User:Herostratus/first class mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

General messages

Contact Consequences[edit]

The intent of the article is to address a unaddressed topic. It addresses WHAT could happen, should NASA, ESA find something, say on Mars, or the mother of all arguments to keep and improve this article, as you have suggested, ALIENS find THIS planet. This planet has been broadcasting for nearly 110 - 150 years in all directions. How many star systems are in this range?

You mentioned the NSA as well. I travel the US as a prospector, and have encountered a lot of people. Statements given range from rebellion to acceptance, due to the presence of Satanic minions for the religious,to violent vindication for those who have had horrific UFO/Alien encounters, reported them, only to get ridiculed, as recomended in the Robertson Panel report, while other will revolt anyway,to cause trouble just like what happened in the US after Katrina hit, and is now going on in France. The aim of the article is also to depict both the positive effects and negative effects of alien contact.

As you said, maybe the "Alphabet Agencies(incl. the NSA)" are now considering the consequences of alien contact and/or alien life has been found. Some people do believe that alien dominion is a "good thing", thinking that the aliens will cure our illnesses, restore the environment,etc. Appreciate the vote, assisstance,honesty.Martial Law 08:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC) :)

Any title suggestions ?Martial Law 08:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sara Dylan[edit]

  • You have butchered the Sara Dylan article - it's so sparse you just might as well delete it! Lion King 02:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It's very important to stress the point that Dylan did'nt meet Sara through Grossman- this has always been speculation, based on them both being at the Grossman's wedding in 1964. Peter Lownds has revealed in "Down The Highway" by Howard Sounes, that they met in 1962- also Sara didn't change her name willingly, Hans almost "ordered" her to do it.("I can't be married to a woman named Shirley") Nice guy eh? Thanks for getting back to me. Best wishes, Lion King 16:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense to me! The only thing I'd leave in is the date they met, this grossman nonsense has being going on for years! As I said before, Howard Sounes is the ONLY person that members of the Lownds or Dylan family have spoken to, but of course, I do take your point. I knew the story of how "Sara" broke her up, it would be good to include it- not surprised by the one take- it's his middle name! You go ahead, your'e the expert, I'm just a guitar player. Thanks for all the info, you never know I might be able to do it one day! Be Lucky, Lion King 19:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • On second thoughts, after trawling the "looney inaccurate fan sites", I believe that few college kids would want to hit the article, but thousands of Dylan fans would want to hit the only accurate site I can find on the web. Sara is not only encyclopedic for being Dylan's ex-wife but also for being Jakob and Jesse's mother. Best wishes, Lion King 18:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi.My main sorce is; "Down The Highway - The Life Of Bob Dylan" by Howard Sounes.Lion King 23:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sara Dylan[edit]

How you doing Hero? When you get a min. have a look at this page for me please. There are more Dylans in it now than the whole of Wales! I would revert but it says to take care when reverting from the IP that has posted. What do you think? Best wishes.Lion King 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sara Dylan[edit]

Wotcha Hero! Yeah, understand what you mean, good advice Mate, cheers. You got Weberman on your case??? God, the geezer is up the Dancers! According to Robert Shelton, Dylan punched his lights out! If you need back up, give me a bell OK? Be lucky, Lion King 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC) PS this may be of interest to you, under English Law, our rubbish (garbage) remains our property until it reaches the dump. Lion King 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sara Dylan[edit]

This is now reading like a bleeding fanzine - it's off my watchlist. Lion King 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hero. Lion King 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hero, will you please sort this bloody idiot out please. Lion King 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ASINs[edit]

Thanks for the kind words - I really must get back to purging some more of these, a process which is on hold until I can run some database checks.

Since you mentioned a pre-ISBN standard, I may as well go on a little tangent - there is one, but it's pretty obscure. In the sixties, the UK (and by extension various Commonwealth countries) had the Standard Book Number, which was like an ISBN, except it contained nine digits (eight plus a checksum) rather than the ISBN's ten. If you've any books printed in the UK between 1965 and 1970, they probably have one of these inside.

The system worked pretty well, and it was used to develop an international standard - the International Standard Book Number, the ISBN we all know and love. To help with backwards compliance (and to convince the UK to change) they arranged this so that every SBN was a valid ISBN - you just had to add a zero to the front, which would make it ten digits without changing the checksum in any way. This is one of the reasons that the 0 and 1 prefixes are used to note English-language books, and that most UK publishers use 0 - they originally had blocks of numbers already assigned - whilst American ones use 1.

Hope that makes sense... Shimgray | talk | 18:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Far right[edit]

I like your vote, but Wiki guidelines are tricky. A vote to "Delete Far right, and move Far-right to this name." will not accomplish that, since this is a vote for deletion not a vote to merge and most administrators will rule that the vote to delete won, and do nothing to ensure that the page Far-right will be renamed. It's always complicated. The wording should be: "Keep current article but move text from Far-right to this page and merge." Can I entice you to change your vote to that? --Cberlet 13:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD on Wikifiddler[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if you could reconsider your stance here. You favor deletion or merger into CoW, but I think the contents of this article can be potentially useful. Also, CoW seems like a general article on criticisms of Wikipedia and this article is a very specific attack on Wikipedians. I favor keeping the article the way it is and maybe making a new article Attacks on Wikipedia and using some of the information contained within this article. Aucaman 01:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Bag Football[edit]

hi Herostratus -- did you intend to vote on this AFD? You made what I thought was a good comment, but didn't record an actual vote, and the sockpuppetry meatpuppetry is over the top. Thanks! Bikeable 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unitarianism[edit]

