User talk:Redvers/Archive22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Redvers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Pantlessness
Pardon my boldness, but I think I liked it better when you weren't wearing pants. ;-) Aloha, a hui hou. --Ali'i 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Who am I to argue? ➔ REDVEЯS has removed his pants by popular demand 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yippee! Oh, I guess I missed your biases in the talk header. Oh well... c'est la vie. --Ali'i 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Still, you can gaze upon my pantlessness knowing I'm no threat :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wundervoll! Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
5-Hour Energy
I finally got around to editing the 5-Hour Energy Article that we were talking about last month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redvers/Archive20#5_Hour_Energy). I removed anything that looked like marketing hype. I know you said I could go to another editor as you are rather a stickler for these things; however, there is nothing that needs to be in the article. I just want to add it to the list of energy drinks section as it is a pretty good energy drink that has been around for a little while. Please let me know what you think about the revised article. I can and will make any other necessary edits if needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshburg/5-Hour_Energy
Thanks Oshburg 16:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've done a little light subbing of the article, and then moved it to 5-Hour Energy in the mainspace. Hope this helps! Just to let you know, across all of Wikipedia you can use the [[internal link]] system - so [[User talk:Redvers/Archive20#5 Hour Energy]] works just as well (better!) than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redvers/Archive20#5_Hour_Energy - even though it's in user space, the link still works everywhere.
- If you click "edit", you'll see how User talk:Redvers/Archive20#5 Hour Energy compares with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redvers/Archive20#5_Hour_Energy on this line.
- Just a note, obviously, we don't like links in public articles (the "mainspace") to go to internal Wikipedia workings. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
--Thanks for your help on this and the linking issue. I am somewhat of a Noob and try to follow all guidelines, but as you stated in our previous conversation, User talk:Redvers/Archive20#5 Hour Energy, the guidelines are endless. Your edits look good so I am going to add the article to the list of energy drinks.
Thanks again, Oshburg 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Remind me how "consensus" works, again?
I'm certainly not going to take them to DRV, but some of these closures - particularly this one - are possibly the most dubious admin* decisions I've ever seen. — iridescent 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure as keep where the sole keep !vote is from the article creator - there is something very dubious going here — iridescent 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo responded on the RFC less than three hours ago, and already his response had gathered fourteen endorsements in the two hours before you protected the RFC. I'm not clear what you mean when you say that the RFC had reached its "logical close". [1]. Why shouldn't others make their comments on the RFC? In my view, there has certainly been more constructive dialog on this subject there than anywhere else. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- This was the logical close to this storm in a teacup. Failure to stop there helped nobody. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I must confess I hadn't seen it before. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Chuckle
Aherm. Something I really admire about you mate - your flair for diplomacy ;-) ... So how was Amsterdam? WjBscribe 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know. I once thought about becoming a politician, but then realised that the whole patience-of-Stalin, ruthlessness-of-Stalin, baby-kissing-popularity-of-Stalin thing I had going was wasted on politics and therefore I should turn my attentions to a more useful career. Not that I got anywhere as a journalist, either.
- I'd love to say that Amsterdam was a great stoned poky-bumfest, etc. Sadly, I had a heavy night in Brussels the night before, got up too late for the Thalys, couldn't rebook as they were all full, so went to Cologne for the day instead. Which was lovely, if somewhat lacking in the pot/sodomy stakes.
- Nevertheless, I enjoyed wandering around aimlessly, then returning sheepishly to Brussels and being kept awake all that night by the federal police deciding to stage an exercise at the railway station opposite. By the next day I was unstoned, unbuggered and very tired. So I went to Blankenberge for the day and rode around on the coastal tram. Geeky, but relaxing. Pictures from Blankenberge ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Gravestones in Ypres Town CWGC Cemetery.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gravestones in Ypres Town CWGC Cemetery.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Failure to concentrate on my part (although the {{information}} template does say "CC-BY" in two places). Template added. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
GameCube Network games
Clearly, we're going through the oldest still-active AfD page simultaneously. You redirected List of Nintendo GameCube network games to the article on its broadband adapter, while at the same time, I was merging the info into Nintendo GameCube#Online play. Let me know if you think this was a good call, or just overkill by posting the same info on two different pages. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me for the information to be in both places. It's good info, it's just not good enough to have its own article. You've got the rest of the AfD page to yourself - I'm going to bed now with hot chocolate and a good book :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
dim3 Deletion
I'd like to start up some discussion as to why dim3 was deleted. Note that it had a AFD, at which there was some strong discussions and in which a number of users and admins put a keep on it (as a matter of fact, at least 2 admins who initially said delete switched to keep after clean up.)
