User talk:Jc37/Archive/01

• Sub-pages
• Talk sub-pages
• Misc. links
  

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you! I really appreciate that. And with the week I've been having, it's even more special.
Serial commas? Aaarrgghh.  ;) Actually, I don't even know why I don't like them -- one of my many quirks, I guess.
Again, thank you very much, and I really hope to see the wizard article reach FA status. Take care. •Jim62sch• 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the Barnstar!--Hnsampat 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk Wikiproject userbox

Nice work!--Robbstrd 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes

I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

<div style="float: left; border: 1px solid black; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: white; background: #a21;"
| style="width: 60px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" |[[Image:Roman empire 395.jpg|60px]]
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is interested in the <br>'''[[Roman Empire|<span style="color:#FFFFFF">Roman Empire</span>]]'''
|}
</div>

--Cyde Weys 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chess

Hi, thanks for contributing to my chess game. Unfortunatly, you made an illegal move, and it has been reverted, however you are welcome to come back and make a different move instead.

The reason that the move was reverted is: You moved my piece (white), not your own (black).

Thanks --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops : ) - Jc37 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk article targeted for deletion

Baklunish Basin has been proposed for deletion. If possible, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baklunish Basin. Thanks. --Robbstrd 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been starred!

Thanks for the barnstar. It sometimes does take some patience, but I'd like to think we'll be through it in less than a month. Now we just need some bots...--Mike Selinker 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Chess

Thank you for participating in my game of chess. The game was won by black. A new game has started at User:GW_Simulations/Chess/Game 2 if you are interested in participating. GW_Simulations - 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost marbles

Maybe I'm losing my mind? --evrik 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back!

Really appreciated. :-) Carcharoth 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Arkham asylym arbritation nonsense

Although I had to back Basique on the issue of whether or not Arkham is penal because (1) it has been repeatedly referred to as both a prison and a penal instituation in the comics, making the assertion not OR, and (2) I have visited a mental hospital for the "criminally insane" and know first hand that it had to be classified as both a hospital and a penal institution, I nevertheless chided Basique for blowing things out of proportion and going to the Wikiproject Comics message page using confrontational language like "arbitration." Basique has a history of tattling on people or getting into tiffs when he feels overly protective of a page. Even though he barely allowed enough time for your discussion about the issue to go on, the fact that he allowed even a few days of discussion before sounding the horn to everyone else is actually progress. Anyway, I think the list should have a different name altogether, something more modern and less phallic-sounding than "penal." Regardless of which, you make great contributions to the comics pages, you raise some really good points on issues people get into, and I'm glad to have you around. Wryspy 07:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Admin/jc37

Your rfa

Hi there - I've posted a question on your RfA - perhaps you would like to reply? --Mcginnly | Natter 08:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure : ) - jc37 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for answering! -- Lego@lost _{Rocks Collide!} | 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do... :) -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Abstain

My concern is just that the discussion/attempt at clarification somehow may have "chased you away". I hope not. My response was in no way an attack on your choice of "oppose", and you are obviously welcome to continue to express that opinion on the RfA (with or without my permission : )

In any case, Have a great day : ) - jc37 08:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I somehow misunderstood the answer to question 4 in your RfA. My first impression is that blocks may be handed out arbitarily without much careful consideration ("it depends on situation...cooling down blocks", which is why I quoted the Giano incident), but then looking at the question again twice with the clarification... ;) Well I do also believe that editors should be treated equally (including administrators), as well as following of process, so I have no further reason to object your RfA. If you don't mind, I would say that things would be a lot more better for your RfA if you had worded them better. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My intent was straight-forward "simple" answers. (I'm typically known for the "long" answer : )

Apparently, for you, they didn't come across "straight-forward" - Before I think about tackling the task, how would you suggest I clarify my answer? - jc37 09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC),

