This is an archive of past discussions with User:Indubitably. 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you very much for your positive comments about me, I respect you and your contributions to this project and coming from you that means a lot. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I started to fix it, then got side-tracked. I see now that it's been promoted. It's only one person's opinion, but if you want me to change it, let me know. Jennavecia (Talk)15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Editor review request
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hope you don't mind me responding to comments on the FLC. If my fixes or comments aren't accurate or pertinent, feel free to override them. I promise I won't get offended. :) - Yohhanstalk17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
*buries head in hands* I figured as much. Should I get the tinder and brush ready so you can burn me at the stake? Or, is my crime so heinous that you're going to make me listen to Hannah Montana records? - Yohhanstalk18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on the FLC! Looks like my listening to William and Sir Richard paid off after all! And here I thought I went through that punishment for nothing. - Yohhanstalk02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha, aw. :/ Don't feel bad. I can't write original prose without a great deal of effort. But I do a pretty good job of improving on others. Collaboration can be a beautiful thing! :D Jennavecia (Talk)03:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Heavy metal
Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion
For future reference, the other half of this discussion can be found here.
The reference style in any given article is determined by what is established and frequently used by the primary editor or editors. On Heavy metal music we don't use the reference templates because we find them cumbersome and we're fine just typing out and formatting the refs by hand. There's no preferred reference style on Wikipedia; what's important is that whatever reference style is decided on in a given article is used consistently throughout. Basically, it's best not to change an article's style of referencing from top to bottom if there already is a reference style in place. It's unnecessary and can be a pain to the editors who work on the page regularly. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there were some inconsistent refs, but that's because some people have added material recently without paying attention to the reference style used in the article. The suitable course of action would have been to determine the most used form of referencing, them change the ones that don't match to create consistency. The point I'm making is that in any article, you add refs according to the established format of the article. If the article uses cite templates, use them. If it doesn't, don't. And so on. I'm sorry I reverted hours of hard work and certainly meant no offense, but completely changing the reference style of the article to what you personally prefer is not considerate of other editors. There are three or four regular editors on that page aside from myself. Also, you don't need to use cite templates; those are there for easy use if you're unfamiliar with how to cite articles. If you already know how to use a particular reference style, you don't need to use them. It gets rid of a lot of needless script. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, but it was the most efficient way to restore the reference style. I plan to reincorporate all your other changes soon, as I described in the edit summary. But yeah, we don't use Harvard ref templates in that article. "Improvement" on the existing style is subjective, given other people would have to deal with a cumbersome template style if it is left that way. As it says in the link to Wikipedia:CITE#HOW I provided to you above, "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why you provided the link to the FA criteria? Once again, I have no objection to cleaning up the references, but changing the reference style throughout a rather sizable article that you don't edit much is not the best course of action for reasons I explained above. It's not something you want to go around doing to articles, even FAs. Bring it up on a talk page first. Of course if the article you're working on is a stub or a rambling mess with wildly inconsistent references and you plan to do extensive long-term work and maintenance on that artticle as well, by all means establish the reference style you are most comfortable with.
Some clarification. When I said in that I intended to reincorporate all you changes to the article, I said this because it was clear you had done a lot of work and are quite upset, so I didn't want you to have to go through an do everything all over again. I certainly did not intend to imply or assert ownership of the article. I mainly wanted you to not be more upset and would do the extra work necessary if that helped. Additionally, I have participated in numerous FACs and FARs (I'm busy doing an article rewrite for an FAR this very moment) either as a nominator, reviewer, or contributor, so I am familiar with the criteria. I assure you, the citation style used in Heavy metal music is acceptable. Templates are merely a user preference. I for one used to use them quite often, but now no longer need to rely on them. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy has never had a problem with the reference style. I may be mistaken, but I believe she dropped by for that article's FAR last year. Forcing other editors to use a different reference style from the one that has been established in the article of this size and rating is not a wise way to begin what you intend to be long-term editing. Still, what do you think are the problems with the article? What do you think needs cleanup? There's one obvious section (the fan reception section that someone dropped in there that reads more like an essay than part of an encyclopedia article; I've been meaning to fix it up, but been otherwise occupied), but I don't see any glaring flaws. Bring it up at the article talk page (and post those sources you thought were unnacceptable), and I'm sure there will be people willing to discuss any concerns you have.