Um, what's going on, exactly? Anything I might help with? Chick Bowen 21:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Don't worry--it's all quite fixable. It's not so good to have lots of links pointing to a disambig page (somebody some time would have to go through them), so I think you're right about the ideal solution. On the other hand, the disambig page is certainly useful. So what I think we should do is move the disambig page to Unitarianism (disambiguation) and list Unitarianism (theology) at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It may be that we can get someone (I'm not an admin) to just do it since it's not like the current situation has a long-standing history (or any history before today!). If you agree, I'll start this in motion. Chick Bowen 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Huh, after I wrote that I realized there already is a Unitarianism (disambiguation). Well, in a way, that makes it simpler, since we've just got duplicated pages. Your disambig (currently at Unitarianism) is better, though, so let's merge it into the other one. If you do it we don't have to copy the history, since you're the only author anyway. Chick Bowen 21:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for merging the disambig--looks good. I've set up the requested move at WP:RM and left a note at the talk page of Unitarianism (theology). You can respond there if you like. My advice: wait two days and see if anyone comments (probably no one will) and then just ask an administrator to do it early. If you wait for RM to clear its backlog, it takes forever. Let me know if there are any problems, or if there's anything else I can do. Oh, and since you pointed out that AfD I went and voted on it--actually, not with you, but I thought your reasoning was perfectly valid, I'd just prefer to keep things separate for historical reasons. Really, there's no such thing as nontrinitarianism--there's unitarianism and there's antitrinitarianism--so in that sense you're right. Once the AfD clears we can sort everything out (it's so much easier that way). Chick Bowen 22:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Democrat userbox rfc[edit]

Hey, nice picture of the Parthenon! I didn't know we had anything that good. I don't have a problem with using it, but I feel like I need to represent New England on this one. karmafist 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S- I'm putting the previous section header at WP:ENC It's good to know that editing Wikipedia does not involve the mandatory drinking of Kool Aid.

Userboxes[edit]

The biggest despository of userboxes is at Wikipedia:Babel, but the closest thing I know of otherwise would be at Wikipedia:Template messages, which has templates (which most user boxes are), but none there. Most of mine, and from other people I know, are recieved either by imitation, a gift or self-creation. Wouldn't hurt to ask around though, I assume I have the most userboxes on Wikipedia, but i'd always like some more if they fit. karmafist 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD tag removal[edit]

You recently and correctly, I believe, removed a speedy delete tag from Eight (band) (Correctly because the article and tag had both been there too long). However, I believe it is still a copy violation from the page I indicated on Talk:Eight (band). Do you have information to indicate otherwise? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What on earth?[edit]

(after edit conflict with archiving)

I dropped in to write a quick note about another subject, but after seeing your talk page it looks like your hands are more than full. Have you thought about sending your talk page to a soap opera writer for character and plot ideas?

Seriously, if this very very odd situation gets to the point where you would appreciate assistance, please let me know.

Oh and Happy New Year! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

On my mind was Goodandevil. I saw you recommended Rfc. I do not know how much you have followed this users contributions, to use the term loosely, but IMHO WP would be better served by recommending a thorough reading of WP:CON, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:POINT, and WP:EQ. Just a thought. I will be happy to provide a list of diffs if you want background. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A similar edit war was started by G&E on Abortion a week or so ago. Two of the three Freep targeted articles, I wonder if there is a connection? If so, G&E isn't being very subtle. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if Goodandevil here is Nothwithstanding on Free Republic. Look here Action alert on Kwanzaa, Abortion, and George W. Bush and here Action alert on Abortion on Wikiquote, early in December, and then take a look at Goodandevil's edits (and if you wish, the conversations Tznkai, Kyd, Parallel or Together? and I had concerning the situation on the Abortion article.) I can provide links, but want to know first is there anything which we can do other than keep an eye on G&E here, and NWS there? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the test templates memorized, and always use the -n and subst. I'm a good puppy. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My User Page[edit]

Yea, sometimes when I find myself getting too pumped up, instead of venting and causing trouble, I blank my page until I get it out of my system, but I usually leave a little something to show I'm still around. Some of the criticism I'm seeing about Wikipedia out there is so nasty...it really makes one angry to see people telling lies in an effort to convice people that someone else is telling lies. But I've decided I'm going to press on and not let it get to me anymore. Wikipedia doesn't need anyone to defend it. It will naturally defend itself because of its use and because...it's what's right. There is a lot of crap, but at least here one can debate and express opposing opinions; on these websites only one opinion is allowed. But here I go again into a lecture...Jesus H. Christ ...let me spare you.

Yea, I've been collecting little boxes too. Kinda neat. -DanielCD 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Message for User 172![edit]

172! There is something wrong with your talk page, it won't let me save! Anyway here is what I wanted to write on your talk page: Herostratus


Hi 172! Thanks for trying to help that page, and, right, I saw your comment in the edit summary, sorry, I must have had brain freeze. Anyway, the thing is, I know little about previous versions of the page. I just came to the per an open RfC listing. All I did was make some fairly minor edits that I thought would be OK. I listed them in the talk page:

  1. . Better appearance -- you know, add bolding, add a picture, that sort of thing.
  2. . Replace first point (racial, gender) with "you may no be insulted". Reasons:
  • Not needed, racial epithets etc would be covered by "not insulted".
  • Are we having a problem with women not being allowed on certain projects? Are admins giving out messages "You have been blocked indefinitely because you are of Asian descent"? Or any of that sort of thing? Unless so, not needed.
Likely to be misconstrued to refer to editing rights, e.g. "I'm being discriminated against as a Quux for putting pro-Quux material into article X". (NB:I can imagine someone saying that! Can't you?)
  1. . Remove link to Jimbo. If this page becomes widely available, as it might, we don't want that there. People might tend to use that as a first result instead of last. (NB: Is that wrong? Should Jimbo's page be listed up-front like that? I honestly don't know)
  2. . Some other fairly minor wording and stuff. For instance, I thought use of word "fork" was confusing, because (a) it's kind of an obscure technical word, and (b) we have forks WITHIN Wikipedia which sometimes aren't allowed.
  3. . (OK, later, per a comment from another user, I did add the Preamble thing... which I had hesitated to do because it was new work by me... but I did try to make that a seperate issue. If it is the preamble that you find problamatic, can that be handled seperately?

So anyway, what is it about my edits that you didn't like? =( (jk!) I'll try to fix them if I can, if I know what they are! PS in the meantime can I can put it back the way it was, K?

