User talk:Angela/Archive7

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

>>User talk:Angela/Archive8

Contents

WB[edit]

Welcome back, glad your computer problems are sorted out. I took your advice of staying away from #wikipedia for a while. :) --snoyes 20:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Eurovision[edit]

The Eurovision archive that did put a sub-note on there pages about Wikipedia and GNU FDL has now appeared to have taken it off. Another letter is in order me thinks. -fonzy

Romania during World War II[edit]

You're obviously one of the de facto elders around here, so I'm coming to you for advice. User:MihaiC recently added to Romania during World War II (I quote verbatim) "Jews in Bukovina and Bessarabia were accused that they supported in an active way the soviet takeover of that teritories." This is undoubtedly a true (if poorly worded) statement, but the lack of agency makes it a slander: they "were accused" by whom? (Answer: well, by the fascists who killed them.) I'd like either to get this statement out of the article or get some serious discussion of any accusations, who made them, what historians have to say about the matter, etc. Frankly, I'd rather just get it out. I don't think every article on the history of WWII needs to deal in passing with a matter like this, although there is doubtless a place to take it up. I'm not sure it would be appropriate just to edit it out. I imagine that is how edit wars generally start. For the moment I am simply leaving it there in it's poorly worded state, hoping that speaks for itself, but that is not a long term solution. I am looking to you for a suggestion on how to proceed. -- Jmabel 20:01, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VFD:Jan 5[edit]

Could you please delete Robert Curatolo? The current vote is 9 to 2 (or 3 if you count the IP address). The content has already be transferred to the 9/11 wiki. I'm not supposed to delete stuff I nominate. --Jiang 00:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fellowhip of the Troll[edit]

I'm sure you must hate being my source of information, but I trust you to keep up on these things. Do we know who The Fellowhip of the Troll is? Based on the name and a few comments I've seen, I had assumed it was EntmootsOfTrolls, but EOT was hard-banned, I thought. I was just hoping you had heard or discovered something about this--based on the last few days, I think it's obvious TFOTT is not a new user, at the very least, but someone returning, and based on my experience here I usually assume that means a banned user. Anything you know would be helpful, when you can spare the time. Thanks much, Jwrosenzweig 00:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

lifetime bans are easily subverted. Martin 00:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at my talk page... FotT is saying you "delete everything". User is beginning to show some problems playing nicely with others over what I saw as a very minor word choice issue. Pakaran 02:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FotT is banned from this page. Angela. [His posts have not been moved to this archive page].
All right, I'm actually watching your user page anyhow, so I'll keep an eye out for a couple days. I'm tempted to do the same myself. Pakaran 02:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brianism[edit]

Hi Angela. Just a quick question. First to declare an interest, I have just signed-up as a Brianist via their website [1] as they seem to have some pretty good ideas. Even so, I do not have a major problem if Brianism is deleted from Wiki since it is arguably too small to belong here.

My question is why you have disputed the factual accuracy of the article? (I think you added the notice, if I'm reading the history correctly.) As far as I can see the article just says what Brianists believe, as stated on their website. If the article represents the website accurately, which seems to be the case, where is the factual inaccuracy? I know Anjouli makes some claims on the talk page which others have disputed, but nobody has disputed the factual accuracy of the article as far as I can see. The issue seems to be simply that the "movement" is too obscure.

I was about to remove the accuracy message, but as a newbie thought it polite to ask first in case I am misunderstanding something. SpellBott 12:58, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

GFDL/fair use[edit]

Please see here for more on the struck through text at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Jamesday 16:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Removing Clinton protection[edit]

It looks like the user who kept swapping the Clinton photos has gone. Could you unprotect the Bill Clinton page? Thanks! -- iHoshie 02:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for pages to protected, not unprotected or am I wrong? - iHoshie 18:45, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fascist Manifesto[edit]

In view of the embargo on a number of "digest" scripts, I thought I'd better mention that I've given a thorough "readability" rework to the above - unkamunka. 12:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Requests for mediation[edit]

Hi. Look what I did! Don't be mad, k? I figured it was better than nothing, and Ed told me to take my problems there, so... let me know what you think? Sam Spade 12:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I told it to be silver, but... if the unreadability is a problem maybe I'll rethink it. I saw some people do green, and I figured out you can do almost any color. Anyways, let me know if you think its distressing. Sam Spade 21:20, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if you change your mind and decide it bothers you! I can always switch to magenta or something ;) Sam Spade 04:36, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your WikiCookie[edit]

Congratulations, you are the first Wikipeadian who won a WikiCookie!

Here is your WikiCookie:

Wikicookie.jpg

:) Optim 01:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Friendly Greeting.[edit]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:27, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.
I have installed the MediaWiki software at our company and we're exploring using it here for Company Communications. See my profile
NickP 11:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)


Brianism[edit]

I do not know if you are watching Brianism Talk, but it is fair that you should see this: An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. In view of this, I have changed my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been "e-mailed to participants in the discussion", but not posted on WP by the writer - which is why I am doing it. I also do not see how the writer would have all the e-mail addresses involved. Kind regards xx, Anjouli 13:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Voting on VfD[edit]

Hi Angela. I respect virtually 100% of what you do, but I must take slight issue with some recent remarks about counting votes for VfD. This is general by the way, and has nothing to do with the on-going Brianism debate.

Firstly, you have recently suggested that someone's vote should not be counted if they vote "keep" for everything - or at least everything they have voted for recently. Would you put a number on that? For instance, if somebody voted on only 3 things, surely you would not ask for their vote to be discounted simply because all three said 'keep' (or 'delete')? At what number would you do so? 20 votes? 100 votes? How about 100 'keeps' and '5' deletes? An inspection of the history shows that there are many users who have had only 'delete' votes within a given period. Do we discount them also?

No I certainly have not! I did comment on the fact RickK was voting to keep everything, but he was doing it to porve a point. Many people only vote keep. I don't have a problem with that. Angela.

