User talk:Splash/Archive11

A gift for you Sensai Von Splash The Great & Wise for all you have done and will do

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005 – Archive to end 5 December 2005 – Archive to end 3 January 2006 – Archive to end 20 January 2006 – Archive to end 5 February 2006

Jon The Baptist

hey, just wondeirng why you speedy deleted Jon The Baptist rather than listing it for afd? --MilkMiruku 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Patronized

Sorry if you thought my comment at WP:AN was patronizing towards you. — Moe ε 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not by any means was I implying that you were making personal attacks towards anyone. Sorry if you thought it was directed towards you. I actually was refering to a previous comment by another user but I got 4 edit conflicts before my message was sent. — Moe ε 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Early Lift

Not at all, i'm glad he understood that it caused people offense, and I hope he can move on from here, that's ultimately what I hoped for. If I don't see you again, I hope things go well for you in the future. Karmafist 18:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pickelbarrel

He means well, just to clarify. Karmafist 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Main page image

Hi Zanimum. The image you put on the Main Page is a fair use image. We've a general practice of not using FU images on the Main Page since they aren't in their relevant articles and we have no blanket rationale for their use. We're trying to claim we can use them for encyclopedic uses rather than news-media purposes after all.

Can you find an alternative, free, image? The country's flag is usually reliable — we seem to have PD or GFDL images for nearly every country. Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This image of Stephen was a substitute for an image someone put up, that had no source whatsoever, and was almost guaranteed not to be the GFDL license claimed. -- user:zanimum

Vandalism

Care to explain why you treated an admin like a vandal? Using Fair use images on the Main Page is avoided since they are not being used in their article. We use free pictures whenever possible (and it is almost always possible to find a free image on a topic). Disagreeing with it doesn't really justify the use of rollback. -Splash^talk 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the previous picture was FU, and, since I thought it was more descriptive, I was confused as why it was replaced. Also, there was no edit summary to explain this. As for using rollback, I guess I shouldn't have, howerver, I don't think rollback should be limited to vandalism only reverts. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Actually I do use edit summaries for all major things. The only thing I didn't use them for on the template were typos or small things and the change of picture to one which I thought was PD. Check the edit history if you want. "Hardly ever" is exaggerated.

Also I removed the story before because I think we should give other stories a chance too. That story is going to be updated frequently by every incident that happens but that doesn't mean we have to keep giving it special treatment over the other stories like ones where many people have died which are also updated. However I did keep it after the update about the five dead. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Markups template

Good compromise call on the close. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on Talk:Rudjer_Boscovich

I like the mediation I came across you doing on Talk:Rudjer_Boscovich. Just wanted to let you know, and congratulate you on it. Keep up the good work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Guinness

Thank you for protecting the article. It seems a script was vandalizing the page. Gadig 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Steven Kessel

First of all, I am not a student, I am a faculty member at Cocoa Beach High School. Second, I take insult to the notion that I would plagiarize any work; the article was of total originality on my part. Thirdly, Mr. Kessel has achieved considerable notability in our school district and the state of Florida, the fact that you do now know this does not give you precedent to delete the article. Wikipedia is not limited to those in the United Kingdom. ---Ryan Julian 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock 64.12.116.12

I am that IP address and am not able to edit pages--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, sometimes this comp time-travels....--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Secretive, secretive, secretive!

I have not seen you in a while...how has it been? Just wondering...have you done any research with fading channels before? --HappyCamper 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to get back to you here...well, I didn't have much of a reason to ask, other than to come up with an excuse to say a word of greetings :-) I had been wondering for a while what your PhD was on, and I had a slight inclination that it had to do with fading. Of course! It would be wonderful to get everything into shape. I think I'm going to try the template route...make a few informative templates and place them in key articles. I'm finding that templates help the articles quite a bit - especially encouraging anonymous users to edit. I suppose it is because it links all the related topics together. --HappyCamper 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:How are you gentlemen

This was part of a series of accounts... pretty much the entire dialog of "All your base" was created as a series of usernames, one per line, which was rather suspicious. I've reblocked, if you still want to unblock go ahead. -- Curps 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A Gift From Me to You

You have proved yourself to be in a class of your own. You have exhibited both wisdom and grace. Your positive energy may be the human incarnation of boundless. No simple barnstar could do justice to your greatness. So in reflection I have decided to give you a far greater award; From this day forth User: Splash shall have by the authority of Cenestrad Emperor of Wikipedia the title of Sensai Von Splash the wise & great. This title I grant to you to use, abuse, ignore or give to some other deserving soul as you like. It is yours please enjoy it in what ever way you see fit. This I Order For The Common Good.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. I think you are right about Panty Waste getting deleted but I still like to see things done in the proper manner. p.p.s. I think I am going to declare Aug the 3 a international wiki-holiday in honor of you & all of the other hard working and fair minded administrators any ideas what to call it?

~1~

Yes, hello. Simply put, I would like a damn good reason you deleted my article, good sir. Your response would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Dknyc15 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A Question, if it pleases Your Most Excellent Majesty

By the Grace of God, Of the English Wikipedia and of His other Realms and Territories Sensai, Head of the Administrators Most Good, Defender of the Wikiway, Sensai von Splash The Wise & The Great: If it pleases Your Majesty, may I ask of Your Majesty instruction into the ways of the Wiki? In strolling by WP:RFR, this humble servant chanced upon most curious a scene. Your Majesty there pronounced the seemingly agreeable proposal unworthy of these hallowed grounds, and decreed that, verily, it may not progress sans great and large reworkings. This puzzles this humble servant slightly, but knowing the Infinite Wisdom of Your Most Excellent Majesty Sensai von Splash The Wise & The Great, this servant sought among the Great Archives and the Pages that Talk a solution, a hint as to the reason for Your Majesty's displeasure—alas, to no avail! Perhaps this servant has lost what little skill and sense he possessed in days of yore, to find what needed to be found and solve what needed to be solved. Truly a state to be pitied. Your Most Excellent Majesty, Sensai von Splash The Wise & The Great, in your Infinite Mercy, point the way, that this servant may discover wisdom. What gives?  :-) ENCEPHALON 07:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

