User talk:Essjay

Moving a Subpage

Thanks for taking care of changing my username so promptly! I subsequently succeeded in moving my user & talk pages, but my subpage didn't "come over" with them. I can't figure out how to get to it, so that I can move it. Can you help? btw, it might be a good idea to say something about moving subpages (even tho it only applies to user pages) in the "Help:Moving a page" page. Thanks! Newbie Mpwrmnt 11:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'll be so kind as to link the subpage, I'll be more than happy to move it for you. :) Essjay (Talk) 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Hi! I just came across your userpage, and I had to tell you it looks awesome :) You did a great job designing it! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! But, I must also give credit to my dear friend, User:Sannse who spent an insane amount of time sorting through the subpage transclusions getting them all to be the same size on the page. Essjay (Talk) 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing my RfA and setting my admin permission. I have seen you many times in my wanderings around here and I can only hope that I will be as good of an admin (and all around Wikipedian) as you are. Thanks again. =)

P.S. Sorry about my multi-word username breaking your template. -- Gogo Dodo 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and of course, congratulations! I'm sure you'll be a fabulous admin. (And don't worry about the template, I just hadn't put in the right variable. ;)) Essjay (Talk) 00:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emir214

Did I abuse my account? No. I am not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, yet. As I have told everyone, I am a minor. (I am afraid this is not yet case-closed.) - Emir214 11:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, yet. Indeed, you aren't: It is closed. Essjay (Talk) 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt your credibility, I doubt it. - Emir214 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving project talk page - Reply

Unless somebody has told you otherwise, could you set your bot to archive Project Paranormal on a 30 day basis with archive file size limits of 75K. I'll leave it to you to define the archive name as I don't know what's best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perfectblue97 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure, no problem. Essjay (Talk) 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Countervandalism network

The seagulls are flocking. Three are looking for a good warm spot to roost. Please advise. Over. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I only have a short time tonight; could you drop me an email with the details? Essjay (Talk) 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot log IN!!!!!!

02:23, 1 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Changing username (→User:Missingno → User:I'm_Missing_No_Teeth - Complete.) I know the password its all over the yellow pages, just the name says there is no such name. How could this be happening?

I'm not sure; are you sure you're spelling it correctly? Essjay (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology about Wikiquote bots

Essjay, I am posting this here because I am concerned, based on your WQ talk page statement, that you do not intend to return to en:Wikiquote, over a single mistake caused by a misunderstanding.

I hope that you will consider reading the apology I posted to you there. Clearly I did not understand bot operation sufficiently even to provide the feedback I did at q:WQ:AN#Archived. I have posted there a brief statement about my error and have requested more informed input from other editors, especially bot-experienced editors, because so far, no other Wikiquotian has even commented on your commendable attempt to help us with routine maintenance (or, for that matter, the mess I've made of things).

Not that it excuses my own error, but I would point out that this is the kind of problem I was worried about when we were considering you for sysop at en:WQ, which made me want to defer your candidacy. No one, myself included, doubted your experience, skills, and dedication, which probably exceed anyone else who edits there with any frequency. (I have since been delighted with your contributions, and have never regretted being outvoted, not even with this situation arising.) But I've seen in Wikipedia wizards a tendency to assume that the massive policy and practices infrastructure of en:Wikipedia is not only appropriate but highly desirable for all non-stubby sister projects. As you may have noticed when you attempted to organize our policy revisions, we simply don't have the editorial bandwidth to support anything but minimally formal processes.

I also note that, when q:Wikiquote:Bots was being discussed, it was basically written by Aphaia (an infrequent en:WQ editor now) and MosheZadka (now gone), and MosheZadka approved the policy after no objections, rather than any explicit consensus (the way many WQ policies have come into being, lest we have none or only severely outdated ones). No one else even participated in the discussion. This means that, however much we might want to emulate WP on bots, we must expect a less formal environment, or face similar problems and misunderstandings.

I hope that you will consider that my blocking of your bot was not a bad-faith action, but a simple error in understanding the protocol of bot operation on projects that, unlike Wikiquote, have an active bot system. In any case, please do not hold my error against en:Wikiquote itself, or think that your contributions haven't been extremely valuable. Thank you for listening.