I do know it's not a vote, but throughout the discussion a number of people agreed that all the requirements had been met. Note that these were not puppets (at the beginning there were a couple of the software users doing this but the following discussion, especially after the first break, was not.)
At least one admin basically said it was more than likely a keep. After all that work, I'm wondering why it got the boot and if it can be restored.
I don't remember seeing your ID in the AFD, which is odd. Did you read it? While not everybody was in agreement, the vast majority was. What is the reason for the delete? What can be done to fix it?
Ggadwa 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: I apologize if this is the wrong place to start this discussion, I am learning this as I go. Again, I'm just looking for a way to restart this discussion or to hopefully convince you as I have others. Ggadwa 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ggadwa! Yes, this is the right place to start a conversation. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way!
- AfD is a process that manages to be both more complicated that it can seem and more simple than it looks. There are a couple of misconceptions that new users have about the process. The first is that it is a headcount or a vote of some sort. It isn't: it's a discussion, matching Wikipedia policy against the article. So, all arguments for keep or delete that don't address Wikipedia policy or are just "votes" are ignored. That also does away with what we call SPAs - single-purpose accounts, people who have registered in order to "vote" one way or the other.
- The second misconception is that some peoples' voices are worth more than others. For instance, if an admin says keep, then that has more power than a new user saying delete (or vice versa). It doesn't work that way - the force of the argument being made is more important than who is saying it.
- The third misconception is that there is an element of randomness in the closing admin. Shurly the admin who closes it should have "voted" during it? Well, no. If you "vote", you can't close the discussion. This prevents abuse. Or tries to!
- As for this AfD, you ask if I read it. Well, I've been at Wikipedia for 3 years or so, and I was elected an admin some 18 months back. If I was prone to deleting articles or closing AfD discussions on a whim, I wouldn't still be here, let alone still be an administrator-janitor! Yes, I read the entire AfD (including the "votes" I discounted) and I read the article itself. I also read the articles that link to the article, and the sources provided. The deletion wasn't done lightly!
- For all of that, it came down to something quite simple: to be an article on Wikipedia, a subject must be notable and have reliable sources that can be verified. This article's subject simply wasn't notable enough (at the moment, these things can change) and the sources provided weren't up to much. The "keep" !voters didn't address that, whilst the delete !voters did.
- So, what next, I'm sure you're asking. Well, I'm not prepared to overturn myself on this one, so that's out. Sorry. That leaves us with three other avenues.
- The first is to accept the decision and walk away. These things happen.
- The second is called "userfying". A copy of the article and its edit history is provided in your userspace (ie not in the encyclopedia part). User:Ggadwa/Dim3, for instance. This allows you - and others - unlimited time to address the main concerns about the article, strip it of all the advertising terms, find and add inline reliable sources for each statement made, prove notability and so forth. When that's done, you can ask me (or any other admin of your chosing) to move it into the article space. If the concerns at AfD have been addressed, the article will be moved.
- The third option is the one to use if you feel I have abused my position at Wikipedia, violated Wikipedia's rules and guidelines or otherwise acted improperly. If you think that's true, then you need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the instructions there. There's a requirement to also read the entire Wikipedia:Deletion policy if you do that. That'll take forever but is actually worth doing! (I would say that, after all, I have been here 3 years... :o)
- So those are your choices. Let me know if I can help with any of this. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 09:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before, I understand it's not a vote, but there is a reason for the keep/delete markers; it to see how the discussion is going. You basically valued the opinions of the deletes, or which there were 2 (note that a couple switched to keep), over the keeps, of which there were 9 (I'm cutting out people who are users of the software to avoid any notion of puppets.)
- The thing is, your statement, "The "keep" !voters didn't address that, whilst the delete !voters did." is untrue. The keep voters did address this, and the delete never did, and those that did eventually switched their votes to keep.