Once again, I want to emphasize I had no malice or ill-intentions in either my actions or my tone in replying to you. This situation has become more of a frustrating experience than I expected, so I think I'll take a few days off from the site to clear my head. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil weighs in
Jennavecia, what you are saying is simply false. Mary Shelley, The Garden of Earthly Delights, Æthelbald of Mercia, and Catherine de' Medici to name but a few FA that dont used this needless metadata. I think its a bit rich to turn up out of nowhere on an article as heavily watched and edited as this, and start flinging templates without a word on talk, and then attack one of the origional authors (I'm another) when he objects. I also think that after attacking origional author to come out with In fact, I prefer manual referencing, as you prefer. However...templates are required, is well: baffeling unless you suscribe to a theory that you are want to have your cake and eat it ie appeal to both sides. And then return on your 7th post to the origional author with the conceated The referencing is, in my opinion, too sloppy for an FA....well thats quite something. See here why we don't use metadata on these articles, and why we would prefer to leave it sloppy[1]. Ceoilsláinte19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ceoil. Welcome to the discussion. First, I didn't attack anyone, so save that for an actual abusive discussion. That out of the way, check out WP:OWN and then WP:BOLD. Then please read my sentences in full instead of selectively quoting them. I didn't say cite templates are required for FAs or any other articles. I said they're required for this system of linking between simple notes and full references. So while it may be some sad inconvenience for you, it's more convenient for the readership, which trumps. But I do give sarcastic thanks for you basically calling me a liar and saying I'm attempting to play to both sides. If you'd like, I can go through my contribs and pull out the many comments where I've stated a preference for manual citation over templates. But this linkage isn't possible manually, without a lot of extra work and kb. Whether you like the classification or not, the references looked sloppy. There were pretty much nothing but commas used in the refs, the dates were inconsistent in their linking, along with other inconsistencies. I also made other fixes, like the misplaced closing quotes throughout the article. All that was reverted as well. So recheck the "anyone can edit" tagline, and remember that you don't own the articles or dictate who's allowed to improve upon them. Jennavecia (Talk)02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No I don't own the article, but Im saying as a courtesy its better to ask first. I'm not arguing that some of the refs were messy, I was arguing that a wholesale switch from manual to templated citations was a bad idea. But anyway, maybe I was too harsh above, at the end of the day, its only bloody templates and you were obviously acting in good faith and helping out. If I implied you were a liar (and to be fair I kind of did) I apologise. There was nothing before worth getting worked up about, so if you tyake my apology at face value I hope there are no hard feelings, and that you wont be put off too much by sticking with the article. Pfff. I'm thinking this 'incident' is a good example of how small things get maganified out of all proportion on teh internets, and why maybe I shoud be outside kicking a ball instead of knee deep in html and weird obscure jargon. Ceoilsláinte12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and apology, Ceoil. Of course I accept it. I'm on to other articles now. Heavy metal music is very well-written. It just needs cosmetic fixes. I'll leave them for someone else. But thanks again for the note. No hard feelings. Jennavecia (Talk)17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Grand, well leave it at 'its not worth fighting about'. You were quite unrepentant in you acceptance of my attempt to meet you half way; but fine; see you around. Ceoilsláinte17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not repentant for improving an article. Sorry for the drama, but when an entire morning of work gets reverted with not so much as an explanation, it tends to leave one with a bitter taste in their mouth. The discussion that followed was necessary. As an experienced editor, I know how this site works and how things can go, but if a newb had spent that much time making improvements to an article and was just wholesale reverted without explanation, we'd probably have lost a new editor with grand potential. That wasn't you, though, so don't worry about it. Jennavecia (Talk)17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)`
You missed the whole point so I'm going to drop you as a person worth knowing. I'll leave you with this: heard of Hubris: I'm not repentant, not so much as an explanation, As an experienced editor; That wasn't you, though, so don't worry about it.