>>>Who the HELL deleted Template:User pacifist3 <<<

You added the closing comments Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 31. Who the Hell deleted it!? YOU SAID THERE WAS NO CONCENSUS!!! Why can't I view it on my user page?! Come up with answers!!! Holocron 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been speedy deleted as 'divisive and inflammetory' (CSD t1) that doesn't need a consensus. --Doc ^ask? 13:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. Although the TfD debate was an unsurprising no consensus, Jimbo Wales has introduced a new speedy deletion criterion, cited above by Doc glasgow, which pretty clearly applies to this userbox. It had been twice tagged (by admins) for speedy deletion, and that seemed reasonable to me I've stayed firmly out of the furore surrounding userboxes, but the introduction of a new CSD provides clarity enough to remove this one. -Splash^talk 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How do I suggest a user box for deletion?--70.16.195.105 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. But userboxes are a contentious affair at present, and, unless the userbox is obviously very bad it is unlikely to find a deletion consensus. If it meets the new wording in WP:CSD#T1, then you can just add {{db|Divisive and inflammatory userbox}} to it. -Splash^talk 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Holocron 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for deleting Template:User pacifist3. I'm the one who nominated it for deletion and I'm really glad there are some people with sense around here. --Cyde Weys 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruđer Bošković

... needs speedy administrator intervention. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2

Hey Splash. You may want to eyeball your closings on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2 one more time. There's apparently a bug in {{tfd bottom}} that makes it not get along very well with userboxes that are embedded in the discussion, and as a result your closing of Template:User admins ignoring policy ended up looking like this (scroll down past the smiling GWB). I went in to fix it by turning the problematic userbox into a {{User GWB2}} tag, but for whatever reason (another bug or my own incompetence) it ended up munging the order of a couple of your {{tfd top}} and {{tfd bottom}} tags on the Template:User admins ignoring policy and Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end discussions. I'm 99% certain I got them all put back into their proper places, but I worry about that 1% chance that I might have left something hanging, so you'd best just check it one last time to make sure everything looks right. Thanks, and sorry about the mess... --Aaron 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 31

You closed Template:User pacifist3 as "No Consensus" but the template has been deleted (it was deleted during the course of the debate). What is the process to restore this? Does it need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and if so, how? Thank you, I am not familiar with these details of the deletion process. Cmadler 02:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw the comments above. I voted against the template, but I was concerned that it may have been deleted out of process. Cmadler 02:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

two pages need unprotection

biff rose.. it's an edit war not vandalism... and shoot I forgot the other one but you unportected it and slimvirgin immediately reprotected it. 216.175.120.12

Biff Rose is fully protected, as per not using WP:SEMI in an edit war. The protecting admin is User:Curps. He's where you should start. The other article - I've not done an unprotection session lately, so I can't guess which one you mean. Sorry. -Splash^talk 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lower case parameters on template journal reference

Hi Splash. I finally picked up jour call for lower case parameters on template talk:journal reference#Case of par names, which I fully support. For simplicity I made a clean new replacement at template:cite journal that provides lower case parameters only and deprecated template:journal reference. I'm watching now how much rotten vegetables are flying at me :-). If this survives, I intend to migrate calls of journal reference to the new cite journal by using WP:AWB (I have done comparable work lately with calls to web reference. See Special:Contributions/Adrian Buehlmann Bot). --Adrian Buehlmann 19:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my talk. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Morn Sensai

I just realized that you were given the title of Sensai Von Splash the Wise And Great by The Emperor Of Wikipedia and I want to say that I dont think it could have gone to a better person. What did you do to receive such a great title? I would like it very much if I were to recieve something I could call myself. How about Pickelbarrel a feast for the eyes of all young ladies I think that has a nice ring to it. Anyway if you could give me some pointers on how to get a title that would be awfully nice of you. Also I was curious if you happened to know what infinty minus infinity is? Ive been asking everyone but know one seems to know. I thought it hads to be zero, but my brother said that infinity didnt follow the same rules as other numbers, because its just an idea. Now Ive started thinking that if you hold two mirrrors next to each other, you can see an infinite number of relections, but if you take away one of those mirrors you would have taken away an infinite number of relections but you would still have a mirror left, and that mirror woul still have one reflection so maybe the answer is ONE!!! Im still not sure though. Any help you could give me would be appreciated. pickelbarrel 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Splash: Wow... why on Earth did they start calling you that???

Pickelbarrel: Infinity - infinity can be anything, because infinity doesn't have to be the same number, and if you're doing limit computations, you can see that because you can get stuff like infinity - infinity = 2</math>Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cenestrad coined the term and, whilst flattering, sharp prods in the ribs are on offer for those addressing me with it!

I've replied to Pickelbarrel on his talk page. -Splash^talk 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ive been working on some things

And Ive got some pretty good ideas for projects coming up Sensai, mostly involving differnt musical groups...Mxmachine...Jim Croce...Cool for August...And Betsy are all groups that need to be written and or fixed, but I have been spending most of my time triing to get karmafist reinstated to administrator. Have you signed his petion? Its on his homepage. I think if Sensai Von Splash the Great & Wise signs the petion along with The Emperor Of Wikipedia those in power would have to take notice. Thanks for the help with infinity, I think you are correct, and that basically infinity minus infinity could be anything. Ill let you know what my brother says. pickelbarrel 07:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

DRV

My Wiki-lord,

I've cleaned-up at DRV a very little bit. If you would, please axe the hitler anti-racist thing (currently history undeleted), as the result there came out clearly for "speedy deletion endorsed", which is the *only real* choice in this very obvious case. Also, you might wish to investigate Template:Background, to which no one really paid attention. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look a little later. I've been entertaining myself away from DRV recently. It seems to be backing up again... -Splash^talk 19:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Forking Underway

Splash, your intervention in the naked short-selling page vandalism issue was extremely helpful and appreciated. I just wanted you to know that an effort is underway to make an end run around the effort to achieve a neutral POV treatment of naked shorting, by creating an article entitled Failure to Deliver Stock.

This article has not yet been Wikified, but can be located, via external link, here. One of the principal authors of this article is User:Bobobrien, who is Bob O'Brien, head of the coalition against naked short selling (NCANS).

