User talk:StuffOfInterest/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

thanks

thanks but i was doing it before. but it worked now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madcowpoo (talk • contribs) .

You're welcome, but you may want to consider if you are really ready to become an admin. The edits I'm seeing as part of your attempt to self-nominate and not even signing this post points to you needing some more experience. Still, good luck. --StuffOfInterest 19:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to help the place out. Use them conservatively-particularly the punitive ones such as blocking and especially at first. Polite warnings and calm edit summaries can avoid a lot more problems than people think. But as you get the hang of them dig in and help out with the backlogs. Finally, though you may not have appreciated feeling like you were forced to remove some opinionated userboxes, I must add a personal statement that I feel it is not helpful to the project's goals to prominently display them. I chose to use a disclosure subpage to accomplish any value that might have. Anyway, again congrats and have fun. - Taxman ^Talk 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Taxman. I intend to be very conservative with my use of the admin features. As for the userbox complaints, I'm still rather conflicted on it myself but felt taking down the boxes would be the best for now. It is obvious that many people hold very divergent issues on the matter and I don't think stirring the pot will be good for a newly minted admin. Anyway, again, thanks for closing out the RfA. For something that really should be "no big deal", it was giving me some odd dreams the last couple of nights. :) --StuffOfInterest 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yay congrats! ^^ lol I said that too (3 weeks in I'd clocked up over 1000 blocks!) Great to have you on board bud! - GIen 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome aboard! You can get a new userbox now :) J/K but if you are in to meta templates, feel free to transclude or copy User:Xaosflux/Admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the club, SOI. If you have any questions about any admin-related tasks, or want to know my secret to my stunning beauty, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations and good luck! I must say that I'm pleased that you removed your controversial userboxes in the interest of compromise--that shows a great deal of thoughtfulness. (A wonderful quality for a brand-new admin!) -- Merope ^Talk 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I actually like Taxman's idea of a disclsure area, which I'll probably add in the near future. Regardless of how it is done I do believe that POV should be disclosed up front to help avoid conflict later. My biggest concern is seeing a member of the arbitration committee take such a strong stand on the issue as they are supposed to be the most impartial when judging an issue against policy. --StuffOfInterest 14:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! All the best with your new responsibilities. Regards, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Rfa...

I just wanted to elaborate on my comments on your Rfa, in which I said I supported you in large part due to your response on the Userboxes oppose vote- I agree with you 100%- even though your userboxes put me on the opposite end of your viewpoint on many issues. Too often, I see edits by those on both ends of the spectrum who deny any sort of agenda. From personal experience, I think by putting my personal POV on my user page, it makes me extra careful not to put my own personal point of view into an article, and like you, I too have reverted edits which were often too POV (although harmonious with my own). Anyway, good to see you passed Rfa and look forward to seeing you around. Jcam 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for your support !vote. When Dmcdevit did his big oppose vote, and then the "me too"'s started to chime in, I was getting pretty worried. The people like you who rallied to my defense really saved the day. I must say that I'm pretty bothered by a member of the Arbitration Committee making such a strong statement on an issue which is not dictated by policy. I'd hate to have him participating any a case where POV user boxes are being weighed.

People can have opposite views on things and still work together. One of my best friends at the office is polar opposite from me regarding politics and religion. Knowing where each other stands just makes it easier for us to be honest on our views. Fortunately, enough people seemed to hold that opinion to get me through the RfA with only a little scorching. Again, thanks! --StuffOfInterest 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your disclosures

That's very cool -- I hope this works out well for you! It's for that same reason that I've described myself openly on my talk page and included myself in several categories (but I have no userboxes primarily because I think they look garish on the page). Atlant 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but be careful with the categories. Those appear to attract a lot of attention as well. --StuffOfInterest 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod

Hiya, to be honest, I don't remember the details of that particular page. I'd recommend re-creating it in a subpage of your userspace, and then we can talk about it without risking another immediate deletion. If it can be brought "up to snuff", it can then be moved easily enough back to main space. --Elonka 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod

I've undeleted MFJ Enterprises per your request. This is without prejudice to anyone afd'ing it of course. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Understood. I'm going to take a look and see if a bit more detail can be added in such as the frequent mentions in QST and CQ Magazine. To a ham it is a no brainer, but anyone outside of the hobby is not likely to have heard of the company. --StuffOfInterest 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

George Felix "Macaca" Allen

"Macaca" is Allen's nickname among close friends and associates. It has been so for some time. General knowledge of the nickname has arisen as a result of the videotaped session wherein he addresses a Webb intern "Macaca." I know Senator Allen personally and I can assure you that his use of the name "Macaca" was not racially motivated. As I stated previously, he even calls HIMSELF Macaca at certain times - especially when he has embarrassed himself or the party or even if he simply puts his foot in his mouth.

Perhaps rather than starting the article with George Felix "Macaca" Allen, we could announce him in the fashion you prefer: George Felix Allen and then put "Macaca" in parentheses afterwards. Example:

George Felix Allen (aka Macaca)

How does that sit with you? I won't move ahead until I hear from you.

Thanks! --AStanhope 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some reputable references to put in the article to support that, there is no way it will stay in. --StuffOfInterest 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We're actually pretty good friends. I would tend to think that I know him better than just any random journalist (who are almost always biased against him) or any random Wikipedia editor (see: bias against Macaca by journalists). He's having dinner at my home this evening. I will ask him what he prefers tonight. OK? --AStanhope 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but please remember that anything which goes into Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If it is something only he a and a few close friends are likely to know then it won't work in the article. What is to keep someone else from saying "George and I get together on weekends to smoke dope"? Without any verifiable source it is just hearsay. --StuffOfInterest 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the dope-smoking part isn't hearsay because I've smoked him out many, many times. I'm not comfortable adding anything about smoking herb to the article because I'm afraid that some people might take it the wrong way or out of context. Please promise me that you won't add this information to the article as I am sharing it with you in confidence. --AStanhope 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, hearsay can not be added to the article. Anything that goes in must have verifiable references. --StuffOfInterest 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. I think we're reading from the same page because I definitely don't feel comfortable broadcasting that information publicly. I trust that you'll keep it to yourself as well. Thanks! --AStanhope 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley

Nonsense? Isn't he gay? I don't think factual information is nonsense. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.203.133.154 (talk • contribs) .

His "coming out" is mentioned. Putting something in like "sexual career" is petty vandalism and will get you blocked if you continue to put things in in this manner. --StuffOfInterest 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Joe Peppermint and hangon tag

Yep, I did. I also saw that a Google search turned up absolutely nothing on this individual, and that the article and talk pages made contradictory claims (he's a doctor who's in the US Senate and has appeared in Vogue?). There's not much to the article, so if someone comes up with sources establishing notability, it shouldn't take too long to re-create. -- Merope 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that deletion of short stubby articles isn't a big deal--they can be recreated easily, and I'm also willing to restore articles if the creators contact me with notability evidence. But this is just me. -- Merope 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you there. I try not to delete the ones that are a work-in-progress, and I always try to leave notes on creator's talk pages per WP:BITE. But I'll be more careful. -- Merope 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles about high schoolers and their awesome friends get deleted and a {{vanity}} warning. (Or {{test2article}}, depending on how innocuous the article is.) It's a Friday afternoon in America, so I bet there's a lot of kids playing around right now. I usually open all the articles in tabs and then delete them all, then click the "undelete" button to take me to the old page history so I can warn the creator. It's involved, but NPP and CAT:CSD clean-up are my favorite chores. -- Merope 18:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to participate in the Amateur Radio Wikipedia project

I just recently obtained my Extra class license and have big plans to get into HF digital mode as well as more traditional SSB & CW. I am also interested in Linux + Ham Radio/Sound Card TNC emulation etc. Call is K6CKT and I am the editor of the Livermore Amateur Radio Klub newsletter, as well as the Public Information Officer for the East Bay Section of the Pacific Division of the ARRL. 73 & Thanks. ChardingLLNL 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Response left on your talk page. --StuffOfInterest 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

TetraSoft

Why do the admins keep deleting the article entitled TetraSoft? This company is very significant, at least in the North Georgia area, and has even been featured/recognized on a national level many times.

