This is an archive of past discussions about User:Juliancolton. 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: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My RFA →→→
Dear Juliancolton, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchellYou rang? 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The deleted material you restored to this article includes allegations of criminal conduct against an unnamed individual (name suppressed by judicial order). Whether the identification of the article subject as that unnamed person is correct isn't verifible, since the articles don't provide the name. The ID may be plausible/probable, but without a source naming him it's pretty much OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I was rollbacking the edits by a block-evading IP and hadn't noticed those BLP violations. Thanks for cleaning up. –Juliancolton | Talk20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
dyk problem
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Since you created the 1st anti-drama barnstar for 2009, for the second one, I would like your thoughts on this image below:
The barnstar image.
The 2nd barnstar template (if it hasn't already been) will be created in my own userspace. Just wanted to give you a heads-up since you're the creator of the first one. Also, I used the GIMP if you're wondering what image editor I used. Thanks, ConCompS(Talk to me)23:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess the best way I can follow-up is to ask which situations you were identifying in your initial response. If you don't remember the specific situations, can you identify who asked about COIs? Feel free to copy my follow-up to the RFB, of course. Thank you--Chaser (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
article: Warren Fischer
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi!
I noticed that you deleted article "Warren Fischer", listing "non-notable artist" as the reason.
This is not consistent, as the group "Fischerspooner", and "Casey Spooner" both have pages.
Hi. Please see this link; while not explicitly policy, it explains that the existence of an article has no bearing on another. However, I can restore it if you feel the subject is adequately noteworthy. –Juliancolton | Talk19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, that makes sense. Yes, IMO he is noteworthy. Fischerspooner is a unique string and it has around 4,600,000 hits in Google (is that a better measure of noteworthiness?). He is half of the duo. Thanks. Alex F 91.46.248.189 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for 1910 Cuba hurricane
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On December 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1910 Cuba hurricane, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I'm afraid you're (unfairly) screwed. That's not necessarily bad, though. Now, you'll have more time to kick ass in the WikiCup! iMatthewtalk at 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me put this bluntly. Ageism sucks. You cant be jusged based off of your age but your actions. Comment on content not the perso's age! Sorry to see your RFB go the way it is Julian :(--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't decided how or if I am going to weigh in officially on your RfB, but my tongue in cheek response is:
Oppose anybody who subjects themself to two RfB's obviously lacks the judgment necessary to be a 'crat '-)---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd guess Julian did it motivated by the worthy goal of wanting to help out. Heck, there was even a time when I thought that was worthwhile. --MalleusFatuorum19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
On your rfb, you said if it came up, you would change someone's username to iamtherealbatman. Would you do that if the requested username is iamtherealmileycyrus? Why or why not would that be a username vio? BtilmHappy Holidays!03:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Batman is a fictional character rather than a real person as Miley Cyrus is, so "iamthrerealbatman" isn't a username violation. "Iamtherealmileycyrus" imitates or represents a living noteworthy person, so it is, on the other hand. Thanks for asking this. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk03:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.
And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You probably have an email link staring me in the face, but I can't see it, and I have a question for you that is inspired by ones at your RfB.--otherlleft18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed1719:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
RfB
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for opening up a new section, but I didn't know whether or not you would see my reply if it was on my talk page. Anyway, what I had removed was a vote in the "support" secion by RMHED with the title "Bastard." I didn't find that appropriate for several reasons, as he called you a bastard, placed the vote in the "Support" section, and it is one of three votes that he has cast. I have not done anything since, so I could be wrong. Please enlighten me. Thanks, --15lsoucy(salve)20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, anywhere is fine. RMHED's support is probably meant to be silly/sarcastic, but either way, it doesn't offend me. The closing 'crat can decide how to weigh his vote. Best, –Juliancolton | Talk22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
edit filter
Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
Hey! I am just going to approach the 'old friendly admin' about my question. What is the process for being granted the editfilter permission? I have a request going here and I have come to the stage where I don't know what to do. Do I ask someone to do something or what? BtilmHappy Holidays!05:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How is minor defined? Is it by the law in the user's country (I think it's 18 in the UK), or the country that Wikipedia's servers are in (which country is that, anyway)? More importantly, why on Earth does it matter? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
For the purposes of things where age explicitly does matter on Wikipedia (Checkuser, ArbCom, etc.) the rule is that you must be legally an adult in your home country AND you must be at least 18 years old. J.delanoygabsadds22:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty well-known that teens are generally fairly immature, whereas adults are typically more rational and well-composed. Of course, there's always the exception to the rule, but it is a valid concern. Though to be honest, any youngster who spends their free time writing an encyclopedic can't be too stereotypical. –Juliancolton | Talk23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, quite honestly I was looking at your RfB and am unsure, so here are my concerns. It will probably be a neutral vote as it stands. Primarily, I see the concern of trophy collecting (it can come across that way) but that isn't substantive in my opinion. If you are trying to create a demand for crats artificially, as long as it isn't to the detriment of others I really am not bothered. (I go against the general concensus when it comes to numbers of crats, if they can be trusted, why not?) Essentially, I'm between a neutral and a support. I don't want to ask you this (no need to answer) but I think it would help me make up my mind. How are you able to balance wikipedia nad real life. I do agree with the statement that there are other things you could do, but if you can keep balanced... Essentially has the rest of your life been hurt? (One argument COULD however be made that crats do less than admins, and so therefore you should pass.) Please don't take this personally, as I had many similarities to you. I also see no major problems regarding your actual editing. And I hate ageism in general, but this is an exception.If you have any questions/responses just post on my talk page. (and maybe explain how talkbalk works, I'm form before that and I just can't understand ><) NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs06:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, if I were power hungry and merely looking to obtain additional "trophies", the last place I'd want to be is on an encyclopedia. :) Anyway, thanks for the comments and feel free to weigh in. –Juliancolton | Talk16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That was a pretty good comment Julian. Your right, there's nothing in an encyclopedia that can further you in your own real life. This si suppoesed to be for fun!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I must have worded my own comment worng. I meant that you edit an encyclopedia for fun, (which is enjoyable) but not for personal gains. I know that you want to be a Crat to help this project, not to further yourslef!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk17:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Dear Juliancolton/Archive 24, I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
e-mail
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure there's anything in particular I can do to help the situation. I'd rather not get too deeply involved in any event. –Juliancolton | Talk01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you, hoping that the crats will reach a reasonable solution even if it takes a little extra time. In any case, congratulations for being the first user ever to have two WP:200 RfXs. Jafeluv (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the others who have gotten to WP:200 probably passed, and didn't need another RfX! Haha, just messing with ya Julian. :) iMatthewtalk at 01:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (And welcome back.) I'm keeping rather cautiously optimistic, but regardless of the outcome I'd like to thank you for your support. Best, –Juliancolton | Talk01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to come back with a stupid reply, but then I noticed your emoticon was made with a template and I got excited because I never knew that template existed. iMatthewtalk at 01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably many. The only way to prove you're able to revert vandalism carefully and responsibly is by doing just that, and I've seen no effort to improve on your prior mistakes. –Juliancolton | Talk04:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I did apologize to many of them. So what are you saying is that I would have to continually fight the vandalism regularly and efficently. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time!04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Hi, Julian. I apologize for being slow to let you know, but it appears others have already mentioned it. A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. As soon as a decision has been reached, I will let you know here as well as noting the decision on your RfB page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you closed with well over 80% support, so if there was any sanity in the system you'd be a bureaucrat. As I suggested in your RfB, my criteria for administrators would be far higher than for the rather pointless bureacrats—if there was any sanity in the system—but sadly there isn't. --MalleusFatuorum04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing to be honest (and I commented at the bureaucrat discussion talk page before I saw this message). The exceptionally high standards for bureaucratship do seem a bit irrational to me, especially considering that the standards for the far more controversial and 'powerful' admin bit are substantially more lenient. Doesn't make a lot of sense on the whole... –Juliancolton | Talk04:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
1,700 admins, and, a level higher, 34 bureaucrats, of which 2 haven't made a single edit in the last two months. What an effective group! --15lsoucy(salve.opus)18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Of those 1,700 admins, only about half (869 to be exact) are active.[2] The fact though that there are only 32 active bureaucrats rather lends weight to the idea that it's not much of a job, and ought not in any sense to be considered a "level higher" than administrators, just as administrators aren't a level higher than any other editor. There's no logical reason, for instance, why a non-administrator ought not to be eligible to become a bureaucrat, or an ArbCom member for that matter. That there are certain practical difficulties is simply a feature of the inflexibility of either wikipedia's basic software architecture, the thinking of its developers, or the entrenched attitudes of what is laughably called "the community". --MalleusFatuorum19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note that there is no technical feature that prevents someone from being a crat and not an admin, it has just never happened before. MBisanztalk00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Lock Haven images
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Julian. Happy New Year. I think we have addressed your questions about the images at WP:Featured article candidates/Lock Haven, Pennsylvania/archive1. Jappalang thought the musical instrument was OK but agreed with you about the raft image, and so we replaced it with a fair-use image of a raft going under the Jay Street Bridge in Lock Haven. Could you take another look and either strike the image issues or advise on further changes? Finetooth (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for the Christmas greetings! I'm sorry for my delay, as I was traveling, but wish you a happy and healthful New Year ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto from me, Julian. Thanks for all you've done. Here's hoping that 2010 is kind to you, and that your RfB in which I did not get the chance to vote passes. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The December 2009 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 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I posted a response to the entire post. It is rather long, so if you have a short attention span, please do not turn off the computer before you are done reading. If you are a slow reader, take breaks or read it the next day (but don't read one half today and the other half the next day due to the risk for insomnia). It also contains a small part of the big picture (all at once), and that might be mind-blowing for some people.
