. The amendment was the question, neatly encapsulated into a few lines, and absent the rant. It followed my strikeout, which followed the deletion. So, with or without my deleltion, there was a question to be answered, and you have done a fine job in tackling it. In general terms, if I delete something that someone else wants to answer, or is able to answer, when I saw no appropriate question, I assume nothing more than that the one who wants to/is able to saw something I didn't. I try to delete gently, even with what is to me obvious trolling and soapboxing. As long as whoever comes along next is also polite, if not gentle, then there is no harm done; in fact, there is benefit, if the OP gets an appropriate answer. I appreciate your concern and compliments, and promise, always, to WP:AGF in so far as any of our work overlaps. Bielle (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion Hill, County Meath

Hi Belle...life gets complicated at times :) I was actually in the process of moving the article to the English language version Slieve na Calliagh when you descended on me! I think it's OK now but we need to either delete or redirect Sliabh na Caillí! I'm trying extract the article about the hill from the article Loughcrew; which is about an area at the foot of the hill and a Megalithic Tomb up on the hill. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

CSD of USS Ontario (1863)

Please understand that if a ship has an DANFS entry, than the ship is notable. Also, isn't it good WikiEtiquette to notify the creator of a page when you tag it for speedy deletion? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, MBK004. I am always open to learning something new. I thought that having a ship in DANSF just meant that it existed, not that it was notable. And yes, there is a suggestion in the template that one should "consider" (I think that was the verb) putting a notice on the page of the creator, too. I do that when I am speedying anything more than a few hours old, though I just may have missed checking the timing on yours. I am thus assuming that the creator of a new article (a) has it watchlisted and (b) is still logged in for some time after creation. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong in both instances from time to time. (A very experienced Admin suggested I not identify myself to the creator when speedying. If the creator is a vandal, which is often the case, it just draws attention to your name and makes you the target of nastiness, he said. If the creator is a user with experience, then he/she can find you quite quickly with almost no trouble at all, as you have done. The only questionable area is for newbies who are not vandals.) The tag is just a tag after all, and it still has to be checked by an Admin. I always keep track of anything I have tagged to see what the Admin has to say about it, if he/she does not agree. If you are right about the notability of any ship in DANFS, then I suspect I shall see that in the Admin's decision. If I have inconvenienced you as a consequence of any of this, I do apologise. Happy creating Bielle (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As a sidebar to the above not, I have looked at the article again and noted that User:Prof .Woodruff created the article. This would suggest that, given the complaint about me not notifying the creator, made above over the signature of MBK₀₀₄, that MBK₀₀₄ and User:Prof .Woodruff are related. Bielle (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not related at all. I just noticed the page was up for CSD from the notice placed here, and decided to be bold and contest the deletion. I would like to unoquivacally state that I have never used another account nor have I ever heard of the creator of the page in question before. I've always thought it was encouraged to notify the creator of an article to give them a chance to contest the deletion if the page is something that might be notable (notwithstanding blatant vandalism, attack pages, etc.). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, MBK004. As for the encouragement to notify the creator, it does suggest that in the tag script. I always did so until the above-mentioned Admin explained why I might not want to do so. As a consequence, I go back and forth on the matter, generally adhering to what I wrote in the first paragraph above, but occasionally notifying everybody. I note that the checking admin did not find this "speediable". I will not take it to AfD. Bielle (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry, I'd love to answer your question, but I can't figure out any way to do it that would de-escalate the situation. If I named names and pointed out all the distortions on the talkpage, it would probably just escalate things. Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play. So, I hope you don't mind, but I'm afraid I have to decline replying.  :/ --Elonka 07:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and it is likely true. The problem is that you have now added fuel to the flames by not adding fuel, as it were. I am entirely new to this RfA, and it is a long and difficult read. Whatever else is true, there is a lot of controversy and an enormous amount of high emotions. Being coy in the last comment on a section that is about twice as long as any other nomination and has side trails and back references enough to keep one reading until the deadline for votes has passed is itself inflammatory. Then, pleading not wanting to stir up more drama as a reason, you refuse (decline) to explain yourself. You have accused an unnamed someone (or someones) of being a troll. That's about as inflammatory as it gets. By not naming the person, you have already set up the drama, but are saving yourself from having to prove anything or defend anything. I don't know you and had no reason to think either well or ill of you when I came to look at the nomination. I don't know yet if I am voting, but it would, based on this exchange alone, be an "oppose" if I did. And that answer was so good, so professional, so absolutely correct, right up to that smug and unnecessary link! Bielle (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Madswirljohnny