Also -- and I talked about this in the talk page too -- if this page is NOT up for discussion and the issue was voted and closed, how come there's an open RfC? Because, you know, I came to the page because of the RfC, and then spent time on it... so it seems that if it's closed the RfC should be removed... is it closed, and what's the procedure for removing the RfC? Thanks! Herostratus 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

LATE NOTE: Ooooh, I get it, there was something about the ArbCom and all that... OK I don't know about all that... I was thinking, it seemed good to have a page where you could send a new user that is frustrated or confused... I had a recent runin with a guy who was like HOW DO GET AN ADMIN and I had to go look it up, and its not in one place really, and even so the info is kind of wordy... Herostratus 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I still having a hard time following your rationale for the changes. Further, I doubt that it is more important that the page be "attractive" than simple. Propose your changes on the talk page before making sweeping changes next time. 172 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. OK, I will clarify, sorry! I will respond on articles talk page. Herostratus 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message concerning 'mental health consumer'[edit]

I do not understand your complaint however. I have removed the first sentence to my comment on the 'mental health consumer' talk page, just in case it could be mistaken for a flame. I might replace it with a more gentle statement of my point.

I think there are serious problems with the phrase 'mental health consumer', and think that 'lunatic' or 'loony' are much better terms, as people are less likely to be bewitched by their etymology than 'mental health consumer'.

  • The word 'mental' can be used as a term of abuse just as the word 'loony' can;
  • 'Health' is very difficult to define or describe in the context of 'mental health';
  • 'Consumer' suggests that something is consumed. 'User' might be better.

--Publunch 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy[edit]

In the context of the userboxes war, I suggested that several people read The Mythical Man Month to understand how large projects with lots of objectives and lots of people can get the job done by effectively utilizing the skills of the different contributors, and using communications wisely, to avoid too many people talking at each other ineffectively. I see that you have a proposal, whose participants could also benefit from this perspective. User:AlMac|(talk) 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Senior Editor[edit]

I think that Wikipedia is going to face competition from other websites that feed wiki-generated information to "senior editors" (for example, Digital Universe). In some way, wikipedia is going to need to create ways to keep dedicated expert editors in control of article content. The default path for this is to make sure that sources are cited by editors. Currently, the support system for collecting and evaluating sources for Wikipedia articles is very primitive. I've been thinking that it might be possible to make use of Wikiversity as a way to create a wiki community specialized for research and scholarly activity that could be applied to other Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia. Any Wikipedia editor who tried to add content to a Wikipedia article without providing good sources could be "sent to school" at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"the source-citing requirement you suggest be only applied to a small percentage of articles labeled (say) 'of academic importance' or whatever. Coverage of important scientific concepts, major historical articles, important biographies, that sort of thing." Absolutely. The wiki way would not be to introduce a new requirement for all articles. Editors who want to work towards the goal of allowing "experts" to be more in control of certain Wikipedia articles need a support system. One way to work towards such a support system is to make use of the maintained template. It would be great for Wikipedia if famous people would add their names to this template and help work on the content of Wikipedia articles that are marked in this way. --JWSchmidt 02:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dsp[edit]

Herostratus, you made me laugh. Thank you. Dsp is not "disappeared" but decessit sine progenitur meaning died without issue. Wiki abbreviation lists it. Cf (contrast) dspl (legitimate issue), dvp (in the lifetime of his father), dvu (of his wife), dvm (of his mother). Arbuthnots don't disappear! Kittybrewster 22:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Aa!?[edit]

O_o --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaa. Aaa aaa? Aa, aaaa a aaaaa aa aaaaaa:

  1. A -- Aa, aaa aaaa aaa (aaa ª, À, Á... aa aaaa aaaaa aa aa aaa aaaaaa a aa aaaa!!!!
  2. Aa -- Aaaaaa aaa aa aaaa.
  3. Aaa -- (AAA Aaaa) Aa aaa aaaa aaaa aaa a aaa (aaa A).
  4. Aaaa -- Aa aa aaa aaaa aaaa, aaa aaa Aaaaa, Aaaaaa, aa aaaa Aaaaaaa? Aaa aaaa AA... (Aaaaa, Aaaaa aa aaaaa, aaa aaaa: aaaaaa!)
  5. Aaaa. A aaaa aaaaa aa aaaaa, aaaa. Aaa aaaa Aaaa aaaa aa aaaaaa: Aaaaaaaaaaaaa... aa aaaa: Aaa aaa aaaa.

Aa aaa aaaa, aaaa aa aaa aaaaa aa aaaa aa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaaaaa aa aaaaa. Aa aaaa aa aa.

A.

Aaaaaaa aaaaa aaaa aaaa.

Aaaaaaa aaa aaaa aaaa aa aaaa a aaaa.




Aaa aaaaaa aaaa?










Aa aaaaa, aaa aa aaaaaa aaa aa aaa. AAAAAAAAAAAA

SQL[edit]

Hi. I have an account on the m:toolserver, which includes SQL access. It's easy to get an account, but it's not something you should do if you don't know what you're doing with it. I can run the queries you want me to run though. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Phroziac/66.99.0.0/16 and 64.107.0.0/16 ips that have edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phroziac (talkcontribs)


Man, I leap-frogged from the discussion at Moral panic over to Operational definition and picked another fight... lol. Not really.

