User talk:Indubitably/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Good morning Gigi

Good morning Juju. Good morning good morning. No no, Nu Nu! Mike H. Fierce! 01:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, Mimi. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As requested...

share my cup
tie me up
never part
break my heart

go to sleep
wound me deep
be at peace
make me bleed

do no harm
twist my arm
lie with grace
smash my face

kiss the ground
drag me down
stop the noise
smash my toys

how does it feel without your drugs?
(sing you a lullaby)
how does it feel without my love?
(sing you a lullaby)

ChaoticReality 01:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

zOMG, drunk dial? I know yer secret! XD Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Secrets are merely,

Just another illusion,

As all minds are one.

ChaoticReality 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

O hai, haiku. XD Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

O hai, ku

The shorter form, gives

Three, five, three.

ChaoticReality 07:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

A reminder for myself. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to Betacommand 2 RfAr

[1] ok fine. But, could you please cite the basis for this? Others coming to it are going to be lost trying to find where this community based decision came from. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's announced here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I understand that. It should be noted on the Rfar is my point. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfAr

Here. Majorly ^talk 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you request for a postponement. When do you expect to be ready? Thanks, HG | Talk 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what kind of help I get. At least a week. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Collective:Unconscious

You seem reasonable. I believe that I have made every effort to accommodate your reasonable requests. I also believe GlassCobra is being abusive. Next steps? --Justindavila

I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

1) 18:29, 2 September 2008:

unexplained reversion

RESPONSE: "(Reverted edits by Justindavila (talk) to last version by GlassCobra)")

2) 17:36, 2 September 2008 GlassCobra:

logo irrelevant (theme of art scene is unsourced originaANGED--])

RESPONSE: research is *sourced*, and established as such in body and response. theme is sourced. detail revised.

3) 13:26, 2 September 2008 Justindavila:

(replaced logo information, important to defining the New York performance art scene. added specific theaters that also were closed due to gentrification. replaced description of undeveloped hole. 145.)

RESPONSE: issue remedied directly.

4) 03:04, 2 September 2008 Jennavecia:

Undid revision 235731990 by Justindavila - We don't specify image sizes b/c it doesn't display correctly for everyone. We don't put addresses in articles. As for the rest, you need refs. -- acknowledged and changed by justindavila.

RESPONSE: revision "undid," size removed, last address removed (although lat/long allows for easy identification) and refs supplied.

Next steps? User:Justindavila

Longitude and latitude are fine. If you need anything added to the article, add it to the talk page of the article. Otherwise you're going to be blocked. Also, edit summaries repeated "Admin abuse by GlassCobra" isn't helping you any. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the proper procedure for claims of admin abuse? --Justindavila (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can post a complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I still don't know what you think he's done to abuse his position. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Since the article is currently pp as edit=sysop, could you please restore the {{fact}} tag following the lead sentence (incorporation date)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now unprotected as the problem editor has been blocked – iridescent 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I didn't recognize you in your spiffy new name. :) (Maybe it's not that new to you; new to me, though! :D) Just wanted to point out that User:Emreaydin.ens already received a final warning, here. Strange situation, eh? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah. "Final warning" in the header would have been helpful! Thanks for letting me know. :) Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Only reason I know is that I got an edit conflict when I was about to leave my own "final warning". :D In any event, it's gone beyond final now. :/ Wonder if there's a language issue? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The BIG RED HAND^TM is universal. :P Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnail grid