WARNING: Contents might cause headaches...and other symptoms, similar to that of 0.999.... Also slightly out of the box, and if informing any users people in real life, please break it down into layman's terms. Wikipedian's discretion is advised.
Also, just in case the page is vandalised, please keep it on your watchlist. Thanks.
Latest comment: 14 years ago40 comments17 people in discussion
I am saddened to inform you that your RfB was closed as unsuccessful after bureaucrat discussion. I encourage you, however, to carefully review and consider the reasoning given by those who were opposed and use the information to address any valid concerns which may have been raised. You have a long history of excellent work on the site as an editor and as an administrator, and I encourage you to continue with that. I understand how frustrating it can be to have the community indicate that they aren't willing to accept your help in this role at this time, but I encourage you to use it as a stepping stone for improvement. I think you will eventually be successful in becoming a bureaucrat, should you choose to run again in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything I can do to help. Thank you, again, for all your hard work. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe03:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the 'cratchat and the closure. Sorry your first RfX closure couldn't involve pressing the button, but I tried. :) Thanks to all who participated as well; the criticism and support are both appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk03:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It's very possible I'll try again sometime, but I have other priorities at the moment. Thanks for the support and encouragement nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Im sounding a bit on the stalker-ish side aren't I? I think that the issues from last night have messed me up in the head a bit. You already know that you will do fine Julian. Im reasureing myself now!--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What Matt said. Lucky for us, you can still help plenty without being a crat and I am sure that you will Regards SoWhy15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Worst case scenario, once you turn 18 I'd guess that enough people would move to support so that you would pass. --Rschen775421:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that its kinda odd that people opposed him becasue he's not 6570 days old. Julian is one of the most mature people here. I have meet alot of "adults" that act like 4 year olds here You dont see that take up as much on an RFA. No one seems to care about mental age. Rather you must be X years, X days and X minutes old to be able to grat others adminship. Julian. You will pass you next RFB regardless of your birthday. Your suporters will only continue to grow.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to spend some time growing up before you criticise grown-ups Coldplay Expert; I had hoped you'd learned that lesson. Sympathise with Julian all you like, heck I've sympathised myself, as I too think the RfB bar is ridiculous, but don't use it as a stage to pontificate from. --MalleusFatuorum21:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that you need to keep your mouth shut when it comes to "growing-up" Malleus. Your actions in the past have show that you act just as immature as the "minors" here. If your gona start an argument on ageism, do it on my talk page.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
3rd Opinion, how about both of you cease and desist. I'd prefer that no one talks about age/maturity, especially mine. :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, that is a bit outside the realm of civil discourse. Time for the both of you to do as Kansas Bear suggests. Prodegotalk00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If I may be blunt, Coldplay, I think your biggest issue is that you focus far too much on the ageism debate. Don't get me wrong—I was guilty of this same crime several years back and that's probably one of the reasons why my RfB failed. But you need to realize that with thousands of Wikipedians, some will disagree with you on issues that may even affect you personally. Trying to prove that you can be mature looks more immature than simply acting mature, if that makes sense. I know you want to be an admin eventually, so if you want to pass you'll need to work on not giving a rat's ass. Probably time to take a step back and work on a nice article or three. –Juliancolton | Talk00:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
your right. Malleus, you may not like me or even hate me for some unknown reason but you are entitled to an opinion and im entitled to mine. As for ageism. It's no rumor that teenagers are immature. I myself can act very immature here--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
209 to 46? 82% and they decide "no consensus"? No comment on the above weird "discussion", but to simply comment on the closing decision, I weep for this project. People have completely lost sight of the fundamentals, the objectives, and made it into some perverted social "game". Tan | 3914:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There is indeed an apparent confusion amongst many wikipedians between "consensus" and "unanimity". "Consensus" (from the Latin consentire, meaning to feel together), by no means implies that everyone, or an overwhelming majority, or even any majority at all, agrees with a certain course of action, simply that that it's been agreed to take it. To give one very specific example: I voted oppose in Julian's RfB for reasons that are well-known to you, but I do not consider myself part of the consensus not to promote, as I would not have objected to Julian's promotion, for the reasons that I also gave. --MalleusFatuorum18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. There is a diffrence between not supporting (oppose) and not wanting to promote him. However, most wikipedians think that there is no difference between oppose and not promote. ITs gererally considered (wrongly) that it's the same thing.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't vote; I just didn't notice it. I'll be more careful next time, as I am sure there will be, and successful then! All the best as always,--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As I have already commented elsewhere to Julian, although I gladly supported his RfB, the 'crat discussion yielded the correct decision as the bar for 'cratship currently stands. I happen to think that the bar is set too high, and that JC should now be a 'crat, but that is a discussion for other places. I am sure that you will get the 'cratship in the near future, JC - you know you'll have my full support! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, 209 wikipedians clearly think you are competent and ready to be a bureaucrat. I think it's a mistake to consider that bureaucrat is a higher level than adminship, but that's probably due that lamely quoted essay with the Jimbo quote about adminship being not a big deal. Good that you ran to see how many wikipedians support you. Now, go out and calmly start getting involved as an admin in some more controversial settlements. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Doubt what? "dull technical position" sounds about the same as "no big deal." So you doubt he said what I said he said which is about the same as what you said he said, but don't doubt he said what you said he said... Huh...--IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tan in his "weep" comment; expectations are way out of control and the consensus minimum will soon soar above 100%! upstateNYer19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, although I doubt I'll be running again anytime soon to be honest. Hopefully understandably, I'm not very confident in the RfX process at the moment, but even so I might as well wait until some of the age concerns become moot. –Juliancolton | Talk19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no age requirement. And you handled those questions well by ignoring them. It doesn't take a majority person to do what bureaucrats do. You appear to be able to read. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Alea iacta est
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Juliancolton,
Thanks for responding to my username change request.
I don’t want to leave Wikipedia permanently. What I want is to remove all traces of my former username from Wikipedia. I want all references to my former username to be replaced with references to the replacement username.
Sincerely, Shiafishman (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael Baic: User Name Change
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Julian,
Thank you so much for your reply to my request to change my Username. The reason I made the request is because when I initially became a Wikipedia User I did not fully understand the system and have noted that using one's own name is not always a good idea. I have found an amount of harassment, which is causing distress, as you can imagine.
In the meantime I have deleted all content on my Michael Baic Username page, which is now blank and I would obviously not wish anybody to userp my name and enter false details.
In addition to the above, I was very concerned about a deletion on Sir Frederick Ashton's page. I knew him very well indeed for many years and noticed I was mentioned as were the Pagets. Suddenly my name was deleted by someone and I was not able to restore it.It must have been an error but, whereas I am not particularly concerned if I am mentioned on his page or not, it is at least as relevant as that of the Pagets.
I apologise if I may appear to be somewhat ignorant as to the correct protocal re editing and changing etc, but you will understand that at 60, the mind is not as sharp as at 30!
I'm actually in southeastern New York, but I'm a fan of the Connecticut/Rhode Island area so I do quite a bit of editing on articles related to New England. :) –Juliancolton | Talk17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so I want to again throw my hat into the RFA bin. I just going to ask Secret, and he apparently has an illness that will keep him off of here. Would you be willing to nominate me in lieu of Secret's absence? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. To be perfectly honest, I still believe you need a bit of maturing and seasoning before you're likely to pass. For example, you seem to be getting a bit impatient here—which is definitely understandable, but delays are something one encounters quite a bit as an admin and it's something to get used to. Might be a good idea to ask Xeno for a more in-depth review, but at the moment, I think you'd be good to wait a bit more. –Juliancolton | Talk02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The impatientness is probably the result of me being bored out of my mind during a month-long vacation. I'm sorry if I start sounding a bit off and impatient, but there is nothing to do here on the Cape, and Wikipedia is really the only form of entertainment that I have (well not really, but doing this is rather fun). I agree that Xeno is someone I should probably ask, so I will get right on over to him and ask for a quick review. Thanks for your time and effort here! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
re: Arlene
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
wow, an administrator likes my work! thanks a lot. i guess it just comes pretty natural, i get hit by storms all the time! do you have any advice, since you've been here so long? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
wait, do you get an actual hat (or some article of clothing) for being an admin? sell that shit on ebay!