Secondly, you have said Reddi's vote at Brianism (which is contrary to mine by the way) should not be counted as he has not given a reason. Very many people (including me!) often vote at VfD without giving a reason. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing in the Wiki guidelines that says a reason must be given for a vote to be counted, although it is recommended and frequently desirable. Often someone posts a reason and people simply add 'Keep' or 'Delete' beneath it. Probably no bad thing as it saves long arguments being identically repeated over and over. Do we ignore all those votes? Surely not.

Read the guidelines at the top of VfD. It states a reason must be given. The deletion policy confirms this fact. Angela.

I am sure this is done with the best of intentions, but as a major star at Wikipedia I think you have a great responsibility to get it exactly right as many users will follow your lead. My concern is if we start coming up with any reasons to discount votes (other than the recognised one of having made some edits, which is unfortunately needed to keep the sock-puppets out) we are on morally thin ice.

It's not actually about votes. I've explained this on the talk page of the deletion policy before, so won't go into it again (it's 6am so you'll have to excuse me for that). Angela.

People, some of whom may be less ethical than you, are likely to start coming up with reasons of their own for ignoring votes - some perhaps with merit and others just to force the vote the way they want. Voting the same way on everything may be mere caprice - or it may be one user's legitimate way of responding to the fact that he thinks we delete too much - an opinion to which he is entitled, although I disagree with it.

This isn't just something I'm doing because I want to. These details are in the deletion policy! It explicitly states that so-called "votes" from users with less than a certain number of edits are to be discounted. Angela.

I strongly believe that we should count all votes, other than those specifically excluded by the existing rules on having made edits. Some of these votes will be unconsidered, capricious or even random - but that is the price of freedom and democracy. As somebody said (may have been on NYPD Blue) "you have to let a few bad guys escape to be sure you don't jail anybody innocent."

I can only state again that it is not about votes, but about obtaining consensus decisions, adhering to policy etc etc. There is talk about reworking the policy to split VfD into a consensus making part and a vote making part, because at the moment there are a lot of people who think VfD should be nothing to do with votes whatsoever. Angela.

If you plan to stick to your guns on this, I would suggest it be discussed in public forum and the guidelines on counting VfD votes changed (or not) once a consensus has been reached. - But how on earth will we count those votes :)

xx Anjouli 05:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and archives of VfD and the deletion policy. This 'has been discussed. I am adhering to that policy and resent any implication that I am not. Angela.

I apologise unreservedly if I have given the impression I think you do not adhere to policy. That was never my meaning or intention and I do no think that. Quite the contrary, you are an example to us all on following proper policy. I just wanted to have a friendly discussion about something that concerned me.

There were only two points:

Firstly, someone has been tagging votes with a note saying you said they should not be counted. I accept you were misquoted, as you say. Matter closed.

Secondly, the VfD page says "Explain your reasoning for every page you list here". It does not say "Explain your reasoning for every vote you make here, otherwise it may not be given much consideration." If the second version reflects policy better thant he first, then perhaps it had better be changed to avoid any misunderstanding in future.

I have never questioned that votes from non-editors should not count.

Hope that clears up my meaning and no hard feelings. Anjouli 08:25, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Of course no hard feelings. I'll reply more when I'm a bit more awake and less likely to be snappy. :) Angela. 08:28, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
No problems. And good response to you-know-who, recently deleted from here. Anjouli 11:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Reply on your talk page. Angela. 18:18, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Medical Scientism[edit]

Re Medical Scientism: It seems to me that this offers an excellent example of the virtues of permanently closing some articles and only re-opening them for editing with the approval of some kind of review panel. As it stands now, the article is unexceptionable (naturellement, since I wrote it :) ), but as soon as it is unprotected Mr NH will revert it to the absurd rubbish it was before it was edited. Thus, the article will either have to be deleted (and probably Mr NH banned as well), or else permanently protected. The ongoing battles at Zionism and anti-Zionism are less clear-cut, but I think they show the same problem. Some articles will be the subject of revert wars for ever unless they are permanently protected. How is this compatible with the stated Wikipedia objective of creating a complete and accurate encyclopaedia? Adam 08:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea. Angela 08:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
As a newbie I have also wondered if there is a way around this problem. Perhaps a "fixed" version of WP where pages are transferred from the "edit" version after voting? Where would be the best place to discuss this? Anjouli 11:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You might be interested in m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, m:Referees, m:Wikipedia needs editors and Wikipedia 1.0. Angela
If you visit my Talkpage you will see some suggestions I have floated on this issue. Adam 11:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikisophia[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on Wikisophia, Angela. Danenberg 14:02, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That list again[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the VfU. I just have to shake my head. Smith03 would be amused. In spite of my initial skepticism, I have actually become quite fond of Fred Bauder's SPOV/"Criticisms of"/"Signed Article" concept. The multiple POV's do not have to fight over the same page space like they do here. So far anyway. :-) I still monitor your talk page and the mailing list every once in a while to keep up with whats going on. User:Ark30inf

Maya infringements[edit]

This looks resolved? Martin 20:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Hello :-) please read this [2] if you are not registered to the ml. Thanks Anthere

BrianGuidesUs[edit]

[...] You have done fine by me and you have my support. SpellBott 08:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ditto - UtherSRG 16:05, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't taking any of it seriously anyway. Trolling of VfD and the deletion policy is a common occurence on Wikipedia. You get used to it. ;) Angela. 18:54, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I wonder when you are going to make up your mind and close the book on this one. BrianGuidesUs 11:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki namespace[edit]

Thanks for the note on my talk page explaining why adding Vfd notices to pages in the MediaWiki namespace is a bad idea. I'm afraid that I'm still not up to speed with how the MediaWiki namespace works, because I completely missed all the discussions about it while they were happening, and now there's rather a lot of past discussion to go through... It seems to me that the introduction of meaningless-looking codes to ordinary Wikipedia articles just to make it easier to standardise stub notices and the like is itself a bad idea, but I suppose the idea is now too firmly entrenched for it to be worth my while trying to convince anyone of this... *grumble, grumble* -- Oliver P. 11:46, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeti disagreement[edit]