Moral Panic over Operational definitions[edit]

Could you do me a favor and read the intro I revised at Operational definition. Tell me if it makes sense to you. I'm just kind of sick of being polite and having the "article regulars" come in and shit on me. I just can't seem to make it clear enough that I'm merely trying to help/offer a fresh perspective; it seems as if every conceivable topic has an entrenched posse guarding it. I think this is kind of a reward cycle, as when people make changes to "your" article and you snap at them, they tend to just go away. Problem is, I don't just go away. People seem to find that quite maddening (much to my amusement). --DanielCD 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User Talk[edit]

Yes i know, i wasnt stating anyone had in fact used racial slurs. I was just saying if i were to vandalize i would appreciate it if they did not use racial slurs against me. i was being proactive. thank you -- --67.39.22.50 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


js[edit]

I do? Ooops, thx for checking, OK also did not know about javascript console, will find and use, thanks!!!Herostratus 13:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is also an enhanced console available, and I find the javascript shell bookmarklet very useful. — Omegatron 06:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

NSFW[edit]

Wow, you weren't kidding about the pictures! Heh... amusing, though. And feel free to add to my meta subpage; it's been left neglected for a while. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Carrie Dashow[edit]

Hi, the admin you're looking for is Harro5. The reason is given as "CSD A7. content was: {{db-bio}}Carrie Dashow (b. 1971) is a subliminal socioarchaeologist and a video artist. She lives and works in Brooklyn, NY.==External links=..." Hope this helps. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should probably also mention that this article was deleted twice before, on 4 March 2006 and 14 November 2005, for being a nearly-empty article with just a link to a web site. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

I'm not super happy that I had to spend time tracking down the contribution "history" of the commenters on the original deltion discussion for Innatheism, due to your decision to take it to deletion review. My advice is to let it go and work on something that doesn't make you feel upset for a while. Herostratus 12:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

For my resonse see [1]


How do I go about proving that Stanley Random Chess is not a hoax, but a real game?[edit]

Thanks for your personal words of welcome - it's appreciated! The Chessmaster page is actually incorrect describing Stanley Random Chess as "fictitious", but I won't make any changes to that just yet, but wait for the debate to be resolved on the AfD page[[2]]. I can't stand hoaxes, but in this case how do I go about proving that this is actually a real game? (which it is - although as a matter of style the game commentary is usually described humorously.) It's just as real as Mao (game). As I suggested elsewhere, the best way to verify my information is to contact the webmaster of the schemingmind.com site, where the game is actively played online. But I'm new to wikipedia, and maybe I'm not going the right way about making my case, which is why I figured I'd drop you a personal note here as well, to ask you for your advice. So feel free to direct me about how I should change the content to make it satisfactory, or if I should be doing anything different! Best regards, Gregorytopov 06:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Gregorytopov

Update. I've revised the page on SR Chess considerably, trying to clarify which elements of SR Chess are parody, and which are not. So I've taken your advice, and the page no longer states that the game pre-dates regular chess, but openly admits that this is part of the fictional legend accompanying the game for the purposes of humor. I hope that revisions like this will enable the page to stay.

In answer to your other questions:

  • up to half the moves in SR Chess can be determined randomly by a computer on the server. The Stanley personality in Chessmaster (which inspired the variant) makes completely random moves - SR Chess allows for much more control than that, because users select each move just like with regular chess. But this is precisely the fun of the game - you don't know if your move will be implemented, or randomly replaced by another move.
  • there are parallels with both Mao and Mornington Crescent. Like Mao, SR Chess is a playable game (it is governed by the rules of chess), and like Mao there is some obscurity because new players are not immediately told how the randomness operates (although I have been honest about this in my revised wikipedia entry), although they discover this quite quickly and unlike Mornington Crescent the purpose is not dupe the ignorant. Like Mornington Crescent, the random moves are attributed to fictional rules, in a parody on chess terminology. But in contrast to Mornington Crescent, SR Chess is actually a playable game, enjoyable for its own sake. Some players play without any commentary, simply because they enjoy the game.

Hopefully the revisions I've made are satisfactory, please let me know if you have suggestions for improving the page further. I'm disappointed with some of the feedback from users who suggest that I'm the only fan of the game, particularly when I've cited sources that clearly show that 100s of games are being played by other people - do they not take the time to visit the site I've referred to? I'm trying not to vent my frustration, but remain polite nonetheless!

It's here!!![edit]

Dear Herostratus:

And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work.

Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!

Long live Wikipedia!!!

Shuo Xiang 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

see above. :) Mahk Twen 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What? What vandalism? Didn't I say I'd stop? Mahk Twen 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I came across an abridged version (just the "Punch in the presence of the passenjare" segment) in Richard Dawkins' book Unweaving the Rainbow (ISBN 0-14-026408-6). It was given as an example of a meme, in this case, a ridiculous fragment of versified instruction which, due to its mantra-like rhythm, succeeds in "taking over" one's mind.
Samuel Clemens wrote about his experience with this idea-virus in a short story, A Literary Nightmare (1876). He narrates how he came across the jingle in a newspaper, how it promptly took over his mind and prevented him from thinking about anything else, and how he finally got rid of his affliction by reciting it to his friend, Reverend Twitchell, who in turn got "infected" by the meme. The story ends with Clemens bringing Twitchell to a Harvard meeting, where he recites the jingle and is freed from the meme, while infecting another group of hosts.
Contrary to popular belief, Mark Twain did not write this jingle. It was the brainchild of Messrs. Isaac Bromley, Noah Brooks, W. C. Wyckoff, and Moses W. Handy. Bromley and Brooks, while riding a tram line, had noticed a new sign informing passengers about the fare:
A Blue Trip Slip for an 8 cents fare.
A Buff Trip Slip for a 6 cents fare.
A Pink Trip Slip for a 3 cents fare.
For Coupon and Transfer, punch the Tickets.
Bromley had reportedly exclaimed, "Brooks, it's poetry. By George, it's poetry!" They began composing the poem, giving it a jingle-like character, and, upon arrival at the Tribune Office, were assisted by the scientific editor, W. C. Wyckoff, and Moses Handy. The result:
Conductor, when you receive a fare,
Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
A blue trip slip for an eight-cent fare,
A buff trip slip for a six-cent fare,
A pink trip slip for a three-cent fare,
Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
Chorus
Punch brothers! Punch with care!
Punch in the presence of the passenjare!
The poem gained popularity after its publication in a newspaper. It soon took over the minds of numerous people - Boston was devastated by it, Harvard had an epidemic, and the skit was even translated into Latin and French.
See this site for more details. Mahk Twen 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Probably, but I might have to change usernames. Mahk Twen 15:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do - but it's quite contagious. Readers might end up hating me for implanting a "broken CD" quote in their heads! Hehe :) just joking. I think it classifies as a meme, though. Dawkins cited it as an example of one. I quote: "A meme is, by analogy, anything that replicates itself from brain to brain, via any available means of copying." Anyway, even if it doesn't classify as one, I still think it's a very catchy literary virus. :) Mahk Twen 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Will do that. Thanks again, and see you around. Cheers! ;) Mahk Twen 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The baseball thing[edit]