- Of those two deletes, neither actually had arguments. One just repeated the "not notable" line, and the other actually said "Not notable per reasons given by User:Jayron32". Note that further down User:Jayron32 changed his vote to keep. That almost invalidates that vote.
- It seems that there were reasoned and well founded arguments on the keep side, and nothing but repetition of "not notable" on the others.
- Now, any other article not being notable does not give this article a free pass, but basically the entire list of game engines, for a few, are as notable as dim3, and some less so (dim3 has more actual notations then a lot of them). Again, I understand the process, but am just looking for a little fairness in the process here.
- As for you not being in the discussion, I can also understand this, but it makes the debate irrelevant because it's not the debate but your view of the debate. Without knowing this, or how you feel about it, there's no way the debate could be "won" or "lost" on the merits of the debate. It's actually you that needs to be convinced, and without your input that's really not possible.
- I'd love to have the chance to help convince you and have you pull the delete. Anything you can point to that specifically needs to be in there for you, please tell me. Otherwise (no, this is not some childish threat, I just believe that the article is notable and I understand your position, I just disagree) I'll move it over to the deletion review and we can go from there.
- Follow-up: I don't seem to have the page in my user-space. Can it be recovered so I can make any necessary edits to re-present it to you? (I was not the creator of the page nor did I ever edit it.) Ggadwa 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with the system - it frustrates many a new user, especially when the article in question is about their company or something they enjoy. However, this is the system we have, it developed over 6 years with much discussion about how it works/doesn't work, and neither you nor I can overturn the entire system or start making exceptions to it to suit ourselves.
For the results to be "not the debate but [my] view of the debate", well, yes, that's right. That's how the system works. I know it sounds odd to you, but that's what we do. As for it being "... actually you that needs to be convinced, and without your input that's really not possible", the first part is correct - the closing admin is the one who needs to be convinced, but no, I'm afraid The System doesn't agree with the second part. In fact we go very very very far in insisting that people who take part in a debate are part of the debate and classing them as partisan. We don't allow people who are part of the debate to close discussions or adjudicate on disputes. That way, we inforce neutrality - or at least the appearance of neutrality (which isn't the same thing).
Anyhow, I'm glad you picked one of the three options available. Shortly, I'll move the article to the suggested userspace location (I didn't do it before as I needed to hear back from you first).
You'll need to ruthlessly remove everything that sounds like advertising from the article. All boasts, superlatives and sales language. You'll need to read our policy on reliable sources, find some and link them as inline refs wherever you make any sort of assertion. And finally, but most importantly, you'll need to find verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability (read Wikipedia:Notability for a long discussion on this) and assert that notability up front in the article - with a reference to prove it (like this: "Product X is an open-source widget for the remove of foo and bar. It was recommended by Barfoo in June 2007 [REF] and awarded the Bar of Foo Award by Foobar Inc in July. [REF]").
I'm happy to help you out on any of this - just us ask - but you'll need to come up with the reliable sources yourself. Okay? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's all I'm asking of you. Move it to my space, note that, and then I'll begin editing it. I assume you have the privileges to see it from my space. After I do all the editing and sourcing I can, then you can tell me how much farther I have to go. I believe firmly that I can convince you with the proper guidance, and hope you'll give me all the chances I need. Do we continue this here or do we continue this somewhere else? Ggadwa 15:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's been moved to User:Ggadwa/Dim3, so you're free to edit it. As is anyone else - it's not "hidden" or anything. It can remain in your userspace almost indefinately, so there's not rush or hurry - you can take your time to get it right.
- I've put it on my watchlist, so I can see any changes that are made. But I have a couple of thousand things on my list, so please shout me rather than waiting for me if you need any help!
- This page is fine by me for continuing conversations and discussion (it's transparent to keep everything here but not essential), but we can also/instead talk on your talk page or the userfied article's talk page - whichever suits you best. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 15:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, first off, thanks for listening. Second, I've pulled a number of sources and noted them at the top but get the feeling that it might be "boasting", though your example seems to contain the same language (i.e., "foo was recommended"), so I'm not sure. Please take a look and tell me what you think of the opening paragraph and it's references.
