User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive24

User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/GNAA_test

This page you have created seems to be attracting trolls from GNAA who are adding racist nonsense to the page. I have reverted these changes. Perhaps it is the name of the page that is attracting these trolls to add their nonsensical offensive diatribes. What exactly is that page for? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu, I hope you're having an awesome honeymoon. I went ahead and protected your GNAA test page because it seems to have come to the attention of a couple of trolls. I'll just leave it like that and you can unprotect it if you wish when you return from your honeymoon. Cheers, Sarah Ewart 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

About Image:Gnaa.png

I see someone asked you about this in Dec 2004, but I have brought up these concerns again on the image talk page and listed this at WP:PUI as the originating website seems to be maintaining it's trademark and copyright on this image. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image tags

Please don't remove image tags (like you did here). If done in apparent bad faith in can be considered a form of vandalism (Avoidant vandalism). --Oden 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Just letting you know, I greatly respect the neutrality you've shown at Wikipedia. Hope that you do take look at the GNAA deletion review. While you're at it, could you take a look at user:Timecop? The arguments against him are full of hyperbole.. and, well, you can come to your own conclusions... Regards Skrewler 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More congratulation

Welcome to the club! Rich Farmbrough, 13:30 10 December 2006 (GMT).

Gordon Cheng

Hi there - I know you've been a fan of keeping Gordon Cheng before - just letting you know someone's planning to nominate it for deletion (again...). If you want some help I can try and source some information. JROBBO 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

You seem to see the GNAA thing as a win/lose situation for yourself... i.e. if it stays around, you win. But that's not really how it is, the more you defend it the worse you look, Wikipedia has changed and realized the article is unimportant, unverifiable junk and mainly here because a bunch of people got trolled in the earlier days. If you just let it go, people will respect you much more than if you keep arguing something the community has long lost its patience with. I'm just explaining how I see it, sorry if that's offensive but I think it's correct and I don't mean to offend. I hope you come back, but I think part of that might be accepting that things have changed somewhat and that no one thinks badly of you because the GNAA article was deleted. I was recently thinking about getting Windows 95 to featured article status (for historical value) and using Windows XP as a guide, which of course you nominated, so the idea that I personally don't appreciate your work (and thus want you around) is wrong. --W.marsh 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• You were equating me wanting GNAA to stay deleted deleted with me wanting you to leave Wikipedia... my point is that whether you realize it or not, you were taking this personally, and I don't think the community at all sees the deletion as something that reflects badly on you. Also I point out that it was speedy closed as a keep many times (including ones where I made a serious argument for deletion and was ignored) to the one time it was speedy closed as a delete, so coming out against early closes of a controversial AfD is a nearly a year overdue in this case. Anyway, you're one of the more accomplished FA writers from what I can tell and I just have one to my credit so far, so again I respect what you've done and hope you stick around. Wikibreaks and periods of having a "low profile" are very healthy in the long-term. --W.marsh 04:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your participation in Wikipedia

I too have seen various comments you've made indicating that you might lose interest in this site because of the deletion of the GNAA article or related matters. I frankly never focused on that issue until the article was already deleted, but I would hate to lose a valued editor and contributor over something that I would have to consider, whatever the merits of the article, as of peripheral importance to the project as a whole. I join with those who strongly urge that whatever your disagreement with the outcome on that narrow issue, you continue your valued participation. And I also join in the congratulations on the wedding. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Heya

Sure! Do you have my email address? :) Rebecca 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An image of Windows CE 3.0

• Can we have a screenshot for Windows CE 3.0, showing the front screen when the WinCE 3.0 device starts up? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Does it have to be taken off an actual device? or a screenshot from the emulator is enough? --tyomitch 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, see if this fits. I'm going to remove your request from Wikipedia:Requested pictures, if you don't mind. --tyomitch 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Belated Congratulations

Not your typical wedding cake but original. Congratulations! (it took me forever to find the image hence the delay :o -- Tawker 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth pic

FYI, it's not a fake Raul654 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:A tsang cashinhand.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:A tsang cashinhand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft

I have to say that it is the actual title of the report, with a zero instead on letter O. [1] and please read the actual pdf, especially the executive summary in page 3, before calling someone vandal. SYSS Mouse 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. However, I think the person who wrote the paper use the word "0wnership" intentionally, according to the news. Also the paper used the acronym "TC0" (again, zero) throughout the paper. Hence I wrote thatparagraph in that way.SYSS Mouse 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exploding whale FAR

Exploding whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Richard Blumenthal.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Richard Blumenthal.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Meet!

See Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials

Gordo 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

oh ...

Ta bu, I wish you wouldn't say that. It's not my intention that good WPians be turned off. There are now good resources offering copy-editing assistance in some circumstances (The League of Copyeditors). And there are your collaborators.

Others manage; you can too, I'm sure.

Tony 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. Unfortunately, I'm having to severely restrict my activities on WP because of my workload—until early May. Most good contributors go through low periods; have a Wikibreak and come back fresh. Tony 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Too kind, you are. Have a nice little break and come back with your ideas. Tony 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Just got back from a few weeks away, and I see you were in London. It is a shame to have missed you. Did you have a good time? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Looking at the article, I can't even see why I deleted it. I guess I just hit the wrong button, since there isn't even a reason, which I always give unless it's tagged already or obvious junk. I spend a lot of time (too much) working through CSD or NP, and delete hundreds of "articles".

Inevitably, I make mistakes, and if I accept that I have deleted an article that is in fact retrievable, I will work with the creator to address POV/notability issues. I've even added "hang on" tags. However, in this case, no excuse at all, mea culpa. mea maxima culpa, sorry again Jimfbleak.talk.18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point with Tellapadu. Although a long term and experienced editor, it's only relatively recently that I've systematically worked CSD and NP, so I'm still not always making the right choice. The good news is that hopefully my holiday in Feb will give me more bird articles to write instead, and they are less likely to cause problems. Jimfbleak.talk.06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)~

Look again

I will recast my vote, but I actually voted delete. Clay4president2 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's all good. Clay4president2 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary. This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important.

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

• Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
• User contributions - list of all your edits
• Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
• diff page - shows the difference between two edits
• Recent changes - list of all recent edits
• Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
• Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
• List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to this very rude automated message: "Yeah well, I'm not. Tough." - Ta bu shi da yu 10:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My message was neither automated nor rude. You are being rude by not providing an edit summary. This may cause some bots to believe you are a vandal and revert your edits on the spot. If that happens, I won't help you. Will (Talk - contribs) 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

From various talk pages of Wikipedia Revelvant diffs –

• [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you explain your rationale for soliciting keep votes for this MfD? Aren't you aware that this is not acceptable? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I care very little. After the whole GNAA debacle, I see how very easy it is to bypass AFD. All you need to do is say: move this to another article name. Once this is achieved, resubmit to AFD. I figured that all those who voted in support of the keeping the article should be made aware that there is was some campaigning going on to remove the article, for no good reason in particular. Are you saying that the editors should not have been told what is going on? Hmmm... hardly seems very fair now, does it? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick is right, this kind of one-sided votestacking is unacceptable. Please stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A compromise on XfD participant notificiation?

Do you think it may help if you say that in future, you'll try to notify those who participated in previous debates regardless of which way they argued? Andjam 12:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: What on earth?

There were only like, 35 or 6 people, who wanted it merged. Most others wanted it either deleted or kept as it was. I have reverted - I can't understand how you came to this conclusion!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to find a peaceful solution before anyone (you or Nick) gets in any more trouble. But if that's not what you want, then that's ok, I really don't care either way about the debate. --bainer (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's OK to go around ignoring consensus?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say "result". As in I don't really mind what the result turns out to be, I was just making an effort to reach a reasonable solution that would avoid further problems. In case you didn't notice my reasoning for closing the debate as I did, it's in the big box marked "Closer's notes" just under the heading. You should look at the second paragraph, where I say that in the end, the case for merging as presented by Carcharoth, Mindspillage et al struck a good balance between having the useful information around and concerns about keeping it all together on a page about vandalism, which were in fact the arguments raised by almost all the participants in the debate. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

It was certainly a judgement call and probably a controversial one, but I think Bainer made a sound decision. He went by the arguments instead of the raw numbers. It addresses the concerns of the delete 'voters' by not glorifying vandalism by giving it its own page, and it still saves the material from getting deleted. If you want to do anything I recommend you work on merging the material.