I would appreciate your input on talk:Yeti. Thanks! - UtherSRG 01:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's more than a troll fest. It's an absolute nightmare. We really need someone with clout to step in and set the pins up. The poll is getting us nowhere (I didn't set it up, and so LizardKing's sockpuppets are chiming in). If you can't step in, can you convince someone else with clout to step in? - UtherSRG 21:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As for the circumpunt, I'd wondered when someone would notice. I'll cease for now. - UtherSRG 21:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brianism[edit]

Phew! I think that was a good call. Thanks. I have no objection to the dispute notice. I'm all for free speech. Also saved me from sticking up my head and maybe getting it chopped. SpellBott 07:10, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now I can get back to fixing spellings - or is this Yeti thing going to be another Brianism (have not looked at it yet). Hope not.

Feel quite free to delete/edit this rather long comment. Just wanted to say thanks and recognise your ethics. I know we have different views on Brianism. SpellBott 07:10, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

erroneous dandelion pics[edit]

Hi Angela. I have another picture question. The images "Dandelionsmall.jpg" and "Dandelionlarge.jpg" are not dandelion but salsify. I think they should be deleted, rather than moved because they aren't that definitive and only the Tragopogon page links to them now. Is this something for VfD? or is there an "images for deletion" WormRunner 16:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks. I listed the pics. WormRunner 23:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Only Move-this-page used but history now gone[edit]

I posted an (increasing less) urgent tech question some 5 hours ago at Wikipedia:Village pump#Only Move-this-page used but history now gone without sign of response. Could you at least glance at it & recommend who to pose it directly to? Does it call for a developer? (BTW, thanks for the kind intent in not pointing out to me before that i was clueless abt how much could be done w/ "Move this page" w/o a sysop. [blush]). --Jerzy 01:29, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

I don't understand where the history of the original (i.e., List of people by name: Mas-Maz prior to today) is, or if lost, how that could happen. So i want to find out how to recover it, or whether i should report its loss as a server fault. --Jerzy 01:52, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

If you're missing my point, i am sure he will as well:

My understanding is that when one user uses "Move this page" to move A to B, and another then uses it to move B to A, the history of A will survive. Am i mistaken? (If so, i am quite satisfied to determine by questioning H. whether there is a better explanation than a server bug, but i discussing with them w/o being more confident that i understand the server specs is pointless and IMO divisive. --Jerzy 02:04, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

Many tnx, A., that is the hx i was expecting, and i am reassured that anyone can get it, even if i still can't. (I'll check on it again.) I'll also look at Tim's msg; i started kicking myself for looking repeatedly at VP's long content on my slow link a couple or 3 hours ago. [blush] Tnx again for yr patience with my poor communication. --Jerzy 02:20, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

Thanks Angela. As you have no doubt guessed, it's only Jack (Sam Spade), doing his usual best to stir up trouble. He reminds me very much of someone that used to be here and got hard-banned but I can't remember who. RK? DK? Something like that. No matter. He will presumably be banned before too long. Except if he mends his ways, of course, but unless I miss my guess, that will be a cold day in hell. Cheers -- Tannin

Transwiki[edit]

Could you give me some pointers as to how transwiki works? For example, at the top of the log right now is "Courtisanerie", which you moved to Wiktionary. It's been deleted from en, so where is the page history? As I understand it, deleting information on the authorship of the page breaks GFDL. Onebyone 01:23, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

An invitation[edit]

Angela, I cannot help but fear that some of your recent concerns regarding the arbitration committee are directed primarily at me rather than arising from broader issues of policy. Rather than dance around the point, I'd like to encourage you to join me in discussion of these concerns in a forthright and frank manner. I would welcome your reply here, on my talk page, or via email and would be happy to continue the conversation in any of those places or most any other of your choice. If I have misunderstood and your concerns are unrelated to me, please accept my apology. Best regards, UninvitedCompany 19:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Policy on schools[edit]

Thanks for referring me to the (non-)policy on schools. I'm probably one of those who would want to delete articles on schools again (with a few exceptions). On the other hand, as such articles are really not doing any harm we might as well keep them. I can see a certain parallel to the 9/11 victims though. All the best, <KF> 06:24, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Grotte Chauvet[edit]

Thank you for keeping eye on the Wikipedia.

I suppose this article is FOR IMMEDIATE DELETION!

This is a automated translation of the Drawing article into Russian. The only thing that was added is the following URL: http: // hevre.co.il/images/photos/581315_223161. JPG Title of this article seems to be Chauvet Cave - the cave with the cave drawings discovered by Jean-Marie Chauvet.

Broken title, broken body of the article. All other modifications of 212.199.130.130 were reverted. Just a very unusual case of vandalism. Drbug 11:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Annotation[edit]

No, I don't need that anymore, but are we scrapping the whole proposal? LDan 21:05, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reg MILF deletion[edit]

I'm quite simple and new to Wiki. The recent deletion and moving the page Mother I'd Like To Fuck to Wiktionary is the most stupid thing in the world (IMHO, but YMMV). In future, can we be less moronic? --Rrjanbiah 16:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't my decision so I don't see why are having a go at me about it. Take it up with those who voted for the move to occur. Angela. 00:14, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
I'm talking about those deletion policy. I'd thought the admins like you can take some measures so that no more such stupid things can happen in Wiki.--Rrjanbiah 01:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UnbannableOne[edit]

Angela, I respectfully object to your ban of "UnbannableOne" solely based upon his username. I submit that the only group to which the name "UnbannableOne" is offensive is that of admins who take an active role in banning. If he's causing problems, then fine, but I see nothing wrong inherently wrong with the name. Banning solely on a name that only *suggests* an attitude (without conclusively demonstrating it) sets, IMHO, a poor precendent with respect to Wikipedia's openness. -- Seth Ilys 17:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