The user in question had written two copyvio articles promoting some software called Mad Swirl. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

haiti

fact of the matter is that there are many mixed haitians. There numbers are just small percentage-wise. Plus many white haitians pass as other nationalities etc. Haiti is a black-majority country but Haiti is much more racially diverse than many ppl believe. CIA Factbook are really estimates not solid facts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.158.12 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have put this on my page. Did I ask a question about the racial mix on Haiti that I have forgottten? Some time ago, I queried the deletion of France as a country or origin for Haitians, but this doesn't seeem related to that question. Could you please explain why I have received this message? Bielle (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bye

Clio has left the building! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Copied

Ok,I was confused.I thought people were mad.Sorry :{ 1bookfan 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Peace Award

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar Of Peace is awarded to bielle for the user's peaceful editing. 1bookfan 00:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 1bookfan. You are too kind. Wishing you all the joy of the holiday season, Bielle (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas card

Merry Christmas! Bielle. Xn4 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And a very Merry Christmas to you, too, Xn4. My driveway is solid ice. The car slid from it into the snow-filled garden this afternoon, and barely missed doing the same tonight. Ah well, we are safe, warm, fed and watered, and sleep beckons. May you wake to joy. Bielle (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dream of global warming, Bielle. It may not be all so bad! Xn4 09:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No oops

Your edits were fine, Bielle. Just, if you can, try and keep the comments on the line below the term, and not on the same line. But that's just a formatting issue. Thanks for contributing. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting is easy to fix, and I will try to do it right the next time; I am glad I did not offend, especially inadvertently :-)! Bielle (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for the talk page help. Hard-banned Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently discovered to snuck back and he's angry about being found-out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bielle

Please don't think of me as rude but please may I respond to your comment in 5-10 minutes? I just have to make one 3RR report and then I'll take a peek at your comment. Thank you! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take as long as you like. There are no rules about having to respond at all, never mind in a speedy fashion. I'll look forward to any comments you might wish to share. Bielle (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I always like to respond ASAP because I know how annoying it is to wait such a long time for a reply :-) - Okay the actual removal: [4]. Technically it was a question with the question mark (Obviously). But it just didn't feel right... Have you put the question back in? (I haven't checked the desk again) I wouldn't object to you putting it back if you disagree with it's removal. I just thought it was a rather obscure question more suited for an internet forum. Apologies for any confusion, friend! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were overriding your judgement, I would have said so. I was merely curious, and wanted you to know that it wasn't all an imaginary focal point for something unattractive like racism, although there may have been a racist element. If someone feels strongly, the question will be put back, or the questioner, if serious, may ask again. Bielle (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:POTD_protected/2008-01-03&action=history. John Reaves 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Why doesn't it appear on the page history, though? I thought all changes did, unless oversighted. Thanks. Bielle (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a template, the info on it is transcluded onto the main page. John Reaves 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Bielle. Thank you for your messages.

• I apologize to all WP users who have been - understandably - miffed or insulted by my ill advised and stupid comment on the reference desk.
• To indicate the quantities of humble pie I have nibbled ashamedly in the meantime, I have spelled apologise with a Z.
• Greetings from Vienna, and, yes, I do know you are Canadian.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure

Not sure what youre tlakign about here. i promised that user that i woudl revert his duplicate posts for him, so i reverted every edit made until there was only one of his entries left. i see no problem with the reuslt. Smith Jones (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

to be hoesnt, i didnt even realize that someone else had already edited after the duplicate users edits until I had already reverted them all. i thougtha bout about going back to revert my reverts, but i didnt want to disrupt the page any further since there arewere probably other peopel whowre trying to use this article WP:ANI. sorry for reverting your edits, il'll try to pa y more attention next time. Smith Jones (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

hi bielle

oooh whose been tarting up their user page? very flash! thanks for your kind words they helped, as a parent you can guess what we have been thru, our wee mankster had to have emergency heart surgery at five weeks old (on my birthday, the best present i have ever had, being told that 'everthing had went fine') truely bielle the hardest moment of my life was seeing him in ICU, tubes, wires and machines, in the middle our wee man - well he is now a strapping six monthes old now, loves mashed sweet potato (in our house you have to say 'sweet potato' in a kooky southern american accent, poor white trash, you know and has the heartest chuckle, thanks again love Perry-mankster (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great news for this snowed-in-to-above-our-knees Friday. The Toronto Hospital for Sick Children (called "Sick Kids" around here) used to run a subway (underground, tube) fundraising ad showing a premie in a plastic cot with more tubes and wires runinng into and out of her than you would have thought possible, given she cannot have been more that three pounds in weight. The tag line was "Just staying alive shouldn't be this hard, this young." They must have raised millions on that photo alone. Six to ten months is my favourite baby age, and especially precious when the reaching of it was so uncertain. Aren't you glad you live in a country with (almost) universal medical care? Oh, and welcome back! ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