This article combs out one aspect of the naked shorting controversy and builds an entire article around it. The majority of this article is a discussion of naked short-selling from the point of view of the anti-shorting camp. It is a textbook case of POV Forking, if ever there was one.--Mantanmoreland 22:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Relisting AfDs

Erm, thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed it. I don't think I'm all here today... --W.marsh 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

RFR

Ok, now that we got that out of the way :), there's something new being thrown out on the talk page. Do you mind having a look and telling us what you think about that one? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Background

I do not understand the basis of this undeletion. It is not part of Wikipedia:Summary style or any "policy or guideline", and the few links (2 articles) it had were WLH bugs, easily fixed. The person that took it to WP:DRV is the only one that voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 13#Template:Background, and has done an end-run. Please re-delete. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in playing merri-go-round between TFD and DRV. If the DRV discussion has so little participation, and was based on an incorrect argument that this is somehow part of a policy/guideline, then the TFD vote that we just had should stand. Please re-delete. -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reply. -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with re-deleting the template. I am not sure on what grounds it can be justified that I would be able to defend in subsequent debate. That the DRV was misled? Then someone should have pointed that out at the time. That the TfD was valid? Yes, it was, but DRV overturned it. I restored it on the basis of three editors' opinions, and would be re-deleting on the basis of only one editor's opinion. I can't really do that. -Splash^talk 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of product over process. The DRV obviously did not get the attention it deserved, as no notifications whatsoever were given. You should have not undeleted it in the first place. Now we have to jump back throught the same goddam hoops. -- Netoholic @ 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hey there. When you add {copyvio} to an article, remember to remove all the text. This is stop us displaying the problematic material and to stop the mirrors mirroring it. Thanks. -Splash^talk 19:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You must have found a rather old copyvio discovery of mine, but thank you anyway for clearing this up. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This time

I will give you the correct link to sign a petion to reinstate Karmafist as an administrator...I was mistaken last time. here ya go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karmafist/manifesto Any way Ive added a Cool For August Site AND gotten myself several awards since we last spoke. And I wanted to give one to you for helping me out. Let me know what you think pickelbarrel 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:SocEur

I noticed that you closed one of the TfD nominations for this template, the first of which can be found here and the second here. Though there was lack of "keep" arguments, I understand why you closed them, and see that you were also unsure about the discussion.

However, I saw the e-mail that Ed posted, reading that, "I am not happy about the potential of third party use of my images outside of wikipedia however as the only alternative is to remove the images I begrudgingly accept this condition." Our image use policy states that, "Licenses which [...] are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted."

I hesitate to nominate the images for deletion or relist the template, as that seems a little WP:POINT to me given how recent the last TfD was, but I do think that these images shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and, therefore, neither should the inaccurate template. I also think it'd be worth reopening the discussion — what do you think? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading through his letter a second time, I guess he did allow it. Certaintly not very explicitly, though; I guess we could let this slide. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to give you some of my barnstars

For being such a great help...Thanks for the compliment on my articles. Im triing to get back to doing more editting, because I think that will do the most for me in my attempts to become an arbitrator. I thought I needed to take some time off to try and help out karma, as you, him, Emperor Cenestrad, and Administrator UncleG have been far and away the most helpful to me since joining wikipedia. Thanks for everything pickelbarrel 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

See that button that says "trouble"

*chuckle* I thought it best, considering whom the restoring admin was, to put the "vanilla editor" hat on rather than protecting it myself. I'm trying to tread lightly.
brenneman^{T}{L} 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from The Kindness Fairy

In celebration of Random Acts of Kindness Week, The Kindness Fairy wants to thank you for all the hard work you do to make sure this place keeps up and running. Especially all the time you spend in janitorial tasks cleaning up the various *fDs, and making sure Wikipedia is neat and orderly. Thank you and have a wonderful wikiweek. The Kindness Fairy 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Don't forget to work on your PhD.

Thank you! PhD, huh. Yeah, that. Must do. -Splash^talk 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

~1~ Request

Yes. Please view this website <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=1"> I request that my "~1~" aticle be re-evaluated. This link will provide ample proof of ~1~. You can make the article and/or edit, but just let it be known that ~1~ is a real phrase. Dknyc15 01:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I kind of misunderstood how the barnstar worked...

I had been going around and picking them up from other users sites, and then decorating my site with them...After I was told that people mostly give them to other people I thought I would just give the ones away that I had collected, but I assumed that the person I gave them to would fill them in. I am going to attemp to give you A BRAND NEW barnstar..after being told how to do it...Image:Original Barnstar.png|The Original Barnstar,I The first in the east...the first in the west...The Greatest Philosopher In The Western World...The Amazing Pickelbarrel do hereby award Sensai Von Splash The Great & Wise with this barnstar. pickelbarrel 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ...well It didnt work. SHoot. Ill try it again later

Advice for a new admin?

I notice that you've been doing a lot of work at WP:CP. I'm an admin as of yesterday, and I've been clearing some copyvios over there--here's what I've done so far. How do you deal with disputed ones, though? Ultimately, there's no way for me to be certain either way without consulting a lawyer, and for a lot of the disputes there's not necessarily anyone to contact. I'm thinking in particular of Image:Kingcrown.jpg, where there's a massive debate going on at the talk page. How do you usually deal with these? I'd appreciate any advice at all. Thanks, Chick Bowen 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive advice, which is very helpful. Yes, text seems much more straightforward than images, but I think I can work it out. In this case I just replaced the image on the template with a similar-looking crown from commons (I wonder if anyone will even notice) and supplied fair use tags for the main articles as you suggested. There's a lag of course at whatlinkshere so I'll have to go through and see where else it still is. I may be back with more questions--thanks again! Chick Bowen 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

{{LND}}

On my talk:

I started orphaning this, and suddenly realized that this is leaving these pages with neither a dab template nor a category. I've checked the TfD debate, but can't see any instruction that I should be replacing it with something. Please could you clarify? -Splash^talk 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As you must have noticed, and I see that you have started reverting your recent changes, orphaning this is not easy. Because the hundreds of bot-like changes done last November and December crunched so many different kinds of entries into the same template (and some folks even used the LND template for things without any numbers), each entry requires bringing up the appropriate "List of" and checking the current state of redirects. Not possible to do with a bot.

Some of these are disambig, some are abbreviations or initialism, and some are actual articles.

I've been carefully doing the work by hand, and I'm only able to do a dozen or so at a time (a couple of hours work). The database problems this past weekend made doing much of anything impossible. I'll keep you posted on progress. Thanks.