There is a shirt, but I doubt you'll get much for it - it's public domain, after all. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)What am I bid for this fine item of apparel?
darn, there's actually a site called the hurricane archive? grr... what about anything more along the lines of the above, like some papers? Viennaiswaiting (talk)
Hi, I had edited the page Munir Hussain, but CoM reverted it. Obviously I thought my page was better than the page it was reverted to (my reasons on the tagged for deletion page), but I left it as it was and waited for the discussion. OK, it has gone, but I'm interested in what the discussion was and whether it was deleted or not and by whom. Any information? Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Coaching: Rollback
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I reviewed the reasons for deletion of my page, EMazzanti Technologies. I believe I have corrected many of the errors of the initial posting -- if you could review at some time my talk page is at Talk:EMazzanti_Technologies. Thanks for your time!
I've restored the article, so you can go ahead and simply copy/paste the revised version. Still seems a bit promotional in tone, though, so that's something you might want to consider. –Juliancolton | Talk22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Creampuff
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
I just wanted to lend you moral support. I am completly uninvolved with Creampuff, and only know about this case because I stumbled upon it on AFD one day.
The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary community service.
This barnstar is awarded to Juliancolton. Juliancolton defending the defenseless was brave and very commendable. We desperatly need more inspring leaders like you. Ikip21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just one question Julian. Would you be prepared to put your balls on the block for Cremepuff? I recall back in the days that Keeper76 offered to do exactly that for me at RfA. If I fucked up and got desysoped then he'd give up his tools as well. --MalleusFatuorum21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Eh, unless the situation necessitated it, probably not, but I'm willing to take responsibility for him if he goes nuts after being unblocked. I'm not nearly as much fun as Keeper though, so I doubt it would have the same effect. :) –Juliancolton | Talk22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, your comments above inspired me to propose a variation of that here. I don't know Cremepuff, nor have I ever even seen his name here (hence the addition of "five editors..."), but I'm willing to take a risk. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. You don't know Cremepuff yet you're willing to put yourself in the firing line for him, albeit to a very limited degree? Why? --MalleusFatuorum04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If he will actually rewrite an article on his talk page, I'd reduce the block to, say, three months. Obviously the consensus is to keep him blocked at the moment, but I think that if he is willing to rewrite an article... Also, what about this? The potential positives are huge (imagine the better articles!), while the negatives (idiocy, vandalism) can be fixed with a couple clicks on rollback and a tap on the indef block button. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
So would you be willing to give this option to every blocked socker and vandal (one could use the same arguments about the potential positives outweighing the potential negative)? To me this just looks like "trading" constructive edits for block time (and therefore disruption). It's a bad idea to openly say that users may harass and disrupt, so long as they write an article after. I don't think we should allow users who have caused as much disruption as cremepuff to be unblocked if they can't admit what they did (socking, harassment, vandalism, deleting pages for giggles) was wrong, but they will write articles. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kingpin, certainly not. But a former admin who has previously rewrote articles (unlike most socks/vandals)? I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think that cremepuff understands this would be his last and final chance, so I don't think he would screw it up. If he does, it really doesn't cost us much beyond a few clicks and typing "goodbye", as we wouldn't let the disruption go beyond a couple edits before blocking. However, if he doesn't screw it up, the encyclopedia benefits. In my mind, it's worth the gamble. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)07:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Essay on consensus-building
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks, I appreciate your endorsement. I wasn't sure if it had already been said better elsewhere. I'll put some headers in, I think.--otherlleft22:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably don't want to hear my opinion, but I'll offer it nevertheless. Consensus has to be built. not determined by some third-party after you've cast your "vote". Consensus, in other words, emerges from reasoned discussion. A strange concept for some, I know. --MalleusFatuorum23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate any and all opinions, actually. As an essay, do you feel it expresses a unique point of view, or is it repeating something you've seen expressed better elsewhere?--otherlleft23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you ask, I think it expresses a point of view that is all too common here, and one that is killing the project. For more details contact my talk page. --MalleusFatuorum23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael Baic
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Julian,
Thank you for your speedy reply and help. You suggest I contact Annonymous Dissident. Could you tell me how to do this as there does not seem to be a similar method to that which you use on his talk page. Sorry to be so slow to grasp the correct method.
Thanks Julian. Michael Baic.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Science task force with the Engineering and technology task force to form the new Military science and technology task force. Because you were a coordinator of one of the two defunct task forces, I've transferred your coordinatorship to the new task force; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. There are still a few wrinkles being worked out, but most of the new infrastructure is in place and the rest should follow shortly. All the best, EyeSerenetalk19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am sorry I don't know how to reply to this comment but will give it a try. I have been asked by the Ernest Cook Trust to amend information to do with Ernest Cook and the estates owned by the Ernest Cook Trust. Is this OK? Viva communications (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you help?
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Apparently some people don't know when to quit. This individual[18] now has a different IP address(compared to his previously banned IP[19]) and doing the same removal of references and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ernest Cook Trust
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have had two messages about adding information about the Ernest Cook Trust. The secretary to the Trustees has asked me to amend any incorrect information about Ernest Cook and/or the Trust which currently appears on wikipedia, which is all I have been doing. I have also added links to the Trust's own website for further information. I am not sure what the problem is, and would appreciate some help! Many thanks Viva communications (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. I'd strongly suggest that you request a username change as well, as names purporting to be representing an organisation are very much frowned on. --MalleusFatuorum15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
sorry
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just found a blatent error in Claudette's TCR. In the Meteorological statistics section, it states that there were no tornadoes in relation to the storm. However, the National Weather Service published a fair-sized report on a tornado spawned by Claudette :P TCRCyclonebiskit (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to go. Its getting late and im tired. Can we continue this tomorow? (Thanks for helping me out. You need to be blunt as I have made several mistakes here)--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
RE: Removal and Comments in regards to ISCF MMA Page
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
January 7th, 2010.
FROM THE ISCF
International Sport Combat Federation
We hate to start out rude, but we feel greatly insulted by all the comments made about the past ISCF MMA info page.
EVERYTHING that your staff have attacked us on can be EASILY answered in a simple, two-way conversation.
WHO ARE THESE "EDITORS" THAT HAVE SLAMMED US???
It's CLEAR they have no idea what the ISCF is!
We have no idea WHAT all of you are talking about in your posts however, we here at the ISCF would LOVE to be able to discuss all your false accusations and prove to you whatever we need to prove to make you happy.
ALL ISCF events can be found on our past news page located here;
http://www.iscfmma.com/PastNews.htm
Here is where you are a little confused.
To begin with, the ISCF is a "SANCTIONING BODY" NOT a "PROMOTIONAL COMPANY" like the UFC, Strikeforce, King of the Cage, etc. etc.
Not to try and insult anyone here but it clearly appears from all of your comments attacking our credibility that no one here knows what a "SANCTIONING BODY is or does.
AGAIN, we are NOT Promoters, we "SANCTION events for proper rules, regulations and safety!
It would not have taken anyone here long to do a little research and find out about the ISCF because EVERYTHING we claim we have accomplished as well as do is CLEARLY documented on our web pages. We didn't just "MAKE THIS STUFF UP!"
The ISCF was the FIRST ever MMA Sanctioning body in the USA, and was created in 1999, LONG before any state athletic or boxing commissions started sanctioning the sport of MMA. If you want to look at "MMA" from a RULES topic, the ISCF was the first ever "MMA" Sanctioning body in the WORLD that truly sanctioned the sport of "Mixed Martial Arts". While "OTHER" groups such as SHOOTO Sanctioned their own styles, ISCF Sanctioned what was known as MMA today.
AGAIN, Groups such as UFC, Strikeforce, King of the Cage, these are "Promotional Companies", NOT Sanctioning bodies. We do not SIGN fighters. For more info on the ISCF, please go to;
http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFMission.htm
For MMA Sanctioning bodies you have listed;
World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts, Shooto, WWCN, North American Boxing Council and the Japan Mixed Martial Arts Federation.
However, you are still missing A LOT of other MMA "SANCTIONING BODIES" such as ISKA, WKA, KICK and of course, the ISCF.
If anyone here would have been respectful enough to speak to us before insulting us and deleating our info page, it would have been greatly appreciated. However, NO ONE here bothered to do this and NO ONE bothered to learn what a "SANCTIONING BODY" is or does.
Our e-mail address is info@iscfmma.com and our contact number is 916-663-2467. Again, we would be glad to "EXPLAIN" to ANYONE taking the jabs at us here the difference of a "SANCTIONING BODY" and a "PROMOTIONAL COMPANY" because it's CLEAR no one here knows the difference...
We Eagerly Looking forward to your reply and sorry if we were a little emotional in this message, but we took great offense to the attacks by the editors here for an organization we have all worked very hard in making credible among the MMA world.
Note: I brought the item to AfD, so I take much of what you've said as being directed at me. First off, you edited the closed AfD discussion. Those edits have been reverted. Second, you first need to read WP:COI, then read WP:RS, WP:V and probably WP:NPA while you are at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
__________________
OK Niteshift36...
