User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 8

Linda MacDonald Glenn

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Linda MacDonald Glenn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not quite sure why you want to delete this article, as she's obviously someone with a public profile and at least some claim to notability. However, you're entitled to prod it or to take it to AfD. Metamagician3000 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically I'm just wearing my janitor hat and trying to clean up the biography articles with no references or sources... RJASE1 ^Talk 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrye Sententia

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Wrye Sententia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WTA, IEET and related articles

I just wanted to let you know that I hope not to get involved in debates about the proposed deletion of articles related to the WTA, IEET and similar organisations, and articles on most of the Fellows, office holders, etc., of those organisations. I think that my connections make me a good person to do work on those articles, but not a good person to be making objective judgments about their notability, etc., although it's obvious to me that some of the relevant subjects are notable - whereas some others may be more borderline when one steps back from them. So, that's my explanation as to why I probably won't be participating at AfD's etc., even though I created some of the articles involved and have worked on others. Metamagician3000 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no choice but to accept your decision, I don't see why your role in creating and/or contributing to these articles implies that you should not be involved in AfD debates. On the contrary, you are the person who probably cares and knows enough to defend the notability of the subjects of these articles. Are you aware of some guideline that contradicts what I just said? --Loremaster 04:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the fact that I created some of the articles; it's the fact that I have real-world connections with relevant organisations and individuals. Metamagician3000 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. But what I am saying is that I think you can be objective enough to follow Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. --Loremaster 12:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See my remark in the Andy Miah AfD. Metamagician3000 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

ok Metamagician3000 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I certainly agree with your edit, because the stuff you removed is based on a primary source. Whoever wants to keep it should find a secondary one. I see what you mean about the proposal, but it's early days. I'm hoping people will make suggestions on the talk page, and we can see where, if anywhere, it takes us. Everything's open. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Accountability

Yeah, his talk page isn't the place to talk about it at any length but I do tend to agree with what you said: Few admins would agree to their personal info being in a browsable database somewhere but nudging Wales towards doing a bit more personal due diligence on whomever he appoints (or whatever) to positions of trust is a helpful notion. Gwen Gale 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In my own case, I'd be happy to contribute such details to a confidential register held by someone reputable and accountable - whether Jimbo himself or his legal officer or whatever. But any data base would have to be like that, not something browsable by others. The existence of a confidential register might frighten some people away, but it would give confidence all round. Metamagician3000 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment

No point in bothering El C in his reflective moment. There was nothing uncivil about my comment...it just wasn't particularly helpful. It's just a pet peeve of mine, people making silly absolute and obviously unsupportable statements. I saw it and piped off a comment before really reflecting on the point of doing it there or then, thus the apology to El C. But uncivil? I think not. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must question your sensitivity to others - at least in your current mood - if that was what struck you about my "cheer up" comment to El C, and inspired you to make (and now repeat) a comment saying that I am being "silly" in telling him that I haven't lost faith in him (which has nothing to do with religious faith, or however you interpreted it .. it's just a way of speaking that is used in my part of the world to tell someone they have not damaged their reputation for competence in the perceptions of the speaker, even if some particular action of theirs didn't work out or was arguably a lapse in judgmemt; I suppose I could have used that form of words, but I didn't realise I was going to be so accountable for how I expressed myself).

I've just been looking at your userpage and I see you're a fellow admin and a user in good standing ... and that the whole Essjay thing has upset you. Fair enough, we're all worried about it and trying to work out what should happen next. I expect El C is too. I imagine that most of us are just trying our best to be constructive right now ... or something vaguely approaching our best, if you object to the word "best". (That was meant to be a joke by the way.)