--William Allen Simpson 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you did 14 and reverted, while Latinus did 20 and reverted. So, count yourself lucky in noticing sooner. ;-)

--William Allen Simpson 22:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was quite thankful for my admin rollback button then. That's the first time I've used the admin-rollback-as-if-a-bot feature, I've never been bothered before! -Splash^talk 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Finished 1300+ references. I certainly never bargained for spending several weeks of my spare time on template arrangement. I don't know how you can stand it, it's extremely tedious! I just thought I should do the work after organizing the straw poll (and that at somebody else's request) and posting the results on TfD. But, I've discovered that nobody else who participated in the straw poll has bothered working on the cleanup (heavy sigh). And now somebody (who missed the straw poll) has TfD one of the replacements. At some point, maybe folks will stop arguing about "arrangement" and actually work on articles.

--William Allen Simpson 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That was a truly Herculean effort! I've deleted the template now. It's good of you to do the workl; many people decide they want a thousand-references template deleted and leave others to do the leg-work, or perhaps think it happens by magic. Hmmm, what to do about 3LC and TfD? I careful explanation, I guess, and a note on the relevant project pages? -Splash^talk 14:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Told you I'd be back. . .

Simpler question this time--I'm wondering how to handle Gayathri. It was originally written as a copyvio, and then some legit text was stuck in at the top. Is there some way to delete the copyvio parts while leaving the history of the good part? On the other hand, it was written by an anon ([1]), so does that affect whether we need to preserve the history for GFDL purposes? I'd be grateful for any advice--thanks, Chick Bowen 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should have checked that other paragraph. Everything you say makes sense (I have been reverting when possible)--I'll keep all of this in mind. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD T1

Yeah...glad you reverted out that POV nonsense. This is just getting silly.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Void

Just wanted to let you know I took your advice (above) and brought this up at WP:DRV today. I'm incredibly slow, so sorry for the late review request. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've made a (moderately important) note in DRV. -Splash^talk 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment on your WP:DRV note; Template:If defined (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) isn't currently up on WP:TFD, only these templates appear to be up for deletion–

• Template:If defined call3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:If defined call2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:If defined call1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there a separate nomination for {{If defined}}? There isn't a TFD notice on {{If defined}} currently (on either the talk page or the template itself). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there doesn't appear to be. But the only usages of Template:If defined call (outside userspace) are in the three that are nominated, so my conditioning suggestion applies recursively. -Splash^talk 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this at the WP:DRV discussion (I probably should have left my original comment above at WP:DRV as well, but I wasn't aware that Template:If defined had fallen out of use; sorry for scattering our discussion all over). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

You have no right to decide on your own which templates are to be voted about and which should be hidden in subpages. Shame on you. CatherineWest 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked CatherineWest for 24 hours for intentionally disrupting TFD. —Guanaco 03:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -Splash^talk 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree about CatherineWest's deletions, I must ask, is it not appropriate for all of the TfD's for a day to be displayed on that page, not on a subpage? Certainly her TfD's were ridiculous, but does that really give us the right to decide what goes on that page or not?

For the record, I did revert the page back to CatherineWest's way (as I really do feel it is appropriate), but I will not revert it back should you decide to change it again. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts

Hello. I was quite interested to know why you deleted the Battle of Hogwarts article. The only records I have found show that this was nominated for deletion, with the result 'No consensus', yet the system now reports that you deleted it. Could you please un-delete it. Sandpiper 10:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha, and further to the above. I have managed to trace the new deletion debate. Can you please advise where I can find the content deleted from this article, which pro-deleters claimed had already been moved somewhere else? It is certainly not in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article. As I do believe I had commented in the discussion page of the article (in answer to some of the deletion arguments made, before this deletion debate was started, but which you felt had not been responded to), the main objection here seems to be to the title of the article, rather than its content. I have never been hung up about the title, and would consider it much better to re-title to 'Dumbledore's Death', or whatever, but that in itself then becomes a rather awkward plot spoiler. The issue to me was that in fact the description of this article is relevant as expanded detail to many other articles, which now have blank links. This was the logic for maintaining it as a separate article and does not seem to have been addressed. Sandpiper 10:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that might be useful. (I say might, since I do not recall exactly the contents of the article, and don't know whether its last incarnation was as I recall it.) I think the best place for it might be as part of the HP&HBP article, but I also seem to recall suggesting to someone seeking to merge it there that actually it made rather more sense in the article about Dumbledore: it is, after all, his death. The problem is that it is relevant in quite a few places. I must admit, that my annoyance at its disappearance has more to do with wanting one complete description of the events concerned somewhere, rather than its admittedly slightly querky existence on its own. Its existence probably had quite a bit to do with sensitivity about his death at the time the book was published. But it is quite annoying when people have gone to the trouble of creating a useful description that it arbitrarily disappears without an opportunity to find it a home somewhere else. Sandpiper 18:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can't remember about having to provide a credit, since I do not know this in the first place. I have no intention of leaving it as a sub-page of mine in the future, so where exactly should I be referring anything back to? (or alternatively, where is all this explained?) Sandpiper 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I never have merged and deleted, so I still don't know what the procedure is. But presumably there is an explanation of the procedure?

Now funnily enough I was reading a page about quoting wiki material the other day. (which is not to say I remember where it was, but i expect it is findable again). It appeared to say something about it being satisfactory to quote the four main authors of the article, and leave it at that.? But you surprise me by suggesting that wiki does not merge and delete. i thought this was exactly what happened to pages from time time where it was felt the content should become part of a another article, but the original should be deleted. Sandpiper 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well i understood it as being put forward to the reader as one interpretation of how the GNU text might be satisfied. Does this mean that wiki is by now littered with thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of redirects which it is impossible to delete? Sandpiper 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Second AfD question

How does one create a second AfD page? Viable Vision was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viable Vision, but someone recreated it. Then it was nominated for speedy, which was changed to prod, which was contested on the talk page with no edits to the article. Since someone seems to think it should be kept, I started its AfD, only that leads to its old page...I know there's a way to fix that, but I don't know how... NickelShoe 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Activity

Wow![2] How do you do it? Seriously.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh. That's because I've taken to (fairly) regularly cleaning out CAT:SEMI since the creation of that policy, and many admins operate in protect-and-forget mode when it comes to semi-protection. The vast majority of my count is unprotection, as a result, so I'm surprised I've taken so little heat for it! -Splash^talk 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism semi-protection