Consider this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_monster

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? It's short, to the point, and is about a company in a similar field. Why don't you delete it too?

At first, I suggested Mr. Davis create the article about his company, and it was deleted. Then I (Sheila Rae) created the article, and once again it's been deleted. Your guidelines and policies are unfair. I'm a journalist and work for a very large national news publication. I will most certainly publicize Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Your administrators are rude, careless, and abuse the "power" they have been given.

If you insist on not allowing the article "TetraSoft", but keep the article "Delicious Monster", I expect a FULL EXPLANATION as to why. If you do not respond, someone from the agency I represent will most certainly contact Wikipedia's administration as part of the story we are preparing. Perhaps someone with more authority than yourself (or the previous people who have deleted this article), would be in a position to better explain your organization's actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rae Sellsrome (talk • contribs) .

Please read the message on your talk page. Word for word recreation of a deleted page is against Wikipedia policy. Once the deletion review is completed the page will either be restored or left deleted. If you follow some of the advice being given as part of the deletion review you may find it possible to recreate the article in an acceptable form, but just reposting text which has already been deleted is not the way to go about it. --StuffOfInterest 16:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record

For the record, on my second deletion of TetraSoft and my deletion of File:Tslogo.gif, I meant to do "G4" rather than "G7". Guess I had some wires crossed. Both were recreation of content, not user requested. --StuffOfInterest 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I keep thinking you're a Cplot sock by accident.

Every time I see one of your edits in my watchlist, I keep wanting to jump and revert it. Then I remember that not everyone with a 3 word CamelCaps name is a Cplot sock after all. --tjstrf talk 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(smile) Thanks for doing due diligence! The guy really has been annoying for the last few days. --StuffOfInterest 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Link on 9/11

There is a discussion on the talk page regarding the link you reverted today. --NuclearZer0 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If I have anything further to add regarding it I'll post over there. I'm too busy trying to document Cplot socks to worry too much about it. --StuffOfInterest 13:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for protecting my talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --StuffOfInterest 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your User Profile

Hi, I stumbled upon your user profile and thought it was great. I'm relatively new to Wiki and only just learning the codes, I'm wondering if you'd please help me out a bit with my own profile?

Thank you -KouseKouse —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kousekouse (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Request help on mass redirect cleanup

Hey, After doing those edits/replaces, 106 edits, 893 listed as ignored, based on googling Christian Coalition. Give me a shout if theres anything else, or post on the AWB Page

Reedy Boy 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That cleared the way for me to setup Christian Coalition as a disambiguation page. --StuffOfInterest 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, at least they are pointing to a page of some, if not complete relevance, it can be changed in the future if needed =) Reedy Boy 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just did a 'What links here' search on Christian Coalition, and have made 6 more edits. There are just 20 talk pages, 6 user talk pages, the AWB talk page, and a category for deletion page (from oct 06) with the links remaining. Cant see any reason to change those, so that should be it. Reedy Boy 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, heh. One of the links you corrected was the disambiguation link I placed on Christian Coalition of America! Anyway, thanks again for taking care of the rest. :) --StuffOfInterest 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One bad change of a link, and one article where they are supposed to have links in title - Meh, i cant call that a bad edit run =) Heh Reedy Boy 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Note

Indeed, I know it's discouraged, I just do it anyways sometimes. To me, some details (like the one I removed) are very trivial, and if we were to include all such details, many articles, including Obama's, would be very long (i.e; unreadably so) I generally don't revert editorial reverts with Rollback, but under very clear-cut cases, I do so under my fairly extensive view of WP:IAR. It keeps articles cruft-free, especially when dealing with notable figures. For example, I wonder how many times George W. Bush has thrown out the ceremonial first pitch at a basball game... Oh well, I digress. Thank you for the note, and I will try to limit editorial rollbacks to all but the most obvious cases. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