certainly puts things into perpective bielle, have to try and not spoil him, but hell spoil my other two. I know, from the type of work i do, that to be truely professional you have to 'switch off' but how the surgeon operates on a child so fraigle i will never know. As for the ICU staff at Glasgow Sick Kids Hosp they are IT pros as much as nursing staff. Mcdonalds run a charity for accomadation for family using the hospital, a place of peace, a place to gather strength, my wife a massage therapist is organising a fund rasing event soon and my mother's extended family (whom are from that area, the west coast of Scotland, and are mostly retired/and or of low wage/benefit finance)raised a few hundred pounds within weeks of perry Jr being in the hospital - you have to give something back. enjoy thr snow we are having shitty snow/sleet and our daughter is v unhappy that she has only been sledging once this year, aaah to be 3 nearly 4 again (she is 4 on sunday and perry Jr No1 is 2 on monday) and i is glad to be back. say it loud i is a mankster and i is proud Perry-mankster (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Note

(Taken from talk page of Beta) + "Hi Beta:

"You posted the following on the AN/I page:

"I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method. "Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person. "This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life. "The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long) "Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable. "LCompare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. :Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better. "The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.

Can you tell me where I can find the information that you provided about suidcide notes, and about the fact that contractions denote that a writer is lying? This is all very interesting, but very new to me. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)" End of copy from BETA

Statements containing contractions are usually more likely to be true, however, in this particular context the statement is more likely to be false with a contraction, because it trivializes an otherwise very serious sentence. --BETA 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from BETA's talk page:

Hi Beta: You seem to have archived the beginning of this discussion already, so I have started a new section here.

You wrote the following on my talk page:

"Statements containing contractions are usually more likely to be true, however, in this particular context the statement is more likely to be false with a contraction, because it trivializes an otherwise very serious sentence. --BETA 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bielle}"

I have never heard or read anything to confirm either that statements containing contractions are "more likely to be true" or that using a contraction "trivializes" an otherwise serious statement. I'd like to read up on this subject. Could you provide me with some texts on this matter? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Information on contractions in lying can be found here http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php , BTW I think it's time we change the subject, as pot-shots are not constructive. Thank You --BETA 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It was interesting reading, although I could not find either the name of the author or any reference to contractions as "trivializers". The note about using contractions to denote truth was there, although the whole article was devoted to speech, which is quite different from writing. The Final Note was also important: "Obviously, just because someone exhibits one or more of these signs does not make them a liar. The above behaviors should be compared to a persons base (normal) behavior whenever possible." As we don't have any behaviour (only some writing) "normal" or otherwise, to compare, I think it unwise at best and dangerous at worst, to draw conclusions about whether or not the author is serious from this information. As for "taking pot-shots", there is nothing hidden about my comments. I ask for sources because the kind of comments you were making should have some authority behind them; a person's life may be at stake, and you are making claims that are not general knowledge. (I have copied some of these comments to my talk page in order to have a coherent record.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bentheadvocate"

Re: suicide

Hi Bielle, I got your message. I believe it was very wrong for BENT to post that list as fact, especially when someone's life could be in danger. I don't care what he read about "how to tell if someone is lying" or whatever it is. It was very irresonsible and wrong advice all the way around. Cheers. :) ←Gee♥Alice 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No argument from me, Gee♥. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just read that site link s/he gave you. LOL. Sorry, but it's one of those sites that just say "stuff" just to by saying it. Sure there were probably some truths to it, but in no way was it comprehensive, and as you said, it was about speech. Also it was about being face to face with another. Did you see the main page? I guess some people can be gullible, paranoid, arrogant and serious all at the same time. Ah, the complexity of human behavior is ... well, complex. :D The internet is even more confusing, even a harmless joke is difficult to get across and a lot of times it is taken in the wrong way, because one cannot see the other's facial expressions and body language. I think you know that, though. Cheers! :) ←Gee♥Alice 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you suggest, a very ( ahem . . .) "scholarly" site on which to base a possible life-or-death analysis. (I did like the optical illusions, though, but not the jokes.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't even go that far, I just had a quick glance. Been there, done that, though. That site is so 10 years ago. ;p ←Gee♥Alice 05:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pussyman