- There's one new reference and clean-ups of others; I think there needs to be a weighing of references as when it comes to open-source engines, it's very hard for but the very few to achieve the same notability as other subjects, but at the same time they are definitely notable in their unique spaces. There has been a number of articles, respected clearing houses for engines, and staff picks to make it notable (IMHO, you might disagree :) ). Anyway, tell me what you think so far.
- Also, something that would be very helpful is to tell me (and this is not tit for tat, just wondering how to achieve the same thing) how other open source game engines (and some commercial ones) (look in the list you deleted dim3 from) keep their status (some have no cites or the same cites I'm using.) An example would be useful to me.
- BTW, here's the list I'm talking about: Free Game Engines Ggadwa 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and hit every point you thought I needed to make. My goal is for the dim3 article to become the article all wikipedia admins look at with stars in their eyes when they think of a "perfect" article :) You can drop further comments on my talk page, I only bring this up here as I know you want to be alerted instead of watching the watch list. Hopefully I've either gotten it to where you are at least OK with it or have just some work to go, but, again, I'm pretty willing to go the distance as I truly believe this deserves an article.
Thank you, Redvers, you're a gentleman and a scholar. Your dedication to helping a newbie out and getting a page back up should be noted. I made one last edit, the "categories" still had a nowiki tag from when it was in user space. If I knew your address I'd send you a box of twinkees :) Ggadwa 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to help, even if the process must have been very painful for you! Sorry I missed the nowiki tags. I'm aware of twinkies, although I don't think we have them here in Belgium (and don't think I'd eat them even if we did) but the virtual gift is gratefully received :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Courteeners
Hi. I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Courteeners was closed as a keep, but the AFD notice remained on the article page, and the talk page was not updated with the AFD result. I've boldly gone ahead and did the work as a non-admin, but I've never done this before, so perhaps you could check to see that I didn't mess anything up. Regards. -- Whpq 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- All done fine. I wondered why Firefox announced this evening that I had a "previous session" still available. Looks like I was half asleep and shut down without closing (or indeed saving the contents of) a couple of tabs. No harm done, I suppose. Thanks! ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Theft Vandal
Is back and now appearing in WP:AIV. What worries me, however, is that User talk:Redvers/Archive20 shows up in Google. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Got this too late to do anything, but all of the pattern have been blocked by others. Yeah, User talk pages show up in Google for no known good reason, but previous discussions on restricting search bots have had people here jumping from foot to foot and howling at the moon about how terrible an idea it is to restrict any form of searches, coz of course Wikipedia is Real Life and people searching for stuff only want Wikipedia's Important Information really when they search teh interweb. Sorry, my sarcasm gland is overpowered tonight. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- It seems our guy had multiple socks, all of which are now unravelled, & page is now semi'd until 26th Nov. Re the Google, it's the first non-mainspace page I've ever seen in a search so just wanted to check there wasn't a glitch somewhere. It's a little bizarre, however, that our internal workings are visible. No reason why they shouldn't be, really, since they're visible to any editor here, but some journos have been having a go at WP recently and might just think they've struck gold. Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
forgotten to delete? (see also [2], [3]) -- 172.173.96.5 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) In Rememberance of German_Revolution#9_November_1918:_The_end_of_the_monarchy -- 172.173.96.5 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, crossword-style cryptic messages! Okay, assuming this has nothing to do with Edward VIII and recent rioting in Burma, as your message implies, then no, I wouldn't delete the talk page of an article if it refers directly and sensibly to deletion discussions. In fact, we're not allowed to do so, although I think I'm the only person here who ever bothers to follow this rule. So I didn't. Others did, but Their Cause Is Not Ours. The two links you provide are interesting, as far as these things go, but sadly lacking in context. Nevertheless, I've run them through with a big pink highlighter pen just in case. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Fellowship of Friends
I noticed you worked with the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- All I've ever done on this article is protect the wrong version during an edit war back in March. As such, I remain an uninvolved, neutral party to this dispute. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A mistake hasn't been made
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| GET THOSE PANTS BACK ON! (for your sig) Kwsn (Ni!) 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC) |
- My pants remain firmly around my ankles, no matter what you say :o) Ta for the 'star, mate! ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC) :o)
Ypres-Ieper
The English name for this place is Ypres and has been Ypres since the days of Chaucer. Talking about living people coming to this place, I am one of them (I was once asked by the local Green Party to stand as their candidate there - I am a regular visitor to the Anglican church there as well) and I refer you to the Kattenstoet. An event known all over Belgium, always gets on TV, but nothing to do with the Great War and still Ypres is used by the town itself. So, you may even say that Ypres is a "self-name" (the same article uses Grote Markt, by the way) The English people living at/in Ypres do the same (most of them know Dutch but preciously little French).