I've given some pointers to Dknights411 on how to better comply with the fair use policy, but I'm not a lawyer and the cogent point is that Ed's right when he states that the name of the team adequately gives the same information. After the recent Lolicon debate I've been made aware that my arguments on fair use, whilst legally valid, aren't in line with Wikipedia policy, which is that we only use images under fair use where absolutely necessary. What you'd have to argue is that their use in this article is necessary. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Hiding talk 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou Engle[edit]

In your comments on my talk page, you said that I had made edits which I did not make. For example, you said that I had changed

"...a group noted for holding protest vigils outside abortion clinics."

to

"...a group noted for sieging the Supreme Court with their red 'LIFE' tape over their mouths, and prayers in their hearts."'

However, I made no such edit, and in fact much prefer your language. My actual edits can be seen at [3].

My edit comment regarding npov smear was a reference to the part of the edit which omitted the use of self-published, which mischaracterized his publication history. Since it was factually incorrect and appeared on its face to be intended to ridicule the individual, I felt it was a clear NPOV issue. Aminorex 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Wow! This is a pleasant surprise. The barnstar is much appreciated and your timing is perfect. : ) FloNight talk 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Herostratus/first class mail! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Athlete bios[edit]

Hi Herostratus. When I look at athletes in racing sports, or long jump, discus, shot put etc, I compare their PB - "personal best" performance to the current world record. Generally speaking, if the athlete's PB is more than 5% worse than the current world record, I am reluctant to include them on the grounds of sufficient athletic merit - generally speaking the "A-level" qualifying limit set by world sport bodies such as FINA and IAAF is around 5% slower/lower than the WR. For example in the 100m freestyle Pieter van den Hoogenband had a world record of 47.84s and the A-qualifier for the Olympics is about 50s, around 5% slower than the world record, which is the A-qualifying limit set by IOC in conjunction of FINA. I am a little slow in replying because I only have internet at university and I have been away due to uni being closed for Easter. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 12:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Biased welcome[edit]

Smile

2-1 FloNight talk 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my user talk. :::::How dare you welcome users. Amongst the tribes of the N'kutu Islands, in the 13th century, new users were welcomed by writing "FUCK YOU!!!!!" across their talk pages in large font. Your failure to do this, and instead use Victorian-era nicey-nice so-called "welcome" messages just shows your cultural bias. Herostratus 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind me. You might find this interesting: WP:NOT EVIL. How badly will it be rejected, I wonder. 3-1? 4-1? Maybe I should start a pool. Herostratus 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it would be POV to have an anti-evil policy. -Will Beback 23:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
and censorship! FloNight talk 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Now we are combating evil as well as informing the world about Charmmy Kitty... --DanielCD 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If (when) it fails, maybe I should try WP:EVIL. Herostratus
Evolving Voluptuous Illicit Library...--DanielCD 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Evil comment Your proposal has brought about good discussion. I think changing the name to Wikipedia:Responsibility and slightly shifting the focus is worth considering if it gets enough support. FloNight talk 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Meh. At this point its too late to change it, too much discussion around the existing version. Changing the name would require changing the text. And anyway, neither WP:NOT EVIL nor [[Wikipedia:Responsibility have much chance, being in possible conflict with the One Sacred Virtue (WP:NOT Censored]]. But after WP:NOT EVIL goes down, we could try Wikipedia:Responsibility. I might be wrong, it might go over. Herostratus 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dalrymple Arbuthnot[edit]

Please would you review. - Kittybrewster 11:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Sir Alexander Dundas Young Arbuthnott - he was Knight Bachelor ... no post-nominal. Kittybrewster 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT EVIL[edit]

Notwithstanding our profound disagreements about the issues underlying this proposed guideline, I thought I ought to write to note that I find your contributions to the discussion to be uniformly well-reasoned and -articulated, and that I appreciate the good intentions that engendered the proposal. Funniest, for me, though, and perhaps best illustrative of the fundamental differences between us as people, which differences extend surely to our editing here and our sense of what the encyclopedia ought to be, is that the reductios that you've used to illustrate several points, which examples one is to find necessarily ridiculous, as to demonstrate the folly of certain applications of current policy, are not, for me, ridiculous; I'm not particularly disturbed by the examples (e.g., the rape victim called at 3 in the morning or the biographical subject who, after reading his/her Wiki biography, offs him/herself) you adduce toward the proposition that we must edit in view of the pursuit of good. De gustibus non est disputandum, I suppose... :) Joe 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not having replied to your note sooner; I will now proceed to rip them to shreds, not sparing arguments making an example of you personally, to the extent that you have vouchsafed information about your personal belief system. Sorry! All for science, you know. made me laugh quite heartily, if only because I'd welcome such personal analysis, at least where the principal goal is an analysis of my viewpoints, with a citation to me as an example. In any case, I see that we're in agreement on the RfA for User:FloNight, although I did have to qualify my "support" with a note that she and I differ apropos of WP:BLP; I really made such qualification only in order that I might note WP:NOT EVIL, hoping thence to direct other editors, in order that the points you raise might be considered by the broader community (and, to be sure, I'm not altogether certain where the consensus eventually will lie, but I certainly think many would be interested in the discussion, and I think the concerns you've raised definitely must be considered). Now back to my daily raping and pillaging... :) Joe 06:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available[edit]

Vandalprooflock.jpg

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hero![edit]

Howya doing mate? - long time, no hear! Hope your'e well, listen can you do me a favour and sort out 66.103.177.58? It appears that their only purpose is to keep vandalising the Dylan page. I put a test4 on the page on the 16th, but to no avail. Thanks. Be lucky Lion King 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) BTW, I read your Weberman article, GOOD STUFF! PS Her Saraness a minor character???? ;) PPS. Someone has slapped a tag on the article, I gave you the source months ago! Lion King 12:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