No one here has unlimited HOURS to read through all you have asked us to read. Our point is the TERRIBLE Accusations and comments that you and the other editors made on the page that we first responded to. YES, we saw "Don't change it..." However, after reading what you have accused the ISCF of, ANYONE IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT WE DID!! you and the others were rude, insulting and ALL of your claimed accusations were FALSE!! AGAIN, your accusations were attacking us as if we were trying to be a UFC, or compete with UFC. WE ARE NOT AND DON'T WANT TO BE A UFC, WE ARE A "SANCTIONING BODY! NOT A PROMOTIONAL COMPANY! It was insulting to read the comments.
For example, someone there referenced this page for event results;
http://www.mmauniverse.com/organisations/SS22
We LAUGHED when we read this page. It says only 68 events from 1999 to 2008. Not only have they missed 2009, but they lissed A LOAD OF EVENTS.
If you really want to see what we have documented, "NOT WHAT SOME WEB SERFER 'FOUND' AND POSTED", go to our past news page. EVERY event is posted with results. We didn't just make these events up. CALL the promoters on the info numbers or e-mail them. They will confirm these were REAL EVENTS;
http://www.iscfmma.com/PastNews.htm
If these guys were true and correct, we only did "4" events last year. AGAIN, WE LAUGHED!
"YOU" went on to comment;
"Interestingly, the 2nd link has nothing more recent than 2007 and the first one shows 2008 as the last event. Truthfully, that makes me feel they are even less notable than before. Niteshift36"
How can you make such a comment? YOU haven't even attempted to look into the issue. You have never even went to the ISCF pages and looked at all the past ISCF events. Yet, you insult us as if we just pulled these numbers out of a hat with a comment like, "that makes me feel they are even less notable than before"
aktsu is even more rude and INCORRECT!
For example, he wrote:
Their MO seems to be to put their name on events promoted and put togheter by actual promotions (and sanctioned by actual sanctioning bodies, i.e. the state athletic commisions) while giving out titles to all the non-notable or barely notable fighters they can get to (because if they were actually notable they would sign with proper promotions whos titles are't meaningless).
AGAIN, HE/SHE HAS NO IDEA WHAT THE ISCF IS!!!!
The job and duty of a sanctioning body "IS" to put our name on events! We "SANCTION THEM!" We do not promote them. Again, aktsu is clueless as to what the ISCF is, or what role a "Sanctioning Body" has in the fight sports or ANYWHERE! Especially when he makes a comment like, "and sanctioned by actual sanctioning bodies, i.e. the state athletic commisions"... LOL, ISCF "IS" A SANCTIONING BODY!!! And APPROVED by MANY USA States as an Official Sanctioning Body! Even more funny is his comment, "while giving out titles to all the non-notable or barely notable fighters they can get to (because if they were actually notable they would sign with proper promotions whos titles are't meaningless)." what a FOOL! It is NOT our job to "Sign Fighters!!!" It would be unethical! "PROMOTERS AND PROMOTIONAL COMPANIES like UFC, Strikeforce, etc. sign fighters, NOT SANCTIONING BODIES!!!
aktsu goes on to say...
"Seems to me the only reason some promotions are on board with this is because they are so small their own titles would actually mean even less than ISCF's"
Well, he does keep us LAUGHING! Events sanction with a sanctioning body to be assured they have officials NOT associated with the promotional company. "SUCH AS K-1" believe it or not, who use their own officials. the questions come up when this happens of "Are the officials helping the promoters fighters to win?" With a "Sanctioned event" the judging is fair, the referee is fair, ALL the officials are trained, certified and fair to the event! The sanctioning body assures the fighters are qualified to fight, physicals are done, a medical doctor if not two are at cageside or ringside, on and on. in fact, please direct aktsu to our RULES PAGE HERE:
This might help "EDUCATE" him and everyone attacking us as to the role of a sanctioning body. To make the events FAIR and SAFE for all involved, "A LOT" like a State Athletic or boxing commission!"
He goes on to say,
(and I guess because "ISCF" sounds kind of impressive if you're clueless to what's behind it).
OK, I have to say it, WHAT AN IDIOT! He's the Idiot for making such a False claim! Again, HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE ISCF OR WHAT A SANCTIONING BODY IS OR DOES! Maybe he just want's to slam the ISCF. Who knows, maybe he has an issue with our success, who knows, but one thing is for sure here, WHY IS SOMEONE WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIGHT SPORTS AND ESPECIALLY FIGHT SPORT SANCTIONING BODIES EDITING OUR PAGE!?!?
aktsu goes on to say...
"The sole pro MMA "world" championship title they've given out was to Din Thomas in 2000, and he still haven't defended it even though he's fought 20 times (14 wins, 7 losses) since then because none of the promotions reckognized the title; i.e. none of the fights have been "ISCF-sanctioned"-bouts."
To assist him, thomas won his title before a lot of big promotions started signing fighters. It was the first ISCF World title won. There have been others, but again, aktsu didn't want to take a few seconds to look at our past champions page found here;
In addition, there is now another ISCF World Champion that it seems he missed. Keep in mind, our "GOAL" is not to give out World Titles. In fact, the reason we don't have one in EVERY weightclass (Something he didn't think about here) is because we have high standards as to WHO qualifies for an ISCF World title shot. we don't just tell a promoter (Like some sanctioning bodies do) pay us some $$ and you can have the world title. In addition, keep in mind. These UFC Champions are GREAT fighters. HOWEVER, UFC Champions are not always the BEST. Those who get a UFC Title shot are fighters UFC "SIGNED" to UFC. Something we, as a sanctioning body do not do! So think about this, if the best fighters are "SIGNED" by a promotional company like UFC or Strikeforce, they are NOT going to fight for an ISCF Title.
In addition, ISCF's main focus over the years has been for amateur mma. Obviously aktsu never bothered to look at the ISCF Amateur Rankings where there are MANY WORTHY Champions;
aktsu goes on to say...
"Unless sources are provided to show the ISCF is notable outside their own little MMA-bubble I have to go "delete"."
Maybe aktsu should venture out of "HIS" bubble and try to learn more about "Sanctioning bodies!" it's clear, he knows NOTHING ABOUT THEM and is getting "Promotional companies who have their own titles with their own signed fighters mixed up with "Neutral non promoting sanctioning bodies..."
If ANYONE here REALLY wants to know more about the ISCF, we eagerly look forward to any and all of you to take some time and read this page for starters;
After reading it, it would be well worth your time to actually research more about the ISCF on our pages as well as on promoters pages who "Sanction" with us instead of making false accusations and insults about us on your edit page here.
Now, the next questions would be,
1: "How can we get our wikapedia info site back up?
2: how can we be listed under the "Professional mixed martial arts organizations" section under "Sanctioning bodies and networks"?
Again, these are "PROMOTIONAL COMPANIES FOR MMA:
UFC • WEC • Strikeforce • Bellator Fighting Championships • Art of War (US) • RITC • Ring of Combat • Adrenaline MMA • Ohio Xtreme Fighting • HDNet Fights • FFC • King of the Cage • Icon Sport • Tachi Palace Fights • WCF • IFC • Vyper Fight League • USA-MMA • Gladiator Challenge • Ultimate Warrior Challenge • Called Out MMA • Shine Fights • Ironheart Crown etc...
And THESE ARE SANCTIONING BODIES FOR MMA;
ISCF, ISKA, KICK, WKA, along with, World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts • Shooto • WWCN • North American Boxing Council • Japan Mixed Martial Arts Federation
I have to say I'm sorry that the comments above may seem rough back at you, but put yourselves in our place. Pretty much EVERYTHING you all said about the ISCF is simply NOT TRUE, and ALL of it can be backed up. As for the info being on our own web site, what is wrong with that? Heck, at least you can find all of our results. On ALL the sanctioning bodies I listed above, only about 2-3 others even have a news page or results page. Nearly ALL of them don't even have MMA rankings. WAMMA only has Pro rankings, and how many events have they sanctioned since they started being a sanctioning body? 5? 6? Really? And you have THEM listed??? LOL!
We hope everyone here can read our comments for what they are and take the emotions out of them. The simple truth is, ISCF is a "Sanctioning Body" NOT a "Promotional company". we DO not SIGN Fighters and it's not our job to offer up TITLES. Our job is to regulate the sport of MMA to assure safety and fairness. Or better put in our own mission statement;
The ISCF Mission For
Mixed Martial Arts...
"Safety, Credibility, Fairness, Recognition, Support & Unification
of Mixed Martial Arts Around The World"
"The goal of the International Sport Combat Federation is to regulate safe and fair rules and regulations and help provide exposure and opportunities for local, regional, national and international competition among amateur and professional mixed martial arts fighters, trainers, promoters and officials. We will, through adherence to and enforcement of these rules and regulations, strive to make competitive mixed martial arts fighting a safe and fair sport as we continue to help bring exposure to and enhance the present as well as the future of the sport we serve, Mixed Martial Arts."
We hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely, the Staff of the International Sport Combat Federation
E-mail: info@iscfmma.com
Phone: 916.663.2467 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.253.232 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if you can't be "bothered" to read the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, then I can't be "bothered" to read and respond to your lengthy rants. If you can't familiarize yourself with the policies, then perhaps Wikipedia is not where you belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how I ended up at this thread, but here I am, haha. Hi! I want to drop a line to note that all of the ISCF's assertions are true and that the chap working for them is just trying to ensure that any information about his organisation on Wikipedia is accurate. I'm happy to treat this matter as I would an "OTRS" issue and deal with the issue personally. For anyone reading this, the treatment of the ISCF by particular editors does not reflect the general attitude of Wikipedia towards organisations who are trying, in good faith, to ensure that Wikipedia presents accurate information. If the ISCF is still reading this, feel free to get in touch with me at jackocee at gmail dot com. I'm happy to work with you oceeConas tá tú?20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to note that I've recreated the article, and as Julian was the closing administrator on the AfD, I want to make him aware of the recreation. Julian, I hope I'm not stepping on your administrative toes, so to speak; the organisation satisfies notability guidelines, though it is understandable for someone unfamiliar with the structure and organisation of mixed martial arts to think otherwise without first researching the topic oceeConas tá tú?20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
They might be notable.....if you provide the proper sources etc. Did you ever read WP:TRUTH? You can't use the orgs own website to establish its notability. You just put the same article that was deleted for lack of sources right back up. Get the sources, put them in...THEN recreate the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Seuss
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Julian,
I noticed you've semi-protected Dr. Seuss for excessive vandalism. I have a question about this edit [20]. Mrs. Geisel suffered from cancer but committed suicide. I don't think this edit is useful, do you? Would it be all right if I reverted it?Malke201019:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete Bernard Herman?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why did you delete Bernard Herman? Who are you to decide who is important enough to include and not include in Wikipedia? Bring it back. Now.
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
hey, i'm making another storm article (Hurricane How (1951)), and i ran across a problem. one source clearly says there was no damage, but i found a newspaper source saying the storm caused a shipwreck which caused 6 deaths. what should i do? thx bro --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
hmm, not sure what happened (it said a conflict or something), so i'll post again. thanks for the advice. this [21] was the source, and i found a little blurb from a pay-per-view site [22] (no way am i paying for that shit!). both of 'em say there were deaths from that shipwreck... so yea, i'll go with that. thx! --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
yo, regarding your last edit, i was wondering about that. should it be the 6th or 7th for dissipation? i looked at other articles, and i assumed dissipation was when it became extratropical, but the best track has it as extratropical exactly on the 7th. is that what i should do in the future? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
hah, now i got another long archive to go thru when writing an article! interesting image you added... is that a weather map or something like they have on the weather channel? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Juliancolton, I saw that you submitted the Tropical Storm Henri (2009) to count as a GA for the wikicup. The article was last changed by you in december. I tought that only articles count which have been worked on in 2010. the scoring says: Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition. Thanks --Stone (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Julian, just to remind you that I completed the "rollback" scenario question. I am back to editing normally tomorrow morning (UTC) after the weekend, so am happy to continue when you are ready!
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Isn't a list article that contains only blue links to other articles, automatically accepted under WP:LIST? If it aids in navigation, shouldn't it be accepted? DreamFocus02:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I believe you were completely wrong and unjustified in your deletion of the Game Show Congress article on the following basis: you did not wait for consensus to be reached before you did so (4-4). Also, in doing so, you chose to disregard legitimate votes to keep the page, which IIRC a Wiki admin does not have the right to do. I would urge you to reconsider. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Um...don't you think I read what you said before coming here? Your logic for dismissing the arguments did not assume good faith, and were kind of close to violating NPOV. That tells me you were determined to delete the article regardless of what the voting results were. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My name is Paul Schindler and I wanted to ask you for the reason you have deleted the Wikipedia article on Chi Rho Omicron in Jan. 2009. The organization is very near and dear to my heart and I am saddened to see it not be available for others to see on such a respectable site as Wikipedia. I am asking you this because I see your name and link to the deletion page and would like an explanation and possible action I or Chi Rho Omicron can take to reinstate the stub. The page is important to establish our credibility and exposure. Since we still are a relatively young fraternity (8 chapters) we are trying to grow our membership and a vibrant and open Wikipedia article is essential to this end.
I look forward to your reply and I trust the situation can be remedied. You can reply to my personal e-mail @ schindler(dot)paul(at)gmail(dot)com.
Sincerely,
~~Paul Schindler
XPO 247~~
CE
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Julian, I've given Coldplay Expert a bit of advice at his mentoring page. Hopefully, he'll get the message and listen to what you're telling him. Nobody else can help anymore. This is something he needs to figure out by himself. ceranthor20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No bad-faith edits AFAICT, and not a really overwhelming level of unproductive-yet-good-faith contributors either. Consider adding an editnotice as a substitute.
There's already an editnotice and it's not working. Any other suggestions? Geeky Randy (talk)
Coke Zero Facial Profiler
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello again,
I've posted an article today (1/1110), for your review, in my userspace.
Please let me know if you feel the article is suitable for publishing.
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Julian, I was wondering if you would grant me rollback--this is an alternate account I use in the classroom for a Wiki teaching project. I will be happy to email you from my "real" account to confirm who I am: I have rollback on that account, and some 25,000 edits, some of which are decent. ;) Please let me know. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, perhaps you can help me with this: the PC that I'm on, I don't know if I am allowed to download onto it--and if I can't, then I can't install Huggle, right? But I don't know if Twinkle uses with IExplorer, which is what we have on campus. I use Twinkle on my other account and find it decent enough. Do you have any advice? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, the NHC has updated their list of hurricane names. No names were retired in either basin last year.....could have sworn they would at least retire one.... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hah! Finally. :D Dunno what took them so long though, nothing that unusual there. As for the lack of retired storms, I'll go through and update the articles. –Juliancolton | Talk17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DRV time again. Seems some members of the game show community aren't happy with your deletion. I've worked on a draft in userspace that uses some sources I somehow missed last time. I'm tempted just to say "hell with the DRV" and dump it back in article-space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe it really needs one, but I'll explain I guess. Quite a few of the keep "votes" were exceedingly weak and relied on unverified claims, and although they were in the majority, there was no consensus either way. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk04:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of OptiPNG. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pcapping22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why Delete the Gerry Haner Page
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(Gehaner (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
This article did meet requirements of wiki. This person was signed to a important indie record label, Sun Studios which had Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash and many more. also a current member of The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. All of the criteria for the article to stay was proven back in 2006 and that is why it was left alone until now, Please put the article back up. Thank you.
Criteria for musicians and ensembles:
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
DYK for December 2000 nor'easter
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On January 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article December 2000 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OptiPNG, since afd is not a vote, what would you say were the keep arguments employed which were policy based? it seems that the delete arguments were "there are no third party, reliable sources. hence, notability has not been established." and it seems that the keep arguments were basically "i like it, and i think other people like it too, but i can't prove this through reliable sources". i was just wondering if there was a valid keep argument, not counted as a vote, which i missed. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just stumbled across this - Talk:Charice Pempengco#Requested move - consensus seemed to be not to move, and it looks like the page wasn't moved - so shouldn't that read something other than The result of the move request was moved. - ? I know it's trivial, no need to reply, I'll leave it up to you. 92.4.81.224 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks. As I said to Regency, I'm working on a hard copy edit. After I implement that, and add a few more things that occurred to me in the process, I'll be taking it to PR (where we can decide whether to split the history section off or not ... I think we'll have to). Then GA.
As for an FAC, I'd like to wait till warmer weather and get a couple more pictures (I'll put a list on the talk page). But then who knows ... we could have it on the main page in time for the main leaf-peeping weekend in October. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Commons picture protection
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Julian, I added an image of a globe to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2010. Now that image needs to be protected on Commons. I mentioned this on the talk page for the day and at WT:TFA but no one has replied. I know you are also a Commons admin, so could you protect it there? If worse comes to worse I will upload it and protect it here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Ok you can test my knowledge fully if you desire. Should I also increase my edits also and be involved in RFD and vote in the RFA's? rymich13 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Side Question
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Just a side question. I was looking at the candidates for this and last years steward elections. It seems users with relatively few edits even got elected. Should I not try at that at this point? rymich13 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I have a little (trivial) question. On the logs, I searched for User:Priyanka and it does not show up (no "new account" log) but when I went to try and see if I could register an account (just for the heck of it), I said that the account was already taken. Could you explain why.
For any user where the Special:Contributions page (in this case Special:Contributions/Priyanka) has the username colored gray, that means the name is not registered. If it is in red or blue, it usually* means it's registered (even if it has never edited). Not all accounts are in the logs because logging of user registrations only began sometime around 2006.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 1987 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Julian. I saw your note on Wikipedia Review about cleaning up the atom article. I would also like to take the mop to Existence which is a good example of how bad Wikipedia can get. The concept of 'existence' is at the core of the Western philosophical traditition. Every good reference work should deal with it. For example of a good article about it, see the Stanford Encyclopedia article by Barry Miller (philosopher).