I believe some other Wikipedians don't think as "simple", either. I'd prefered if you have never mentioned about "cooling down blocks" and "it depends" in the first place, because these terms are extremely vague terms and does not give editors any form of confidence or assurance on how you would use your mop and bucket should you be given one. I don't look out for lengthy answers, but I do look out for accurate, concise wording. Oh, and it's a traditional taboo for a long, long time not to "advertise" RfAs. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he (he?) call upon people who are familiar with his contributions to look at his RfA? Jc37 didn't ask anyone to vote for or against. He notified some people who are familiar with his work. Frankly, if anyone who contributes regularly to the same kind of pages I do applied for adminship without notifying those of us who'd be most affected, I'd resent it. I found it weird to see a page full of comments from people who didn't seem to know much or anything about his past work. Wryspy 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First, Thank you for your thoughts MD. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you might have, as well. (I have answered some other questions about blocking, so feel free to let me know if these still do not suffice).

Second, thank you for your comments Wryspy. There have been so many good things said (by you and others), I've been almost embarrassed to read them.

As for the accusation of "advertising"... I think any attempt to explain it in the RfA would likely not be a good idea. It's better, I think to allow for whatever criteria a person may have. The criteria doesn't have to be about policy. RfA is essentially about trust, and whether each individual feels that I should be trusted with "the mop". So, to me, it's like asking a poker player what's lucky for him... However, there were some accusations that I was violating (or coming close to violating) "policy". I don't believe I did, or was. Ignoring that it goes on around here a "lot" (through many various methods), for the moment, and instead, dealing with the question directly, I don't believe that I violated any "policy" by my action (as I was accused of).

Looking over WP:SPAM, it not only describes what not to do, but when it's appropriate. Friendly notice and Canvassing.

But as I said, It's not just about policy. And unless the vote stacking/advertising/etc accusations become more than what they are now, not to mention the typical "me too"s, I'll likely leave this unsaid. They're entitled to their opinion. RfA is one of the few places in Wikipedia that that is directly true and likely appropriate. - jc37 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ouch

Sorry, I meant to get around to your rfa but I've found myself immersed in other matters. I apologise, and offer commiserations that it turned out the way it did. RFA is a tough place these days, I don't actually think you are that far away from admin status to be honest. I think McGinnly's question was odd, to be honest, I wouldn't answer much different myself and I'm an admin. Still, glad to see you learning from it. If you need a nomination next time let me know. Steve block Talk 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me know next time you are up for admin. I'll probably support then. Sorry you didn't make it this time. Carcharoth 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of correctional . . .

Before it turns into an edit war, I would appreciate an additional opinion from someone already familiar with the List of correctional facilities in comics. Please look at the recent edit history. Wryspy made a number of edits cleaning the article. I tweaked one of Wryspy's edits, but otherwise thought they made sense. The article is, after all, just a list and therefore should be as concise as possible. Someone else, however, keeps reverting the article. Since I disagreed with you on a previous point about the title (while nevertheless feeling you made rational, well argued points and contributins), I don't think anyone sensible can accuse me of soliciting your opinion just because I'm just trying to stack opinions in any particular direction. In this case, I'm more interested in the process than the outcome. Doczilla 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

iso15924

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:User_iso15924&diff=79949674&oldid=79949205
• Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hardly a consensus

Three cheers for your comments concerning the lack of a consensus on several deletions today. (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 1) I don't know how strongly you feel about this issue, but I appreciate you weighing in. I am very concerned about this trend toward Over-Deletionism and plan to stay on it. Any input is greatly appreciated. —Xanderer 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

cfd

corrections to my answer `'mikka (t) 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saying thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the good discussion and the reference to it on the powers talk page. Thefro552

My RfA and question

Just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for your support in my RfA. I really appreciate it! :-) On a side note, I was wondering what you meant when you said you disagree with my "notability work"? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that term. Was it something on AfD? I meant to ask you that before because I was quite curious, but it slipped my mind. Best, Irongargoyle 01:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a lifesaver!

A day later, although I had the best of intentions I now realize that there is a certain status quo regarding these multiple entries which a few take very personal. I appreciate your diplomatic manner in broaching these concerns to me and the speedy removal suggestion which I was able to apply to at least rectify the initial objection. You and a few others really stood out, showing the best in the comicbook project community in assuming the best and building bridges between different perspectives. My sincere regards. NetK 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)