For what it's worth, my view is: if someone puts a 'Kick Me' sign on themselves, they give up the right to complain if someone kicks them. —Morven 19:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's abundantly clear that UnbannableOne is an experienced, skilled wikipedian, and one well used to lawyering the minutiae of bans and blocks. It's too subtle to be Michael, too unsubtle to be DW, so it's probably EoT. -- Finlay McWalter 21:45, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In studying the log of UnbannableOne's activities, I saw no evidence that UB1 knew what he was doing. I think he was just a newbie testing the system. Perhaps he read about our banning policy in the Mercury News, or somewhere similar. - Tim Starling 23:23, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
They set up an email account (ub1@yahoo.com IIRC) to complain to wiki-en-l. It could just be that they want their identity protected, but the act still shows some determination to be present. --snoyes 23:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. I've replied on the mailing list, so I won't repeat myself here, but it was probably a bad idea to ban him. Angela 00:06, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)


Upgrading to Xserve G5?[edit]

Dear Angela, To solve your wiki database connection failures, I reccomend you get an Xserve G5 and an Xserve RAID to replace the Microsoft SQL server protocols, Also get Mac OS X Server 10.3. Jack Zhang 10:20, Jan 27 2004 (UTC)

Jack, first off, Angela's really not the best person to make this suggestion (Brion or Jimbo are, but I think they've already got things underway). Secondly, we don't use Microsoft SQL server, we use MySQL, which is entirely different. And thirdly a RAID appliance is of little use to us, given that the entire wikipedia database fits onto a CD-ROM (bar the images, I think, but it's still no comparison). -- Finlay McWalter 18:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is MySQL on an Windows Operating System over there? If so, switch to Mac OS X Panther on an Power Mac G5. Jack Zhang 12:09 Jan 27 2004 (UTC)
Jack, I have no idea. The wikitech-l mailing list would be a better place to suggest these things. Angela. 20:20, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

VfD[edit]

  • Hi, I can't use IRC from this (school) machine. Are you going to be handling RfD, IfD or VfD/copyvio in the immediate future? I'm bored enough to do it if not :). Pakaran. 20:43, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MME[edit]

He's back: user:Mariusz1Ernst - UtherSRG 21:01, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Slizor - beer[edit]

Urm, why do I need sources to back up the fact that beer is great? It's self-evident!:D

User:tannin[edit]

Tannin deletes anything I put on his user talk. And unless you delete the duplicated information, I am going to request mediation with tannin, and request he be de-sysop'ed. I am tired of him misusing his position as an admin to unfairly present a double standard on CbU. I added duplicate information, and you deleted it. He added duplicate information, and you revert me when I remove it. That is not acceptable. That is misuse of his position, and an acceptance of it by another admin. I never removed a complaint about me, I removed a portion of MY complaint against others un fairly clipped and placed in tannins complaint against me. Let me know ASAP what you are going to do, because I am tired of being publically shamed here. Sam Spade 03:20, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is a double standard on the wikipedia, and a clear hierarchy/clique. Thats normal, to be found everywhere. The problem is that it isn't acknowleged. The egalitarian spirit and anarchist ideals have combined with natural avoidance of stressful circumstances leading to poor rule enforcement for non-vandalism. These problems need solved, and your mediation committe is small, and ill motivated to this task. I am already seeking a name change, and I may have to leave the wikipedia on a rather sour note if harassment is steadilly ignored. Doing something is alot easier than you may think, but it requires a certain amount of effort. Thank you for your politeness, I've never found you otherwise. The problem is that if I am going to stay here I require a minimum of rule enforcement. And if the the wikipedia is going to grow, it needs to make people feel welcomed, not hated and shamed. Sam Spade 03:42, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Spade 05:46, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nominations[edit]

Thank you for the nominations at Wikisource and Wikiquote. Kalki 19:43, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Hey Angie! Could you please de-block me? Someone again has accidentally blocked me because I guess many AOL users are vandals or something. Im desperate I cant wait for the next articles I got in mind.

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours: Antonio dirty temptation Martin

Antonio, if you're leaving this message, you can't be blocked. :) Anyway, I'd need to know what your IP is to unblock you, which I don't. Also, you're a sysop, so you can unblock yourself! Just go to Special:Ipblocklist and click unblock next to your IP. Hope that helps. Angela. 07:51, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Angie: Thanks! Now to see if it works

God bless!

Sincerely yours, Antonio bow and kiss Martin

Habiru[edit]

Thank You Angela for deblocking the link at Habiru that must be Zestauferov's source for the wild extraterrestrial ethnico-linguistics there! I'm avoiding an edit war. Wetman 18:25, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unlock Scientific Skepticism[edit]

I think it's been locked too long, and it's locked with obvious errors, fallacies, and even lies.... - Lord Kenneth 21:08, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

    • I agree with Lord Kenneth. It is quite POV now and it needs some additions to make it less POV. Andries 23:50, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • . . .#4. I think Angela is psychic (which clearly makes me a nutbar pseudo-"scientist" idiot to whom you should not listen :). — No-One Jones (talk) 00:14, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Until you can come to some sort of agreement on the talk page, I think it is best the page stays protected. Angela. 13:41, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Re: deletion[edit]

Thanks. I've removed the links, as you suggested. — No-One Jones (talk) 22:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

New Imperialism[edit]

Why won't you protect New Imperialism -- without protection, mediation and discussion will not occur. Why will you not stop the edit war? Lirath Q. Pynnor

You have my permission to protect the page to any user's version, which you so desire. What is important is that the edit war stop, not what page is saved. The page must be protected, and remain so, until the mediation committee has time to help resolve the issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

:) Great, I have Lir's permission. That makes everything alright. Angela. 13:41, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Recipe removal[edit]