The main point however is that this is Wikipedia in the English language and we should use the English version of the name. Flemish (or Ukrainian for that matter, see the row at Kiev) language legislature has no legal say over Wikipedia. We register usage, we should have no intention to change it. In any case, this name was the English version for a long time, so the argument that this is just a remnant from the days of the Great War when French was used by the Belgian administration and the bourgeoisie is incorrect.
I think replacing Ypres with Ieper, when the sign in the picture just above it (put up by the town of course) says "Ypres" is WP:POINT, because our article on Ypres mentions the official Dutch name, Ieper. If you want the Dutch also on this page, it would be better in the text of the article. By the way, I have seen a number of such changes all over English Wikipedia, where I suspect that the intentions of the changers may be not so innocent as yours but politically motivated.
In case you think I am politically motivated "in the other direction" and anti-flemish, have a look at my recent edit at Elise Crombez, yes, even models can be dragged into this kind of battleground. Now it would be ironic if the town of peace were to be the object of a "svidomy" edit war.
Thank you for your attention.--Paul Pieniezny 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. It's really not worth asking you a question, is it? Just by asking, I'm accused of WP:POINT violations, edit warring and extreme nationalism. You make several gross errors based on assumptions rather than evidence in the text above, but it's clearly not worth the trouble of debating them with you. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
AIV
I noticed you removed my entry, saying that it was incorrect. However, his talk page contains a final warning a few months old (and another ClueBot warning 1 day later). I don't feel that they should "expire" that quickly (this does not refer to ClueBot's warning). I will admit that his block was probably too old, since he was blocked in August and warned in September. Of course I could be entirely wrong, please tell me if this is the case. If this somehow sounds rude, then I'm very sorry. Rudeness is not my intention. --Thinboy00 talk/contribs @896, i.e. 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just got your message, sorry if this is a bit redundant. --Thinboy00 talk/contribs @899, i.e. 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I've clearly spent too long at Special:Newpages today! Have commented at AFD. Cricketgirl (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
uh, excuse me...
<_< but i believe you offered to show me some puppies? >_> ··coelacan 03:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Little pink tongues and nibblesome ears! I knew you'd come through with the goods. Shall we dine? ··coelacan 11:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief - what sort of a fish are you? And you were threatening to switch and oppose me cos you thought I eat baby heads. Eating baby heads is much more respectable than eating puppies...! WjBscribe 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Noooo you've got it all wrong! I do like the taste and texture of puppies, but I just gnaw gently on them and then throw them back. Is that so bad? Tell me you don't salivate when you hear the words "puppy pudding". I just hoped Redvers might share my desire for a taste of the forbidden fluff. ··coelacan 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'd like to join you in the forbidden fluff, obviously, but I'm not sure how morally right it is. Like many people, I enjoy pictures of puppies in the raw, but I wouldn't consider actually nibbling on them. Vegetarianism is full of these pitfalls, I find. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was happy to find puppies here. --Yamla (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I keep my promises. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I too am pleased that you came through on the puppies. And coelacan, don't worry, the urge to nibble puppies is quite common. Check out Cute Overload, where the act of nibbling an adorable critter is referred to as a kronsche (it's onomatopoeia for a gentle crunching sound, see). :) Pinball22 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I keep my promises. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Noooo you've got it all wrong! I do like the taste and texture of puppies, but I just gnaw gently on them and then throw them back. Is that so bad? Tell me you don't salivate when you hear the words "puppy pudding". I just hoped Redvers might share my desire for a taste of the forbidden fluff. ··coelacan 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good grief - what sort of a fish are you? And you were threatening to switch and oppose me cos you thought I eat baby heads. Eating baby heads is much more respectable than eating puppies...! WjBscribe 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Independent Local Radio logo.jpg)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Independent Local Radio logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
(Copied from Bcommand's talk page)
- Per this warning and this tagging. The image is still in use on the article, and has been at least since the last edit was made to the article in September.