Is there any particular reason you want this kept at that particular location as opposed to the material being kept "in general"?

On an unrelated note: Far too often I see someone say keep or delete when there's a middleway the comment isn't even addressing. I wonder why that is.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Because it's quite useful to point out where the media (not your run of the mill vandals) have been vandalising Wikipedia." I don't see how this would argue for a particular location of the text. Can you clarify? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a topic on your user talk about this, I guess I'll jump in, too. In response to your repeated messages on my talk page: I never "voted" keep - or delete - in the prior AFD. I merely commented that vandalised may be spelled with an "s" or a "z." As the MFD has now closed, I will not be participating. Srose (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it; I just wanted to let you know I don't have an opinion on that particular article / project page. :) Have a good one! Srose (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Incidently, if you're on holiday and can't respond quickly to admin decisions, can I suggest that you don't make them? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest you perhaps calm down?  Glen  13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You have an away message. What happens if you make an admin decision and then someone asks you about it, and you don't respond for a week? What happens then, in all fairness to the one who has just had admin action taken against them? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens then? Well, ahem, this may sound a little complicated, thats why there's a notice stating "Glen is currently away on holiday and may not respond swiftly to queries." There's another 1000 or so admins can help after all...

Honestly, I dont think you realise just how confrontational and (some may say) even childish you're acting over this whole thing. Can you imagine if everyone acted this way after an XfD didnt go their way; and, from what I've seen this is completely out of character for you. It's late, sleep on it, nothing will have changed in a few hours trust me.  Glen  13:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Biting oldbies!

Nice to see a sane old wikipedian get bitten by the deletion processes ...

Wait... that came out wrong ;-)

I think having people of known good faith trip over crazyness in systems like this is sometimes useful to get people to wake up and maybe do something about them. <crosses fingers and hopes it's not too late>

So like, sorry to see you get bitten, but, hopefully some good will come of it. --Kim Bruning 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument

Per your suggestion, I started an essay under that title. My own concern, reflected in the essay itself, is that admins not preemptively discount other editors' opinions by insisting that they be argued with reference to insider jargon. But since WP:DONT was otherwise occupied, the short form I chose was WP:BASH. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:)

No problem, we all do it on occassion! Thanks for the apology, appreciated :)  Glen  00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Essay disputes

Hello. I'm doing some of my usual newcat patrolling and I noticed you created Category:Essay disputes earlier today. I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical about the usefulness of that category. The description you give for it is pretty subjective and I can't help but think that you created it with the sole purpose of placing Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in it. I will probably submit it to CfD unless you can convince me that I'm missing something. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well with all due respect, the template is not that good either. It is way too affirmative and basically says "this essay sucks" rather than "the relevance of this essay is disputed". Note that I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, but I do think you've made a mistake. Pascal.Tesson 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as a template, why not make one that simply says "The reasoning and/or conclusions of this essay are disputed; see talk page"? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image source

Image:Kuro5hin logo.png has no source. Please add. --Ysangkok 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Wikipedia

Yes, I was listening to it as well! (I've also listened to the podcasts the last few weeks, but this was the first time this summer I heard them live!) -- Chuq 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good issue to bring up at the Australia Portal or Project talk pages - as I am sure others would be interested to see that! SatuSuro 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Broom

You recently said that Wikispace was quite messy. I've heard some related complaints about the issue... perhaps it is time to clean it up somewhat. Certainly it is confusing to many users, and not just the novices. At any rate, perhaps you have a suggestion on how we could accomplish this? >Radiant< 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I don't see how moving them to meta can help, since on meta it's also true that anyone can write any essay for any reason, and meta has quite a bunch of superfluous pages. Deletion is unlikely to work, although you're likely to try. Perhaps we should be userfying more essays, but I suspect this will meet with strong opposition. >Radiant< 10:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

This is late, but congrats at saving exploding whale's star. Since I joined, that's been one of my favourite articles, along with Xenu. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is your username a Chinese sentence?