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sir,
I see you have signed this page under a heading stating "{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}", but I recall absolutely no contact with you on this matter. Perhaps you meant to sign slightly lower down the page under "Other users who endorse this summary"? WuhWuzDat22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, as I recall, I've left a number of messages on your talk page advising you to take more care with Twinkle and such. (See here.) Perhaps it would have been better for me to sign the endorsements list instead, but I feel the difference in this case is rather marginal. –Juliancolton | Talk23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Eh, it's not really so bad as to justify locking their talk page. Maybe another admin at ANI will disagree with me, in which case I have no objections. –Juliancolton | Talk02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Since this is my first time using huggle
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 1995 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, I like that. More importantly it makes it more appealing and therefore hopefully likely to be read by young editors. I still think it's TL;DR, but as a WIP it is shaping nicely and was a good idea. Thanks. Leaky Caldron09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Blocks are an area which (were I to become an admin), I would not get into initially (apart from very obvious cases, such as an ANI discussion where it is clearly shown that many editors think the editor in question should be blocked). However, I have answered the scenarios you gave me, hopefully they are OK! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you do realise that website has been referred to in mainstream and major industry related publications don't you? How does that have any less significance than say the Internet Adult Film Database and Adult Film Database that remain on Wikipedia? Seems a strange decision unless it's a "culling of adult-related topics" measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathyw (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Julian Colton:
I am writing to inquire about my article that was deleted on January 15. Can you please help me understand the reason the article was deleted? The only note stated that I did not address the concerns placed by the nominator. If you look back at the discussion, we did add ALL of the secondary sources that are out there. It is a new theory and thus does not yet have an abudant supply of secondary resources, but it will. Was the nominator actually requesting supporting references? I can supply those if that is what you would like. The resources listed below are tantamount to a chronological line for how the theory developed.
ALSO, the only person, please understand that my knowledge and use of wiki in this way is VERY basic, (I am learning), who had academic or life experience to rate my page was the individual who noted that he was suggesting a STRONG KEEP. Again, I am not being critical, only noting that the readily available biographies of the others who cited me for deletion did not indicate a background that supports the comments that were made.
What can I provide that might get you to reconsider my page? The supporting references are listed below if that is what you wanted me to supply based on the nominator's comments.
Where will I be able to your dialogue with me? I do not want to post my email publicly, do you have a way to get it from within wiki as I gave it when I signed my login name up?
Thank you in advance. I am glad to provide ANY additional information if you will reconsider the deleted article.
References:
Bowlby, John. (1969). Attachment and Loss Volume I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowlby, John. (1973). Attachment and Loss Volume II: Separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowlby, John. (1980). Attachment and Loss Volume III: Loss. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Harvey, Jerry B. (1999). How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed in the Back My Fingerprints Are on the Knife? And Other Meditations on Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jaques, Elliot. (1990). Creativity and Work. International Universities Press, Inc., Madison, Connecticut.
Jaques, Elliot. (2002). The Life and Behavior of Living Organisms: A General Theory. Praeger Publishers, WestPort, Conneticut.
Lynch, James J. (1977). The Broken Heart: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Noer, David M. (1993). Healing the Wounds: Overcoming the Trauma of Layoffs and Revitalizing Downsized Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spitz, Rene A. (1983). Rene A. Spitz: Dialogues from Infancy. Edited by Robert N. Emde. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
Spitz, Rene A. and Katherine Wolf. (1946). Anaclitic Depression: An inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood, II. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 2: 313-342.
Winnicott, D. W. (1951) Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena. Through Paediatrics. 229-42.
I am confused, when I look at the deletion review page it indicates that I should courteously approach the adminstrator and ask for reconsideration. My posting above is intended to ask the JC for reconsideration based on the information I provided above--- additional reference material, etc. I believe this article is a noteworthy article given that it is included in a multi-national textbook that is used in business schools all over the world. Can you please help me understand what the article is missing in terms of its contribution so that I can substantively improve it if the re-consideration is not successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallreagan (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
yo buddy! i saw u wrote the article on arthur 08. that's part of a litttle project i'm doin, on the out of season atlantic hurricanes. all the other articles are ga's already, or they;re mine and will be gas soon. i'm mad busy lately, but i was wonderin if the arthur was like done already, or if it needed more work. peace --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, nice work on the project so far! IIRC, I wrote Arthur while it was still active (or shortly afterward), so it probably needs an update and expansion. I'd be happy to help with it. –Juliancolton | Talk18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
awesome bro, thanks a lot. also, quick question... in the main list of the out of season storms, theres only tropical storms and hurricanes, but there was the tropical depression in may this year, right? so should depressions be included or what? and should they be part of the topic, u think? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I know your specialty is tropical storms, but you're the only serious weather editor I know, so I'm gonna ask for your input anyway. Anticyclone's opening sentence makes my head hurt. My editor fingers just itch to turn it into a sentence with a subject and a predicate, and maybe even a direct object or two. I know it's badly written, but what I don't know is weather (sorry, couldn't resist) I'm going to change its meaning with a cleanup - hence my need for a weatherman like yourself. You willing to take a stab at it?--otherlleft18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I just saw the article on the NASA Ames Research Center CIO Chris C Kemp was deleted following a 2nd deletion debate. I'm wondering whether there is any suggestions you can give as to how to create an article about him that satisfies the wikipedia standards. I still believe the article is valid and appropriate, given he is a rising star driving IT innovation inside NASA and the wider US government. There is a real interest in his work and achievements from within NASA and the government, and there are several third party references which back this up so its not a subjective story I am trying to push here. Thanks Navarenko (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. If you feel you can write an article that adheres to notability requirements, please create a draft in your userspace, complete with references to credible sources. You can list the new version at WP:DRV to see if other editors agree with reinstating it. Good luck. –Juliancolton | Talk21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Julian;
You may not be aware of it, but at DYK there are templates for nominating articles. For a self-nom of an article you wrote yourself, it is {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=}}. These templates are listed at the top of Template talk:Did you know and make life much easier for the DYK reviewer, as well as whoever organizes the sets of hooks for the main page. If it's not too much trouble, could you please use them in the future? Thanks a bunch. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I always thought that template was a bit silly to be honest, which is why I tried to avoid it. I'll use it if it makes a difference for the reviewers, though. –Juliancolton | Talk15:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a template for tagging article talk pages and giving credit which is hidden, but the nomination template generates automatically. When it's not used, someone has to produce that template by hand. It takes 45 seconds if the reviewer notices- but much longer if a hook gets moved into a prep area or queue without being done. (If it was just formatting {{*mp}} at the beginning of hooks, it would be quite silly.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've just begun the review of this article, but would like another eye to look it over. The article seems short, but since the system affected so little land and wasn't very strong, I don't think much content is truly missing. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 1969 nor'easter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. Please explain why you deleted the article. There was no consensus. The article was originally created with very few citations, peacock terms, etc, which is why deletes were quickly stated. I improved the article to establish notability and verifiability. I have even made an RfC on the article, but no one came in. I respectfully request that you review the article with fresh eyes with all citations now included. In line with wiki policy, I wish to first try and resolve the matter with you. Many thanks.Pea12345 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There were more deletes than keeps, but there was no reevaluation with all fresh citations/links. Please explain where there is no consensus. I'm genuinely unclear as to how you came to the decision.Pea12345 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I determined that the arguments for keeping it were generally less persuasive than those in favor of deletion. I was also influenced by the article's nature as a BLP. –Juliancolton | Talk01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked for BLP but I would find it very helpful to know exactly what criteria in particular were not met in order to meet your requirements. Thanks!Pea12345 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
again
Talk page stalkers needed
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
You're much closer to Coldplay Expert in age than I am. Is there no way you can get him to see sense? Disagreeing is fine, I do it several times each day, but there are ways of going about it that don't involve blatant abuse. I'm always saddened to see another editor blocked, almost as saddened as I am when I'm blocked. --MalleusFatuorum20:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I always regret having to block a fellow contributor, but sadly CE's behavior has crossed the line far too many times recently (although I really can't blame him for being frustrated with the project). I'm not sure how I can help him, to be perfectly honest. After his block expires, I'd be happy to try an even more rigorous and blunt mentoring processes, but seeing as the mentoring thing never seems to go anywhere, I guess I can only advise him to keep this bit of advice in mind. –Juliancolton | Talk20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. And I'm not really as frustrated with the project as I am with the way things are going for me. You see even though it may be hard to belive now, when I joined, I imagined myslef to be a really good content creator ect ect by now. I never planed on myspaceing or getting into disputes. It just happened to turn out that way with me meeting Spongefrog and others. At first, I just thought to myself "no big problem, I can just go make 100's of edits to WWII related articles and fix the (then small) issues that I have with myspaceing." however, after reading all of the major articles on the subject, I realized that everything that I know or have a source for is already mentioned here. So I never got to editing the subject untill I nominated WWII for a GA. I guess that my main issue with editing articles is the fact that I have yet to find my own "niche" on this site. You Julian seem to be fairly good at weather and battleships (or something to that extent) and you Malleus, well I have no clue what you work on, I just know that you have tons of FA's and GA's. Anyway, thanks for not giveing up on me Julian.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As requested in the Deletion review policy i'm first asking you to reconsider your evaluation of the "consensus" on deleting that page.