I was surprised to notice that you weren't already an admin. I just looked over your last 250 contributions, and I was very impressed with your dedication to WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I think you can be trusted with the sysop tools, and I would be honored to nominate you for adminship if you're interested. What do you say? --TantalumTelluride 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Herostratus 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well then. As I always say, if you need a template to tell you how to accept an RfA, you're not ready for adminship. So, here's your RfA subpage: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus. Now go do your thing. Good luck! --TantalumTelluride 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Having previously noted the concordance on the RfA page, I must observe that your responses are uncannily similar in spirit (if better written) than those I'd have offered/will soon offer. There are, it seems to me, three eminently plausible explanations: (a) you copied the answers from the subpage at which I'd already crafted them (notwithstanding that no such page exists); (b) you and I are similarly inclined with respect to adminship (viz., we are of the belief that admins ought to be deliberate, pensive, and restrained, recognizing themselves as fallible), likely because great/severely mentally ill minds such as ours think alike; (c) having been impressed with your responses (and the positive reaction thereby engendered), I have decided to pretend that you and I think alike in order that I might soon succeed at RfA and then implement WP:REALLY EVIL. In all seriousness, it is quite pleasing to find a prospective admin who isn't inclined to stop his/her article work (or isn't overly eager for adminship) and who will surely use the tools properly, self-effacingly, decorously, and, perhaps most importantly, jovially. Joe 05:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx Joe. LOL WP:REALLY EVIL, let's go for it.Herostratus
Re: this—That's probably because that paticular "line" was drawn in dry sand on a windy day. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA bug[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out. A few days back I overhauled that part of the analysis, but forgot to add && sum_value=1 to condition of being "minor" or "major". As for your notable edits, I carefully looked through your ~5000 edits and didn't find any mistakes as per how the tool seperates out edits (copyedits count as "small"). Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When you run the tool, its says FAQ, however when I copy-past it no longer appears as a link. You can access it here[4]. "Notable" edits, as the examples on the RfAs, say they are usually major rewrites or creation. Click here[5] to see an example of a user with an above (far far...) average value for that.
At any rate, whats with not warning vandals? You already explained (to my agreement) the other issues, so this is really the only reason I am still opposing...Voice-of-All 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia[edit]

A bit of a drive by message... have you ever tried out Uncyclopedia? Your vandal poem made me laugh, so I thought I'd point you towards one of the other places I like to edit. It would be good to see you there. -- sannse (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT EVIL[edit]

The day on which you downgrade NOT EVIL to essay status in view of its having failed to command the support of the community (or, as you say—more accurately, I think—failed to command a great deal of attention from the community, such that one couldn't thence draw any conclusions apropos of the views of the community), Jimbo raises an idea on the mailing list the adoption of which would seem consistent with the approval of NOT EVIL. FloNight, moreover, adduces NOT EVIL toward the proposition that we ought to comport our editing with the general principles of human principle; I expect, then, that we'll get more participation at NOT EVIL in the near future, which will, I think, be good, if only because, even as I hope the community won't give its imprimatur to guidelines that would tend to subjugate encyclopedic concerns to nebulous, extra-encyclopedic interests, if the community does support such guidelines, that support ought to be codified, in order that we shouldn't, at sundry AfDs, continue to struggle (or, as I, to be irked at the struggling of others) over what to do about articles that produce appreciable deleterious consequences for their subjects, especially where those subjects are avolitionally public and notable. Joe 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Service awards[edit]

Hi,

Is there a way to have the Service awards picture with a white or transparent background? It would be better I think... :)

Best, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Service awards (2)[edit]

Morning (or afternoon [or evening]), Herostratus. Your service awards seem like a cool idea, but don't you think you've set the standards a bit high? Take, for example, the rank "Master Editor of the Encyclopedia/Complete and Perfect Tutnum." You have to have 50,000 edits and 5 years of service. Wikipedia has only been around for 5 1/2 years! The editors that have been around for that long usually don't have that many edits, and the editors with that many edits usually haven't been around for 5 years. I'm just saying, maybe the standards are a bit high?--the ninth bright shiner talk 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki of dates in baseball[edit]

I've looked into this. I decided to close the debate as transwiki, since you were generous enough to offer to do the work, and it's consistent with the majority view that the pages should be deleted. Here's my solution. See User:Mangojuice/sandbox for a version of the "This Date" template that should work on the baseball wikia. I couldn't figure out how to align the big table of dates on the right, so my solution is to hide it behind a link. All those pages will now link to "Dates in baseball" where the full table of dates can go. See User:Mangojuice/Dates in Baseball for the code for that page. Wikia seems not to have parser functions enabled, so I don't know of any way we can force the pages to be ordered by date in the category (they'll be in the alphabetic order for numbers: 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3, ...) but this is probably the best we can do without editing each page individually. Mangojuicetalk 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Email in question[edit]

Hey Herostratus, regarding the note you left on my talk page. I didn't write the email. It was sent to me after a request of review to admin abuse. Are you aware that I didn't write the email?--Scribner 02:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Ed out of control?[edit]

Hey Herostratus! As an administrator, what are your thoughts on User:Ed g2s and his actions regarding his interpretation of the Fair Use rule concerning logos? He's been going left and right deleting logo images outside a team's webpage because he thinks that they are decoration, and now has threatened to block anyone who tries to revert him. Isn't this going a BIT too far? Dknights411 19:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kelly Martin just blocked a user for re-inserting images.[6] Johntex\talk 05:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

Policy pages are merely descriptive of what the policy is. Policy can be announced anywhere, a talk page, a mailing list etc. The pages involved (collectively) had been reverted numerous times, and I was advised to make this warning as the situation was getting out of hand. As for whether Kelly will go through with a block, see User_talk:Cardsplayer4life#Blocked. ed g2stalk 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't address the issue about how one interprets said policy. You can describe a policy all you want, but it is the interpretation of the policies and guidelines by editiors that ultimatly comes through, NOT the policy itself. Dknights411 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks for the Barnstar, that was neat. :) (Cardsplayer4life 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

If anyone explains it, let me know too[edit]

  • From your question, I've had similar wonderings, the only thing I can think of comes down to my own semantic interpretations. Based on WP:5P #3, WP is free content...under GDFL and may be distributed... could mean either:
A) Distributed means available online for instant "distribution" on an as needed basis for the part you want to get. See also, fluid, ever changing, moving target, etc. Even in the event of copyright violations, real or perceived, as soon as a correction is made, the situation changes. See? All better now, MrLawyer.
B) Distributed means to actually take a snapshot of then-current content offline and continue to use it in this manner for some period of time. Second verse, opposite the first. A future edit, and thus not reflected in the copy, may correct a copyright or other potentially legal violation, and now you don't have it. Whose fault is that? We fixed it on WP, go sue MrRemoteUser.