- I'm going to revert the bot's tagging. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Re:Algerian Redirects
God with 6900+ edits here, you think I'd be more experienced wouldn't you? Ah well. Thanks though. Best, — Rudget contributions 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Haha. I really should get off this damn site. I spend way too much time here :P (It's too addictive!) — Rudget contributions 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
BCB reverts.
Beat you to it. Six hundred and twenty frakking reversions. I hope I never have to do that again. Will (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very pleased. I looked and thought "Six hundred and twenty? I'll get around to that in a moment." And look what happened - they reverted themselves! ;o) ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hooray for TWINKLE and T1. Will (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Official RfA spam. Please don't block me ;-)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me, Redvers, I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Date for archive bot. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
From Franklin
Hi, thank you for your reply. I think it is allow in some cases to request for a change of name. I think that can help. The thing is the Franklin.vp is very related to my real name. can you change the name of that account and I'll create a new one? Thank a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) also known as Renamed user 1 (talk · contribs), on 22:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank a lot for you help. Can you look again to my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) also known as Renamed user 1 (talk · contribs), on 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Bearian 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
First Edit
Happy First Edit Day
|
Happy First Edit Day, Redvers', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:MiszaBot III (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC) |
- FROM YOUR FRIEND:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
seems
The difference between believing and knowing is caring or not to find out. If you had read the Computer engineering article to which Computer systems engineering redirecteds, you'd have known that, at least for the editors of said article, "Computer systems engineering" is one of the "core knowledge areas" of "computer engineering". Every element of that list of "areas of knowledge" has an article on its own. Except "computer systems engineering", which redirects to the same article in a loop. The redirect doesn't seem to have sense to me, and of course it doesn't seem useful to me. A red link would indeed be useful. Peace. --euyyn (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The difference between using the correct templates (speedy delete) and just shoving an AfD template on and doing nothing else should also be clear. The difference between an admin reading your mind and you explaining what the issue was in the first place might be clearer still. Please don't misuse templates in this way again. Additionally, redirects are cheap. If someone is likely to type in the term as a search, it is better if there is an article on the subject attached. If someone wants to create an article on a more specific subject, someone can do so by overwriting the redirect. And if someone wants to pitch up here and whine on having make assumptions as to whether I read the article and what I thought about its structure, they can sling their hook. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Too new"
Hi Redvers,
I noticed that you deleted my {{db|This is too new.}} on Kako mi je, tako mi je and pointed me to WP:CSD.
Every now and then I patrol the new pages and see many articles about music albums, sports players, sports teams, etc which to me have questionable notability. With regard to Kako mi je, tako mi je, "This is too new" is just my way of questioning whether the article actually asserted notability. Besides the fact that the singer is Croatian, which, I agree, is interesting, there was no note about the record's sales, controversies surrounding the lyrics, academic discourse over the music, unique style of the music, anything which could demonstrate notability.
Is this wrong thinking?
« D Trebbien (talk) 01:14 2007 December 12 (UTC)
- Yes. The speedy deletion criteria are a closed list. They are not designed to be flexible. "This is too new" doesn't say "...and therefore not notable" (and anyway, being too new does not automatically equal a lack of notability) and you can't expect an admin to read your mind as to what you meant to say. For speedy deletions, please stick to the standard templates. If an article needs an argument making for its deletion, then speedy (which is for black-and-white cases only) is not the way to go - much better to try {{prod}} or send it to WP:AfD. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that halfway AfD on The 4-Hour Workweek. I lost my concentration there -- I'm rather fed up with that article. I'm not interested in the book, but I was trying to help another user improve the article by offering suggestions. He seemed interested in developing the article. That didn't work out. The article isn't very informative about the book itself, but it's a best-seller book. Many of the refs are blog, and the article seems a bit of a battle ground. I'm not sure what to do here. I think it should go away because it doesn't even offer readers a summary of the book. What's best to do here? --Busy Stubber (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd advise taking it to full AfD (the instructions for how to do this are here) and repeat what you've said above. Even if the community doesn't agree with the delete, this often spurs people into action and repairing the article. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paramount logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paramount logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
- Deleted - it was replaced with an almost identical image on Paramount Pictures. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)