[end heart-felt groveling] ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually have read your apology there, but admittedly, only as I was on my way to bed the same morning (morning for me, local time). I've not been around in the last couple days, and so I hadn't had the opportunity to make a response. Rather than doing so here, I'll do so later (not tonight, as my time tonight is extremely limited) on Wikiquote. Rest assured, I thought your comments shed a lot of light on the situation, and I think you are right in characterizing it as a misunderstanding void of any bad-faith. One of the things I like about Wikiquote is that it is less formal, but I suppose that my time spent in the grand bureaucracy of Wikipedia has rooted itself in my wiki-thought patterns. At any rate, no need to fear, I'll be back over there as soon as I have a bit more free time (perhaps tomorrow, though one never knows). Essjay (Talk) 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, I owe you an apology for being a grand jackass. Just wanted to make sure I'd said that publicly (and I wonder some days if the Main page is more public than my talk page.) Essjay (Talk) 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD Request

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

It needs more input from seasoned editors.

Thank you, Linux monster 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I don't find myself at AFD very much, but I'll take a look; I can't promise input, though, because I'm a bit out of touch with our deletion system. Essjay (Talk) 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Essjay, if you have the time...

Hi Mr. Essjay, My name is Rachel and I am in my second-year of college. My Critical Thinking class is doing a paper on Wikipedia and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind me asking you a few questions. I understand if you are busy, so that's perfectly fine, but if you have the time i will add the questions below. Thank you so much for your time.

Enjoy! -Rachel

Questions: -Should authors or students be allowed to us Wikipedia as a sited source for research? What are the reasons you believe that it should/should not? -Is it possible for Wikipedia to mark areas "approved" or "correct" if it is? -Should animosity be allowed with so much freedom to edit or create wherever one pleases?

Thanks again Mr. Essjay! =] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeesKnees8 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure, I'm happy to answer your questions.

1) Yes, Wikipedia should be able to be used as a cited source, but as a secondary source. The point of an encyclopedia is not to be a primary source for academic writing, but rather, a secondary source, one from which one gleans information that leads to primary sources. Encyclopedias, even ones like Wikipedia that are far closer to comprehensive than their traditional cousins, simply can't provide the level of detail necessary of a primary source: The best use of the encyclopedia is to acquaint onesself with a topic otherwise un- or ill-known, and in the process, develop sufficient understanding to obtain more precise, detailed, and comprehensive sources. An illustration that might help would be that of a globe to a road map: You could try to get from your hotel to the airport with only a globe, but you'll probably be far more successful with a city map. However, if you have no idea where you are in the world, it might be better to start with the globe, figure out what hemisphere you're in, then consult the correct road map. The same applies to an encyclopedia, Wikipedia included: Gather your bearings with the encyclopedia, then move to a more specific source.

2) I believe that in many respects, Wikipedia may be the only semi-authoritative source available to start a person on their way. For many topics, Wikipedia provides excellent coverage where other more traditional sources are silent. It is also widely available to anyone with an internet connection, completely free, so it provides a resource to those who can't avail themselves of more traditional secondary sources. Even where Wikipedia isn't the only option, it remains beneficial as a starting point for research.

3) Is it possible? I suppose so. Is it a good idea? No. First of all, approved begs the question "by whom" and I can't think of an answer to that question that doesn't involve abandoning our commitment to equality of editors and free authorship. We have processes, such as featured articles that seek to identify particularly spectacular examples of Wikipedia articles, but it would be an exercise in folly to try to mark articles as "approved" or indeed even "correct." Correct is, of course, a relative aspect: What is correct at 1:31:03 UTC on 6 December 2006 may well not be correct at 1:32:04 UTC, as things are changing constantly. We strive in every article to provide the most up to date and accurate information possible, but errors, omissions, and inaccuracies are a fact of life for any source, and it would be inviting disaster to attempt to deny this by labeling articles as "correct". It is always the responsibility of the reader to verify any information received from any source, including Wikipedia.