And if so, what does it mean? (My first thought was: 他不是大雨, "He is not a heavy rain", but I'm guessing probably not.--Aervanath 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. How long have you been studying Mandarin? Where did you study it? I am currently studying in Taipei.--Aervanath 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I had always thought it was "he is not a big fish"!61.88.124.217 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Luyisi - not logged in)

It is :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's so much easier to work out when it's written! (LuYiSi, not logged in =) 61.88.124.217 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Lou 03:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image to be deleted

Thanks for notifying me about the coming deletion of Image:MarkDevlin.jpg. This was used in the Mark D. Devlin article that I wrote, that was deleted by a out-of-control administrator. It can always be uploaded again after the administrator is terminated for cause. --LymanSchool 12:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was written my Mark Zanger and myself from public sources that got their information from Mark Zanger. Naturally, the text is going to seem similar. However, it was carefully rewritten in my sandbox to eliminate any concurrance of similar words used in the cited references. It was then EVEN DELETED FROM MY SANDBOX! The text is now on my website as http://book.abominablefirebug.com/Devlin.html. Now it won't be deleted. I will wait for the out-of-control administrator to be removed before I contribute anything more. --LymanSchool 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This just might paper over a much greater problem. Please read User talk:LymanSchool#Copyright and Wikipedia. Some highly aggressive administrators do not have a clue. The one who deleted a number of my articles seems to think that if information exists in a cited article, then there is a copyright violation. This means that anything that is well referenced will eventually get deleted. There are other problems, as well. That same administrator states in the deletion logs, and by tagging articles, that if the writer is involved in any way with the information presented in an article, then somehow that article is invalid and needs to be deleted. This is absurd. This means that the only remaining articles will be those written from hearsay. So, I am not going to waste anymore of my time with Wikipedia, thank you. --LymanSchool 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikinomic

Greetings, and welcome to the trenches! I appreciate people trying to figure out how to get this guidelines mess under control. But um handing out munitions indiscriminately might not always be a great idea. Tends to make situation more explosive, and hands a lot of power to nomic players too.

Hmmm, could you please describe how your "essay" is descriptive, and not prescriptive? Or do you contend that this rule must not apply to "essays"? Or do you contend that this rule does not exist, because it is not written down?

--Kim Bruning 11:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (the reason I put "essay", "guideline", "policy" in quotes is because so far no one has ever convinced me there is a functional difference. It could be I'm jut nuts, but on the other hand, no one seems to have even made much of an effort to try. )

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ssme fatron1 800x600.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ssme fatron1 800x600.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiwi Foo Camp

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers Saganaki- 10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography of living persons adminship

"Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Wikipedia." Please see WP:BLPADMIN to offer your thoughts on this proposal. CyberAnth 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD

I've actually been a wikipedian since Feb 2003, and an admin for most of the time. The increased traffic has occurred because I've taken on a lot of CSD patrol, and people often want further clarification of why their favourite band/football team/company's article has been deleted. Usually after clarification on their talk page, esp wrt notability, there is no more problem.

As for the occasional abuse (especially when deserved), I wouldn't do CSD if I couldn't cope. Anyway, a couple of weeks in South Africa should refresh the system. Thanks for your support, and for being the first person to move the message back to the bottom! jimfbleak 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for de-chickening me !

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

And it doesn't occur to you that slapping a totallydisputed tag on it would be insulting to those of us who've spent dozens of hours actually *reading* the sources cited? Doesn't occur to you that we've have actually done the work and are correctly paraphrasing those arguments, statements, facts, opinions, etc? You just assume that since the case is so one-sided that it *must* be wrong without even, ever, having, actually, read any of the sources in question. Curious isn't it? Wjhonson 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated before, adding {{totallydisputed}} was not a means of disparaging anyone. It's a totally valid and acceptable way to flag to the reader that an article has problems. It would be far better to fix the problems than feel that I was deliberately trying to insult anyone. A spot of calm, a general assumption of good faith and a bit less defensiveness would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are statements in the article that need citations then add a {{fact}} tag to those statements. That is what we all do. Changing the language however to say something completely different is not research, it's your opinion. Doesn't have a place in the article. Wjhonson 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are, but that doesn't mean that {{totallydisputed}} should not be added. It's a way of flagging to readers that there are problems that are being worked on at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to do that without this offensive tag. And instead of putting your citations on the Talk page, put them on the article itself. Wjhonson 08:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No more circular arguments. All correspondence with Wjhonson shall now be done on the talk page of relevant articles, where we can focus on the task at hand. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GNAA?

