User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired

User:Rootology/Admin User:Rootology/useful User:Rootology/Pages Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

thanks

about the Brian Hassel AfD. sorry if I sounded a little sharp. The AfD environment brings it out :). DGG (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For how much time you spend there, I'm surprised you haven't reached through a monitor and severed heads, to be honest. ;) rootology (C)(T) 03:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FRs

You may find the text of {{Freq}} in describing the vote/notavote nature of the poll. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's so funny, how people get wound up about voting, when that's what it really is for 90% of what we do--unless there's ever a firm rule that you have to answer challenges to comments left in any discussion, or that drive-by comments have less weight (they don't and it would be preposterous to suggest that), we in "practice" vote. I dunno why people get so antsy about calling it what it is. Dogma is great--I'm religious, I know how it goes--but its silly to not call it what it is in practice. :)

Consensus does decide most of our stuff, but that's the trick--to discount all voting in anything but "name" would be to discount a whole lot of our practices. It's not a headcount, and shouldn't be xFds, and content decisions, or banning decisions, but an overwhelming consensus is sometimes just an overwhelming consensus. There are times when even the generally unilateral admin decision making process has to stop and obey consensus, like we've seen before. Practice goes both ways, these days, it seems. I just find it funny that people get so wound up about conceding the point, like it would be some catastrophic cosmic tipping point that would send Wikipedia down in spiraling electoral flames, or something. Totally odd. rootology (C)(T)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for History of the Pike Place Market

On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of the Pike Place Market, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptol

The reason the article was deleted was because of concerns about sourcing. It was said that there would be no prejudice against recreation if sources were found. There are, as mentioned on the talkpage, now five reliable sources in the article. This does not have to go through a review process. If you feel that the article still does not stand up to scrutiny, I strongly suggest you take it to AfD. I am returning it to mainspace, as this is well within our process, and the decision made at DRV. SilkTork *^YES! 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the sourcing may still be insufficient, and I don't want to AFD it again as I did the first AFD, but I really strongly prefer it come back into main space via a DRV, just so that no one comes along afterwards and restarts the process again based on a perceived lack of sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you have now removed sources that indicate that Cryptol is used as part of studies and research at universities. I really thought this was a non-contentious move, and simply wanted to clear this off my talkpage as I'm archiving. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just honestly not convinced they show notability, because a couple of random professors and grad students mentioned they "plan" to use it in passing, or because the word itself is popped up a couple times in a presentation with no context about the product. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this one was on DRV kept delete/endorse. I kind of want to see it brought back in via DRV. I think the sourcing is too light still.[1] rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, having reviewed the sources, I've found they don't show notability. I don't want to just put a CSD tag on it (which would be justified but pointless). Would you be willing to move it back to KP's user space or initiate a DRV? I would be willing to start a fresh DRV for you, if you prefer. Please let me know. I'd like the article to live, but not be targetted by others later for sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That there were sources on the article when restored to mainspace means it does not qualify for a Speedy. And the AfD has already been through a review and there was no consensus to overturn, but the decision was made that if additional sources were put in the article it could be restored. That has been done. If you're still not happy, then the appropriate route is AfD. A redirect, as you did, is hardly appropriate, especially given the speed at which you did it. This topic is well outside my area of knowledge and interest, so I don't know how to work in the sources which indicate that Cryptol is a serious topic at university level. But removing such sources seems unhelpful. At the very least we have here a topic for which notability issues can be discussed. At best we have an article for which the sources indicate notability has been established. We don't really have a candidate for Speedy deletion or redirecting back to userspace. When you proposed the article for AfD there was only one source, and that was to the company who owned the programme. That was fair enough. But since then more sources have been found. Let it stand, or take it back to AfD and let the community decide. SilkTork *^YES! 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't object, I'll take it back as a procedural sort of AFD, then. rootology (C)(T) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on Jimbo's page

Well said, but what does "People with a good enough attitude with BLPs shouldn't be editing BLPs" mean? dougweller (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Literally that. If someone's attitude towards the quality, responsibility, and scholarship required to always comply with BLP is that a "good enough" attitude is sufficient, they shouldn't be touching them or having a say in what happens to them. Just my personal opinion, of course, and unlikely to ever happen, but I figured the silly "ZOMG JIMBO BLP CULTIST!!1!!" hyperbole nonsense could do with a teeny dash or at least rationale sounding hyperbolic in tone answers in response. But I do believe it, for what little it's worth as just one non-admin cog in the machine. rootology (C)(T) 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre's RFAR

I actually think you're right. That's why I struck the entire first part of my comment. Since I think you're right that we do have jurisdiction, I should recuse. There's no way in hell I wouldn't affirm Jimbo's decision. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In some alternate universe where I sit in the AC, I'd be out too here. rootology (C)(T) 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone who has an opinion recuses, who are we left with? I don't think CHL should recuse. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OBAMA