No hard feelings. Have a good break, and I hope you come back feeling refreshed. Metamagician3000 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, like I said, I didn't really give proper consideration to the place and timing of my comment. I was reacting to "But there's no way anyone can say it was a stupid decisions [sic]". It wasn't your expression of faith, it was your qualification of his decision being unassailable that I guess I couldn't help responding to when the evidence that it is indeed assailable has been so overwhelmingly presented by others. Anyway, I'm definitely not trying to start a fight here, so cheers, —Doug Bell ^talk 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaotic

Yeah :) Gwen Gale 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

lol Metamagician3000 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

I am affraid I am in the dark as well. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne#Jimbo for the future development. User:Angela might be better informed then the rest of us. Alex Bakharev 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Metamagician3000 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

Hello Metamagician3000, there's another section of talk you should have a look at as well. I've been reverting a bit on the article over this and so while I want to change the lead sentence I'm hesitant for right now. I'm hoping you'll make the necessary changes to render the article's lead (and thus the article itself) more credible. Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it and supported you. I'd prefer to see some discussion before making any changes. Really, this article should be deleted because it will be very hard to find reliable sources on such a trivial event - some kind of source that actually understands the detail - beyond Wikipedia itself. Metamagician3000 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I supported deletion of the article initially myself. Unfortunately at this point the story has become too known worldwide and it is highly doubtful the artilce will ever be deleted. I only began to edit it myself when I saw the glaring falsities that the article consisted of previously. If we're going to have an article then it had better be damn good and fully within our policies. (→Netscott) 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that since I'd last looked the AfD has been closed and the article kept. I guess the case for deleting it is hard to make out now it's not a biographical article but an article on the incident itself. But we can at least get the facts right, etc. I agree with you totally. Metamagician3000 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and thanks for your own edits rendering the article more credible. It definitely has improved immensely... but obviously there's still room for betterment. At this point I think there's a number of "good" eyes on the article which should allow it to develop with a neutral point of view. See you. (→Netscott) 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism and The Young Family

In light of the fact that an anonymous user has sworn to constantly remove The Young Family image purely because he or she finds it gross, could you please add a semi-protection tag to the Transhumanism article? --Loremaster 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They seem to have given up for the moment, so I've taken no action. I'm always watching the article and am prepared to semi-protect if needed (though this completely leaves to one side the copyright issue). Metamagician3000 06:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The anymous user has struck again. --Loremaster 00:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. See what I've done. Metamagician3000 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Content generation versus dispute resolution

Hi. I've been trying to read my way through the Credential Verification discussion. My poor little eyeballs started glazing before I could finish (is that why Alexander de Large called them "glazballs"?), but I naturally started mouthing off before I read everything people had to say. In the process of doing so, I noticed that people seem to be mixing the issues of content generation and dispute resolution, and where credentials influence these processes. I had a few thoughts about this, but I'm not sure if they'd make sense to anybody else.

I don't think expert qualifications can play a direct role in generating encyclopedic content. I include in this category the normal, day-to-day sort of disputation which happens on individual articles' Talk pages: "Section X needs references", "The description of entropy is wrong", "We should reference Hume instead of Dawkins", and so forth. Anybody who tries to have their way on a Talk page by saying, "I've got a PhD in metaphysico-cosmonigology, so shut up" is not a nice person. They won't get anywhere, and nor should they, even if their claim of being a tenured Ivy League professor is blessed by Jimbo Wales and open for all to inspect.

"Experts" still have a great advantage, of course, in that their walls are lined with bookshelves, and they can point to the page numbers which back up what they say. They know how to organize articles, they've taught and written about the material before, and in a word, they're competent. If all you want to do is contribute encyclopædia content, I don't think you need to get your credentials vetted; it doesn't really bring you anything. So what if you still have to cite your sources like those amateurs down in the proletariat? It's the custom of the land, and it's easier for you than for anybody else (unless the amateurs really know their stuff, in which case you have nothing to crow about!).

When we consider dispute resolution, however, we become less concerned with competence and training than with trustworthiness. The higher I look in the structure of Wikapparatchiks, the more I want to see evidence that the functionary is a reliable servant of the community. And I want this evidence testable by all, just in case Jimbo's stressful schedule led him to make a slipshod judgment. (This is a point in which I suspect some ideological streak may be making me a bit too fervent an advocate of radical transparency.)

There is still a role for expertise in dispute resolution. One example I can think of right away is if the ArbCom has to consider a case where one group of editors accuses another of pushing pseudoscience POV into science articles. It may happen that certain pseudoscientific claims have not been debunked in the reputable literature. Normally, such claims could be rejected on notability grounds (WP:FRINGE), but there are always cases where one has to weigh academic journals against pop-science magazines, or judge if bogus references are being added to give a spurious air of notability. In such thorny tangles, the pragmatic solution is to find somebody who knows their stuff and whose background we can verify. The procedure for validating credentials should be open to all, including ordinary users who aren't even seeking Admin status, although a "background check" should only be mandatory for those seeking positions of trust.