I have been informed by some that you can grant access to the page history of Gay Niggers Association of America. Although I have my doubts about this, seeing the lack of an admin template on your page, I would like to review the page as I was on a self-imposed wikibreak during the deletion discussion and would like to see the source material in order to better understand the discussion as well as to check for potentially salvagable content. With apology for the inconvenience, --Frenchman113 on wheels! 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

"We can't propose anything, as this is saying a POV." I dont propose anything. The article is a suggestion or proposal of sexuality. That is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the citied sources. I may not have worded it correctly, however its current edit is also not. There are still problems with the article. Intro is one problem and Kramer paragraph is the other. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

MDAC discussion

I have created a new MDAC discussion on the MDAC talk page. Please read it before undoing my work again --KlaasNekeman 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your dog

Sorry to hear about the death of your dog. They just don't live long enough do they? From a fellow wikipedian who loves dogs. Jerry lavoie 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Heya

Could I ask why Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is failing was just deleted? Are you going to restore/fix this? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had already restored it before I received this message.

CyberAnth copy-pasted the essay and its talk page to Worldtraveller's user space. Copy-paste moves are a violation of the GFDL. I speedily deleted the copies, and started to compose a message to CyberAnth, but before I had saved it, he reposted a copy of the essay, and pasted a redirect at the userspace talk page. I redeleted the copy-paste essay, and thought I was re-deleting a copy-paste talk page, having not noticed I had been redirected the second time. Gosh, that sounds complicated - just take my word for it: it was an honest mistake. Hesperian 00:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the context - a highly contentious essay, a lot of noses out of joint, and too many people being BOLD - you could have been excused for biting my head off. Thanks for the forbearance. Hesperian 11:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:EP-101.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EP-101.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of IT Service Management providers

Another one for my watchlist! ;) --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1FAPQ + Adminship

Thank you for your kind words and your support at RfA. Ya, I think WP:1FAPQ is a good idea, but it hasn't yet reached a critical mass that might affect the total volume of successful FACs. I was hoping some people browsing RfA might notice it. Note, if you're really busy you can bump the Patriot Act up to the second quarter. Marskell 07:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ATT

Hey Ta bu, good to hear from you. I'll write up a proper response for you tomorrow about NOR, V, and ATT, but in short I agree we need to proceed carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt's RfA

Question four has been answered, are you now going to reconsider your neutral? 1ne 08:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request an account

Place this page on your watchlist. If multiple IPs have edited, you'll have to go through the page's history diff by diff, because it seems like 80% of them unknowingly replace someone else's request with their own. Follow the instructions here to actually create the account. If the account already exists, double check- if it's a relatively new account, you might tell the software to e-mail them a new password; if you think that the users are unrelated, shoot them an e-mail, and ask them to e-mail you back with a new username (though in my limited experience, none have yet replied to me). Ral315 » 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice

As a person who got Exploding whale to where it is, can you give me some advice? Do you think this list of unusual fauna/flora names could be made into a template or category (like exploding animals)? -Ravedave 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

I'm nominating "MDAC (disambig)" for deletion

Please note: I am nominating MDAC (disambig) for deletion.
You are shown in the history as having edited this page.
If you wish to object, check the details by clicking the link above.
Regards, JohnI 10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Keep all: I don't understand the objections. Redirects never appear in search engines, this is not crufting up Wikipedia and is in fact very useful whenever I want to get to the MDAC disambig page (which, believe it or not, is more frequently than you would expect). - Ta bu shi da yu 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)" <- cut from RfD page.

Thanks for your feedback. I was thinking about your use of the (disambig) as a shortcut.
I count 19 key-strokes typing the whole "(disambiguation)" suffix, including holding the SHIFT-key down twice; compared with 13 for "(disambig)". Wouldn't shortcuts like "-dab" or " dab" (a suggestion) with only 4 keystrokes, be even quicker? I myself never use those short-cuts, but I can see your reasons.
What do you think? JohnI 07:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not keystrokes that cause me grief with disambiguation
It's the spelling! I can never spell that word correctly, but I can spell disambig. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC) <-cut from my talk page

Thanks for replying. Are there any "(disambig)" pages you would like to keep in particular? I assume MDAC is one.
Also I'd appreciate your support for the deletion of misspelled suffixes e.g. "Cavan (disambigation)" <-[missing "u"],
which is second in the list of those I nominated. Regards, JohnI 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to your dog?