I think the story here is more complex then you took it. I didn't semi-protect the page due to an edit war, it was semi-protected due to a banned user who is working with proxies to continue editing. In two of these attempts, the user has vandalized the primarysources template [3] [4], replacing it with a template that was deleted and continually recreated by the user (see the histories of Template:AnarchismDef and Template:AnarchismDildo). Through one proxy, the user has attempted to provide the template for use to others [5]. Note also that the offsite link comes from the user's website, as announced in his userpage, so there is no doubt as to who these proxies are. The user has a long history of using these anonymous proxies. I can see why you would think to remove the protection, but I do think there is evidence this banned user is malicious, relentless, and will continue to edit the page. It's your call though, because I do realize I have an inherent bias in administering this article. But I'm also the only sysop who seems to know what's going on in relation to it. Sarge Baldy 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, and it was a mistake. All administrative action should be taken with a grain of salt, and not providing reasoning makes it appear immediately suspect. I appreciate your keeping me in check. Sarge Baldy 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish unprotection

I don't agree, I'm afraid. When anons state unequivocally on the Talk page that they intend to go against consensus and replace material deleted by consensus, that's no more simply a matter of "risk" than is the risk that vandalism will continue once it's started. Protection of any kind has to be a response to risk, as it can't respond to what happens after it's in place, only to what will happen if it's not applied.

I'd add that, as I stated clearly, the protection wasn't added, but reduced from the full protection that another admin had placed earlier (also with good reason). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[6], [7]. As they said they'd do, which was why I kept the article semi-protected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we leave Muhammad permanently semi-protected?

Muhammad, Muslim, and Islam are frequently vandalized. It got worse during the cartoon crisis, but the normal, "background" vandalism is bad enough. Can't we leave them all permanently semi-protected? Zora 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

<ref name=> </ref> <reference/>

Yo Sensai,

How's it going? I've a question for you. Do you know who the wizard is who concocts the java table of special characters that lies just below the edit box? There have been many additions to the thing, the latest being the span tags and related paraphernalia. Given the supreme importance of source citation on WP (and the supreme neglect it nevertheless suffers) don't you think it would be a good idea to have this chap place the above three cite.php tags into the table? Owing to its "unbreakable" autonumbering, I think it's likely this system will gradually replace the other footnoting methods on WP. It seems to me that whatever we can do to make the process of citing references easier, we should. If we had the tags, writing the refs can often be done entirely with the mouse (click tag, copy paste, close tag). It's certainly something that is (or should be) used far more often than some of the other stuff in there (is that cyrilic I see?) ENCEPHALON 13:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear me. That's unfortunate. It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that can be handled well via css. Ie., make the default special characters box contain a minimal set of features: just the wikisyntax items, the mdash, ndash, the greek, and the math symbols, perhaps. Everything else should be placed in individual css pages. I wonder if that's possible. ENCEPHALON 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection and Jew

Hi Splash, Why do you think Jew should not be more or less permanently semi-protected? George W. Bush is and sniping at Bush will diminish when he's no longer President, but Jews will never no longer be the object of hatred. Not just for the Jew article, but some other vandal-magnets, I don't see having an account for a few days on certain articles is an insurmountable disability for a sincere editor. Did you read my comment on this at Talk:Jew the last time I semi-protected? -- Cecropia 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block

I don't think it's fair at all to reset Dschor's block. He was editing his talk page so he can improve Wikipedia on his return -- writing articles. What better example of WP:IAR is there? How is it harming the encyclopedia to allow him to edit his talk page? Why should *anyone* assume they're not allowed to edit a page which is _specifically_ designed to let them even if they're blocked? Ineloquent 17:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zix

Sceptre ^(Talk) 18:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Zeven and zeight. -Splash^talk 18:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Znine and Zten Sceptre ^(Talk) 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeleven (twelve is rubbish) zirteen, and zorteen. -Splash^talk 18:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zifteen, Zixteen, Zeventeen, Zeighteen, Zineteen, Zwanzig Sceptre ^(Talk) 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As per your instructions

The disputed text has been placed in its entirety on the discussion page: not, let's see if you can stop the vandalizing of the discussion page.

[8]

Thanks!

Thanks! I wonder what that guy's issue was... I appreciate you reverting the changes to my user page. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry Reid

We asked the sysop why Harry Reid is locked. No answer. No reason. Why can't we leave on the unlock request page? Tbeatty 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re : TfD

Oh dear, I must have lost track of the dates! Which day is the latest that has reached 7 days maturity? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. That means I've probably forgetten to factor in time-difference, which is 0800+ GMT. I'm relatively a newbie to TfD closing (Being stuck in the AfD/Old department), so do let me know if there's any further difference between TfD and AfD I should take note of. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hehehe, thanks again! ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonviolent resistance

Hi Splash,

I see you changed this page from semi-protection to full protection. The problem was not so much an edit war as repeated insertion of a bizarre and apparently unfounded theory by an anon crank who unfortunately couldn't be dealt with any other way as he edits from a wide range of IP addresses. (He has since acquired an identity as User:Das Baz.) Palmiro | Talk 12:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminitation

Thanks for thinking me worthy, but I'm afraid I have to decline. My heart just isn't in trying at this moment in time. While I appreciate you thinking me deserving, I feel I would be doing Wikipedia a disservice if I ran in my current state. Thanks anyway. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Plácido Domingo

Hi, thanks for protecting this article. There is no real dispute as to Domingo's age. It all derived from an assumption made by Lauri-Volpi that no one could sing Alvaro like that at 30 years old.. It was an assumption shown to have no foundation when Domingo's birth certificate was shown to be dated 1941 by the author Daniel Snowman. Regards Arniep 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:No license

With regard to Template:No license, would you please consider putting the notification line for the user talk page back on a separate line? It makes it much easier to copy and paste, which in turn makes it more likely to actually be used. I agree that the previous image and other additions were wrong, but having this line on a separate line was extremely useful. Hope you'll give it some thought.... ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Splash^talk 15:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 21:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Kyo Kusanagi and Terry Bogard