My impression is of a victim complex, and painful self regard. Which or wheather it is, it's not nice, and I'm backing away slowley. Bye. Ceoilsláinte18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me recap, because you obviously missed it. I spent three and a half hours improving an article. Then I was reverted by WesleyDodds without so much as an explanation. That's not an unrealistic expectation... that if my work is reverted, some reason should be given. That's expected for anyone. I am an experienced editor. I've been here for coming up on two years. That's a statement of fact, not one of arrogance. If I were a new user, I probably would have left upon seeing my efforts so rudely removed. However, WesleyDodds removed them, not you, thus that wasn't you, so don't worry about it. And right on I'm not repentant about improving an article. Damn skippy. Victim complex my ass. I accepted your apology and the issue was over, but now what? You're pissy that I have no interest in working on your article? Or you want me to apologize for working on it? Please. Talk about self-importance. Jennavecia (Talk)18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand fairly clear. You are upset because you lost how-many-almost3omg hours work. We are upset because you tried to impose a template we are uncomfort able with and object to, and you should have asked first, because whe are no ignorant fool. When we objeced, the core of you argument was; it took me three hours, poor we. I'm being nice so far; but thats the jist, I can only say the same thing so many times. Its boring to deal with such as you. Ceoilsláinte18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Boo hoo. A template that benefits the reader, but you can't figure out brackets? Fine. I'm over it, but that isn't going to prevent me from pointing out the ownership over the article, or the fact that the way my work was reverted was inappropriate. And you don't value the work of others; already noted, you don't have to keep pointing it out. If you're bored, then get off my talk page, but obviously you're upset because you're spelling and grammar have left the building. Jennavecia (Talk)18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You are compleatly utterly and totally missing the point. Fine you dont have clue. Tou chage discussinon headers, you seek victum status, you hate templates, but bombard editors that stand up against them over and over; you lie (seems I was wrong to AGF) hoping friend will wade in tho deflect (you treathened me with SG and Malleaus whatshisname). Do you have more than replacing insight and hard work with templates; or do I have to listen to varianht of the same 'pity' me arguments for the night. That wou;d be real bad. Ceoilsláinte18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You are going way overboard. You can look through my contribs and find that I typically use manual citation. On larger articles with many simple footnotes, it's a courtesy to the reader to link them to the references section. You're above brackets; already covered that. This "pity" and "victim" bullshit you're throwing at me is straight up laughable. It's also hypocritical of you. You're the one crying over the use of templates. Freaking out to the point you can't type. Please show me where I "threatened" you with SandyGeorgia and Malleus Fatuorum. This should be good. I stated I would go to them and ask their opinion on the matter, because it was noted that, apparently, Sandy has stated an opinion elsewhere, and because I respect Malleus' opinion. If you find that to be a threat, you need to get a grip. You call me a liar? Bullshit again. You have twice now mislabeled my actions. Saying that I was attacking when I did no such thing and then now that I have threatened. Completely ridiculous. Stop projecting your issues onto me. You're the one with inflated feelings of self-importance who can't comprehend a point, instead selectively reading then jumping to ridiculous conclusions. Jennavecia (Talk)04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jenna! I need your help here on this image file → Image:120Sqn shoulder patch (new).jpg, I made a critical mistake naming it as new during upload. It is in fact an old squadron patch... so if it doesn't take up too much of your time, could you please change the words from "(new)" to "(old)"? Thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
If you are interested in co-working on APC, I would be interested. I have been focusing on 'vandal fighting' lately - given my denial for rollback, LOL, but I started here as a writer, so it's jello if you want to let me know about a tag-team effort. Without being a jackass, and trying to mean no offense, I was looking at the above stuff, and maybe the discussion page on the article is best. Don't shoot the messenger. Actually, I'm not the messenger, just thought I might be able to monopolize your time without the above stuff. In no way am I trying to trivialize it. Thanks JV or Jenna. Whichever you prefer. :] XF Lawtalk at me06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to shoot you... I prefer tasers. <_< You're probably right, at this point it would be better on the article talk. However, I had planned from the start