User talk:WJBscribe

Hi! Leave a message and I'll get back to you...

Archives 1, 2, 3 ----- Thank You! Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC) My RfA Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Prince Harry image Hi, I'm concerned that the person in the picture you uploaded may not be Prince Harry. I've left a couple of comments on the image's talk page. Of course I could easily be wrong, I'm definitely not an expert on the royal family. If so, I apologize in advance. -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Reply from User:Ramadi Thanks for letting me know that. RfA thanks! Thank you so much, WJBscribe, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Ladner Trunk Road It wasn't as good as the last version ... it didn't tell me it was a thinner, four-lane road for about 0.8km until 57th Street, or anything! Thanks for the heads up :) Proto::► 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) My recent RfA Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC) You forgot to subst {{welcome}} at User talk:DjChrissyD When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. This includes {{welcome}} and {{welcomeip}}. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Some templates are able to display an error message if you subst them when you should not or vica versa. However, most don't. If you are interested, it appears that {{{nosubst}}} is non-blank whenever subst isn't used. However, I have not tried it myself. I do think more templates where it matters, should use it. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC) PicBin.net I am unsure why you marked the picbin page for deletion. It has unbias information and is not advertising. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks --Bradcis 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC) "Rt Hon." vs "Rt Hon" vs "Rt. Hon." In reference to your revert of my change to the Tony Blair article, there isn't and shouldn't be a consensus around using "The Rt Hon." as the standard abbreviation for "The Right Honourable". No Privy Councillor or official organization uses "The Rt Hon." in the UK, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, and there is no official consensus around that use by the community. "Rt Hon" and "Rt. Hon." are both used frequently, though the latter is a little more old fashioned. I know that "Rt Hon." is ubiquitous here, but it is completely incorrect and I've taken to changing it whenever I see it. The only person whose ever tried to defend it to me was Proteus, who said it was logical to not punctuate a contraction ("Rt" like "Mr") and that it was perfectly normal to punctuate an abbreviation ("Hon." like "Rev."). This is logical, but British ceremonial titles and practices don't care much for logic. So, in short, without an official policy concerning the abbreviation or another established, formal consensus, I've decided to engage in a little vigilante punctuating. I hope you don't mind too much. Cheers. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Outstanding. I'll see you around. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC) And thanks for the suggestion on Cabinet of the United Kingdom.-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Prince Harry libel I'm sorry about the lateness of my response. What you did is fine with me. My feelings always were that claims of looking like someone or sharing their hair color did not rise to the level needed to warrant mention in an encyclopedic article. If someone thinks Prince Harry looks like Mr. Hewitt and I think he looks like the Duke of Edinburgh, why shouldn't the latter be included when the former is? The Prince of Wales has never disowned Prince Harry, so the whole thing is rather moot. Keeping the article free of "bastardry" will require more vigilance than I'm willing to give. I've always been bothered by the lack of comment from the Dianics against claiming the Prince is not Harry's father. -Acjelen 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Agathoclea's RfA Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC) My Request for Adminship WJBscribe Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Welcome to VandalProof! Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, WJBscribe! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks Thank you for the Smile. I checked him too - he's got 300 edits, so maybe he'll learn with time. Having said that, he's been on Wikipedia three months longer than me... Oh well, I hope you enjoyed your Christmas. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC) LGBT WikiProject Newsletter The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue II - January 1, 2007 Happy New Year to all our members! Project News Several new templates have been created: {{Bi}} and {{Transgender}} by Dev920 and AliceJMarkham respectively. SatyrTN also created a {{LGBT Welcome}} template to welcome new members. Thanks to them all. The LGBT Portal's various sections could do with updating on a weekly basis. Please pitch in if you can. Latter Days became a Featured Article on December 31. It was written and nominated by Dev920. Congratulations Dev! A new assessment system has been implemented - we have tagged and assessed over 1100 articles so far! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system. A fledgling monthly LGBT Collaboration has been started, with Homosexuality as the December article and Gay stereotyping as our January article. Please contribute to this if you can, even if it's just correcting typos. A Translation department has been set up, to translate LGBT articles from foreign language Wikipedias that may have more information than our equivalent article. Please add your name if you are fluent in any language other than English. We have a brand new unique Project! Jumpaclass is a new semi-competition to improve our lower quality articles - see the subpage for more information. Please sign up and get it going! Finally, our membership numbers have exploded! 21 new users have joined the Wikiproject: AdelaMae, WJBscribe, Trodaikid1983, Jtowns, Agne27, Boyau, NickGorton, Dialecticas, DaliJim, Tonei, Cabbers, silent, Textorus, GLGerman, Haiduc, Hornandsoccer, Bopopop, NinaOdell, Badbilltucker, DanB DanD, and Tiger Marc. Please make them feel welcome! To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know. Thank you for your consideration Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Allusions and illusions Hi, WJB, I know what allusion means, as well as what illusion means, which is why I was changing it. It makes little (some but little) sense to me to use a word meaning references to in that context. Perhaps we need to reword the sentence altogether? :) Aleta 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC) No apology needed. Your comment was made politely.  :) I do like the way you've restructured the sentence - issue resolved! (Now we need some references, but that's a separate problem.) Aleta 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Nkras Yes, it is ironic that we are trying to get the block rescinded, but it is just so damn unfair! To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been raised in WP:AN or WP:ANI. If you do so, please let me know so I can support an unblock. If you'd rather I raise it, let me know that, too. I want this handled in the next day or so, one way or another. Jeffpw 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I added the unblock request a few minutes ago here. Jeffpw 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Question: what would happen if I......just sort of unblocked him, myself????????? Jeffpw 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Damn! The button didn't say it was limited (though I thought it might be). I just tried it and got a Permission error. Bah humbug :-( Jeffpw 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Copied from my talk page: I've reverted your unblock request on User talk:Nkras. I have no familiarity with the situation but neither I nor any other admin would seriously consider unblocking Nkras if he/she doesn't make the actual request. If you feel the block was made against policy, I would advise discussing it with the admin who did it, and if that doesn't resolve things, use WP:RFC. But without a request from Nkras himself, this whole thing is moot. Mangojuicetalk 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Wow. Just. Wow. I can't believe how that all played out. I've looked through Nkras' edits since his unblock, and they are smart ones. Maybe he has indeed learned a little something. Let's hope. And let's hope we don't cross paths with him again! Jeffpw 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC) My reevaluating It's not just users in general, but blockheaded administrators in the specific. The last straw for me was when that lamebrain Mangojuice reverted my edit to Nkras' block tag, in order to make it look like there was consensus of administrators up to and including James Wales himself (I refuse to use that childish nickname he prefers). That sort of revisionism is not allowed in articles here, so why should it be allowed by administrators on a power trip. Anyway, I will probably not leave entirely, but am severely limiting my participation to things that *I* enjoy, and not necessarily what I think will improve the project. And I value my Wikifriends, too  :-). Now I am off to bed--it's almost 2am here. Jeffpw 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Well, in his defense, he did delete that section after he calmed down, and it was reverted by an admin. I do understand your feeling, though, and I agree he is his own worst enemy. This whole situation has been very stressful. I shall continue to argue for his block being lifted/reduced, because it is the right thing to do procedurally, not because I think he will ever be a great editor. And I do wish I was fighting for the rights of someone completely innocent. But perhaps this is where the real character tests come in: fighting for the rights of people you dislike on a personal level, purely for the sake of justice. Jeffpw 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) You're right, of course...but he was still being a dick! Jeffpw 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Yummy! Thanks so much for the cookie! It was just what I needed to lower my wikistress a good 30 degrees! I am honored to have you as a wikifriend. Jeffpw 06:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Prod Firstly, thanks for AfD-ing that article I prodded and was unprodded.[1] I was just wondering, how do you identify when prods are deprodded? Is it a category (I dunno how that'd work, but meh), RC patrol, or watchlisting pages you come across that are prodded and noticing if they are removed? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC) On further thoughts, after reviewing the contribs of that IP, it seems to ring a bell with an AN/ANI/etc. discussion about this user - I vaguely remember a discussion about a 6*.**... IP removing templates from articles with no edit summary, and although I can't find it, I suspect it was this IP. Anyways, if you found it from that discussion, wherever it was, don't worry, but if you found it from another way, I'd love to know :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC) erection i'm sorry, i don't necessarily disagree with the bot's decision, but could you please point to where in that talk page it refers to the photo of my penis? i'm sorry, i just couldn't find it. thanks. Djy9302 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) LOL--and I thought I was going to get to eavesdrop on something really interesting for a change! (PS, glad to have been of a little assistance). Jeffpw 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Re: Changes made by your Bot to archives of WP:V WJBscribe wrote Hi, I was archiving the rather lengthy talk page at WP:V when I realised that your Bot had moved the original archives from the format 'archive1' et seq to 'Archive 1' et seq. Obviously I followed the format suggested by the Bot. Instead of also creating a redirect to the new archives, it seemed easier to correct Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/toc to link to the archives and not the redirects. Presumably the redirects at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive1 through to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive14 can now be deleted? There doesn't seem to be a suitable tag at WP:CSD however. I presume they don't require listing at WP:RfD. Can you just delete them and should there be a tag for future occasions when this arises in future? Thanks, WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Hi. If you're wondering why the format changed, the bot was moving all numbered archive pages (except for user talk pages) to fit the naming convention for such archives suggested at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, which has been in place for a while – "Archive 1", with a capital "A" and a space before the number. Redirects from the old names are necessary where other pages link to the archive, to prevent broken links. Changing the table of contents to link directly to the archives is helpful, as it removes some of the links, but in many cases other pages link directly to the archives. Where this is the case, removing the redirects would break the links on these other pages, so is probably not a good idea. See for example, Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive2, which shows another four pages linking to that redirect. If you really want the redirects deleted, you can go through "What links here" for every redirect and change all the incoming links to point directly to the archive's new name. They still wouldn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, however with the archives renamed nobody would link to that page again, so it would probably be safe to remove them. But unless a double redirect has been left somewhere (the bot checked for these after every move and I fixed them, so there shouldn't be any), having a few links go through redirects is fine – there are thousands of redirects lying around as the result of page moves, most of which are doing no harm – Gurch 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Again Ruth Kelly Hi WJBscribe, as you may have seen, this morning two IP users inserted a new section "Private schooling" in the article about Ruth Kelly based on news articles of today in The Guardian and Mirror.co.uk (is that really identical to The Daily Mirror?). Though Kelly's or Labour's opponents obviously rejoice to exploit the issue and even members from her own party seem not to be above suggesting she should sacrifice the childs' welfare to party principles (see Mirror article), covering this in our article in my opinion violates the privacy of Mrs. Kelly and of the child involved, not least the derogatory label "It is understood the child has learning difficulties", and eventually also our own WP:BLP-policy. Before taking any action I would like hear your opinion as a decent compatriot of Kelly. --Túrelio 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) The Editor's Barnstar I award this Barnstar to WJBscribe for his efforts to achieve precise and neutral wording in the article Ruth Kelly. Túrelio 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)