That basically summarizes my thoughts in the Essjay meta-controversy. Replies, criticisms, rebuttals? Anville 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I copied-and-pasted most of this to the "Anti-intellectualism" thread of the Credential Verification page.

You know, one big reason why I don't edit WP much anymore is probably because I keep getting deep into discussions of policy. It's just not as much fun as it used to be, when the whole deal was to write encyclopedia articles. Whatever happened to 2005?  :-( Anville 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a great excuse for avoidance of the things I should be writing. I made some comments on the relevant page, but there's not a lot more I can think of. Feel free to discuss this with me elsewhere if you want, e.g. my blog. Metamagician3000 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Baia

Thanks for improving the article. If you get the time, please have a look at Battle of Vaslui. That one is the most important one (for my cause). I wrote Night Attack and Battle of Baia in order to give better support to the Vaslui article (the background section). Again, thanks... --Thus Spake Anittas 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at Battle of Vaslui. Metamagician3000 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I forgot to tell you that the background section will be improved in a week or two, so you don't have to take that one too seriously; altough I think the word should be audiens. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After the Aftermath section is fixed, what would be needed to be done in order to promote it to A-article? I gotto go for now, but I'll be back in about 3 hours or so. Thanks again. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not apply for Good Article status for it? If it's rejected, at least you'll get some feedback. If it's accepted, I'd suggest taking it to peer review. Metamagician3000 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's alrdy GA. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

oh, okay. Well, how about putting it up for peer review? I'll look at it again over the next day or so just to see if anything worries me about it, but that needn't slow down the process. Or wait for however long you need to get the background section right.

If the feedback from peer review is favourable, or can all be dealt with, then it can go through the FA process. I think it must be getting close to that level - it's not huge and elaborate, but it doesn't need to be. It's a nicely structured and documented article.

Is "audiens" some kind of foreign technical word? The usual word is "audience". I changed it back before what you were saying sank in with me. Metamagician3000 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, audience is spectators; audiens is this. It will probably take some 10 days before it is finished. Or up to two weeks. I will need some more assistance then for the Aftermatch section. Thx. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The English word for that is also "audience" - that's what the link you sent me is saying. I'm happy to be of help (whatever help I am being).  :) Metamagician3000 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. Well, both are right then, so no matter. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The aftermath is a mess right now and I'm aware of it. Let's wait a week or so until I can fix it with a new article. Thx :) --Thus Spake Anittas 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll stop fiddling with it for now. :) Metamagician3000 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Troubles ahead!

• Don't worry about it - most people are generally on the opposite side to me - I get used to it. but beware, I am inevitably proved right at the end of the day:-) Giano 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Take care! Metamagician3000 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

European Graduate School

My apologies if I am not leaving this comment in the proper place. I am writing because a user Abou Didee seems to be violating WP:point regarding the article European Graduate School and the user Europeangraduateschool - much the same as user Santa Sangre did about one year ago .. according to the AfD re: European Graduate School. Because you were the administrator who ended that AfD, I am wondering if you would look into this current matter. Thank you and Peace. Talk:European_Graduate_School.

I'll have a look and see if I can help. Metamagician3000 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made a comment on the talk page of that article. Just continue not to make excessive references to the school, and I see no problem with your creating and using images of people who have taught there. I don't think there is a problem with tagging an image when you upload it with the location and date, but it's probably best to avoid mentioning the location in actual captions to avoid any appearance of using the encyclopedia to advertise the school. Let know if there is any other aspect that you'd like me to comment on. Metamagician3000 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not the Europeangraduateschool, though, and had nothing to do with posting the images in question. I am an occasional WP editor who came into this controversy (through similar issues in Talk:Jean_Baudrillard) - as an admirer and colleague. It seemed to me that Abou Didee had made some libelous claims, and I followed that trail on the European Graduate School discussion page as well as into the Wikipedia French language edition. I'll refer the user Europeangraduateschool to your comments. Your comment may also be useful to the Talk:Jean_Baudrillard discussion. Again, thank you .. and Peace. 12:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate to request this .. but might you look into abou didee's recent comments on Talk:Jean_Baudrillard and provide some neutral guidance? Thank You and Peace. 68.160.140.22 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Trialsanderrors said what was needed. Metamagician3000 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you both. It simply seems that when I write it inflames the situation. I take responsibilty for that, tho it is not my intention. Both you and Trialsanderrors carry necessary authority, legitimacy and weild it with neutrality. I respect you both for such skill and tact. Peace to You. 68.160.140.22 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Designer baby