Thanks for the support regarding moving recipes to wikibooks. Now that the American recipes are out I'll slow down, allowing the discussion to continue, as well as some work I've got to do at the wikibooks cookbook, like recipe naming conventions and moving articles out of the transwiki namespace. Gentgeen 01:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What you're doing is absolutely right. Don't be put off by James' accusations of vandalism. Angela. 13:41, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
You might want to get ready for some heat though, I just transwikied the recipe from Christmas pudding. Maybe I should just go to bed and let the hate come in while I sleep :). Gentgeen 07:55, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Not brave, orderly. Australian and Argentine recipes were already over there, British came next on the list. If I'd been brave I'd have moved Christmas pudding and Welsh rabbit at the same time.Gentgeen

Where are you?[edit]

Angela, are you around ? ant

Brianism[edit]

Replied on my talk page. - UtherSRG 20:47, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Conflicts between users[edit]

Conflicts between users too long to edit? Don't worry, come and fight here instead


Reddi's on the move yet again-- he's trying to engage in an edit war with another article, Ekpyrotic. He is a real problem user.... - Lord Kenneth 01:38, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm "on the move yet again"? I'm contributing information, kenny ... sorry you have a problem with me doin that ... but that is not somethin I can help you with ...
"engage in an edit war with another article"? no ... see Ekpyrotic
"problem user" IYO ...
Angela, please review the scientific skepticism article's talk to get a background on why kenny hates me ... and review the points in the Ekpyrotic article ...
Sincerely, JDR

Skepticism-- you cannot always come to an agreement with trolls.

My criticisms have been ignored. My version is the accurate one. Most of the changes are proposed by Reddi, and if you view his history you'll notice he's not the most educated of people on topics he edits. Mainly, his biases are of certain fringe theories which he favors and the scientific establishment does not. That is why he and his pal Mirv are compelled to attack the page.

The problem is not a disagreement, the problem is of certain users in the disagreement-- ones unable to be reasoned with. - Lord Kenneth 22:03, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

criticisms have been ignored? No ... I would like to see your points brought out ... IF you acknowledge the opposing views (with the associated qualification of the all the sentences to relate all the information to the reader) ... soften the current version (but keep intact all the various points) ...
your version is the accurate one? IYO ... I'd be more than willing to have your points implemented ... IF there is an acknowledgement of the other points ... though that doesn't seem likely as your version, to your mind, is the only correct version ...
Most of the changes are proposed by me? are they? I didn't know that ... and I believe that you have been agreed with by some (I even can see where you are coming from .... I think, though I may be wrong there ... I'll reread it again) ...
"you view his history you'll notice he's not the most educated of people on topics he edits"? "Why should I refuse a good dinner simply because I don't understand the digestive processes involved". -- Oliver Heaviside ... if you notice, I did most of Einstein's Bio, Nikola Tesla's Bio, and various other "non-fringe" science articles ...
My biases? YMMV on that ...
"certain fringe theories"? Call them "fringe" ... or "pathological" ... doesn't mean that the information contained within isn't valid ...
And, as to your note on my views of the "scientific establishment" ... I like most of the "established" sciences ... sorry to disappoint you ... it's mainly how the established science conducts themselves that I find most disturbing ...
As to "my pal Mirv"? I don't even know Mirv ... I am not acting in concert with anyone ...
hmm .... how about you list the exact points that you disagree with on the Sci.Skep talk [put a bullet list] ... and I'd be willing to try the utmost to include them all? Hell, I may advocate your postion if you could acknowledge that there are valid criticisms ... then the article could address your points, my points, and everyone else's points .... If not, the article will be stuck in "edit hell" ...
What do you think? If not, I could try to summurize the comments that have been present up-to-now and write something ...
I really would like to reach some form of common ground .... and stop the flame wars ... it's not good for me, nor you, nor the reader, and (most o' all) not for wikipedia ....
Sincerely, JDR
I don't understand. Perhaps someone could translate that into English? Angela, can you read that? - Lord Kenneth 00:38, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't really attempted to. It looked like it was more aimed at you than me. Not quite sure why it's on my page at all...

Kylchap[edit]

Copied from [[]] for your attn:

Kylchap - needs work [per User:RickK.] - was summarily deleted & recreated in detail from my E2 work. —Morven + Attempt by Morven to skip the undelete process. Eligible for quick redeletion? Does someone want to put it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion? Jerzy

Is it something you feel free to delete, or should i put it onto VfD? TIA --Jerzy 00:33, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)

Ah! No problem; i misunderstood him as saying that he had writ the deleted version, and was defying whoever deleted it by putting back (from another place he had posted it) the deleted text, unchanged. IMO he expressed it misleadingly, and i don't understand why he deleted instead of overwriting, but that's neither here nor there. I'll clean up my mess. Tnx! --Jerzy 00:51, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)

I didn't do the delete, Infrogmation did. I saw it had been deleted and put another article there. —Morven 00:53, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Province of Posen[edit]

Would you like to delete this redirect: Province of Posen, so I can move Provinz Posen to the English name? Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion -- Nico 01:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Nico 01:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VP Header & Spacing[edit]

Hi Angela - good work on the Village Pump header msg. Slight glitch though in that it's throwing in a couple of blank lines. I went in and tried to remove any blanks, but this doesn't work. I think it's due to all the language codes at the end of the header. Can these be moved? I don't know what impact that will have so I'll leave it to you, but it would be good to remove the blanks. --HappyDog 04:23, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I still see them. That might have been me editing mediawiki to remove the blank lines, but it didn't work. Looking at the html I get the following code between 'For old discussion, see archive' and the TOC (although it only shows as 5 lines on the screen)

<p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <pre> </pre> <p> <p> <p> <p> <pre> </pre> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p>

Any clues? HappyDog

Fixed - well done! HappyDog

Meta[edit]

Good morning Angela

I very strongly disagree with what you did at meta. So, I reverted your changes. I do not think it is a good idea to make perfectly reasonable discussions, and wikipedia wide discussion disappear to replace them by discussions made by english people on the english wikipedia for the english wikipedia only. I am perfectly aware of why you did this, but unless we 1)declare that any article touched by a banned user at some point in their activity (even before being banned, and even if touched again by non-banned user) should entirely disappear, and that 2) meta is for english people only, this is not gonna happen. And till I am there, it is unlikely to happen :-)

Cheers.

