User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired

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

Notes

• User:Rootology/Images
• User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Cleanup

to do

• User:TenPoundHammer/Country
• Flatt and Scruggs
• Foggy Mountain Boys
• Soggy Bottom Boys

Happy New Year

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

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)

Belated congratulations to you. The good guys really can win. JBsupreme (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this, but let me echo the above editors and congratulate you. Your RfA was a positive step for the project as a whole. Everyking (talk) 17:53, 5 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)

Question about Wikiproject Barack Obama

Hey. I was thinking about joining WikiProject Barack Obama (I've already created two stories, here and here, about assassination plots against Obama), but I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia altogether and have never joined a WikiProject before. I was wondering how it works exactly? Are you assigned tasks (like GAs to work toward, pages to clean up, stubs to expand) or do you just kind of work on whatever you want within the confines of the project? And is there a specific time commitment each week, or do you work at your own pace? Please let me know, I'd be very interested in contributing in the future. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Anyone can join, go right ahead. No one is ever "assigned" tasks on Wikipedia, you contribute only what you have the time and energy to do. Basically, the project is just a central hub for people interested in working on similar articles, to get together at, bounce ideas, and share resources. Like me--I'm a terrible copyeditor and proofreader, but I think I'm good at building out pages and finding information. We have other editors that are great at our Manual of style stuff, or are good copyeditors, but maybe not at writing. So, putting all three together, you can get a good, great, featured article maybe. I collect the info, write out the bulk, the copyeditor fixes it up and fixes my problems, then the MOS guy makes it shine. I build the car, the copyeditor tests it, adjusts it and fine tunes it, the MOS guy details it and makes it shine, then we all bask in the glory for a minute of having made something neat together, hopefully. You can also basically work on anything you want to--look at the Sandbox pages linked below the mountain on my userpage, Pike Place Market, and the Favreau article I just wrote. Some people like to focus on one thing till it's done, I bang around a lot because I have writer's ADD and always want to work on the New Shiny Thing, and have a couple of pots cooking at once. That just comes down to your personal style, preference, and tastes. You can sign up and only do that one edit, or you can write a Featured Article a month. It's totally up to you. rootology (C)(T) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've nominated 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver for GA; i tried to put it in the Article Alerts on the WikiProject page but don't know how to. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See the section that my Favreau article entry is in? Just try editing that, and enter yours--its ok if you break it, and I hope you do--it's the best way to learn the coding on the tables. :) We can fix it, anyone can, so it's never a worry. Not everyone has to know all the fancy code we can use. I have to struggle to do anything beyond basic tables half the time, and I've been using this software years. ;) rootology (C)(T) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! I've joined the WikiProject, looking forward to working with it. Incidentally, I'm guessing there's nothing that would prohibit me from reading a GA nomination from someone else in the group? Because if not, I'd be happy to review the Jon Favreau (speechwriter) article. I've never done a GA review before, but I would be willing to try it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know--like I said, I'm a terrible copyeditor, so I only write them, then leave them for others to review. You should ask at WT:GA, since I honestly don't know if it's appropriate for people from the same Wikiproject to do that. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. They'd probably be the authority on it, since I believe they're the most active content-focused Wikiproject on Wikipedia by far. rootology (C)(T) 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unbanned?

Yes, that change was intentional. Kirill ^[pf] 04:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no; if you're banned, then you're not permitted to edit Wikipedia at all, and anyone proxying for you is liable to be sanctioned themselves, so that wording is simply redundant to existing policy. (There was some confusion about what it meant earlier, if I'm not mistaken.) Kirill ^[pf] 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Leo

I see that you have blocked Pastor Leo. I was once blocked after being falsely accused of sockpuppetry. Therefore, I am sensitive to the accusation. I prefer more black and white rationale. Clearly disruptive editing under a user name is valid grounds for blocking. Accusations of sockpuppetry can be abused and can be wrong. There is a role for that on occasion.

Keep this in mind as you exercise administrative powers. As much as possible, try to address editorial content and what the user actually edited. Note that I don't disagree with your block. I'm just asking you to look at it from a different perspective. Although I have not fully researched Pastor Leo's edits, my first impression is that disruptive editing would be a better reason for blocking. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, that's why I asked for review of the blocks on the ANI thread and also tossed out a ping on IRC asking for people to review it as well for an even wider audience. My reason for blocking as socks was the sudden appearance of "5" distinct users, 3 logged in and 2 IPs, all trying to get the same content forced into the article in short order, and all using the same or similar edit summaries. If it was just one, or probably even two, I'd have done exactly that, but it was the round-robin of it all that all but screamed one user, plus the extreme similarity in the IPs's edits to the users. rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're and admin now?

Funny to see you've become and admin, since a year or two ago you would've been the most hated person on WP. Good luck, Egebwc (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship... 3?