Google hits are not references. Feel free to remove the PROD if you disagree. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They can be turned into references, or used to determine notability, I think. However, as I have no personal interest in whether the article stays or goes, I will leave the process to those who do take an interest. Thanks for the reply. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if they are no more than advertising for a porn movie. There is nothing that would be valid as a WP reference. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't check out anything more than that the name was there, multiple times. I am not disputing your "delete" call, though I appreciate the explanations. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Kiedis

You're welcome - I meant no slander, of course, it was just a faulty memory (but close enough, I suppose). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my assumption. My second choice was that you had a personal vendetta against Mr. Kiedis that did not show in your contribs, but I thought that extremely unlikely. I had though to add Jesus, on the presumption of a physical relationship with Mary Magdalene, but decided the potential for drama was too high to be worth the typing effort. :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For the nice words on my talk page. I don't know anything about the stock market (my own financial life is calamitous), and having no understanding of naked shorting I think I can say I don't have a dog in that fight. I never liked Mantan or Sami, but as the intricacy of Weiss's conception reveals itself I'm finding my attitude softening. I am a sucker for that sort of thing. Take care,--G-Dett (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you also

for the nice words on my page. It makes a pleasant change from the usual abuse and allegations (from others, not you!) to read your calming poetry or prose then stop and think; you really are an angel, Bielle.

I hope the events of the last few days mark a new dawn for those particular Troubles, as I am keen to see the back of them. Rockpocket 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment alone is sufficient to keep my RL identity well-hidden. No one who knows me in RL would think of me as angelic, derivation of user name notwithstanding. You are welcome, however, to whatever solace there may be in what I write. Keep centred; to do else is to concede rule to trouble. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Smoking fun

Ha ha. No, Bielle, for once my innate wittiness was entirely unconscious and unplanned. But I had a fag between my lips as I was typing it, so that may have helped my brain out. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Cheers from down under. (Oh, and you're welcome to construct whatever misinterpretation you like out of "I had a fag between my lips". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The wrinkles on my forehead are a result of trying to work out how that would work, as it were. You could likely tell me, but, at the moment I am imagining sizes and angles and positions that are fraught, to say the least. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:POLE

<blushes> Thanks. Royalty cheques gratefully received, lol. Think I need to change that Iwo Jima image though; someone's bound to get upset. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On balance

No worries, Bielle, the person punching the keys is way out of balance.

If Clio wants to write encyclopedic articles, our pedia's tendency to thicken shouldn't stop her. And by suggesting Veropedia I was merely pointing out a way that possibly addresses her concerns while still allowing for her to edit here.

Still, I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression or upset you. :-( Despite my balanced imbalance, the persona Sluzzelin is one of countless readers who wants the Muse to stick around, and the Muse is aware of this and aware of pseudo-sly faux-naïve guilting tactics. (...;-) It was spelled out, not too subtly, between my lines and in the edit summary.) Anyway, I'm not worried, and I suspect she enjoys the less restrained atmosphere at the desks.

Kick the chair or my shins, wrinkle your forehead or my shirt, but don't berate the poor child, dear Bielle. And take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about how easy it is to give the wrong impression. I thought I was being amusing. Yes, indeed, and oh dear, too. As for the "small child", the closest I have to that is a grandchild just turned three, but living some 600 km away, and he would likely just laugh. I shall have to check your edit summaries. Note about Veropedia: once it "comes back to benefit Wikipedia"" in its "finished form", the article is open to all editors once again, so far as I know. I need to develop a lighter touch, I think. Thanks for the note. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I laughed out loud when I read your note, but then probably went blank and paranoid, and felt "traitor" spelled all over my (wrinkling) forehead. :-P ---Sluzzelin talk 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you laughed; all else is dust ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

gayelle

Gayelle (lesbian), I have added many new RS to the article and therefore I would like you to reconsider your vote that was based on a previous version that did not take your WP:NEO or WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V concerns into account.NewAtThis (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I feel that I ought to introduce myself, having come across your postings on WP:RD/H, Rockpocket's Talk page, and now your very sound commentary on WP:AN/I.