Anthere

Thank you[edit]

Hello Angela,

Thanks for the welcome and the suggestions. I've only been signed on here for about 2 weeks - I'd never heard of wikipedia before but I saw something said about it on another discussion board, and it sounded interesting. And interesting it certainly is.

I've had a look through a lot of links in getting started and have now checked out the ones you mentioned. I noticed you did minor editing on a couple of things I've written which is helpful in learning how to format things correctly, so I appreciate that. As a clueless newbie :-) I've been flailing a little bit, but that's fine. I'm willing to learn. If you notice me doing anything inappropriate ... please just let me know.

thanks again.

rossrs

No problem. You're doing a great job. Not too clueless at all. :) Angela. 06:32, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fab![edit]

Two minutes after looking up an entry I found something I knew about that Wikipedia didn't. I added it as a new entry, sitting in my office in Australia. Only THREE minutes later, Angela in England edited my entry and improved on it.

This is awesome! Goodie

Move war[edit]

If you haven't noticed, our mutual friend is now trying to get in a move war with you... Pakaran. 04:30, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig : m:The Wrong Version[edit]

You shouldn't have protected a vandalized version of the Gdansk article. The anonymous user, also known as Gdansk and as Caius2ga, is a known vandal trying to destroy a worked out compromise there. And his edit comments are always misleading. You should rather have blocked him. He was about to be banned some months ago, but left voluntarily. I suggest you unprotect Gdansk in an hour or two, so we can revert to the unvandalized version Nico 06:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation. He is a vandal, and no one agrees with him. His edits are an unacceptable violation of the talk page. Anyone else would have reverted his edits. If someone write "Muslims are idiots" on the religion page, you don't need mediation. Nico 06:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While the Gdansk article was certainly having problems before this edit war, I think protecting it on a version that a) doesn't bold the common alternate/former name Danzig; and which b) mentions before Danzig a largely unknown alternative name in a local language/dialect, is a rather bad idea. I haven't checked User "Gdansk's" edits more carefully than this, but if he is indeed caius2ga, he combines the addition of worthwhile material with a complete unwillingness to discuss issues or compromise with others, and a very strong POV. Sigh, I'm not sure what is to be done, but perhaps we could at least protect on a version that bolds Danzig and mentions the Kashubian name somewhere later (at least that mentions it after mentioning Danzig)... john 07:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whichever version I'd protected would have been the wrong one. I just protected whichever one it was on at the time. It is not supposed to express support for that version. Angela. 07:18, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you weren't intending to express support for that version. But the very fact of protection does, essentially, privilege one version. At any rate, this page was protected for weeks before on a bad version. And now, with caius2ga back, it'll probably stay protected again for weeks on this bad version. Which is rather frustrating. As I said, I'm not sure what is to be done, at this point, given the protection procedure, which I rather wish gave more discretion to sysops to use judgment in determining what version to protect. john 07:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even Wik and Cautious had accepted that Danzig should be bolded. I think the page now can be unprotected, as caius apparently has left (for today, at least). Nico 11:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, the dispute was not at all about whether Danzig should be bolded. I think about everyone had agreed on that until "user:gdansk" came in. If there'd been an edit war over the things we'd actually been arguing about (what the city should be called in the 19th and early 20th centuries, for instance), I wouldn't really care what version it was protected on. But it's grating for a quasi-trollish contributor to come in and get his version protected. Ah well. Let's see if he stays around. john 00:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vegetation succession[edit]

No worry Angel. The editor who added the content, added it both to vegetation succession and ecological succession. Since it was not very...convincing...Lexor moved the content from the ecological succession page to its talk page, then came to me to ask if I could have a look. So I reworked the content (I added little actually, but improved the article a bit with the idea). It is only a couple of days later I discovered the same content has been added to vegetation succession. So, the history of this person edit is well in standing in the ecological article. Hope that is clear :-))) fr0069

The Wrong Version[edit]

Just have to say, I thought your new meta page is hilarious/sad/so true. I've been involved with page protection twice, I think, and I recall regretting it both times. Bravo to you for sticking with it--you're doing good work. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

Is there a limit on who can vote for or against a page's deletion? -Branddobbe 20:03, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

AWESOME! Thanks! -Branddobbe 20:32, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

That was clearly a very bad mistake. I could have sworn I saw your name just above. This is particularly poor timing for any such error. I think I'm going to leave for awhile. Sorry, and Goodbye. Sam Spade 23:13, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copyright restrictions[edit]

I just edited the Standard Header link on the C++ page - have I violated any copyright restrictions? Yhat was not my intention. Iceberg54

Re: Mackem[edit]

Angela, as regards the word Mackem, as the person who made the entry, I have now changed the text and left a cutdown version (the main entry version and not on the talkboard).

However, can I also point out that I am the actual copyright holder of the text at: [3]...the original of which is at: [4]. I posted to the 'Phrase Finder' in respose to someone's question on the Discussion Forum there.

Ian (alias 'Beefy')

Ignore the conflicts for a while[edit]

A reasonable request...especially if you make it to Mav as well.168... 01:47, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

O.K.. Thanks. I don't make an absolute promise to stay mum come what may be posted by others, but I'll put myself on tight restraint.168... 01:53, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, I bit my lip through one of Mav's replies. Not great restraint. Sorry. Maybe better this time... 168... 02:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 17:53, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Takano, Yayori[edit]

I noticed the article when it was listed on VfD. No consensus was made and the article is left intact. So I put a warning to the article that factuality is disputed and no such name is wellknown in her alledged home land. I certainly did that, but it was wiped out along with its edit history. I will apologize if my expression made anger of you or someone else, but I just tryed to say what the article states are at least disputed. I hope it is a just innocent joke, but it can be used for some deception purposes. "Look! I am great, belive me". And, what I most want to know is that whether it is possible to revert some edit along with its history. Thank you. -- Takanoha 14:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

For some reason I didnt see your message. I think civility should be deleted and incivility moved there. Better yet, we should move that matter to the Wikipedia:Civility page. -戴&#30505sv 20:15, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sysop Protection Pledge[edit]

Take the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll?168... 00:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arabic[edit]

Hello Ang, I answered you on my talkpage on de:. --elian

[edit][edit]

Hello Angela! Thank you for fixing my D.510 page. I have just finished Amiot 354 page and unfortunately I now have little [edit] tags all over my table, ruining my formatting. What can I do about it? Thanks.