Hey Jennavecia! I've coded the thumbnail grid but don't have enough time today to finish adding everyone's proposals. The code is commented out in the page - feel free to finish it. When you're done, add __NOTOC__ to the page to use our grid as the Contents. If not I can do it tomorrow. Many thanks. Pretzels^chatters 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't really see the point now. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn, the only reason I heard about that was because I was watching your talk page. What a wonderful non-solution. The Arbitration Committee has got a fever and the only prescription is less cowbell. Kelly ^hi! 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. We've got a case about a wheel war over protection, the use of IRC and the dumbassery of citing IAR for admin actions... and it's at ArbCom for what? I mean, really... reading the above link, what can we expect in this case? One arb will vote that he values the work of people he likes while dismissing the work of those he doesn't, ignoring the fact that they've probably all done more to improve the project than him. Some shit about "be sure you follow our policies", and a reminder that the AC owns the case... and that'll take, what... at least until Halloween. Yea. So time for this bullshit to end and the community to take care of what the arbs don't want to. How many months does it take the ArbCom to smack a few wrists? Most people would be shocked and appalled by the answer. This case was a disgrace for the project, and hopefully it will send a bid for reelection crashing down in shameful, humiliating flames for a few of these arbs, if they're so stupid as to rerun. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So how do you really feel?  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, Keeper. :) Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mornin. Keeper ǀ 76 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lara-cuda. :) Kelly ^hi! 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. It's my job to spam those that have commented. :) That was an impressive rant, nonetheless! Anthøny ✉ 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, not directed at you, buddy. Just general disappointment with the shameful decision not to piss off one's friends. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Valencia (Spanish Congress Electoral District)

Thanks for looking over that for me. About your comments on the redlinks, that would need an awful lot of work as the redlinks would generally be for parliamentarians who generally don't have articles. Would that really affect a GA nom? Valenciano (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Typically, a GA won't pass with excessive redlinks. It will be recommended that you either create stubs or delink some of them. Otherwise it looks incomplete. Make sure there are none linked twice, if so you can cut it down to first appearance. Also, consider their notability. If they're not really notable, just delink them. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Account Deletion

Hi Lara - I'm looking to delete my account on Wikipedia. How would I go about doing that? Thanks for your help. Chengwes (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't have your account deleted. You have the right to vanish. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't popped by for some time ...

... and just wanted to say hi :) - plus comment on your nice new name. Bests to you as always. --VS ^talk 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Steve! Thanks for stopping by. :) Haven't seen you around much lately. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Still here and smiling every day - a little overseas travel etc kept me at bay away for a bit but I have been admin-ing as time affords. Cheers.--VS ^talk 07:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Collective:Unconscious

I noticed you did not state anywhere your basis for claiming I was in violation for COI for editing Collective:Unconscious, besides a claim by GlassCobra, a claim that was subsequently and unjustifiably used by several other admins. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks. --Justindavila (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made this more than clear to you multiple times. You have shown an inability to edit the article within our policies and guidelines. Why you are not able to understand this is not obvious to me, but I will not continue to run in circles with you. You are becoming disruptive, and frankly tiring. If you want to see changes made to the article, request them on the talk page. Once it appears you have come to grasp how things work here, then you can once again begin editing the article. We'll let you know, if that time comes. Otherwise, there are far too many pages on this project now with the header Collective:Unconscious. It's becoming a time sink for all involved to repeat ourselves, answering the same questions to you over and over. If you are confused about the situation, read over your talk page and that of the article. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Barış Akarsu

The artist is not alive. He lost his life in a car accident. Therefore, your reasoning is a bit wrong about deleting "Image:Baris Akarsu.jpg". Deliogul (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, which I don't normally do. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A Perfect Circle GAN

