User talk:Verrai/Archive11/Archive3

Talk Page Archives:

1. 25 November 2005 - 9 March 2006
2. 10 March 2006 - 11 April 2006

2005 AHS storm articles

Hey, the latest 2005 poll seems to be clearly in support of the all-storms approach now, if not anywhere near 'consensus'. This decision may affect the list article, I don't know, it may allow tables like jdorje suggested while allowing a length reduction. However, this message is more about a possible mediation for 2005AHS. I have mentioned this to a few people so far and Hink, Eric and Sarsa so far have given tacit approval to the concept. I think at this stage an informal mediation might be more useful, but a full formal mediation might be better. What do you think of this suggestion? Nilfanion 18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt at Tropical Storm Lee (2005), (remember Crazy did upload his articles before Eric summarily remerged them). I did that to try and inform debate, but I think unfortunately most people missed it. It needs work to bring it up to a decent standard in writing quality, but I don't think it is possible to extract any more info from the TCR/advisories, so that tells you minimal content I think. On the list article, if we do ever get to a format like List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, that would remove the need for the stats page, which is probably a good thing. And do you think we can get to a 'peaceful' position without WP:DR? At the moment, I'm not optimistic, although Eric is a bit extreme on it, and my interactions with him may have disheartened me.Nilfanion 18:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree Lee is as utterly unnotable as a storm can be and the additional stuff is hardly enough to make it survive as that. I agree an AfD on it would mean it would go. I think the only way it would be possible to add more stuff is to go over the Lee advisories and TCR in VERY fine detail. What may actually work is for the Project to establish all of these articles and get them to highest standard possible. Then with a developed list article in user/project space on lines of the Category 5 list, decide whether to keep all articles and the new list or the old list and only some storms. That would probably be the point for outside assistance, as there are too many pro-article people in the project who will not listen. Does this seem about right, if we give them all articles probationally, let them develop AND then have another look in a month or two.Nilfanion 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy Reversion?

Why did you report my request for anus.com as vandalism and revert it? When I was doing research on nihilism online they seemed pretty popular. Is there a backstory? --ReptileLawyer 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

What's the point of this all? Anyway I tried to vote for you to become an sysop. I don't know if I did it rightly.

Ok ok cool thanks for replying to that other nomination thingy. I'm rather noobish so thanks.

Help me, please.

Mind helpin a poor unexpeirienced wikipedian out? Please? You have a really cool signatuire and I have no clue how to make my signature cool! If you could tell me how to customize a signature, I'd be much obliged. Cyclone1 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) <--see? lame...

Thanx man. You rock! Cyclone1 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I check the "raw signature" box? Cyclone1 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yay! It worked! thanx a lot! →Cyclone1→Friday,21 April 2006 20:37UTC

LOL, thanks. Actually, the 1 sent you to some nonexsistent page. Don't know why, but its fixed now. Good chatch, I never woulda caught that. →Cyclone1→Friday,21 April 2006 20:37UTC

The Lord of the Rings Peer Review

I have make extensive changes to our Lord of the Rings article in an attempt to work it up to Featured Article status. In order to find more suggestions I have listed it under Wikipedia:Peer Review. Under the guidelines to nominations I am required to notify others of knowledge in the area to review it. I have decided that the best group for this would be our WikiProject. So I ask you all to look at the article and make any suggestions you can. Hopefully we will be voting this FA soon enough. SorryGuy 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi from a fellow LOTR fan (see my user name)

Hi Cuivienen. Just wanted to say hello to a fellow LOTR fan. As you can guess from my user name (FeanorStar7), I like the Silmarillion). I also use curufinweg on AOL; I'm such a nerd! : ) --FeanorStar7 02:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms

It could work as you suggest; refs are easy enough (TCR). The only major problem is the lack of articles for the unnamed storms. However a revision of the layout could help: Formation/Dissipation, Max Wind/Min Pressure and Damages/Fatalaties could all be put onto the same line and then add a brief summary for the storms, in the style of the storm section on 2005AHS. If we go down that route though, perhaps a shortened prose/infobox layout is a better concept. Whether we have any prose summary or not, the length will be greatly cut down, and this could allow for additional tables; such as lists by intensity, ACE.... --Nilfanion 09:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

admonishment?

Help me out here -- Are you admonishing me? If so is it important enough to you to offer a fuller explanation?

I don't see how my comments could be interpreted as an accusation that Swatjester was violating NPOV. Is that what you meant? I wasn't saying he violated NPOV. His comment was a followup to a comment I made when someone did not fulfill their obligation to be responsible about their application of the NPOV tag. He seemed to be endorsing the other guy's irresponsible application of the tag.

I believe we should expect candidates for administrator to understand and agree to abide by the wikipedia's policies. His comment looked like he didn't understand or support one of the more important policies. And I believe that this is exactly the kind of instance we should base our votes on and which we should cite when explaining our vote. I read through the previous votes. Several of Swat's supporters complained that those voting against him weren't citing the diffs.

I think you are mistaken if you interpreted my comment on Swat's candidacy page as some kind of personal attack. -- Geo Swan 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Careful...

Just a note to remind you to be careful. You must have hit the wrong button here. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Must have been a strange edit conflict. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 01:12 UTC

Yeah, it happens. No harm. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WATER BOWLINE

The edits that you are insisting on deleting add relevant information.

Rather than destrying work, I invite you to expand and improve this article.

You could do any of the following:

1. Up load better pictures 2. Add a paragraph on the history of this knot 3. Add testing information on the knot's strength 4. Describe some actual uses.

All of these efforts and more would improve the quality. By pursuing some rigid policy you act like the religious authorities that drove the pilgrims out of England.

Mellow out man, smell the roses and please stop deleting my work.

Frank van Mierlo

Please vote

Since there is a dispute, please vote on it in the AID talkpage. --Steven 22:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Majora's Mask

Any idea when Majora's Mask will be featured on the main page? I've seen some that were promoted to FA status in March and they will be on the main page soon. Thunderbrand 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi there, please offer feedback to election candidate article scheduled for deletion, and who has had 2 AfD vote keep:deletion review. Gsinclairr 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC Help

Hi, Cuivienen. I see you contribute to FAC a lot, and I was wondering if you could use your experience to review an article for me. The article is National College Athletucs Association (Phillipines), and its currently on FAC. The nom is aging and it's a bit vote-poor, and I was wondering if you could read the article and tell me how it could be improved. The only problem is sourcing. For that, you would have to contact the original author, Circa 1900 Thanks for your time, RyanGerbil10 03:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)