Either way, like I've said elsewhere, this is a trainwreck. Bad feelings, bad definition of current policy, bad communication of pending policy, bad actions taken by (probably in good faith, but still self-) appointed Defenders of the Wiki. Now there are so many issues in the mix, it will probably never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Even potential solutions like this (which could be seen as too long) and that (which could be seen as too vague or too broad) may never get off the ground, because of the players, the history and the emotions. There's no doubt in my mind that WP will suffer because of this, it's just a matter of to what extent and who will pay the price.  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Who knew? From this, it looks like the answer above is B)  — MrDolomite | Talk 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one real objection to fair use in general. However, it requires either (1) different versions for different fair-use-law countries, or (2) complying with the strictest fair-use laws, which probably means no fair use at all. If (2), I guess there should be software that scrubs out all non-free images before making the CD. Of course, the last things these kids need is a freaken laptop, unless its connected to the internet (and maybe not then). They need food, medicine, roads, phone lines, microloans, stable uncorrupt governance, agricultural education and assistance for their village, pencils, books, the time away from work to get an education, and teachers who can teach them to think and be intellectually disciplined (the opposite of a web-surfing mentality). But if all you have is a hammer, everything wants pounding. Herostratus 19:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

For what it's worth, I partially agree with your thoughts on Wikipedia and the Free Culture movement. Unfortunately, there's some bad blood in that movement between the GPL absolutists, who want to use things like the GPL as a weapon to force others to pry open their IP, and the BSD realists who want to share and share-alike the fruits of their labor (Although it's obvious that there are plenty of people who fall between those extremes on the continuum). I think that has some bearing on the conflict at hand.

When I heard for instance about promo photos (which are given out explicitly for free re-distribution) being eschewed for much lower quality "free" photos, I had a bad feeling about that. It's generally in a celebrity's interest to be shown from the best angle and in the best light; that's why they put out those promo photos. Now, let's say Wikipedia has some amateur shot of them that makes them look tired and 20 lbs overweight.

Someone uploads the better promophoto, but it gets removed, tagged for deletion, and then someone emails the celeb's publicist - "We'd like to use your promophoto, but you have to release it under the GFDL, etc. etc." They have their lawyer read it and they find out that they've basically got to give up all effective copyright rights, allowing folks to photoshop the photo, make the nose bigger, add a moustache, etc. But it's either that, or let themselves be represented by the bad light, too fat picture.

To me it seems a bit coercive, especially as Wikipedia's popularity grows, and I don't think being coercive is right. If free culture is to grow, it should grow on its merits. Does that mean my ideology is impure, and I should be purged? Kidding, maybe. Best, KWH 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The World of Normal Boys[edit]

Something just didn't sit right with this article. Then it dawned on me that the entire thing had a POV via proxy. That is, the piped wikilinks suggested things that the text didn't. I've tried to remove this POV and also the innapropriate categories. Do you think I did right? I'm unsure. --Monotonehell 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I ended up just triming out all the heavy handed branding that was in the text of the article and made it more matter of fact. The previous edit was very accusative and just was not NPOV. No one's touched the article since so I guess I didn't upset anyone. --Monotonehell 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

welcome message template[edit]

{{welcomeg}} - CobaltBlueTony 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles[edit]

Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote to a shorten, merge and redirect into a list? - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying your closure of the above afd, please? While I understand that afd's with large number of commentators are tricky, I am somewhat concerned at the lack of reference to any policies in the closure statement. I did argue for deletion, citing problems with WP:NOT (not a news outlet/crystal ball), WP:BLP (due to problems with WP:V/WP:RS), and basic WP:N (the only thing they're notable for is already in another article). In other words there were several policy based arguements for delete, so to make it no consensus there should be equal(ish) arguments based on policy for keep, but I cannot see that. While the default for many afd's is "when in doubt, don't delete", I believe that when it comes to poorly sourced BLP material the default should be "delete, unless high quality sources are present", which was not the case here. I await your reply (here would be preferred to keep things threaded) Regards, MartinRe 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it was a tough close. I really wasn't sure of the right thing to do, and I'm not sure I was right, at all; I just hope that I was. I'm a fairly new admin. My thinking was based very much around consensus. Granted that AfD is not a vote, still, 27 Keep comments would require quite a strong counter, either in argumentation or something else, to overcome. Again, that is just my personal opinion. I do think WP:BIO was achieved on grounds of Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. I'm not sure of that, since after all we are talking about 20 people. Is each one notable? We would have an article on (say) John Dillinger but not every member of his gang. But still, my reading of WP:BIO is that it is met here, since the event was very much in the news and will most likely have staying power over the years, in my opinion. I wasn't overly concerned about WP:BLP in this case, since we are talking about terrorists, after all (assuming that they are guilty and are found so). Recongnizing that WP:BLP makes no such distinction, I would be more concerned about protecting the sensibilities of business figures, sports figures, etc etc than of terrorists (if they are). That I guess is my own personal opinion again, and may be inappropriate. I dunno. I'm very inclined to the position that the gathered community is smarter than I am. If it had been split evenly with 8 total comments, I might have reacted differently than an even split with over 50 comments. I would had to have been blown away by a huge differentation in argument to have closed against that. I may be wrong, and you welcome to take it to WP:DRV], although since it was a No Consensus it might be better to renominate. I believe with a No Consensus you can renominate after quite a short period, even immediately if you wish. Hope this helps. Herostratus 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's best to bring it to DRV, to get a wider perspective, and also some of your comments here cause me concern, most significantly that you admitting to not being overly concerned about WP:BLP because it's "about terrorists" (which they are not, they are terror suspects). Also, you mention the 27 keep comments (of which many are "per someone else") needing a counter, in my opinion the counter was given as failing WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N, so I believe there was a "huge differentation in argument" as from what I saw, one side arguements was strongly based on policy, and the other not so, so the debate should side with policy. Regards, MartinRe 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As suggested, I have |brought this up on DRV, please feel free to elaborate there (although I've linked to your reply here in the summary). Regards, MartinRe 18:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I probably won't comment there, and leave it to others, unless requested. May the best man win, I have no dog in this fight, I consider it a learning experience either way, and by all means bring up your concerns on the DRv, regards, Herostratus 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