Hi. I know you have done a good deal of work on the A Perfect Circle article. Recently, I rewrote a good deal of the article and have subsequently submitted it to GAN. Basically, I'm just wondering if you wanted to make any corrections that I may have(hopefully not!) introduced and make sure I did not screw things up too much. Also, I just want to thank you for all your work on Tool related articles. I think it's great that in general Tool fans are so passionate about the music. - Yohhans ^talk 13:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually just noticed it was up for GAN last night. GlassCobra and I agreed to work on it. It looks really good. I started working on it to get it to GA a while ago, but other things got in the way and I didn't get back to it. Ironically, I've had it open in a tab since last night and just made an edit to see my message bar for this message. :P So, yes. I'll be working on it, possibly with a couple others. Thanks for dropping a note for me! I am certainly passionate about the music and inspired by Maynard, which is hopefully obvious in my rewrite of his BLP for FA. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you approve of how the article has turned out so far. I noticed that you removed the screenshot of the live performance of the old lineup of the band. I realize that having two copyrighted images (and no free ones) is probably not the best of things, but I think that both are very useful. The first (at the top of the page) shows the band as they were on the last two albums, and second one shows the band as they were on Mer de Noms. I figured this was good enough justification for including both of them. Would it really be so bad to include both? ;) Anyway, thanks for the help. Also, good luck with the discography FLC! - Yohhans ^talk 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think probably not acceptable. If you want to put it back, I won't argue over it, but when it goes up for FAC, I'm fairly sure they'll ask it be removed. But we can always wait and see what they say. Perhaps it is a good enough reason. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are undoubtedly right, but I hadn't really planned on taking the article all the way to FAC. I haven't been able to find much by way of influences and musical style. Also, there needs to be more information regarding critical reception of the albums, not to mention the quibbles that have gone on between Maynard and Howerdel regarding production of the albums. So, they article is far from comprehensive, but I figured it was good enough for GAN. If you think we can bring it up to FA status though, I will be happy to help out. After this passes (assuming it does anyway... but you know what happens when you assume) I was going to work on either Lateralus or Adam Jones. Not sure which yet. - Yohhans ^talk 16:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take a lot of work to get to FA, but Maynard's bio had four references when I started working on it. 70-some references and about three months later, it was an FA. I should be able to get sources. For now, the prose needs work. Lateralus has been the project's collaboration of the month for like, the past four or so months... not a lot of participation, even from me. :/ Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick question regarding music videos. I've been having trouble trying to locate a music video for the Grave Tilling Mix of "Weak and Powerless". I looked at the revision history for the APC article, and it seems this bit of information was inserted and expanded on by anonymous editors. I visited the Brother Strause's website, and they've only credited themselves to the music videos for "Passive" and the studio version of "Weak and Powerless". I'm thinking this is probably an error, but wanted to check with you first as you copied the information into the APC discography article. Thanks, Yohhans ^talk 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, take it out. By all means. If we can't find a source, then just remove it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Yohhans ^talk 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate the help with the talk page :D SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I need to watchlist it because you, apparently, have an aversion to archiving it. :D Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No-one cares if there is a cabal.

Hi Jennavecia, Just a quick suggestion. Your 11:54 comment doesn't really help us reach a resolution here. Either there are a bunch of people who are all doing the wrong thing, or there a bunch of people who are all doing the right thing, or even there may be a bunch of people who are well meaning but mistaken. Better to focus on the behaviour than the motivation. If you see what I mean? Cheers, Ben Aveling 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The thread on Kelly was started partly because she "personally attacked" KC, calling her a member of the "ID cabal", right? And she wants action taken against Kelly for it. Well, in showing that they do, in fact, act in a way that satisfies the definition of a cabal, it leads to an understanding that Kelly does not deserve to be punished for using the term. Is it constructive? Obviously not. Is it a personal attack? No. If they don't want to be looked as like a group that organizes itself off-wiki and acts together all over the place, then they should probably stop popping up to support each other all over the place. They are clearly a group of people who are doing the wrong thing. There will be no resolution reached, we've already tried that. So it's at a stale mate. As long as we're stuck watching them act as a group, they're stuck being labeled as one. Personally, I prefer "ID crew" or "ID group", which hasn't resulted in any of them on my ass for personal attacks (for that specifically), but it's the same thing. No matter how it's worded, it all has the same meaning. So, it has everything to do with behavior and absolutely nothing to do with motivation. I could give a shit less why they do it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, "No-one cares if there is a cabal." That is possibly the most ill-informed statement I've seen this year. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I misspoke. People do care. What I was trying to say is, they shouldn't. Cabal is just a word that means "a group of people talking in secret". That can be a bad thing but it isn't automatically a bad thing. It depends on what those people are trying to achieve, and the tactics they employ. That is where the focus should be kept, on specific things. Not on general statements. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. I host a cabal, and we have an IRC channel. But do we plot? No. We bullshit. It's a social thing, occasionally a collaborative thing, but you'll never see anything resembling a pattern of actions as a group on wiki.... 'cept maybe on things relating to bath wear. >_> But seriously, I'm the first to point out that not all "cabal"s are bad. I'm also not offended by the use of the term. Perhaps because I know it doesn't actually apply to me. My cabal is fake. I'm labeled a member of the "WR cabal", but as you stated, a cabal is "a group of people talking in secret". Anything I say on WR is openly available. I post on their knowing it can be read. That's not a cabal. It may be off-wiki communication, but it's open for the world to see. So, although Keeper compared the "ID cabal" to the "Bathrobe Cabal" earlier, they're really nothing alike. There are no tactics being employed by the BRC... no goal we're attempting to achieve (other than world domination, but it turns out we're too lazy for all that). We have varied interests and areas of work. The only things we all share are simply a sense of humor, ownership of a bathrobe, and a willingness to photograph ourselves in said bathrobe with a cheesy mug, and publish it online. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nod, nod. I think we're in agreement. Cabals aren't good or bad, but they can be used for good or bad. I think this spat may have burnt itself out, but if not, the good/bad actions are what we need to focus on, not the cabal. Cheers, Ben Aveling 03:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