Did he die or something? Frankyboy5 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecture of Btrieve FAR

Architecture of Btrieve has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Kicking222 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge Kitchen rendering and Greaves (food) into Rendering (food processing)

I've made a proposal to merge the above-mentioned articles. Kitchen rendering and industrial rendering are basically the same processes, however, one article discusses it on a kitchen scale, the other on an industrial scale. Greaves are a byproduct of rendering – there does not seem to be enough content (or even potential content) to justify breaking it off into its own article. Discuss at Talk:Rendering (food processing). Peter G Werner 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Usc-title-part-chap

Template:Usc-title-part-chap, which you created, is up for deletion here. You may wish to participate in the deletion debate. -- Jreferee 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

who

who is your mother? Is she Is she beautiful? And you already vein to Brazil? know you Rio de Janeiro?

essays

I posted something of a reply to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. It's somewhat off topic, but still, I felt like commenting. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cups-large.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cups-large.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows 2000

Let's get this straight: Microsoft does not market, sell, plan to improve upon, or provide support for Windows 2000 anymore, except for critical security updates, self-help via their web site, and paid, per-incident support. Now on Wikipedia, we have this category for software that Microsoft isn't continuing to update, hence the term "discontinued". Wiktionary defines "discontinue" as To stop a process; especially as regards commercial productions; to stop producing, making, or supplying something. ... dictionary.com gives To stop doing or providing (something); end or abandon: discontinued her visits to the museum; discontinued ferry service to the island. and To cease making or manufacturing: discontinued the sportscar in the 1960s. Frankly, that sounds precisely like Windows 2000 to me. If you can provide a proper citation to state otherwise, then we can remove the category. Please respond on My talk page if you are able to come up with some proof to support you edit. Thanks. Jdlowery 04:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Cheng

Gordon's article is up for deletion nomination again, because I kept removing the word "priest", which is inaccurate. JRG 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup 2007

Thanks for letting me know. The box on the top left of the meetup page says 26/4 while the main text says 25/4. Which is correct please? John Dalton 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, I am interested in coming along as well. Please send me all details. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 10:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks from me too. ~ EmeZxX ` 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The box now says 10/4, and the page is still inconsistent! John Dalton 10:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm in Hong Kong. m.e. 11:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'd like to come along but I'm going to be in Canberra and then in more remote parts of the country from 25 April - 1 May. How long is Jimbo in Oz for? Does he have a published itinerary? --Gene_poole 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Ta bu shi da yu, I will try to make it. And Jimbo's itinerary is published on Wikia. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also from me! I've marked it in my diary as the 25th (Anzac Day???) and await further developments. Wm 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tks for letting me know - should be able to make it. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Unprotection of Tellapadu

Hi there! I created an article on Tellapadu on the 10th of Jan. '07. There was a problem with the content (insufficient information), following which the page was deleted and subsequently, restored. However, I unknowingly tried removing some tags which were placed, as a part of my efforts to revise the article i.e to weed out any unwanted information/parts and add more facts. Due to this, there occured some misunderstanding, for which, I agree, I'm solely to be blamed and the article Tellapadu was redirected to Doddavaram. Doddavaram is a neighbouring village and bears very little relationship, if any to Tellapadu. So I request Tellapadu to be restored to its former status (unprotected and the redirection undone), upon which I assure that all necessary changes and additions would be made by me, in full conformity to Wikipedia's standards, including several new facts, which have come to light as a result of my research on the subject in question. If you are still unsatisfied you may proceed in the course, as you deem necessary, as an administrator. Thanking You, Altruism 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First of let me thank you for accepting my request. I have modified the article Tellapadu to a considerable extent. Please have a look at the article Tellapadu, when you find time. I have an aerial image (in JPG format) of the village, in my desktop; so how could I embed this? Please also let me know as to whether I can improve the article any further. Thanking You, Altruism.talk. 10:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

talk:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy

Regarding your response here: The simplest solution is to have several admins watching your back. And there exist some unspeakable examples. Or maybe I'm just paranoid. Probably that. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Maybe later. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)