Hi Rootology, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response :) I'm (at least I hope) becoming more and more clueful in my AfD work as time goes by, so hopefully the incidence of these contentious AfDs will slow. I agree that an admin's role in AfD is far different, and I don't think I'd have too many problems determining consensus in a discussion. Thanks again for your response, feel free to contact me if you think of anything else. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blink-182 full protection

Hello Rootology, was wondering what the situation here was. I don't see any arguing on the talk page, and the page has been edited a relatively small number of times since its last protection. Is it really worth full protection for a week? GlassCobra 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There had been an ongoing slow edit war going on that came up on RFPP. I've got no objections to it being unprotected in any way. rootology (C)(T) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you bring the protection level down to semi-protect. The band have officially confirmed their reformation so the edit warring caused by people adding rumours and crystal balling the band's reformation should be resolved now. - kollision (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just did it, as a matter of fact. I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days. GlassCobra 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Apparantly I missed it, congrats for earning the bit. Grsz¹¹ 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	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) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Favreau

No problem. I'm confused, though - for some reason when I read the article, it was still showing the vandalized version that you reverted more than an hour ago (hence my "reverting to last good version" edit). Anyway, I might do the GA review in the next few days if I get a chance and nobody beats me to it. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Favreau GA

I might need a couple of days to finish it, so I'd say we're all good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Silk Road

Thanks for semi-protecing, or whatever you did with that article. I do not know what the deal is, but for some reason that article has been a target over time for vandals. I have had it on my watchlist for this reason for a year, at least. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I just dropped a semi-protection on it. If it picks up as badly again after 3 days, just drop it on WP:RFPP again, mention the history and previous history of protections, and it can probably get a longer one if the volume keeps up like it has the past couple days. rootology (C)(T) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Jon Favreau (speechwriter)

Hello - I have reviewed Jon Favreau (speechwriter), which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:

• The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
• In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
• The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one.

Hey Root - it's been more than a week and I haven't seen any movement on this. Are you going to get around to it soon? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep--sorry. Been distracted, and short on time except for the more mechanical stuff I can pop in and out for. I'm gonna work on it Tuesday and Wednesday. rootology (C)(T) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nainki

I've seen you have blocked this user for being a sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser. Could you put checkuser templates on the user and user talk pages for this user? Thanks. Techman224^Talk 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

Hello. The DYKAdminBot doesn't seem to be updating again; it's late and an update needs to be pushed. Could you manually do the update? None of the DYK admins are around, and Victuallers is not responding. The update should be from queue 5. Instructions for the update are at Wikipedia:DYK#Process. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I see you dropped it on AN too... I'd rather someone who's done it before do it in a pinch, since I never have yet. :( rootology (C)(T) 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the DYK admin regulars are around, so this'll be the first time for whoever does it. I can look over the update and try to catch errors. Shubinator (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I do it right? rootology (C)(T) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The clock needs to be purged. [1] Otherwise it looks good...I'll check for stray errors. The main page hasn't been deleted :) Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Timer purged. :) The first thing I saw when I read your post was, "YOU GO EDIT THE MAIN PAGE," and I was like, "shit!" :P rootology (C)(T) 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no pressure. Oh, one more thing...the picture needs to be protected. I think the DYK pics are copied to en from Commons while they're on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Got the page here local for 6 hours and Kanonakas did the Commons side already. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. One more thing: the bot's count should be updated to say 1. (I'm starting to sound like Uncle in Jackie Chan). Shubinator (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha! OK, that one's done, but I'm going AFK a bit now. ;) rootology (C)(T) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing (last one I think): Queue 5 needs to be cleared. It should look like Queue 4. No rush on this one...as long as it's within 24 hours. Thank you for all your help! Shubinator (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing (this one truly is the last): The previous image should be deleted from en...it's a copy from Commons, only on en for protection while on the main page. No rush on this either. Sorry for bugging you so much. Shubinator (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Last two items taken care of by Ruhrfisch. Shubinator (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