May I share my perspective on the question? You're free to remove it if you like. There was a heated discussion at Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin involving, among others, Kelly, jossi, and myself. KillerChihuahua left a note aimed, I think, at getting things on track. Noting that Kelly was around 6RR at that point, this was followed up with a 3RR warning. I didn't ask KC to come by, nor did anyone else to my knowledge - I'd had absolutely no off-wiki contact with her, though of course I can only speak for myself.

Kelly responded by personalizing the issue and accusing KC of leaving the warning because of a personal grudge, saying it was "just a matter of time before the Intelligent Design Wikiproject showed up on the Palin articles", and concluding, "If you would like to block me, bring it." ([2]). I was at a complete loss to understand why Kelly thought that KC's involvement in this dispute was evidence of such cabalism. Was it because I was arguing with Kelly, I'm a member of the "IDCab", and then KC showed up? It can't be that jossi is considered a member of the "IDCab", because I seem to recall a fairly harsh interaction between him and Orangemarlin/others at Talk:Quackwatch. To me, this seemed like completely unfounded personalization of the dispute. If you have a clearer idea of who, exactly, from the IDCab KC was coming to aid, I'd be interested to hear it.

I understand Kelly's frustration, but I think he lost perspective a bit here. He followed this up by accusing me of "tag-teaming" with jossi. I'll leave it to someone else to comb our respective histories, but I will say that a) I've rarely, if ever, interacted with jossi, and b) I think I recall pushing ArbCom to sanction him in the Allegations of Apartheid case. Jossi and I had, and have had, exactly zero off-wiki contact, so what's on-wiki is the sum of it. At this point I felt that Kelly was inappropriately personalizing the discussion and seeing collusion where none existed, so I sent the diffs of the 6+RR to WP:AN3 for an uninvolved admin (e.g. not me, not KC, not jossi) to look at.

I understand that the "ID cabal" is an issue where feelings run high. What I think is unfortunate is that in this particular case, I don't see any reason for anyone to conclude that an "ID cabal" had a hand in anything that happened. Here's what I see: Kelly getting frustrated and running up a lot of reverts, KC warning him (and I do not see how this is "coming to the aid of a fellow IDCab member", unless perhaps it's supposed to be me?), Kelly responding by invoking IDCab, Kelly separately invoking collusion between me and jossi, and then a general escalation of drama. If you want to beat the drum about the ID cabal, I won't argue with you, but I would urge that a general discussion of that issue be separated from the specifics of this case, where I simply don't see the basis for even the accusation or appearance of cabalism. Perhaps I'm missing something; I'd be happy to hear your perspective on the specific situation. How do you see the sequence of events? Or is your concern more about the global issue and less about this specific dispute? MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell. First, I would like to thank you for the constructive tone of your message. Basically, this is how I look at it. I haven't, at any point, made an opinion on Kelly's actions in this incident with the exception of the cabal comment. I spoke up on this because it was claimed to be a personal attack. It's no secret that I think there are too many people on this project that take any opportunity to cry "incivility", "personal attacks", "harassment", "stalking" or the like. Not speaking specifically on any one person or anyone group, but I think many will agree there are a good number of editors who exaggerate situations, or try to squeeze incivility out of a situation where there really isn't any. Personally, I think most people purposefully do this to discredit others or cause drama. For those who really do believe what they are saying, they seriously need to grow a thicker skin.