to go to the talk page, and I got pulled away, when I went back, all my work was gone. So, as a friend said, it's pointless to work on FAs, particularly when they are owned. But yea, I've had plans to work on APC for a long time. I did some work on it a few months ago, got distracted by its need for a discography, so I created that and it's just been promoted to FL as of yesterday. And since Yohhans has nominated the article for GA, it's in need of quick polishing. Jennavecia (Talk)11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of my edits were undone. Can you take the time to look at them. I think they were good edits. I know it is an older article, but I was just trying to edit what I know, and grammatically, the edits were good. Are there people that watchlist this for fear of changes? [PS the UT SAID DGAF, so I did that.] XF Lawtalk at me10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha, the_undertow gives good advice. XD Uhm, it is watched by a good number of people. Changes are welcome. It's usually whenever people attempt to remove things that we revert. I made some removals and changes last night... we'll see how that went. I'll look over your edits and drop some feedback on your talk page. Jennavecia (Talk)13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:O
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
Am I the only one that now pictures 2 cats going at it whenever I see "huggles" anywhere? Thanks bunches, Iridescent. Your legacy is intact....Keeperǀ7616:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh, is he serious? Or should I say, is he fucking serious? It makes me want to go post George Carlins "7 words" on his talkpage. I won't though, promise. Keeperǀ7618:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing ("hoping" is probably a better word, as the idea that it's deliberate takes WP:ASS to a whole new level) that it's some kind of automatic de-pornification bot that's run haywire. What initially brought him to my attention was his "improvement" to Paul Newman, in cleaning up the dreadful filth that was ***** Cassidy and **** Barbour. – iridescent18:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There will be no depornification of my talk page, damnit! Back the hell off. Anyone fucking with the profanic (that's not a word) flow of my talk page will incur the full force of my bitchy wrath! Jennavecia (Talk)19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Iri, I know we're cool... growing friendship and all that... so keep that in mind when I tell you, with the best possible intentions and with all due respect: Don't post nassy Shankbone shit on my talk page. Srsly. He finds it necessary to upload gay porn to Wikipedia, that's whatev, but I neither endorse it nor find it photographically impressive. I also have no support for ED biographers. They're bottom-feeders. Much like trolls, don't feed them and they die. Jennavecia (Talk)06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem, it's probably best someone keeps an eye on this guy. His life on wiki it ticking against the clock, as soon as the checkuser comes back and confirms what we already know. He might try one last stint of madness before the inevitable. — Realist217:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Honest question looking for an honest answer
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I would think not. I haven't checked in, and I really should get off my ass and help. I got the damn thing going then dropped out of the project. >_> Perhaps there is a need to renew interest in the process... but, hey, if you're getting burned out, take a break from it; because it's seriously bad times to be so burned out on article reviewing that you don't even want to read articles at all. Jennavecia (Talk)04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing like getting burned out, I quite enjoy looking through articles I wouldn't normally have come across. It's just that I was starting to feel a bit lonely in there, and was wondering if there was something I hadn't been told. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, Malleus. You just happen to be the most dedicated at the moment. You're doing a great job... you're just surrounded by slackers... including me! XD But yea, it's a daunting process, and I'm not bashing anyone's participation level. I'm working on a GA now, then plan to take it to FA, but I'll try to get in some reviews so you don't feel so lonely. :) Jennavecia (Talk)16:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Inaccuarate Ill-conceived