I'd like to organize the article page now if you don't have anything to do to it at the moment. Grsz¹¹ 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, all you and go for it. The ordering method I used was mainly based on my subjective take on the relative importance of each page. :) rootology (C)(T) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like something needs to be added at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Also, it looks like WP:OBAMA redirects to a project proposal right now. Grsz¹¹ 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'll check it out. I had no idea there was some group that claimed control of these things. rootology (C)(T) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither looked very active, so I don't think it will be a problem. Grsz¹¹ 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the vibe I got. I suggested they merge in. One of them had a slightly different goal, but joint firepower can help on lots of stuff. You see the early goals I just posted? Not too bold, you think? rootology (C)(T) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I initiated the earlier group and am all for a common wikiproject. If you want to jettison the current work, or use the current content on the pages, feel free. Mike Serfas may have another opinion, but I am 110% behind getting some active membership focussed on increasing the quality of articles of particular relevance to the Obama administration. I don't monitor my barackobama site mail anymore, so it's best to contact me at my WP talk page. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you, guys... rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you hold your breath for 7 days? :) Synergy 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If my nerves don't rip from my body and eat me live first, maybe... rootology (C)(T) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent idea. Best of luck with it root. Ceoil (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban?

I saw your RFA and mention of your ban. It is very easy to say "the ban was right", "I was wrong" when you are running for RFA. It is very difficult unless you have a death wish and want to lose the RFA to say "the ban process is not so good because of .....". Is the ban process and effect perfect? If not, what are the problems? If you wish to discuss this privately, you may. I have a beef about the block process because I've seen it used as a weapon and unfairly used. It happened to me 2 years ago. Adminstrators that I wrote to 2 years ago either ignored me or said the equivalent of "fuck you". So I can identify several problems without even thinking, one being incivility. Chergles (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussing it here is fine. The whole ban/block process is a social system, and like any system like that its not perfect, never can be, and never will be. Was my ban good? I'm human so part of me (same as anyone) will want to say no, but at the time it was a good block. Maybe not the duration I would have liked, but once the chips were set for better or worse in that RFA I made no secret of saying "I was done with it", which wasn't exactly helpful or my finest hour in mid-2006. I think the wording in the subject of the edit when I decided was pretty obvious. I went from being 'me' to saying something like "the hell with it" and launching hand grenades as fast as I could to get myself blocked. Which worked quite well, at the time, as we saw.

Does that mean the entire system is FUBAR? Not at all. The problem is just people. We make stuff work good, or fantastically great, but we're also really good at making stuff not work so good, or fantastically bad. The more that people get involved in any big system, and not just involved, but engaged in it, the better it works. It's that simple, and thats not a Wikipedia thing (we think in our bubble too much which is honestly dumb). It's like that in government, business, family, friends, or any complex social situation. The more people aware of things, and caring enough to see them done right... the better it works. Visibility is always the key thing. Visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility. One of my favorite quotes is from Louis Brandeis: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

It really is true. Be it a ban/block policy, shady business practices, government being out of touch or out of step, or finding out that your good friend has had a drinking or smack problem for years, but no one knew it since they were "functional". Unless the light shines in to let people see, no one will know that something, either a big system, or some dark tiny corner of it, isn't what it should be. If someone tries to keep that light out, then the problem probably isn't the system itself, but the person trying to keep shady. And that makes it a really easy problem to fix, then, at least in that given case. rootology (C)(T) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA..

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I sent you an e-mail. --KP Botany (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just replied to you. I would be happy to continue the discussion here, or in e-mail. rootology (C)(T) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

you're an admin

You did it!

Yes! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Durova^Charge! 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't hold back sayin', given Durova's image at right along with Trusilver's wisdom, beware the stirsome tidings of fetching editors ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 03:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Shubinator (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Ty 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats! It's deserved. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone!! I'm totally and completely floored here. rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• So the community has not yet completely taken leave of their senses. Congratulations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Viridae^Talk 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope it's the right size for you...