Okay, so for this specific case, I'm solely pointing out that it's not fair to cry "personal attack" over the "IDcabal" thing because it's demonstrably true. Now, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but Kelly has had run ins with the group before, right? So, there's tension between her and those associated with the ID group. I understand that tension, as it's pretty much the same for me. What I do is avoid members of the group whenever possible. In situations where administrative attention is needed, I think "uninvolved" dictates that if you've had previous issues with an editor, you shouldn't handle the request. Not simply that you're not involved in that specific situation. So, as was stated at least a couple times, I think first by SirFozzie, it's not the message that's the problem. It's the messenger. Where you think KC may have the appropriate feeling that "IDcabal" is a personal attack, Kelly may have an appropriate feeling that KC is only involving herself because of old hard feelings.

I could, of course, be completely off base. But either way, there's evidence of off-wiki collusion between these editors, behaving in ways that they should surely know are inappropriate, in order to achieve a common goal. KC is not a shining example of civility, and really should have kept her complaint to the clear violations of policy. Crying NPA over IDcab was a bad call on the list of issues. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

okey. Having read MastCell's post, and finding myself nodding along with it, and tempting myself to go ahead an pick up my torch and pitchfork, but hesitating, in order to hear the response. Then the response, along with the strong feeling that I needed to pick up my torch and pitchfork and head in the opposite direction, away from LL/JV and towards MC. I have a torch. I have a pitchfork. I have no destination. Either I stab myself whilst setting myself on fire, or would everyone just fucking get over themselves and get back to business??????. I'm not an article writer. I suck at it. I won't ever never have a GA or FA or what-the-fuck-ever. I'm so very tired of the factionalism though. Everyone that has ever showed up on Wikipedia, for any length of time beyond SPA, is here because they fucking like to be here. MastCell, LL/JV included. Orangemarlin included. KC, SirF, <insert a thousand names here>, included. I'm tired of feeling like I'm in the middle of this. OM respects me (or at least pretends to, based on his contribs to my talkpage). LL/JV respects me (or at least pretends to, based on her exquisite humor on her own talkpage in response to my stalking). GOOD FUCKING LORD. I'm tired of this back and forth shit. Aren't you also tired of this?????? There is no fucking cabal. The "ID cabal" is a group of editors that are interested in the same topics/have developed comaraderie/have earned each other's trust. No different than the bathrobe cabal. Kelly overstepped, made a content dispute personal. I'm convinced of that. KC should have anticipated that that was exactly how Kelly was going to react to KC's intervention, and KC should've restrained/refrained from intervening. Good-fucking-lord, this is pissing me off. We need a pub. We need several barstools. We need unending amounts of financial wellbeing so that we can all fly to a mutually agreeable location (preferably one with sand and warm tropic waters), have a beer or seven, and laugh at how fucking unbelievable this website has become/is. I'm too pissed to type more. I'm going back to CSD. Keeper ǀ 76 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The seven beers sound good. As does the reality checkpoint, for all of us. Sleep well everyone (GMT) GOOD MORNING! (GMT-7) Love to all... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC with the RamblingMan :) Hi!) Hi, Keeper. Good to see you again. I do have respect for you. Evidence of that is in the fact that I do avoid your talk page despite the fact that I stalk it. You've pretty much summed up my verbose opinion with KC should have anticipated that that was exactly how Kelly was going to react to KC's intervention, and KC should've restrained/refrained from intervening. There's bad blood between editors, and it's best that those editors avoid each other, at least until a time that they feel there's a chance at regaining any respect for those on "the other side", so to speak. Kelly's response was triggered by KC's intervention, which in my view was inappropriate. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your response LL/JV, except that you only quoted one side of it. Yes, KC should have had the foresight to undertand how his/her post would be received. Kelly should've also had the foresight to understand that not everything that KC says is "ID cabal" motivated. This wasn't. Keeper ǀ 76 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess if I were to distill my FT2-esque initial post, it would look like this: on a global level, I think that the biggest roadblock to dealing with any difficult or sensitive issue on Wikipedia is that it turns into a weapon. This happened with the harassment issue: there have been shockingly awful cases of editors being harassed in real life for their on-wiki activities. Yet efforts to address it tend to bog down rapidly, as one group uses claims of "harassment" to dismiss even valid concerns while another discards any attempt to address the issue as "BADSITES paranoia". I think it serves the cause of addressing the issue to be circumspect in throwing the term around. That doesn't mean that no one can say the words, or that it's an automatic "personal attack" to mention the possible existence of an ID cabal—just that it shouldn't become a knee-jerk response to encountering someone one dislikes, as I think happened in this case.