The arguments for deletion certainly weren't strong nor complete and seemed to come from biased individuals, or at least condescending ones. Even if you decided not to agree with the notability issue, the merge/transfer to an existing indie rpg list option suggested by other posters (including me) should have been preferable to outright deletion.
I see, so simply referring to "secret signs" pointing to full pages of unclear and seemingly randomly-applied "policies" instead of giving real understandable arguments is indeed a "strong argument"... just too bad the other side didn't know "secret signs" too. And i thought law-talk was difficult to understand.--Gebeji 142.213.176.140 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'm really clueless. Any advice would be nice. how am I to...well you know....I don't really have any words to describe it but how am I going to fix all the problems that I seem to have caused?--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk16:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to make it plain that I have no particular beef with Coldplay Expert, and unlike some others I do not bear grudges. Just as soon as he stops with his "ass-hole" comments and the like I will be away from his talk page. If he's going to be a guardian of civility, then he has to realise that it applies just as much to him as it does to those he takes exception to. More so in fact.
On a related note, I can think of very few apologies I've received on here that I gave even a moment's serious thought to; they're mostly of the "You're a complete ass-wipe, but I ought not to have said what I did variety", which I consign straight to my mental rubbish bin. I'm only interested in what people do, not what they say they're going to do. I don't demand that CE makes up with me or with anyone else, just that he gets back to what we're all supposed to be doing here. --MalleusFatuorum20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
These pages had problems with lack of citations and neutrality. I have attempted to make them less inflammatory and indicated on the article that they, for the most part, pertain to the majority of the United States. Both would be too limited in scope to include other cultures.
I have recently been making edits and adding links and citations to the articles, I think improving an article is better than deleting them. Covert racism looks to have attracted the ire of a few users who are BNP supporters, Fascist British National Party, so I thought not to ask for their views. THey may have a more skewed outlook on racism.
I was doing more research on a page I wrote called racebending, which was deleted, as a neologism, twice by a "deletionist". It has some popularity with Avatar: The Last Airbender fans. I currently have it saved in my userpage and you are welcome to have a look and perhaps give some pointers to make it ready for publication; without being deleted again.
From what I can read, all pertain to words that are being used in academia and gaining use in mainstream media.
Racebending is gaining in use with 43,700 results in google.
Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Nemogbr's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Recent edits
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
Hello Juliancolton, I have noticed that you have been proposing many articles for deletion. It would be wise to first read and discuss weather the article needs to be deleted or not. Many of the articles you propose just need to be re-written not deleted.South Bay (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
PROD typically comes before AfD. I'm currently tagging BLP articles that have been unsourced for around three years; feel free to contest the deletion, but if you do so, please make an effort to add sources. Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk20:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your irrational opinions and therefore I will take matter into my own hands and content every deletion. South Bay (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of discussion at the moment, including at ArbCom, about how to handle this. JC's method, using prod and not even doing that many prods, seems like the least aggressive of all the approaches being tried. (Disclaimer: I happened to be on IRC and heard this was being discussed here and elsewhere.) This is not a conflict we want to have on 100 different user talk pages and 1000 different article talk pages, I think, although I understand that emotions run high on this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That was absolutely uncalled for. I'm perfectly calm, working my way through the unsourced BLP backlog (I've done far more sourcing and improvements than deletion nominations), and you tell me you're going to arbitrarily remove all of my PRODs because you happen to disagree. I think you're being a bit unreasonable here, to be honest. –Juliancolton | Talk20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I think that JulianC and the other administrators who are trying to do something about wikipedia's BLP fiasco are to be applauded, not castigated. For myself, I'd delete every unsourced BLP, and quite probably a large percentage of the sourced ones as well. --MalleusFatuorum21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Mass removal of the prod tags without improving the articles would be considered disruptive editing. I would highly encourage that you not do it. In addition, I would like you to strike your remarks above; saying that Julian is "in an irrational state of mind" was completely unnecessary. NW(Talk)21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am unsure what is going on about the bigger picture but I when I have time will look at more of your prods...this one for example, the issue with uncited blp's it only that they are uncitable or derogatory or attacks on living people... stubs like this one that you had prodded that had a link to imbd with details that it is a real person clearly is not a attack and although there is perhaps a notability issue the stub is connected to something even if it is only the imbm comment, I have quite easily found a web link to detail about this person and added a citation, I have also done some of this work and my position is that unless an article is either a clear problem or if you have spent a good effort searching then it doesn't need prodding. There are a lot of uncited blp's but I have looked at many and have yet to find any big issues, they are uncited but they have had previous eyes and are not afaics desperate for prodding. The imbd external link is more than enough to say to me that there is some notability. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, as one of the users who certified the RfC/U, I thought I would draw your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Wuhwuzdat#Motion_to_close, a motion to close the RfC/U as the most recent concern has been dealt with, and Wuhwuzdat has gone on a wikibreak, possibly indefinately, thus there seems little additional purpose to the RfC/U, as he will hopefully have taken the comments on board. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A rant about "teenage geeks"
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I thought I'd share this diff with you: [23] since the discussion actually started on your talk page because you were the deleting admin from the first AfD. The article went to AfD again, and was deleted again. He has me pegged as a teenager. I bet I'm older than he is. Funny stuff. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Somehow I don't think screaming in all caps and calling someone a "geek" is very professional... I'll take care of it in a couple hours if somebody at ANI doesn't get to it first. –Juliancolton | Talk01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yet, I'm the "unprofessional" one. I'm not the one here trying to represent an org and trying to establish its notability. lol Niteshift36 (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Moving On
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Julian
I was doing my best to strengthen the page that I created for muckandbrass.blogspot.com
I haven't done a page in wikipedia and my curve is therefore vertical.
An early comment was 'only one mention on telly'. I added a number of other media references eg Dail Mail, Guardian, Times, also Conservative Home page and Labout Home page.
Can you advise as, sadly, the page has gone and I didn't think to copy the text.
As you have deleted the article I can't find any link to it. I was, to the best of my ability, attempting to add media references of which there are quite a few. The only link I can find is via google and is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckandbrass This takes me to the deleted page and I cannot access the text of the deleted site. Can you please advise me?
Many thanks.
Niall Connolly--83.104.35.146 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
DRV closing
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for dealing with the DRV backlog at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14. In your close here, you removed {{DRV links}}. This template should remain on the page after a DRV close. Additionally, the article (or file/category/template) that is being reviewed for deletion should remain enclosed in internal links. Compare this with this. I made those changes with this edit. Thanks for your work here and for the tedious labor you have put into palliating the BLP problem. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Jakko Jan Leeuwangh, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Julian. Im currently expanding the WWI section of the List of German U-Boats. I want to include a table showing all of the ships that each U-Boat has sunk (quite a few are missing that info seeing as I created aobut 25 of them yesterday) and I was wondering, how can I make a table showing that info? To keep things consistent, I would like it to resemble the table on SM U-35. Any help would be nice. Thanks.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
When the time's right. For now, I'd advise you to download or install a spell checker. I think it would make your posts look much more professional. –Juliancolton | Talk03:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think you were wrong in closing this as delete, and I wish you'd explained your reasoning.
In my opinion it's a trivial little article, but there's plenty of reason to think it meets the notability guidelines, albeit marginally. Stuff like this is at least as useful to Wikipedia as its vast array of articles on porn actresses, for example. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Julian: I noticed you prodded Pál Sümegi. Gscholar turned up what looked like a respectable citation count, so I sent it to AFD for further discussion. You're welcome to comment there. Best, RayTalk00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Odd, I thought I'd responded here. Must have been interrupted. In any case, I believe the same user has asked a few times what evidence there is that unsourced BLPs attract more BLP-related problems than sourced BLPs, or even non-BLPs. One can put anything anywhere around here. You and a few others have been dismissive of that question. Trash was probably too strong of a word, and I apologize. But ignore, and perhaps belittle might be more accurate. So let me ask: is there any such evidence? Hobit (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My argument that unsourced BLPs are problematic is based on opinion, and I don't have any hard evidence to prove it. I'll fully admit that references aren't a magic cure for vandalism and libel, but I think they do help to the extent that they can. That's why I generally try to avoid outright deletion, and have been working at cleaning up Category:Unreferenced BLPs from January 2007 for the past 36 hours. I think most people can agree, though, that high-quality sourcing is ideal in every article. The issue is obviously a sensitive one, and I confess that I have been getting frustrated over it, so apologies if I've been grumpy or dismissive. Thanks for the response, and happy editing. –Juliancolton | Talk02:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess I worry about people taking extraordinary actions with no evidence of a problem. In any case, I hit a few of those from Jan. The ones from Nov 2006 were a lot easier to source... Hobit (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that as well. I don't know where people get the information for all these articles, when I can usually only find snippets from newspaper archives and such to source it with. –Juliancolton | Talk03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Greetings. I notice that you put your name down for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout before participating in the wikidrama surrounding unsourced BLPs over the last few days. If you decided that a crisis of such unforeseen magnitude required your immediate attention I certainly don't hold that choice against you, and I'm sure the Dramaout page wasn't too high on your list of priorities, but if you have a minute to spare maybe you could strike your entry there for the sake of clarity? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC) - back to the wikidrama...