A mop to wield while wearing your T-shirt

• Congratulations from me too! Chamal ^talk 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Many congratulations from me. Use the tools well. --John (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your note, Rootology. I wish you the best of luck with adminship here -- Samir 08:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• ...wait, you weren't an admin already? Congratulations, and my belated support. Apologies for not watching WP:RfA more closely. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the note to let me know, I didn't watchlist it. I have to say that your honesty is what I liked, please continue to with that. I have to admit, I haven't communicated with you before, at least that I remember, but I do remember seeing you on boards and so forth and actually thought you were already in control of the tools. I think you will do just great with your new position. Congratulations again to you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• You fall in my "What the fuck, he wasn't admin already?!?!?!111ONEONEONE" category. Congratulations (too bad I couldn't support earlier). Don't delete the main page today, keep that for later :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the thankspam; you're very welcome, Rootology, and I wish you the best of luck with your new mop. Also, as a technical question, how is the entirety of your talk page some classy font? I'd love to apply that to my talk page! --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me} 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• About damn time.--Tznkai (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats.....and on Super Bowl Sunday no less...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've been rooting for you for a long time, Rootology, since before you came back, as you know (but perhaps others do not). Way to go... Color me delighted! (...and surprised no one used the "rooting" thing before me, what a bunch of punters...) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats. If you ever need help, let me know. Dlohcierekim 14:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• awwwwwww yeah — neuro^(talk) 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again so much, everyone! I will not let you down. rootology (C)(T) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Just keep one thing in mind... In any position of power (and being an admin is a position of power, regardless of what anyone else says) it's easy to find sycophants who will tell you whatever you want to hear in the hopes that it will benefit them to do so. It's much harder (and nobler) to pay attention to those that disagree with you, those that disagreed with your appointment. I hope that now that your RfA has passed, you don't file it away and never look at it again. I hope that you keep it some place you can look on it frequently and make sure that you don't give the nay-sayers any reason to say "see! I told you he was a bad choice!" Good luck to you. Trusilver 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats is a bit late, but I've been at work finishing things up for Monday ^_^ Synergy 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mazel tov! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA!

Like I said before, this kind of breakdown rocks and makes understanding what happened even easier. rootology (C)(T) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers on your new mop Resident Mario (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! rootology (C)(T) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed the RFA, but congratulations, Root. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed it also, but congratulations! (you likely won't remember me, but I'm one of the random contributors to the old wa site. I thought it was a good idea then, I think that the community is now better at dealing with the kinds of problems that were documented) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulation my old friend, well deserved Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile. This award is given to Rootlogy. Rootlogy, you epic story is an inspiration to all wikipedians! You show that everyone has an opportunity to be an administrator, and that change is truly possible on wikipedia. Congratulations on your growth and development here. Ikip (travb/inclusionist) (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin. I am so deeply happy for you. I wish I would have known about the RfA, and I would have heartily given my strong support with all my soul. My only worry, is that I hope you did not sacrifice your principles and core values to get where you are today. There was so much overlooked value to wikipedia in that feisty Rootology of years past, I hope the Rootology of today has simply matured, and the old Rootology has not died completely.

If you are interested, you can join the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. We have medals you can add to your user page:, like the good article and featured article medals you already have on your user page, awarded for rescuing good articles from deletion, see Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame#Award. Ikip (travb/inclusionist) (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Trav. We are what we are, and I'm still willing to poke and prod when I think it's the right thing to do (I started the Protecting BLP survey, and was in that Sarah Palin RFAR...) but I hope I've figured out the right way and time, and the right reasons. I'm glad to see you're still around, too, man. rootology (C)(T) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I sincerly hope we cross paths again. Ikip (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Normally I don't like thank-spam unless it's personalized, but your well-thought-out thank you was worth reading. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, David. rootology (C)(T) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasbro movie images

Thank you for uploading some images for the Super Bowl spot. However, as I've explained in this and this edit summary, copyrighted pictures have to provide a wider context and support the article. Images showing a character's depiction are more appropriate to their own articles. I'm sure there's other G.I. Joe screenshots that are more worthwhile, and I wonder whether you would upload them? Alientraveller (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The one group shot I uploaded, in hindsight, isn't the best quality, and I set it to be deleted, along with the other, until it can be found for a better place to put it, or a better quality one. Those were, from that 30-second teaser, the highest quality ones, unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent RfA

You're welcome for my support, Rootology. I think you've been an excellent and sensible editor these past few months, and I believe your return has been a huge positive: you'll be a great administrator. Best wishes. Acalamari 00:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of WSVN images

You recently deleted several images from WSVN WSVN_ANCHORS2.JPG, Vivi_gonzo_Weasvn.JPG, and Donovan_campbell324.JPG from the Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_26 page. I believe this was in error. There was no clear consensus that they should be deleted. You also reference NFCC#8 but I think I gave a clear reason why these images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", that is, someone who has not seen the newscast (such as myself) will not know how the WSVN newscast looks without seeing pictures (or video, but that is less likely to be fair use). Lorax (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lorax, I noted my concerns under NFCC#8, but also that in practice we don't do this sort of thing for these articles in general. The images being fair use, we have to be careful in their use--how does seeing the sportscaster tell us about sports on the news understand that a sportscaster tells us about sports on the news? My close, ultimately, was based on the consensus I saw there of the arguments. If you'd like to see the close reviewed, I don't object if you want to WP:DRV them. Just let me know if you do. rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)