In light of the fact that an anonymous user has and is repeatedly vandalizing the Designer baby article with childish graffiti, could you please add a semi-protection tag to this article? --Loremaster 09:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but for a relatively short time - it's not an extreme case of vandal bombardment. Metamagician3000 11:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review

Greetings! In December of 2006, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will look. I see that I voted ... you know what I mean, I know it's "not a vote" ... "Keep", so I have some minor responsibility, don't I? :) Metamagician3000 06:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm making lots of little stylistic edits. Don't know that I have any particular comments. Metamagician3000 10:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even edits to improve the article are great!  :) - fmmarianicolon | Talk 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Charoog10

I wonder if you could review User:Charoog10, especially at Hot Stuff (I Want You Back). He's been insisting on removing a chunk of text and changing a section title to incorrect capitalisation, refusing to respond to comments & requests on his Talk page. He's now started to add an uncivil edit summary (accusing me of lying, somewhat perplexingly). I'd be grateful for an outside pair of eyes, and possibly voice. Thanks in advance. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll look into it when I get moment. Metamagician3000 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I didn't accuse him of vandalism, by the way, only of disruptive editing (though removing text without explantion is usually counted as vandalism). As you saw from his Talk page I've been leaving messages for about a week, and he's simply ignored them all, but continued to make exactly the same edits — hence my frustration.

Anyway, I hope that he pays attention to you; thanks again. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm afraid that he ignored you too, and is continuing to make unexplained edits, often involving miscapitalisation. That part isn't a problem for you to get involved in though. More serious is that he's changing articles on singles from standard chart positions (so far I can tell as a non-expert) to a Lithuanian chart; he was also responsible for creating articles on those charts and the company that runs them. In fact I came across him because concernes were raised that he was using Wikipedia for advertising. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Metamagician3000 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thought that I'd bring you up to date. He's been blocked for three days; what happens when he returns is anybody's guess. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support during my recent RfA. I'm honored that someone thought enough of me to assume I was already an admin. Now that I actually am, I hope I can keep living up to that standard. Shimeru 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Linden Gallery.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Linden Gallery.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Geni 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

and the other second life image. Problem is that it is hard to take a free screenshot of secondlife unless all the material in it was made by you.Geni 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

image

I forgot to choose the GDFL-thingy when I uploaded an image. Now, I don't know how to add the GDFL tag. I uploaded a new version and chose GDFL, but I'm not sure it helped. Do you have any clue on this? thx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:438px-Kallerupstenen_2.jpg --Thus Spake Anittas 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I got it. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It worked. I'll have a think about whether you should have chosen something else, given that it came from elsewhere in Wikipedia (the Danish version). But it'll certainly do for the moment. Assuming that whoever uploaded it for the Danish Wikipedia had the right to and did it properly, there's no doubt that we can use it, which is the main thing. Metamagician3000 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they did it properly. In case they haven't, I'll take a photo of the stone myself. Thx. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

re hi

Merci, I appreciate what you are trying to do in the post-essjay credentials debate even though at times it seems an uphill battle. Thanks againIvygohnair 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivygohnair"Ivygohnair 10:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Charoog10