Anyhow, I don't mean to prolong the conversation. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, as I was genuinely curious to hear a different perspective on the matter and you've provided one. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastodon discog - FLC

If you have any suggestions or additional information, please, your comments are welcome. ;) Cannibaloki 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! – you same... ↑ Cannibaloki 04:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Username...

this account was created 8/4/08 by SUL. No edits. Do you want this blocked? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed my name that day... it has to have been automatic. That's my old account. No need to block, really. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Situation that needs administrative assistance

User:67.242.58.111 Continues to add trivial information that two established users (including myself) have considered non-notable to the article Blood Sugar Sex Magik. We have invited him to discuss the matter on the talk page. Claims that if we "keep deleting it, I'll keep adding it." This is incessant vandalism that shows no signs of stopping, especially by his most recent contribution. Other edit summaries include "Hey blowjobs, don't change it. This is confirmed, so click the link." While the information is indeed true, it is not notable to the article and does not warrant addition. NSR77 ^T_C 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've responded here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Back from the dead... for a few minutes

Yeah. a few things have conspired to keep me away 1) My tutoring business has taken off this semester. Thus, I am busy 4 nights a week until like 11:00 pm 2) I got some new games, which are taking up a lot of my free time (Spore, for one!) 3) Andrew 4) New baby coming in January (Yeah me and my sperm!) 5) Just got burned out by Wikipedia. Sorry. I tend to check Facebook like once a week or so, and I still try to stop by here once in a while. Sorry I'm such a shitty online friend, but real life has come up and bitten me in the ass! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that far away from you, ya know. Two hours drive... I can come bite your ass. :O

Srsly, tho. I've missed ya, bud. Told ya you were gonna get burned out. Me, too, by the way. But I'm back now after a semi-break of a couple months. Hit me up on Yahoo sometime, or get in the BRC chan. We need to work on an article or something together. Anyway, CONGRATS on the baby! More sleepless nights; the joy! :D Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to self

Homer Simpson. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking a look at the article. I really appreciate it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are brilliant

this is one of the best wikilink analogies I've ever seen. You've completely warped my view of admins (right or wrong) with it. Just sayin. Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If Lara ever runs for Arbcom she has my vote. And both my sockpuppets, too. – iridescent 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she rocks! She has to be, and as a rule of thumb, air force folks are really smart mature individuals who can handle themselves well even under fire. / PS: I especially like the part where it says GTFO. XD / PPS: What's with the part of "Homer Simpson" above? --Dave1185 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahah, thanks, guys. Dave, the Homer reference is a reminder that I need to copyedit it for FAC. :) I only work on the most vital of articles, ya know! Homer must become an FA... how will his site ever be taken seriously otherwise? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DOH~! --Dave1185 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)