There seems to be an minor case of POV pushing regarding some recent edits on the Terry Bogard and Kyo Kusanagi articles. I've constructed posts regarding this on their talkpages respectively, if you wish to participate in the discussion. -Zero^Talk 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the talkpage. -Zero^Talk 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

David Hilbert and Licorne

FYI.... this is not an edit war (in my opinion), it's a POV pusher. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne for more info. Not sure whether that makes a difference to whether sprotect is appropriate or not; it seems more appropriate than "protect" to me, since there's no real dispute to resolve. But I haven't read either the "protect" or the "sprotect" policies in detail. --Alvestrand 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Please have a look at the talk page; this is not an edit war. I've just had to ban Licorne for 3RR. William M. Connolley 09:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Youre clearly offline for a bit, so I've unprotected it. William M. Connolley 11:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Template:Rollback

I have userfied this template per your request on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 15 to User:Oleg Alexandrov/Template:Rollback. Apologies if you have already done this; you can just delete this version. -Splash^talk 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Splash. Thanks a lot, that's exactly what I wanted. Sorry for the extra work I had you do; from now on I will keep all my templates in userspace. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Splash^talk 02:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My impersonator

Thanks for taking care of that. :) – ClockworkSoul 02:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure, naturally! -Splash^talk 03:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Important

Splash, you will be hearing from my attorney over the Henry VIII of England article. Please protect it at once or you WILL be hearing from my attorney. We are not happy with this, and may sue for distress. --JasonWallens21 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a better solution for all of us is that I block you indefinitely. -Splash^talk 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In a court of law in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY??? As always, best regards! Hamster Sandwich 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect?

Are they new accounts, Splash? You might have to do a Bishy on your talk page. —Encephalon 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wish I would have thought of that...

[9] :-) android79 01:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

;) -Splash^talk 01:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"History" of Kosovo

You are supporting lies with this articel. pervers lies of a serbian nation which whole histroy are based on lies. Serbia should rewrite his history.

Thanks

Thanks for the quick revert of vandalism to my user page. --Hansnesse 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland Edit

Hello

I had actually stated quite passionately my reason for editing the Newfoundland article, but forgot to sign it by mistake. My apologies, should the said signing make the removal of the contentious section more graceful? M-Williams 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WrestleMania 22 protection

After all the changes that have been made months before the event itself I think we should wait 'till after the event ends to avoid more reverts --3bulletproof16 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The page should probably be kept locked until the event has taken place. The moment it is unlocked, there will be a deluge of rumoured matches. The existing article has a link to the WWE page, which already has adequate information on the event. McPhail 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the less articles being polluted with markboard speculation, the better. - Chadbryant 22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a good idea anyway. --Oakster 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

request to protect the article untill after the event has concluded. --3bulletproof16 11:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's been protected for a very long time as it is and the article is far from finished and could use some editing. Just handle the problem, politely, as they come. -Splash^talk 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry protect

I'm not sure where your reasoning is coming from regarding the protection upgrade. We actually had a fairly decent two weeks out of the last semi, and the "dispute" you should have seen is a POV problem from a user who was banned by ArbCom and thus can only edit via new socks (which is why the protection worked). I'm not sure, then, what other dispute you are referring to. MSJapan 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The user is User:Lightbringer and his socks (of whom, BTW, I think User:WMMorgn is one, because he likes to pretend to be a Mason User: PM GL PA or User:Anderson12 for that matter, as in Anderson's Constitutions of Freemasonry), and the sock that caused the re-request to be made was User:Anderson12. Lightbringer was pushing for a "revised section" that associated the forget-me-not with an ex-Nazi German Grand Master doing PR (which was not factually provable via the source he used. He refuses to read critically and believes that Masonry = Satanism (he stated this clearly through another sock, User:Basil Rathbone. He was banned months ago by ArbCom for his activities, so we just notify admins when a new sock arises. He's had so many socks he's got a pretty good category going. MSJapan 22:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Hi Splash! How are you these days? I reduced the protection on that page right after seeing this edit here, and subsequently made this edit here. It was done just to follow through with the request in the first link. From the sounds of it, you know much more about the circumstances than me. I don't know too much background regarding the page, if at all. --HappyCamper 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the compliment.

That means a lot coming from someone of your academic stature. I will be going over the entire French Revolution page today. I am an attorney practicing law in California. Good, clear style is critical to my work (so that the judge won't stop reading because he becomes frustrated over readability). I use the Harbrace College Handbook and the Chicago Manual of Style. By the way, have you ever travelled from East to West? Lottamiata 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The French Revolution article is very well written (in my opinion) and those little stylistic improvements will make it close to perfect. I am very interested in getting much more involved in the Wikipedia project. How did you become an administrator and are dues required yet for membership? How does one vote at the elections for arbitrators and foundation trustees? Lottamiata 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Impostor

Hello, I thought you might care to look into this. The impostor User:ClockwrokSoul probably became [10]. While this vandal doesn't seem to be active, it's probably a good idea to block him/her. Thanks. - mako 03:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. Faseidrnan appears to be masquerading as Faseidman. Compare Special:Contributions/Faseidrnan and Special:Contributions/Faseidman. - mako 04:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fatigue is a harsh mistress. Thanks again. - mako 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image help...

The Image:ROB nes.jpg went unused and was marked for orphened speedy deletion. I found ROB nes.jpg to be a very cool pic and I didn't want it deleted, so I decided to reinsert it into the R.O.B. article. However, for some reason the image doesn't show up, just the copyright info. Why does this happen? Sorry for contacting you - I don't know who is the right person for this weird technicality. - Hbdragon88 05:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ah. Thanks for the fast and informative response and for fixing it for me. Thanks! - Hbdragon88 06:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion

I'm assuming that, with your outside view, you didn't intend to place your signature under a heading that said "Users not endorsing" [11]. I've corrected it accordingly, but feel free to undo my change if I was in error. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You were indeed in error. Sjakkalle has already fixed it. -Splash^talk 12:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Alrighty then! I thought you had perhaps just copied from SPUI's statement above. But I guess that wasn't the case; good to know. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Counties

I see you've semi-protected Association of British Counties. Would you be able to do the same to Traditional counties of the British Isles? The same anonymous user is giving that page the same treatment. Thanks! --RFBailey 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised I should have made this request here, so I have. --RFBailey 11:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor up to his old tricks

