Please don't edit this page: If you need to leave a message, please put it here.
|
Archives
|
Opening Day
editAfter a month of Spring Training, it's finally going to happen tonight. That being said, I'm curious as to whether 501 in your name is random or not. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's so exciting! Can't wait! And the 501 is 100% random, actually. I was on a web site about 8 years ago, when I was 8 years old, and typed in mets for a screenname, and it said that mets was taken, but it recommended related available screen names, and Mets501 was on the list. I went with it and for the past 8 years online I've been Mets501. :-) —METS501 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suspect you used AOL, since attempting to create a name in use causes the software to add a random three digit number. That being said, would you block User:Mets502 if it was created? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I used AOL until gmail came out. What a difference! Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mets502. —METS501 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suspect you used AOL, since attempting to create a name in use causes the software to add a random three digit number. That being said, would you block User:Mets502 if it was created? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
edit- Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
re: nutshells
editIn my opinion, the nutshells are a useless clutter on the page - another infobox that readers will gloss over. "Nutshells" can not replace a well-written introduction. The introduction is still necessary to establish the flow and context of the rest of the page. As I said above, some readers will inevitably skip the infobox and start reading the text. That's how we are trained. That's how we read other policy documents, text books, etc. The fluff at the front is, well, usually fluff. Busy readers learn to skip it. Yet here we are at Wikipedia trying to buck that trend - trying to fly in the face of all the training and experience our readers have.
Of course, the much worse problem is when readers only read the infobox and think that they know everything about the policy. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone quote the "nutshell" text and ignore all the nuance, context and qualifying discussion that's on the rest of the page. "Nutshells" make it easier for readers to be lazy and sloppy.
Now, some say that a "nutshell" is necessary in order to distill an overly detailed policy into a simple concept - kind of like a chapter title. That's a fair criticism of some of our policy pages. But that's what our page titles are for. If a page really needs a "nutshell", that's an indicator that the page title is wrong. Fix the page title, don't add another box at the top of the page trying to paper over the core problem...
I'm afraid you touched on one of my pet peeves. I despise "nutshells". I've seen them to far more harm to editors understanding of policy than good. I firmly believe we should remove them all and replace them with better written page titles and introductory sections.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant. Thanks for taking the time to ask, though. Rossami (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
edit
|
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Re: ↑or ^
editWow, that's a question I've never been asked before. And in IRC, I'm often referred to as "carat demon," "carrot demon" or even just "carrot." However, most people have it wrong. While I know it's called a carat, I'm not using it in the programming (and mathematical) sense of raising something to a power, I'm using it in the grammatical sense of inserting new information into a sentence (when editing on paper). Therefore, my name is actually "Insert Demon." There, the cat is out of the bag, I'm not carrot. :-P ^demon[omg plz] 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hyperlink
editClicking the hyperlink button places [[Link title]] brackets in the text. First hightlight a word or words with your mouse then click the hyperlink button. Or replace "Link title" with the name of the article you want the link to point to. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
editI have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. --TeckWizParlateContribs@
RFCN
editPlease do not start RFCN cases until you have discovered why the blocking admin made a block as you did with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal- it is an obvious variant of names commonly used by Johnny the Vandal, which Misza13 would no doubt have explained to you had you asked him and awaited his response. As it was the debate on that page proceeded under the impression that block was for similarity to the name of a living person. Please assume good faith (and competence) on the part of Wikipedia administrators. WjBscribe 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- We all do - even those of us who already are :-). I didn't intend to be harsh in my comment- you're not the only one who has started an RFCN when there might have been a better way forward. And a lot of people who contributed to that discussion didn't consider the vandal meme possibility. I don't think the incident makes you any less suited to be an admin, whereas your willingness to apologise and take advice is encouraging- Newyorkbrad is a good choice to get it from too. And I realise you only had interests of the blocked user in mind. WjBscribe 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Majorly's RfB
editHey BuickCenturyDriver, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly (o rly?) 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks!
editI appreciate you lending a hand on my User Page. What led you there in the first place? :) Arcayne 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
edit
Hi, my RfA has been successful. Thanks a lot for your support. :) --soum (0_o) 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Lowercase letters
editI am aware of titles not being able to have lowercase letters, but I was just wondering if there was any way to fix it in Editor Review. Thanks for your answer! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- No; if you look at my editor review, it has a lowercase letter. Therefore Wikipedia:Editor review/Casmith 789 is a red link, but Wikipedia:Editor review/casmith 789 is not. A redirect could be used, but I was wondering if there was any way to do it without creating a redirect. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
edit| Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0.