Sorry to bother you with this again, and if you don't want to get involved I'll perfectly understand — but User:Charoog10 has continued to removed {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} from a variety of articles, as well as continuing to insist on his non-standard formatting. If I weren't involved in some of them I'd have blocked him before now. Could you take a look and see if you think that a short block (as a shot across his bows) would help? Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made chsnges to a number of the articles and left further comments on his userpage. I think he is being slightly disruptive with his editing style, but not to an extent where I'd feel justified in imposing a block - the blocking policy is being applied more strictly in recent months, and I think we all need to be conservative about blocking logged-in users unless there is some urgent need. I know some of his editing aproaches are annoying but I don't think it's reached that point. Metamagician3000 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd take the deletion of templates to be serious enough for a short – twelve-hour? – block as a warning, but I'll leave it for now, and see if the situation improves. To be honest, I don't know if he's capable of changing, but we can hope. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep watching. Meanwhile, are you following the arb com case involving InShanee? It should be of concern to all admins because it is emphasising not only a narrow understanding of vandalism but also a very conservative view of the blocking policy. I think that a lot of admins would be upset if they understood how it is going, but we all need to be aware of it. Metamagician3000 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, no — I'll go and take a look. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Advice

Hi there. You're a more experienced Wikipedian than I, so I thought I'd seek some advice here. Nothing should be nominated for deletion too many times, and I'm not sure it'd pass anyway because the "info is useful" camp will always be there, so is there nothing I can do to try to convince people that it really is unnecessary? Xiner (talk, email) 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which article are we talking about? Metamagician3000 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, I was asking aboue Category:user en-0, but it doesn't matter now. I've got enough wikidrama atm. Thanks anyway though. Xiner (talk, email) 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of FRSs with public religious stances

Hi Meta - thanks for doing the donkeywork on that one, and for your thoughtful analysis. One puzzle - I cannot see it listed at Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_23. Has something gone wrong in the AfD listing process? Snalwibma 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I stuffed up that step then forgot to try again. It should be right now. Metamagician3000 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I didn't want to go and do it myself in case I cut across you. Why is the AfD listing process so damn complicated? Maybe it's deliberatley so, to put off trivial listing. Sure is awkward, though! Snalwibma 12:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Little bit of Bother

Please take a look into the latest postings on my talk page and the related postings of the SGpedian's Notice Board, if you have the time. I seem to be admolished for my style of expression and also for raising genuine concerns on the Notice Board. If you don't think you should interfere it's ok. I would just like your opinion. Thanks Ivygohnair 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it would be nice if you just look at the page and KIV it for further notice. I think that for the moment, I have managed to do some "damage control". CheersIvygohnair 06:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just responded at some length to the debate I see at Chandran Nair, so too late. :) Some of my comments may not be that welcome to you, I'm afraid, but you really do need to bear in mind that we try not to engage in ad hominem argument on Wikipedia. I can see that you feel frustrated, but that's the way with content disputes, I'm afraid. It may be necessary to set up an RfC if it continues to be difficult to find a meeting of the minds. Metamagician3000 06:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were balanced and fair. Regarding the last paragraph please look at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board where it has been clarified how the ratings were done and by whom.Ivygohnair 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivygohnair"

Peer review

Hi Meta, thanks for your effors on the Dawkins article... One minor thing: I think how it works with renewing a peer review is you move the old peer review to, say, 'Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Dawkins 1' and then create a new peer review out of whole cloth. That, at least, is how it works over at WP:FAC (which I used to participate in a lot). Mikker ^(...) 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, and I think I'm right about what I just said: see "How to resubmit a request" under the instructions over at WP:PR. Cheers, Mikker ^(...) 13:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to fix this. Metamagician3000 13:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've done it right now. Damn these processes! :) Metamagician3000 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Yeah... sometimes I think I'll never figure (all of) Wikipedia out! :-). Mikker ^(...) 09:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Langan and NOR

I thought you may be interested in my account of what I believe are important policy issues arising from the problems with the Christopher Michael Langan entry. See here. FNMF 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been following it, and will continue to do so. I think it's basically under control at the moment. I do fully support Jimbo in everything he's said so far on this particular issue. Metamagician3000 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, see the reply by Jimbo Wales to the comment by Asmodeus. Mr Wales makes clear he believes the block of FNMF was unwarranted. FNMF 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection tags