Neopeius (Gideon)

Nazism and socialism[edit]

S&N - Could you please take a look? Spelling... 戴&#30505sv 03:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NP! I understand, but the issue wasnt edit war - it was "judge the quality of" that you could know it - that its fair and NPOV. But its just not interesting to you, so I understand.

-戴&#30505sv 04:02, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cruickshank[edit]

Why are you moving VfD votes to talk pages, specifically George Francis Cruickshank? --Wik 17:50, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I just undeleted George Francis Cruickshank. Tomorrow will be five days. so unless the vote suddenly swings the other way or someone else beats me to it, I will redelete it then. -- Viajero 23:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sant Cassia Page[edit]

Hi, Well dispute or not, if you look in the articles history, look at the many users reverting back, what the user above has written.

I started the page, I didnt think it would be changed, when only information that is true and fact should be put there.

Can the Page Sant Cassia just have temp protection, it doesnt need to be edited or changed at all, just left as it is. Ghariexem

Velvet R[edit]

Not only did i get an Edit Conflict with you; when i tried to recover, the matter i was going to post my public apology under was gone! [smile] I'll post it on my talk & RickK's instead. (And try to work faster in future.) --Jerzy 03:54, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

Hmm. "Sorry", but you show it by turning around and Edit Conflicting me on my own Talk page??? [broad wink]

Well, at least this time, my target hadn't disappeared. [smile]

On a different subject, do you understand why i twice got an edit-window for == .... Cruikshank== instead of ==Velvet R== just now? (I gave up & used Post a Comment) --Jerzy 04:09, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

I don't feel right failing to ack yr msg abt my mis-sited query, at least to say "OK, i'll strive to take that advice in the future." Tnx. [smile] --Jerzy 05:16, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

Your OMA membership[edit]

Hi Angela, and welcome to the Office of Members' Advocates. As the de-facto interim coordinator I've added a link to your talk page on the talk page of the association; if you want to add any more contact information that you feel comfortable with please do so. I've started writing a few other pages and if you want to contribute to any of those pages or do some editing that would be great. Once we have a few more members we might try to have a membership meeting to discuss how we might act as a group or help each other with our new-found volunteer role. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 04:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Atlantium[edit]

Would you mind locking Atlantium overnight or so? Wik is being a pain and reverting me and a LOT of other people there. Thanks. Pakaran. 04:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, Fuzheado did it. Pakaran. 04:24, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Table problem[edit]

The table at U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 has indeed been fixed, yes. Thanks for removing my note from Village Pump. -- Vardion 04:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sysopings at meta[edit]

It was an accident, sorry. Bmills

Hockey[edit]

What's with reverting Eldawg's links? The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim link was fine, added relevant information. -- user:zanimum

User Soul kitch[edit]

Hi, an update: User Soul kitch contribs reinserted his previous comments and added new ones to Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004, and I removed them once again to his Talk page. I am hoping that it doesn't escalate beyond this. -- Viajero 18:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero deleting all contributions by one person[edit]

Angela, forgive me for bothering you with this rather tiresome matter.

Viajero is deleting all contributions by Soul kitch on Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004. I do not understand the seemingly personal animus that Viajero has against this person. Can you speak to Viajero about this? How should matters like these be handled? OneVoice 19:50, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Having just seem Viajero comments above....is there some history here that I am not aware of? OneVoice 19:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Agnosticism has been protected for 10 days now. What needs to happen to have it unprotected? Banno 20:00, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected. Angela. 23:08, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath. Death camp has been protected for over two months. --Wik 20:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Wik, if you sort out your differences with Lir, it can be unprotected. Angela. 23:08, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sysopish things[edit]

Thanks for the reply, but what I was looking for was more of a technical "how-to". I don't appear to be able to edit protected pages (there's no "edit this page" button or other indicator), a little "rollback" does not appear by lists of contributions, and I have no idea how to delete pages. What buttons do I press, and where are they? Thanks for the help, Meelar 22:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Julian Delphiki[edit]

I see that you moved this content to Ender's Shadow. Since then, the content has been moved back and the redirect erased by anonymous users. Should the redirect be reestablished? --Sennheiser! 23:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

thanks. --Sennheiser!

Village pump[edit]

Yes, thats better. I guess I got a little carried away (hehe). (I have gotten fed up with people asking for affiliate links at least once a day.) Thanks again.--Sennheiser! 23:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My recent Edits (msg:communitypage}[edit]

None of the pages I have edited today contain the VfD stub. Most are pages that I would expect to be pretty permanent (Welcome Newcomers etc.) Are you sure you've got the right user? If so I don't understand your comment. --HappyDog 00:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not linking to the Wikipedia:Community Information Directory page, but to a boilerplate at Template:Communitypage. I found that there were a lot of similar but different links, and thought this would be a better approach. It doesn't matter if the page is moved or renamed because we can just change the boilerplate, or blank it if we want to lose it completely. --HappyDog 00:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah - having gone back to my watchlist I do agree. However I know me and if I didn't do it all together I would have got distracted and left it half done, so I guess it is probably better this way. Sorry! --HappyDog 01:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've done it before and I know it bugs you :) --HappyDog 01:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

People changing peoples' words[edit]

Please check my recent note at User talk:Jwrosenzweig. Look familiar? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk[edit]

Hello. I seem to be involved in an edit war over Gdansk. Perhaps protection is in order. john 04:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Emails take a while...[edit]

Hi Angela - We haven't met yet (I'm a newbie) and I apologize if this question has been put in the wrong place (but from what I'm read so far you look fairly competent and active, so I trust you to know what to with it). Well, I sent a test email from within my user account and it took _4_ days to get delivered to my mail box, which is uncommon. EMail header (and message body) shown below:

Return-Path: <apache@mail.wikipedia.org>...