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Sigh. There was nothing in my proposal that was not well thought-out. It was just a review and a suggestion. It made perfect sense. He imposed his own length. Without prior knowledge of undisclosed e-mails between Steve and Arb Com there was no ban length, just the suggestion of a break being preferred. His WB enforcer was removed so he could edit his talk page and request a review be looked into. There was no one, that I recall, stating that a year was not long enough. Likewise, there was no one saying that a full year was needed, let alone that Arb Com had specified a one year length. A js break set by the individual is not the same as a ban, and he wasn't blocked until recently. That's Arb Com's fault. If they made this crystal clear, then there would not be so many holes in the final decision. And even fewer admins obfuscating it. Synergy18:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Than ban agreement between Steve and ArbCom was six months. He knew this. The fact that he cut such a deal and went on an enforced break is the whole reason discussion ended on the matter of community banning. So to say there's no block or ban imposed on him is just utterly silly. Your request was clearly ill-conceived. Jennavecia (Talk)19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Because Steve knew something I didn't does not make the request ill-conceived. There was no formal mention of a length of time for the break before the request. A ban was never announced, nor implemented publicly. Get your facts right. Synergy20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if you had gotten your facts right before making such a pointless and ill-conceived request, a lot of time and energy would have been spent on more important things. Steve knew. You made the request on behalf of Steve. Good job on the research. Jennavecia (Talk)05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Synergy, what Steve did was bad. Dropping dox is major bad plans, in any situation and the length of "ban" was discussed with ArbCom. I'm with Lara on this one... ChaoticReality05:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
(To Lara) That still doesn't make it ill-conceived. I'm not privy to correspondences between arb com and Steve. So tapping into a database of facts along those lines is beyond my (and for that matter, anyone not informed by the committee) reach. Basing it solely on the assumption that I could ascertain the info, is a serious lax in common sense. Synergy00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please translate that into normal human speak for me, please? I'm not fluent in whatever bureaucratic Wiki-Lawyering gobbledygook you're speaking. Steve's on a 6 month ban according to every member of ArbCom...what more is there to discuss? Unless Jimbo decides otherwise, I'd say this discussion is over. Maybe we can, y'know, redirect some of this dramah into improving the encylopedia? Never mind...I realize that's too much to ask. Bullzeye (Ring for Service)00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Synergy, considering your ill-conceived request was made on behalf of Steve, it might have been wise (and by "might", I mean "would") to have discussed the matter with Steve first. Such as a "Hey, Steve, I don't think it was a big deal that you made 800+ unapproved admin edits on an admin account of another user whose password you managed to obtain, and I don't think it's a big deal that you badgered a password from another admin. I mean, dude, it's all chill. Nothing wrong done here. Oh, and giving out Lara's daughter's name like Halloween candy... ah, that was boss! Totally lawled at that, nothing wrong there. You should so be unbanned, I mean, there's nothing on-wiki about you being community blocked or nothin', yo." And then, dear Synergy, Steve would have been like, "Do0d, I guess you fell asleep that night, but I totally cut a deal with the AC. I'm on a six month enforced break. That's why there's no discussion about a community block or ban. They let this be it." And then, Syn, you wouldn't have wasted the community's time with this ill-conceived request. Do I really have to keep repeating myself for you? Jennavecia (Talk)04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for owning my userpage! Was very kind of you :) Ryan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Dammit. I found the "real" link, and then edit conflicted here. Serves me right for posting prior to research. Heaven forbid anyone on wiki posts before thinking. We can't have that, now can we? Keeperǀ7622:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
←You seemed the last one I'd imagine joining Gurch's Legion. Careful with Huggle at the moment as it's very unstable (hence this header on all the related pages) and will do a lot of things you don't expect. – iridescent22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had your page watchlisted for a while, but I couldn't work up the courage to post here until at least 3 of my friends posted in a thread that actually concerned something that I understand. And even then, my first post was greatly self-depreciating so that you would know that I am not trying to infringe on your awesomeness. After all, you are a great legend among admins, and I am merely a pesky n00b admin with only 2 months of sysophood behind me. J.delanoygabsadds03:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You power up one whole level if you accomplish that task. That said, what is this shit about me being a legend? Obvious lulz in that comment aside, I'm not dead! XD Jennavecia (Talk)03:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I know you did not just link Legend to Jimbo Wales. Is the same group that considers me a legend of the mind that Jimbo is one as well? If so, that explains a lot. >_>
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Helllooo Jennavecia!