10th Kingdom[edit]

You probably noticed it already, but I despise the term cruft. We also have many books, films/tv series and actors listed here who will be utterly forgotten by the majority of people in a few years. They still make great articles. Not all films need to be Hollywood blockbusters. From what I remember about this show it was pretty succesfull (it pretty much has to be to be sold for broadcast to the Netherlands). Current inclusion criteria say nothing about how succesful a piece of fiction has to be to have characters listed. Only how well-known the characters have to be to have their own article. Hence, there's nothing actually in deletion policy supporting a deletion. It's verifiable. The only problem is that it needs to be de-copyvio-ed. - Mgm|(talk) 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much, Stepp-Wulf 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Need you to lookover something[edit]

Yanksox mooved the WikiDefcon to his userspace to prevent deletion attempts. However the templates need to be looked at in order for them to work. I'm not savy with these types of templates. Can you look over them to make sure taht they are working? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Doc originally moved it per GUS. I'm adopting it for now. Yanksox 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You can see the styles if you move them to the new template name. Considering the recent deletion of CVU and other things, it might be safe to keep it in the userspace to prevent future deleiton. Comment on the talk page if you want to be heard. Yanksox 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question[edit]

Hi, those get tagged with Template:Permission from license selector if the uploader choose either "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles (no other terms specified)" or "The copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes" from the upload form (see MediaWiki:Licenses and related talk page). A lot of images kept getting uploaded with such conditions (despite it beeing a speedy deletion criterea), but actualy tagged as "free use" or "public domain" or whatever, making it hard to track them down. So we added those options to the licence selection to make rounding them up easier. Picking those options list the image directly on speedy deletion per image criterea #3 and add that message in the hoap that the uploader will read it and stop uploading that kind of images. --Sherool (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page --Sherool (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah. So I may assume that if see that (Template:Permission from license selector) that it has been auto-tagged and can be deleted. But I wonder why the copyright claimed by the uploader can not be accesed in any way, is this intentional or am I not looking in the right place? (After all, some unscrupulous person could add the template by hand, I suppose.) Herostratus 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much, though naturaly if it's a logo or something easy like that you might want to just slap {{logo}} on it asuming it's used on a page, or if it looks like a good user created image you can always tag it as "no licence" instad and ask the user to consider releasing the image under a compatable licence instead.
No way to tell wich option the user picked at the moment I'm afraid, it doesn't make much of a difference (both have the same criterea), however it would not hurt to make the message more related to the spesific option picked. I'll put it on my to do list. --Sherool (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

hmm, what I think is happening is that you either registered the nick before and forgot the password, or, someone else has already registered it.--§hanel 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you've forgotten your password, what you can do is register another nick and I can give you access to the channel again. If nobody using the nick Herostratus identifies to nickserv over a period of 60 days, it'll be dropped, and you can register it again if you wish. There isn't much you can do when you've forgotten your password :(--§hanel 05:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Drini and the CVU deletion[edit]

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate and did not follow policy. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Baronets[edit]

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism is not a game[edit]

Thank you for commenting on my nomination of this page for speedy deletion. I posted a reply on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism is not a game. John254 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of April 6 in baseball[edit]

Hello. I'm sorry to bother, but can you please explain more about this article's deletion. I saw it's entry in the deletion log, but it looks like it was cut off and the link was broken. Please know that I am not objecting to your action, but am mostly just curious and looking for information. Regards --After Midnight 0001 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I didn't even know there was a baseball wiki. It's too bad that the edit summary has an error in the link. Is there anything that can be done to change that? It might be nice for people to be able to do an easy click to the afd discussion if they try to get to the article. I imagine that it inappropriate to make a redirect to the afd page from the article name, but what do you think about implementing one of the following to help people know what happened? 1) Create "Talk:April 6 in baseball" and all the other "Talk:(date) in baseball" articles and post a {{oldafdfull}} or similar tag to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball or 2) Take the unusual step of editing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball to list all of the old article titles so that back-links would be created. I'm willing to do some work to help with the clean up; I think that (in general) it is important that when something is deleted that people be able to view why as it seems to reduce future problems. Thoughts? --After Midnight 0001 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly would not want you to go through the work of an un-delete/delete for each. Your note on the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball helps some, but I just don't know how someone will get there without a link. If I am looking to see why April 6 is deleted, I wouldn't think to look for October 2. I thought that (#1-above) was ok vs CSD-G8 since it would link to the deletion discussion, but you are the admin, not me, so I defer to your judgement on that. I agree that #2 is a long list, but I am willing to do the work to put it on the page. I agree the value is not easily apparent, but I figure if I go to April 2 and it isn't there and there is no talk page the next thing I usually do is look at "What links here" or check the deletion log, that that would be the value from my perspective. If you don't like any of this or just don't want to deal with it, then just let me know and I'll take it to the project or find some other channel. Thanks --After Midnight 0001 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your discussion, suggestions and support. I've decided that the least work for me as well as the least disruptive thing for the community is to go with option 2 and modify the AFD page so that the back links will exist to give people who can't see the log a reference to what happened. Feel free to modify my format or add any additional comments as you see fit. --After Midnight 0001 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)