Nevermind. Since Dschor has proceeded to engage in sockpuppetry and invoke the circumventing of his ban, I withdraw my addmedeum concerning his sandbox construction. I really don't appreciate this attempt by an user to to misrepresent me so grossly. The respective actions and sneakiness of Dschor is becoming a disgrace. Thank you for correcting the misrepresenation [12], Spalsh. -Zero^Talk 15:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Shared IPs=

User:82.42.237.114 and User:195.188.50.200 are both shared IPs, they cover the entire region of Merseyside (not the entire UK as I wrongly stated). User:82.42.237.114 covers up to Southport and also to Bootle, while User:195.188.50.200 is allocated to public PCs across from Southport, right down to West Derby and Tuebrook, Merseyside.
I should know, I'm the sysadmin for one area that gets both IPs!
--Craig Whitford 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

warring on WP:AUM

I want to respect your wishes with regards to Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, by not revert warring, but recently Locke Cole has trollishly reverted my considered changes and marked it "rejected", even though there is no basis other than his own ill-will towards the page. Your advice and assistance would be most helpful. I remain confused as to why he feels the need to revert me and marked it rejected.... if it is rejected, let it say what I've written.... if the wording is still being worked on, then it's still "proposed". -- Netoholic @ 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You basically reverted to your favored version with the edit summary "see talk". There was nothing new on the talk page besides my note that you're back to trying to use WP:AUM to steamroll people into not using meta-templates (me, specifically, on Template:Infobox Software). I reverted you and marked it rejected because it has been in the past, and the only one removing the rejected tag has (for the most part) been you. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, you should be editing neither Wikipedia: nor Template: space at present. Locke Cole, I don't think that adding a rejected tag was a particularly helpful move since the only possible outcomes are, to my mind, inflammatory. I can think of several editors who are quite happy with metatemplates and several editors who would be happy to see AUM dead. At best, the status of proposal-policy-kindof is unclear. It seems unlikely to be resolved in the near future from either the technical or practical perspectives. I think the case can only be made on a template-by-template basis and persuading the editors involved each time. This makes the avoidance case easier, I suppose, since it has a page of its own making, but then the the pro-metatemplates case has in its favour the fact that Mediawiki supports them and Brion said they're not pure evil. Why not split AUM in half (without forking) or something, like the schools debate was? -Splash^talk 09:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Meantime, I see Locke Cole has collected a 3RR block...I'm not entirely persuaded that those diffs constitute a 3RR, although they have the appearance of complex reversion so they could be. -Splash^talk 09:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Level 4 Productions

ok splash. i see you re-deleted the thing again and i can see where this is going. these so-called revert wars. so fuck that. so are you saying that the article is staying deleted, but if it is recreated and rewritten, it will stay up? also, as far as deletion reviews go, arent people supposed to vote on these things? or is that only upon the original deletion of the article? Morphine 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Plácido Domingo

Splash I added the info about his age dispute, the user then removed my edits, called me a liar and added a whole bunch of other deliberately negative POV edits to the article. What can I do now, can they be blocked? Arniep 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just discovered they have twice vandalized Luciano Pavarotti [13], [14]. Arniep 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard this dude sing before, I liked it. He was also on the Cosby Show. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering about something, and I think you'd be better for this than me. I want to know what do you speculate if I were to do an RfA now. Not to say I am about to, but let's just think hypothetically here. I haven't made any major NPA slips in a while, oh wait, yes I have - never mind. I'll try in a month or two...εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my message, what you said really helped me. You are extremely intelligent, I can say that now! About AfD: in honesty, I only get on AfD or give out welcome messages when I want to boost up my edit count (maybe I shouldn't have written this for it to come up in the future, but that is true). I really appreciate the time you took to write this for me, I consider you an excellent friend here. Actually, I try not - and I have not - to write a "Friends" list or subpage denoting friends I have here, because it would be too long (it would be easier, actually, to write who I don't like, but of course that would be "suboptimal"). About Merkey, I later wrote back to him, expressing a hope and a desire that we could get over our past differences, and of course, do the one thing we all came here for: write an encyclopedia. I really appreciate your guidance, and maybe I'll try to get an RfA done (probably a self nomination) by the Ides of March. I am pretty sure I'll get some oppose votes, but I have tried to do what I can while I've been here. I am about to do the last cram of work on the Military history of Mexico. There is only one more fear that I have concerning an RfA: that is, that someone may mention that my edits have steeply declined, which they have, and may say the only reason he hasn't had his slip was because he has been here !? And how could I counter that argument?

Thanks again, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive edits

Ok, I'll remove your pages from the lists that the bot users to run. I basically grab a whatlinks here on the template and run the replacement based based on that, I don't know if I've done it twice and you've reverted, it doesn't give me a list of the bots reverted edits. Anyways, I'll exclude you in the future from the bots runs though you might want to re-read WP:SUBST because I think it requests that those pages be subst'd -- Tawker 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ping

commons:Commons:Help_desk#.7B.7Bnowsvg.7D.7D.3F. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

List of British Jews

Thanks for sorting that out, Splash. Much appreciated. Grace Note 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IGN

The semi-protect on IGN didn't work for some reason. Jedi6 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I thought User:Introducing... was brand dueto his/her lack of contributes and just the timing of everything. Thanks! Jedi6 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

DRV archive

Hi there.

What happens to DRV discussions after you conclude them? You don't put summaries in the list of Recently Concluded pages; do you archive the discussion anywhere, or just in the DRV article history and edit summary?