I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks. | |
|---|---|
| --Meno25 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
Reply
editThen, okay, I'll consent. I don't like to be rude and keep refusing you. bibliomaniac15 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, BuickCenturyDriver! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bpurevolume\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ros(s)lea
editShould have checked what you did with the anons edit, I assumed you'd restored the Rosslea article from the redirect. It's actually spelt either way, but Rosslea seems to be more common, and as that article was there first and Roslea was pasted in, it's best to keep it at Rosslea I think. One Night In Hackney303 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD for future films
editI was reading your userpage with interest, and I was wondering what you thought about when it would be most appropriate to create an article about a future film. I've personally developed a rule of thumb that the film article should be created at the earliest when there is a director, a cast, and a production start date established. I ran into AfD difficulties with Jurassic Park IV (though I've cleaned it up anyway despite my desire to delete it). I've placed mention of film adaptations in the articles of the source material, so I don't oppose re-creation if production is actually underway. How would you address, though, articles like Logan's Run (2007 film) that have some history that may be of encyclopedic value? Would it be best to re-direct and not worry about actually deleting the article itself (since the release year will be inaccurate)? Just wondering if you had any insights on this matter. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree due to fallacies I've come across in IMDb. Inaccurate cast/crew information and release years when none were announced are two major future film issues that I've encountered. Also, with listings like Thor (2009), which has received no coverage since being announced on Marvel's development slate, would not deserve its own film article yet. I don't know if you're aware of the site's faults, but I can explain them to you in further detail if you're interested. I guess I was looking for something more in-depth in terms of interpreting WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. Thanks, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was just an example of the future film articles I've encountered. Logan's Run will definitely not be released within the year -- the project was abandoned and only recently picked up by producer Joel Silver this past month. Even if production starts now, it won't be released within the year. I was trying to find out from you in what cases would a film article deserve deletion, because not all announced films are actually produced, and thus don't deserve their own article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- IMDb's last update for Logan's run was November 2006. It's April 2007 now, and they haven't started filming. That alone will take several months. It's highly unlikely the film will be released in 2007, couple that with IMDb not listing any source to verify their info, it doesn't speak well for the article. Even film articles have to meet the general article creation requirements, and you cannot bog down pages with unless banter about "Mr. X has left the project. As of this date, Mr. Y is not attached to the project. As of this date, Mr. W has replaced Mr. Y". We're shooting in the dark. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
TeckWiz's RFA
editHey BuickCenturyDriver. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. (Also, instead of retyping it, look at the the end of my sig for the small statement :) ) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review for Still_Pending
editHello. You left an Overturn comment on the deletion review for Still_Pending band Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Still_Pending. Would you be so kind as to supplement your opinion with a comment to lend some more credibility to your comment? Thank you. Stampsations 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Your Closure of the AFD for Tobacco Litigation
editI've posted on WP:ANI at [1] about this for 2 reasons :-
- When you closed and redirected, you left the copyright violations in the Article history - as you are not an administator you cannot delete them, and they MUST be deleted to comply with our copyright policies so an admin is required for this.
- I'm uncertain as to whether normal users are permitted to close AFDs. If they are, they should probably not close ones that require admin-only actions upon closure such as the aforementioned history deletions so I have asked for clarification.
No offence is intended, I'm certain you acted in good faith but these issues need resolving.
exolon 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate you
editJust kidding around. You're too fast on the fixes =D. Whstchy 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)