4) Animosity? No, animosity should not ever be allowed; it's delusional to think everyone will get along, but a minimum level of civility should be, and is, expected of all individuals at all times. However, I suspect (and I'm not being patronizing here) that you meant should anonymity be allowed, and I belive yes it should. Knowing the real-life details of a contributor is unimportant; the key factor in inclusion of material should be accuracy (as evidenced by verifability), and it doesn't matter if it is accurate material coming from a professor with a truckload of titles, a retired grandma from Boise, or a student. If Stephen Hawking contributes incorrect or unverifiable material, it should be removed; if Aunt Suzie contributes accurate and verified information, it should be retained. I believe, honestly, that in many cases anonymity increases the value of our material: by not knowing who contributed it, we are forced to evaluate it on it's merits, rather than on the merits of the contributor, which is what we should be doing across the board, 100% of the time. Additionally, anonymity protects our contributors, who often find themsleves the targets of individuals with ill and/or criminal intent.

I hope you find this helpful; if you have other questions, please feel free to ask. I'd love to see a copy of your paper when you're finished. Essjay (Talk) 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:EssjayBot III archiving

Can you please archive my talk page?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<archivebot>
  <target>
    <page>User talk:Nishkid64</page>
    <archive>User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 12</archive>
    <mode>autoincrement</mode>
    <age>3</age>
    <counter>1</counter>
    <maxsize>50</maxsize>
  </target>
</archivebot> 

Question, what's the counter thing do? Nishkid64 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The <counter> tags tell the bot what number is the current archive; for example, <counter>1</counter> tells it to archive to Archive 1, while <counter>15</counter> tells it to archive to Archive 15. The bot automatically updates the counter as new archives are needed. This functionality allows the bot to take over where archiving has already begun without the need to start over at Archive 1. Essjay (Talk) 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks. Nah, I'm requesting your bot because Werdnabot is not archiving for me anymore...and hasn't in the last month. Nishkid64 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem; EssjayBot III will be by every day to check for anything needing archving. Essjay (Talk) 02:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfcua

The bot won't list re-opened cases because there's no hidden category added. Thatcher131 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Is there any way we could get the category included; the fewer people editing /Pending, the less likely it is that something will happen that breaks the bot. Essjay (Talk) 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I have two ideas but I can't make them work. One is to create a template containing the case preload from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample, and instruct people in Rfcua that to reopen a case they should subst the template at the top of the page (thus creating the preload with category) and then edit the preload to add their specific info. This would be best since the procedure for reopening a case would be exactly the same as opening a case. However, I can't make the category transclude properly. It needs to be noincluded in the preloaded case, and while that's easy with the preload, I can't seem to make it work using subst from a template.

My other idea was to add the inputbox function to Rfcua so that it would create a comment on the same page preloaded with Inputbox/Sample. This worked even less well as I could not figure out how to make the inputbox talk to the page it was on, much less preload the text into the top of the page. Plus, we don't really want an inputbox anyway, what we really want is a button that will preload the Inputbox/Sample text onto the top of the page. Maybe you can make one of these ideas work.

A third idea would be to add the entire text of the Inputbox/Sample with category into Rfcua, commented and nowikied, with the instruction to uncomment and un-nowiki, but that would be less easy to do than any other alternative. Thatcher131 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be easier on you if the Clowns would stop enraging every editor on Wikipedia?

I mean come on. Nearly every one of these blocks is frivolous when you look into them. Yet they have you running around like a crazy man trying to track everyone of us down. It's not fair to you. --Novus Ordo Seculorum 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed an important part of what you're talking about, namely, who you are and who the clowns are. Essjay (Talk) 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would expect someone in your position to know what's going on: why they have you running in a wheel like a hampster. Who I am is not important. --Novus Ordo Seculorum 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

can i please

be a reserve mediation member for when you are shorthanded on mediators?The Pink Panther 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete user/talk page

Thanks for renaming me. Please delete my user/talk pages. Timo3 11:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete mine, too. By the way, we mean our old name pages. Gladysco ball 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Me, three. Liz Wiz 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Me, four. Missing No Teeth 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Me, five. Er... no, wrong line. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nere Mind

Found it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missing No Teeth (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Someone has been repeatedly removing "White Christmas" and "Rock Around The Clock," both certified as having sold more than 10 million copies, from this page:

List of best-selling singles in the United States

Not sure who is doing it, so how should I proceed?

Thanks,

Mark Milano