I have a question for an administrator type:
I have been doing some vandalism fighting/guidance on the article George S. Parker High School. I thought things were OK, and today I arrive to find that there is a new editor at work on the article: User:LonelyBacon. I could care less, but this account has been into vandalism, and given that, I would rather not have them doing that.
So, the question is: does this constitute enough of a violation of WP:USERNAME to file a report, or am I just crazy. The policy did not appear clear enough to me, so I thought I would ask first.
Protection (or, how you suck as an admin (just kidding))
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Seriously kidding, I'm in a goofy mood. Anyway, you slapped a 1-day protection on Proposed bailout of United States financial system (2008); however, given that it failed it'll probably be getting a lot of attention. I was just wondering if you'd be ok with a suggestion (and this is one of the only times I think I'll ask for this) for me to extend the protection to, say, a month. Whatcha think?
P.S. I would've done this on IRC but apparently you just evaded me.
Haha, yea. I didn't know what happened. I saw it as blanked by creator, deleted it, then it popped back up with a csd-7 tag, so I deleted it again, ahaha. Jennavecia (Talk)03:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
dear jennavecia i know what i did to hats and germany was wrong but what did i do to september we are studing the romans in school and i wrote what i lurand in school down it was right and true. my appolage for the tone of this letter i don't know if this the right to posted this i did not know where too . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterk7 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Most likely had to do with spelling errors. If spelling is not your strong suit, Firefox browser should alert you to any edits that many have potential problems. Take care. XF Lawtalk at me06:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I was showing a friend about Wikipedia. We worked on Lucky D's, as an article. I was trying to show him WPV and WPN, but in the mean time, it sort of was killed. Lucky D's is notable for being a bar as well as a hostel in North America. I leavened my lesson, but I'm trying to teach him how to be a good editor, and he's had an account longer than me. Can you (if you have time) help us make the article better? There is a good chance that the bar/hostel merits some amount of notariaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XF Law (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha, uh... I think you need at least 100 edits, but you appear to have hit that already. Looking through your contribs, all looks fine. I'll bestow some rollback upon you. Jennavecia (Talk)15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's up with this. You're on the English Wikipedia. The link to the Spanish Wikipedia has been linked above by EVula and it works. Jennavecia (Talk)17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've undeleted the page; it's contentious enough (given the repeated deletions) that we need to do a full RfD on it. The person who created the RfD mistakenly closed the RfD himself; I've reopened it. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) No, the person did not. He nominated it for RFD, XalD tagged it as speedy & Jennavecia deleted it. The nominator simply put the archive tags on the debate as Jennavecia didn't. Jennavecia is the one who closed it by deleting it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the Especial watchlist page on the English Wikipedia redirected to the English watchlist page, and by deleting this, I somehow managed to shutdown the watchlists in all languages including English? This makes no sense, but if it is true, I expect a cookie, a barnstar and 3,000 bonus points. Jennavecia (Talk)18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was Especial, weren't it. Oh, and I'll give you ten thousand points if you delete that, the main page and block Jimbo. Why not, eh? It's not going to crash the servers now is it :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden18:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok lemme get this straight...you use Huggle for the first time so naturally multiple huggle related topics start popping up on your talkpage, you break the Spanish wikipedia by somehow managing to delete a special page and now the whole of Wikipedia is conveniently screwed. You should totally go and delete the main page just for teh lulz XD —— RyanLupin • (talk)18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oh, they just don't know how allowing even a little OR for "context" will destroy controversial articles. The section that got put in and taken out [4] says:
In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article. For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject, or mention a contrasting mainstream view from a generic source in an article on a fringe topic. As long as the contextual information thus added only constitutes a minor portion of the section or article concerned, this is considered uncontroversial and acceptable.
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
– iridescent 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)