Frankly, I'm astonished at the recent course of events; an editor who has caused an incredible amount of disruption, and who is probably responsible for an off-Wiki campaign of harassment, has had no effective sanction applied against him and is now free to start all over again. It's a complete inversion of what ought to be the proper priorities: support editors who keep their heads down and noses clean, and withdraw support from those who don't.

Unfortunately, the history behind this particular editor stretches back some two years. I've seen Admins and Users just give up WP, defeated by the unpleasantness and vindictiveness; there's always someone prepared to buy into the story of 'Admin abuse', victimisation, trolling by others, &c., and fight his corner. The pity of it is that all of this counts for nothing; find one foolish Admin who's prepared to lift a block - that had been circumvented by abusive sock-puppets anyway - and we're straight back to square one. Unbelievable!

Anyway, please forgive my slightly fraught tone. When I calm down a bit I'll head off back to RD/H and look forward to coming across you there. I just wanted to point out that I, at least, had seen your commentary on AN/I, agreed with it, and wanted to thank you for taking the time and trouble to express yourself so well and at such length. Yours, --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words, Major. The community is being carefully managed through this artifcial crisis. In retrospect, I should have recognized that the end result was foreordained. and not wasted my time or energy. I spent a lot of my business life as a negotiater, and am embarrassed to note that I have been away from it just long enough to have missed the significance of the early stages of this one. Every stage has escalated the drama and taken the community further and further away from the original concern. The decision to unblock has been made; that is clear. There will still be a lot of words before we actually get there, but it has been made. Now we are just arguing about the price, to paraphrase the punch line of a very old joke.

Because I think the kind of scrutiny inherent in Giano's proposal is not fair to either Vk or the admins who are, once again, being asked to be prison guards, policemen and nannies, I will not participate any further. (More words from me will not help.) In fact, the very harshness of the rules for Vk may well be a part of the overall plan. In a week or so, someone will suggest they ought to be loosened or removed altogether, being difficult to monitor, interpret or “unreasonable” to keep. My views are clear, even if ignored. We are in the wrong place, discussing the wrong aspects.

As an aside, have you noticed that what was, on Giano's page, an ultimate remedy of immediate banning has turned already, in Ryan Posthlwaite's list on AN/I, to blocking? I have run out of rueful, or I would laugh. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This User believes that posting on WP:AN/I makes you stupid.

I'm afraid that I think that you're quite right; the 'consensus', such as it is, is probably in favour of maintaining the block, at least for the moment (which, incidentally, is not my position; apart from anything else, it's easier to keep an eye on him if he's inside, pissing out, than vice-versa). Anyone not subscribing to the orthodoxy is labeled 'vindictive', 'spiteful', or even 'involved' - although these are the people who have been most affected by his previous bad behaviour - and howled down or ignored. It's clear to me that no consensus, at least in the conventional sense, will be achieved; all we're getting is the usual high drama of name-calling and allegations of bad faith that serves only to raise the temperature and make achieving any agreement on the actual issue effectively impossible.

I should have known, of course; I made up this User box in part to remind myself to stay away from the sound and fury of AN/I.

I had noticed the subtle downgrading of ban to block. I also think that it's very revealing that a perfectly reasonable and civil question, asked on his Talk page, remains unanswered - if ever there was a time for honesty and a mea culpa, this ought to be it. Instead, the whole burden has been shifted from asking Vintagekits 'Why should the community restore your editing priviledges?' simply to asking for comments on Giano's 'proposals'. That's not the way to go about things; but this is exactly the same point that you make in your reply. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki

The other reason, of course, one may choose to communicate off-wiki, is to avoid the radar of anti-Wikipedia campaigners (and the troublemakers that tend to get involved with said campaigns). I found out today that, presumably as a result of my public activities in this sphere, I have attracted the attention of one of our most prolific critics :( Rockpocket 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that aspect, but I have yet to be involved at any depth to attract such notice. I think that, on balance, keeping everything out in the open leads to fewer assumptions, and all-round better communications. There is a price, though, for deciding to go either way. Given what you have been through already this year, I am sorry yet another price is being exacted of you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Sorry for my clumsy phrasing there. I've amended my comment in the light of yours. Thanks, --John (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, John. There was a possibility that you did mean that "time served" was important, and I just did not wish to be associated with that approach. I am getting leg cramps doing the constant dance to keep off everyone's toes. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was being lazy in my wording and I thank you for helping me tighten it up. The amended wording more closely reflects my intention. Know what you mean about the leg cramps. Best, --John (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Strikeouts

Yes it was a serious question, thanks for the help! Mhicaoidh (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)