-ikkyu2 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries at all, just trying to figure out how this process works. Thanks for the speedy reply. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Crosstar semi-protection

Hi Splash, I was wondering if I could get your input on the Crosstar edit war. The same user has removed the Crosstar image from the article 15 times now. Normally the user would just be blocked, but he edits from a differnt IP address every time. We would have to block 130,000 IP addresses to prevent him from vandalizing the article. Is there any solution besides using semi-protection? Kaldari 03:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the vandal has removed the image again. Knowing who the vandal is (Richard Barrett), I am completely certain that he will continue vandalizing this article until the day he dies (his registered username is Crosstar, BTW). We can continue reverting his vandalism, but the edit war will go on forever unless the article is semi-protected. Which is worse: having an article under a slow edit war forever, or having an article semi-protected forever? In this particular case, I don't really see much downside to semi-protecting forever. The article topic is obscure and everything that has ever been published about it has already been sythesized into the article. I doubt this article will receive any further substantive edits, semi-protected or not (unless its a nomination for deletion). I agree that protection is normally bad, but in this case I'm having a hard time convincing myself not to use it. I'll leave it unprotected for now and see how it goes. Kaldari 23:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind and Louisiana Baptist University blocks

Greetings, Splash,

The sprotect blocks on Kent Hovind and Louisiana Baptist University were precisely because of vandalism: there is an ongoing editwar with a sockfarm, many of whom are suspected to belong to User:Jason Gastrich, and some already having been proven to be his. Jason currently has a RfArb in process Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich, discussing these issues as well as others. Specifically, the sprotect on the Dallas Theological Seminary page was put in place to prevent further actions by the sockmaster (there had been four such edits--all with new socks--within three hours prior to the sprotect).

Could we have the blocks restored--at least, until the RfArb is finished and we can get a definte plan of action going?

Thanks,

Justin Eiler 03:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from User_talk:Justin_Eiler

I recognise that Gastrich enjoys being a pointless troll on these, and other articles. Giving him the satisfaction of having an impact on Wikipedia without him actually having to go to any effort at all is not something I think we should be doing. At the moment, the articles are surviving. If he decides to play the fool again, they can always be briefly protected then. WP:SEMI and WP:PPol are not pre-emptive, remember, and open-editing is a key part of what Wikipedia is about. -Splashtalk 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense--I hadn't read WP:PPol before, so now I have a greater understanding. Thanks for setting me straight on this. Justin Eiler 20:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels

It was protected due to legal threats by someone who wanted the page taken down, they seem to have stopped so I think its safe to un-sprotect the page, if it starts again, I think sprotecting might be a good thing though, I'm sick of legal threats -- Tawker 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Since you seem to be a well trusted Wikipedian, I would like to invite you to have a look at this dispute here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people. Your comments are very much appreciated. --Kash 10:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Block

Hi, is there any reason {{Block}} is still around? At Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Archives you wrote "To be deleted, but currently linked to an Arbitration case", but that was last September, and the Arbitration case it was linked to was closed in November. Can we go ahead and delete it? Angr/talk 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I use that template, because it cannot be missed on a page, because it allows for different reasons for blocking (template:blocked is "vandalism", only, and takes 2 edits to change to something else), and because it gives instructions for requesting unblock. What is the objection to it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it is a hideous, graphical abomination on every page it disgraces. It;'s functionailty could be as well effected by a simple text message with the option of the red 'x' if you really can't live without SHOUTING IT AT EVERYBODY WHO READS THE PAGE. Give it's whatlinkshere list has expanded considerably since the TfD, I think it would need to be revisited before I am prepared to delete it, but the TfD remains procedurally valid. -Splash^talk 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the hideousness. That was a lot easier than trying to get the template deleted :) Kaldari 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Much, much better. Its the "what to do" part and the option of specifying reason for blocking that I liked, not the screaming loudness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

How do you do, I uploaded four of your contributed images (related the digital modulations) into Wikimedia Commons to use in Japanese Wikipedia under GFDL license. The images are [[Image:8PSK Gray Coded WMC.png]],[[Image:BPSK Gray Coded WMC.png]],[[Image:Pi-by-4-QPSK Gray Coded WMC.png]] and [[Image:QPSK Gray Coded WMC.png]]. Thank you very much. --Willpo 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

re: babel edits

A discussion arose at WP:TFD#Babel templates that the numbered babel templates (1-147) should be replaced, by bot, with less redundant methods before continuing the deletion debate. I didn't get very far, and I don't know what the current outlook is, or whether the initiative is being abandoned now. — Mar. 3, '06 [22:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Thanks for voting

I'd just like to take a moment to thank you, Splash for voting in my request for adminship regardless if you voted for or against me. Seeing some very valid concerns, I've pulled the RfA until some of the concerns can be addressed. Thanks for your comments, I'll use them to help better myself -- Tawker 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As a second note, I know the 4500 user warnings are in there and they show up on the edit counts when they probally shouldn't be listed as such, not sure how that could be fixed though -- Tawker 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comment (v2.0)

The userbase is the hardest thing to gain and obtain, without it, the wiki is dead (I've setup another wiki on another topic, 2 months, a few bloggers but 2 active posters) - when I recieved the nomination I was 75% expecting to hear the comments I did and guess what, it happened.

As for the editiorial contribs, you're going to laugh at me, I keep trying a few times a day when I find interesting stuff but 99% of the time someone has already added it before I can get to it (I managed to sneak in 1 out of 28 Canadian medals and that was even when I was watching the tv on one monitor and updating WP on another. I do add some stuff when I have a chance, I think they get buried a bit in the sea of vandal reverts so maybe I'll make a "non vandal reverts" list or something like that :) (I'm actually working on a bit of a series about geographic topologies, I'm adapting a term paper I wrote.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fun week" though, I thought every week on Wikipedia was fun :) -- Tawker 03:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw

I've "retired" from the protection game. Several reasons. Some of it is just pure frustration with people not removing unprotected pages, using incorrect formatting, etc. Some of it is just burn out. And some of it is this. I'd rather do something less stressful. If you really need help, let me know. Otherwise, I think I'm going to wander around for awhile on here until I find something else to do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats to bad. I noticed that I end up having to do more without you, since you were one of the more active RfPP admins.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Stopping anonymous vandals

What is wrong with blocking anonymous edits of my own personal user page? I was under the impression that that is the one area of Wikipedia controlled by the user (and mine was recently vandalized by an anonymous user). Is there a different method to use there? I had trouble finding the relevant information. Thanks. --Ajdz 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Monobook.js

I have been using it for quite awhile. It had some tab additions yesterday by Voice of all and only other user monobook.js showing in CAT:SEMI is his. I do not know anything about scripts, I just copied them. What is it that I need to do? Thanks. --Dakota ~ ° 17:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy fix, I'll make it into a string.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

btw:.......MAN YOU NEED TO ARCHIVE!!! :).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know. But because I'm fussy, I like to archive a whole complete day. I can't do that when I have running discussions and things, and so I'm waaaay past the 50kb that I normally archive at. If things stay quiet here until 00:00 UTC today then I'll archive... -Splash^talk 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)