Thanks for looking into that -- Palapala 16:34, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

I was made a sysop sometime today. Thanks a lot for your help. Yours, Meelar 05:29, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yellow Pig Day[edit]

You should look at the talk page for YPD. I've readded the votes which were deleted by wik and bolded the actual votes. Anthony DiPierro 01:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You don't care about YPD, but you continue to discuss it on the talk page? Anthony DiPierro 02:17, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

WP:AIC: I put it there, as simply general note that you, among others, would be invited at some point. You may still be, if someone is foolish. :) -戴&#30505sv 03:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Short on time, Ill be blunt: Why did you move the AIC page to the Wikipedia namespace? Considering you want no part of it, was that proper ettiquette? -戴&#30505sv 23:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with all that you said, except your use of the word "wrong" was never substantiated, and completely avoided. Why is Wikiproject:Vietnam Warthe "wrong" namespace? To say "it just is" and should be "Wikipedia:Wikiproject:" is absurd. Ideally, Wikiproject: would be its own metanamespace, but theres no need for it to be so, is there? -戴&#30505sv 00:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Fie! Silly reasons, all. But I hope you will agree with me in suggesting on BVTDL that Wikiproject be mad a meta:namespace. -戴&#30505sv 00:52, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed! You and I always could resolve our conflagrations without much caterwauling. :) -戴&#30505sv 01:00, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168...[edit]

Your help is requested, since a Sysop of whom you are aware has alas abused his sysop powers.

In summary, the 168.../Lir edit war restarted at DNA, but this time with the unfortunate twist that 168... has protected the page at his preferred version. (In case you haven't followed this particular saga at all, there was a series of three votes taken about which version of the two opening paragraphs should be used, and a version emerged which has the support of 6 out of the 8 participants. Basically, 168... and Lir insisted on their own versions.)

It is fine for the page to be protected (against Lir), but the "frozen version" should be the one that was agreed to by the community. (If you look at the edits, you will see that many people besides me have reverted back to this near-consensus version.) Thanks! Peak 01:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Deleting cs pages[edit]

Dear Angela,

thank you for your answer. OK, I'll try m:Talk:Bureaucrat. Miroslav MALOVEC hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since 18 December 2003.

-- Vít Zvánovec 17:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VP Talk Cleanup[edit]

Well done on the summary Angela. Much better now! --HappyDog 18:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I guess I'll wait, and perhaps Jimbo will take an interest before she comes back.168...|...Talk 19:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration rationale[edit]

I've written a short-ish rationale for the Policy of the Arbitration Committee as it currently stands, and as you have been noticable in your concern about the way it's been developing, I thought you might want to have a look at it. Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 18:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem; I started doing it really just so as to work out for myself a philosophy behind what we were deciding in a consistent manner, and it sort of somehow became seemingly worthwhile. Gosh.
As you note, it's not yet finished, as the Policy isn't, but the we on the Committee are trying to get things done as quickly as possible.
Hope that you're similarly helped by the finished article.
James F. (talk) 03:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So we meet...[edit]

Hi, Angela

I began today's session finding my userpage cleaned up by one Dittaeva. Then I visited a few of the Recent changes pages, and ran into a few comments by Dittaeva. Finally, I settled in to check my own pages before adding new material later. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to see that Dittaeva had edited my article on the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and had added a very, very sweet link. Small world.

I'm enjoying myself here - glad to have made your acquaintance.

Denni 00:57, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

Anjela[edit]

You might want to keep an eye on User:Anjela. RickK 20:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VfD[edit]

Angela, I laboured for over an hour and nine minutes to fix VfD after an unnoticed edit conflict. Attempting to be thorough and make sure nobody's work was lost, I posted a header warning people to please check that I'd properly and completely re-added their edits, and you let that stay up for all of fifteen minutes before replacing my notice with an innocuous and sure to be ignored banality.

"Please see the talk page for an edit conflict announcement from orthogonal" doesn't say there had been a conflict, that it was fixed, or ask anyone to check on the fidelity of the fix. For all the reader knows, it's self-evident general annoucement along the lines of "Edit conflicts bad, four legs good."

Text fidelity, as I've mentioned before to you, is something I take somewhat seriously, which is why I went to so much trouble to fix the edit conflict damage in the first place.

I wanted people to see the notice so they'd know that their edits were back, or I'd know from them that I'd missed something. You could easily have waited longer than fifteen minutes, or even replaced my notice with an easily clicked link rather than a text reference few will bother to track down.

I realize Wikipedia is all about editing boldly, but perhaps in the future you could pause a bit longer to consider others' feelings. Thanks. orthogonal 23:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Non-deletion[edit]

I don't remember in particular why I removec Unilang and Infosecpedia, but it was almost certainly by accident. If I had meant to remove them with a decision of "keep", I would've removed their VfD headers with an edit summary like "consensus to keep" or "no consensus to delete", while in this case it appears I didn't remove the VfD headers at all. Thanks for pointing that out; I'll be more careful in the future. =] --Delirium 00:44, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

New user[edit]

Hi Angela. Do you know if Cesarb is new here? The account is new but he doesn't act new, and I'll feel silly greeting him if he's been around for a while... Isomorphic 02:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, just noticed that while he has very few edits, some are more than a year old. I saw "February" on the first edit and didn't register "2003". I feel silly. On a related note, I just created Wikipedia:New user log as a place for new users to say hi and give everybody a chance to meet them. It's an experiment for now, but you might want to put something into your standard greeting that suggests they sign in. I posted the rationale in the welcome committee talk page. Isomorphic 03:15, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)