Whatever. It's somewhat ironic that the biggest wikidrama I've ever seen occurred during the Dramaout! If we try it again next year the whole place will probably collapse around our ears just to spite us. Or something. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to bad there was a little dispute possible in one of them, check my talk page. But other then that not to bad. Do you think I should continue with the vandal fighting a bit each day and do you think I did quite a bit. You must be a really busy person? Thank you again for doing this. Sorry for all of the questions, I am just a curious person. rymich13 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Aziz Zhowandai, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk16:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Look at this!
Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
It's decent; nicely done. At first glance, I'd say the references need to be formatted properly using {{cite web}}, with special care to specify author/publisher/date. –Juliancolton | Talk21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I could'nt get the publisher for some of them. And I think that it needs more refs. The only problem is, not much was written about U-118. It did become a tourist attraction for a few months in 1919 but I can't seem to find any more reliable refs.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've done tones of DYK's before but I can't seem to think of a good hook for this one. any suggestions? Obviously something about it being beached but what...--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the best idea to be honest. It's a very borderline article in terms of notability, and it's not of particularly high quality. I'd suggest looking for a more substantial GA and cleaning it up. –Juliancolton | Talk00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Able 51
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
thanks bud. idk, the place seems kinda cold and slow, like there's not even real people on the other end. i mean, whats made you stay this long? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
sorry didnt get back to u earlier, had family over this weekend. anwayssss, i think i'll stick around. after seeing darren leave, i dont want to leave you guys short staffed! yea, able sorta bummed me out, how much work i'd have to do. i only nommed it so i could get the experience, so its kl.
oh! you said you have nothing better to do... could you help me out with my project? ;) im not really feeling it anymore, but its soooooo close to being done! all it needs is the rest of 'em being ga's, i think, as well as List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes being featured. i'm not really familiar with that format, so is there chance in the world you could help out? thx bro if you can. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Re:Deleting file redirects
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'll arbitrarily reply here, let me know if you prefer keeping the tread in one place. Any redirect can be used off-wiki, we can't possibly know that. My humble opinion is WP should not clutter a web of uncommon redirects; a deleted redirect keeps a name of an admin who deleted it, that admin can be contacted and would be glad (speaking for myself) to provide the link to the new file, or restore the redirect if reasonable. This was my common sense speaking; I understand that such issues usually go through a community debate. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not really a big deal, but it's probably best to simply leave the redirects alone until there's a consensus on what to do with them. –Juliancolton | Talk23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Technical issues
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As you can probably tell by my lack of presence on IRC, I've been having issues with my laptop recently. The hard drive has broken and the computer is currently at the store awaiting repair. Because of this, my editing and response time will be significantly slower and for the time being, I will no longer be able to create tracks for WPTC. Also, I'll see what I can do with the FTRC's. If you want, I'll create a base article for a timeline, showing how to develop it, so you can make you own timelines whenever you want. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No, never mind. Probably only basic information provided then... I'll go ahead and create the article from scratch instead. Thanks anyway! lil2mas (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Re:Suggestion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, when I was playing around with Soxred93's edit counter, I noticed it said that one of my edits was deleted. Could you be able to see which one it was, as I don't want to do it again. (That is of course, if it was not constructive)
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Julian. I have a quick question that I that thought you might be able to clear up for me. At this time, the “debate” regarding the deletion of ancient, unsourced, unwatchlistedBLPs is occuring at multiple places across Wikipedia:
While I understand why these various discussions have sprung up in the places that they are, when the time comes, how will consensus be determined when the discussion in not centralized in one spot? Why is there not one of those banner thingies that appear at the very top of the each page, right below the tabs, directing people to a centralized proposal/discussion/debate? I realize that we do not vote, per se, rather we !vote. Nonetheless, how can our !votes be tallied across so many locations? Thanks! — SpikeToronto06:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, actually. I suspect that once the dust settles and we get a general idea of what we want to do, a more centralized and condensed discussion/poll will take place. For now, though, it's probably best to just watch from the sidelines! Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Here’s your popcorn!Watching from the sidelines is exactly what I’ve been doing, other than participating in this. The RfC has gotten so long I could start a hobby waiting for the page to load! (Okay, so I’m prone to hyperbole … ) Anyway, I only hope that this does not cause irreparable harm to the project overall, not as far as BLPs go, but as far as Wikipedia behavior codes and collegiality are concerned. — SpikeToronto05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Julian!
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Julian, I saw that you welcomed me to Meta. Just out of curiosity, what happened to make you do this. I mean, that's very nice of you, but what action did I take to make you welcome me? I wasn't even aware I had an account on Meta. The Arbiter★★★02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you made an edit to the global sysops vote page, and since I saw your talk page redlinked, I figured I'd stamp on the generic template. :) –Juliancolton | Talk02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Juliancolton. You are receiving this notice because you have either supported or posted constructive suggestions during my recent self-nominated RFA, submitted on 18-01-2010. Please do spend a few minutes to read my comments on the nomination, and feel free to respond on the relevant talkpage for any further comments or questions. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman(+)15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
User's been blocked four times for editwarring, now he's socking. This isn't about content, this is about prolonged, dedicated abuse of Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to user behaviors. In a week or so, the user will be back, again frustrating established users actually trying to move pagespace forward. I have zero reason to believe this user will change spots. What should I do when his abuse occurs again? BusterD (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the user is on very thin ice at the moment, so any further shadow of disruption will lead to an indefinite block. It's sad, because I know they do have many good contributions... –Juliancolton | Talk01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, a new sock account created last night? This worse than I suspected. Oh well, the user sure seems contrite in unblock requests. Maybe the user will find some useful outlet, knowing that the jig is up. BusterD (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Arlene (1993)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I have stop working on this article Tropical Storm Arlene (1993), but I have decided to work on Hurricane Hugo which needed editing very badly. Especially the fact that Hurricane Hugo had that MH Section with only like 10 sentences before I started working on it. I will get back to the Tropical Storm Arlene (1993) article after I think I have done enough for the Hurricane Hugo article. --12george1 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Issue
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would love to nominate German Type UB I submarine for a FAC but the only problem is that the article's only major contributor (other than myslef as I have only added ref's and done some general minor editing) Bellhalla seemes to have retired. What can I do? I am sure that the article will pass the FAC without any issues that I cannot fix. (seeing as every sentense has a citation and it is very well written) But I don't think that I am eligable to nominate it. It would do Bellhalla good to have one of their artilces approved to FA class even after they have left.--Coldplay ExpértLet's talk03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, as per your suggestion last week I'd like to work on the article Chris_c_kemp I wrote which was deleted. I read elsewhere on wikipedia (Deletion Review pages) I first have to ask the deletion administrator (i.e. you) to get the deleted page to my userspace. Could you possible check if the article is still available? Thanks Navarenko (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Admin Coaching: On the Rebound
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up as soon as possible. Thank you.
Here are two real, current ones.
{{subst:User talk:Deliriousandlost/Clickpanel|USURP|David Thompson|Thomp|sig=yes}}
I tried to post the approved new version up on the erfan wiki page and it won't allow me, it reads "This page is currently protected". The reason given is that its in deletion review but its not in review anymore and recreation has been permitted. Can you help please. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishoil3 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Hurricane Barbara (1953)
On January 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Barbara (1953), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I've been looking over the username usurpation page recently, and would like to give my assistance. Do you have to or can you become a clerk and if so, how. Or if you have to become a trainee clerk first, could I train under you? Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Almost anybody can be a clerk at CHU, but there's no real process to become one. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance and keep your eye open for any requests that require attention. There are a series of template-responses you can use at {{CHU}}, and if you see a malformed request, just go ahead and reformat it. Don't hesitate to ping me if you need help with anything in particular. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What is email?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Julian! How goes it? I sent you an email, although I suppose it wasn't necessary to do so, but I did anyways. Let me know if you don't get it, cheers! Arbitrarily0(talk)21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The barnstar image.
.jpg)
yahoo.com). –Juliancolton | Talk 18:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | Talk 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Regards SoWhy 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of February 1995 Northeast United States snowstorm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Note: I always leave approvals to others. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Done as per WP:AGF. Good luck with your project, let me know if I can help in any way. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