rfc thingy

Could you explain on the rfc page more of what you mean by what you are asking? Do you mean that we should have the equivalent of the way stewards or whatever on meta have to be confirmed for another term after a year or something? If so I agree. Sticky Parkin 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not that... lifetime or semi-lifetime appointments for some things, I'll concede make life easier all around... but it's just literally, "Why are we exempting the old CU/OS who aren't sitting Arbs from a public examination of their trust?" rootology (C)(T) 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an informal one, like we did with the page about how much confidence we have in members of arbcom, rather than a vote? What makes you think this is needed? (not that I disagree necessarily that it might be beneficial)- email me with your reasons if you prefer. I don't know if it would lead to any different result than if it was not held, as the majority of people who are open on wiki about their opinion on the matter seem to be gushingly happy with the current CUs. Perhaps the ones that aren't just don't feel able to say so publicly (though many of them do privately.) Sticky Parkin 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is fine. It well could be there is overwhelming support for the current CU/OS group--but I keep seeing and feeling all this innuendo and inference that stuff is not right, that some are overwhelmingly trusted but some are not at all even among the AC. If there's politics or personalities interfering with anything in the CU/OS work or oversight, that's just wildly inappropriatte. I think it's needed for A) either the AC to give a stamp of approval and endorsement of all the current OS/CU users, including ex-arbs, or B) for them to be counted in public as it should be if there is a conflict, since the CU/OS group is useless if we don't trust them. One bad apple can taint the perception of all the results, and we have to be able to trust anything CU/OS say about their decisions. rootology (C)(T) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some are beloved of the arbcom, and the personalities of some of those running WP is what it is:):):) Also, there is a lack of action (to the extent that I wonder what some employed by wikimedia think they're employed to do.) You know what I think, some people would actually be removed from most other sites, never mind from any position of power. But fans and those by whom they are beloved might not feel the same despite how the person acts. Some people haven't experienced it themselves anyway, so they probably won't see why it's a problem. Sticky Parkin 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rootology. Could you please make your first and most important question less ambiguous (i.e. support what/which same process?)? Is it possible that you reformulate it? I had to make a trip to this talk page and though I read your answers to Sticky Parkin I'd still like you give us more clarifications there. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, sorry, my usual crap copyediting strikes again. Take a look now. rootology (C)(T) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am hungry and tired now and will get back answering your questions in a few hours. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no rush. Given the questions, I honestly wasn't expecting anything for days, to be honest. rootology (C)(T) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Thanks again, and I think you already know this, but my Microsoft love was a joke! It's all rubbish, except for Office for Mac and possibly DOS and Win 3.1 Nja247 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Cox

I am requesting the support of other administrators.

Baroness Cox has not been involved with Christian Solidarity Worldwide since 2003. She successfully sued the Evening Standard for the false article that you now reference. It is a subjective statement to say the film was anti-Islamic. Check out www.worldcommittee on Disability, all of her disability work has been removed. This is libel!!!

The opening paragraph should read:

Caroline Ann McNeill Love Cox, Baroness Cox FRCN (born 6 July 1937) is a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords, and campaigner for many humanitarian causes and issues relating to disability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the Evening Standard issue a retraction? If so, you can put a link to it on the article talk page and say that it retracts the article that's currently referenced. Then go change the article. This should short-circuit any future attempt to rely on the retracted article. Absent a retraction, an online copy of the court order or settlement might be of use, but only if there was a finding of fact that the article was erroneous or an admission by the Standard that it was erroneous, and even then, only to the extent that the article was found to be in error. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Oops, I didn't notice the article was protected. The correct place to request changes to protected articles is the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for protecting the page. I appreciate your wonderful work here. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request unprotection of User talk:MBisanz

this is probably more of a technical bug than anything else, but i thought i'd start here (with you).

i want to post a comment about a deleted article, MogileFS, to MBsanz's talk page, but i cannot, apparently because it is semi-protected. i have been a registered user since sept. 2008 and looking through my preferences it appears that I have available all the options of a registered user (like skins), but no edit buttons appear when examining the talk page.

so, the most direct route to posting a comment on the page appears to be to get it changed back to unprotected.

comments? suggestions? (note that this is not a problem with cookies in my browser, or at least not so far as i can tell.)

Craigster0 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are sound reasons that MBisanz' talkpage should not be unprotected at this time. Although your account has been around for awhile, you do not yet have enough edits to meet the threshold for editing a semiprotected page. Perhaps if you place your message here or on my talkpage, someone could transcribe it over there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I watch this page so I saw your comment. There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MogileFS where the Wikipedia community discussed the MogileFS. People found that the article lacked coverage in reliable sources. Articles on Wikipedia need to have coverage in reliable sources in order to be verifiable and notable. If you want to ask the people who commented at the AFD discussion or seek help from a Wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, they may be able to give you more details. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Audreetucker

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for somoene neutral to review a BLP and don't know where to start

There is an artice for a BLP that I would like someone with a fresh set of eyes to review. While the person is notable for one thing, the rest of the article contains IMHO a bunch of fluff and should be removed. However I don't want anyone to predjudge the article first, so I wanted to see if there is a place where I can make such a request? I saw you made some comments to the BLP page, so I figured I'd ask here first. If you could post a new section to my talk page that would be great too. ThanksFasttimes68 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks Stephanie_AdamsFasttimes68 (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Loved your tag

I cut and pasted it here: User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#RfC. Looks like there will be another war, initated by the same group of editors. These editors are trying to make this whole issue about user conduct, never mind the radically different ideology. Ikip (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)