STS-116 link

The Official Flight Kit is a valid NASA document, not spam. collectSPACE is the only source for this document online because NASA does not provide it in electronic format. An archive of past mission's OFKs is listed here: http://www.collectspace.com/resources/home.html#flown

This is not an advertisement for souvenirs. Its a payload list. Per NASA: The OFK on a particular flight enables NASA, developers of NASA sponsored payloads, NASA's external payload customers, other Federal agencies, researchers, aerospace contractors, and counterpart institutions of friendly foreign countries to utilize mementos as awards and commendations or preserve them in museums or archives. The courtesy is also extended to other organizations outside the aerospace community, such as state and local governments, the academic community, and independent business entities. In the latter case, it is customary to fly only one item for the requesting organization to be used for display purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collectspace (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

OK, I see that it isn't a spam link. Sorry about that one. It had too many of the signs if spam. One sign that is still a concern is adding links to a site you are affiliated with. This is generally discouraged as it is a form of self promotion. I see an anonymous user has added it back in. I won't remove it again, but another editor may decide differntly. --StuffOfInterest 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and advice. --Collectspace 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}} w/o protection

It appears that when you slapped the {{deletedpage}} tag on User talk:HowManyCanFitInAVolkswagen and User talk:SendInTheClownsAgaini you forgot to lock those pages, which renders the tag meaningless. Could you please lock those pages when you see this message? Scobell302 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing is, I did protect them. I guess when the page is deleted it drops the protection off. Previously I did a protect-delete-notice. In the future I'll try doing delete-protect-notice. Thanks for catching that! --StuffOfInterest 14:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cooperative Research timeline at 911 attacks article

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [1] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I listed my response before you made this request. :) --StuffOfInterest 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

I see this user is a blatant vandal, User talk:BigFatDonkey, you might aswell block them anyway for having an inapropriate username.--Rasillon 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone else was putting on the block at the same time I was leaving a message. --StuffOfInterest 14:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: He's beginning to abuse his talk page, I think its time to take more action.--Rasillon 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Taken care of. --StuffOfInterest 14:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

why didnt joe send me a message T____________________T, plox tell him to ^^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lespence (talk • contribs).

maintenance of 9/11 wiki page

An additional reference that you might want to include is the (good) movie "Loose Change".

Information about the film is at www.loosechange.com[2]. In fact, the movie can be watched online, but it is such a good film that it is worth watching on DVD. I can't say that I like the subject matter, or that I'm comfortable with it, but it is good.

Thanks for maintaining the page.

Tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.193.29.52 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Not likely as that link has been removed from the article multiple times already. --StuffOfInterest 12:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: South Jersey Radio Association

An article that you have been involved in editing, South Jersey Radio Association, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Jersey Radio Association. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Pan Dan 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pan Dan 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concern

After looking into this Pan Dan Maybe he's a previously deleted user? I see he's got like 4,000 edits and a very high percentage of them are nominations for deletion. He is somewhat new starting in August of 2006 and going around appearing to randomly tag articles for deletion. He does spout a lot of Wiki policy, but the discussions do seem to point to a great deal of people interpreting policy differently than he does. It makes me wonder what his motives just might be. I don't really know if he's a problem, but it might be worth keeping an eye on. Anonym1ty 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did just a little research on him, mainly going through his talk page for past discussions. It appears he has a tendency to be over argumentative which is pretty clearly illustrated in the AfD discussion as well. If someone has to spend that much time defending their nomination then it was likely weak to begin with. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Four people have said 'Keep' for the article. He seems to be a classic deletionist using the shotgun approach to nominating articles. --StuffOfInterest 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose... what some people like to do may seem odd to me, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or anything, just thought I'd pass it on Thanx Anonym1ty 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)