Hello Meta. Why have your semi-protection tags been removed by a dumb bot from the Transhumanism, Gattaca and Designer baby articles? --Loremaster 21:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall semi-protecting the Gattaca article. Are you sure it was me? (Maybe I just have a bad memory.) In the case of the others, semi-protection has been removed and I'm hoping the articles can now function "normally". But tell me if there are any more problems and I can always renew it. Metamagician3000 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gattaca and Designer baby articles keep being vandalized by some juvenile minds while today the Young Family image was again removed from the Transhumanism article by some anonymous user. I think we should put back the semi-protection on all three articles for a while longer. (I've never understood why all Wikipedia articles are not semi-protected but that's another issue...). --Loremaster 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea is supposed to be that anyone can edit. I don't think I can re-protect the Transhumansism page just because of one incident of someone removing an image that they don't like, since it was unprotected recently. I'll have a look at the other two in a minute. Metamagician3000 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't actually find any vandalism on the Designer baby article since the protection was removed. There is some on-going but low-level and infrequent vandalism on the Gattaca article. I'll put a temporary semi-protect on it - that will give you some breathing space from watching it, but none of this is extreme. Metamagician3000 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was extreme. It just found it frequent enough (compared to the 119 otehr pages I watch which rarely or never get vandalized) to justify a temporary semi-protection in order to (hopefully) permanently discourages such acts of vandalism which start and stop on a semi-frequent cycle. --Loremaster 09:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Designer baby article was vandalized again today by some juvenile mind... --Loremaster 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just warned the anon concerned (in a nice way, of course). Metamagician3000 10:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Alanis Morisette

Thank you very much for your work on Alanis Morisette, it is greatly appreciated. It's good to have other editors work on it as I cannot find enough time myself. By the way, I also gave you an archive box at the top, hope you like. If not, I apologize for not asking first. -- Reaper X 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it makes my page look much more attractive and professional. Metamagician3000 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypotheses exist, I presume

Replied. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to blather on at such length earlier. Metamagician3000 13:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm replying here. Nevermind the long answer, after all I am still a newbie. Regarding your grain of salt: I wholeheartedly agree. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest developments at the Langan entry

Hi, I wanted to fill you in on the latest developments at the entry for Christopher Michael Langan. An ongoing and productive discussion had been taking place in the section of the talk page entitled "Langan, intelligent design, and Wikipedia policy," involving myself, NightSky, Tim Smith, and even FeloniousMonk. I urge you to peruse this discussion, which was about how to phrase the paragraph introducing Langan's involvement with ID. The discussion lasted several days and was making progress. If you read through the exchanges you will see that I was arguing for a compromise position, on the grounds that it was more neutral and more likely to be accepted by all parties.

Eventually, after several days, I made the change here.

I explained the change on the talk page, making clear that it was not necessarily definitive, but given that consensus was being approached, and no objections were being raised to the thrust of the discussion, it might be time to go ahead and make the change.

One hour later, user 151.151.21.99 altered my change, stating that he was removing "ambiguous" language. He did not leave a comment on the talk page. He is the editor that I was blocked for suggesting he was disruptive.

A few hours later, when it was obvious he was not intending on explaining his change further, I reverted his change.

I then explained my reasons for this reversion.

Since it is possible this will lead to further problems, I thought I would give you advance notice, in case you wished to intervene at any stage. FNMF 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This was followed by this reversion by none other than FeloniousMonk, which he justified with this explanation. It is, in my opinion, interesting that FeloniousMonk stepped in after my reversion of 151.151.21.99, just as he stepped in to block me after my comment about 151.151.21.101. Not only does user FeloniousMonk jump in to support this anonymous user, but in both cases seems annoyed at the "attacks" on user 151.151.21.etc., as though he felt personally slighted. A question would appear to be begged here, a question with some significance, given that FeloniousMonk is an administrator, and one prepared to wield his powers on a whim. FNMF 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, mate

Contact Sarah or Riana for further information. —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne

I just put my name to the Melbourne meeting list. Thought I should let you know in case there's information I need to know. FNMF 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Hopefully, most/all of it can be handled on the page. Metamagician3000 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Second life news coverage

Hey Metamagician3000. I'm not sure if you still maintain this page, but I thought I'd note that there was an article in The Age today about Second Life. [1] --Michael Billington (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update it. Metamagician3000 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)