User talk:WJBscribe

Sockpuppets...

I believe them to be the same because that IP address is of the same range, and they are haggling over exactly the same edits as before. Gsd2000 11:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Compare this new one: 88.111.13.106 to the WHOIS entry that you were having problems with 88.111.50.59 Gsd2000 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in this... [1] Gsd2000 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Project Galileo

I think I know some of the people involved, so am not voting, but your assessment seems to be correct. A useful contrast might be Faulkes Telescope North and Faulkes Telescope South which are professional class telescopes available for school use. Chrislintott 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just sent you a text about ticket for tomorrow. Let me know what you want me to do Chrislintott 12:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure edits have improved the situation. You might want to go and fix the fact that the dome, and not the telescope, is 1.3 m across. The later would be something like the second largest telescope ever to be operational in the UK.... Chrislintott 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac killer

I think I am correct here, but feel like a hard ass. Can you take a minute to read my comments and perhaps weigh in? I personally think if a living person is going to be accused of serial killing, we should add a source for that. Call me silly, but I think about libel lawsuits with those sorts of accusations. Jeffpw 05:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you on the need for sources for anything controversial here and support your comments. We can't have hearsay that people are suspected serial killers being listed on Wikipedia. There should be:

1. a ref to confirm each person was a real suspect
2. a ref to confirm any piece of evidence which puports to connect them

Hardcopy references should be just as good as web sources unless you have reason to doubt the person who is adding them (the fact readers have to go to a library to double check them shouldn't be an issue). Page numbers should be included though. By the way, my personal opinion is that the article is in a shocking state. Its full of OR and editorialising e.g. "Even if Kane is responsible for the disappearance of Donna Lass -- and it's possible she disappeared of her own free will -- that still does not make Kane the Zodiac" and "Finally, it should be noted that the SFPD has never sought to question Mr. X". Phrases like it should be noted are clealy against the MOS. If you're intending to take on tyding this one up- good luck! WjBscribe 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be a challenge indeed. The page was just unlocked after being fully protected for 2 weeks. There is a WP:OWN|ownership dispute, and these Zodiac ...err...enthusiasts take this page very seriously. I am starting on the refs, then will tackle the other (enormous) issues one by one. Thanks for having a look. Jeffpw 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, WJBscribe, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Membership list

I have to agree with Satyr on this one: when you look through MILHIST's membership history, every other edit is Kirill Lokshin sorting out members who have put their names at the bottom. I also use it to update the inactive members list and the newsletter, which would be more difficult if I had to use the history. And besides, I get a kick out of being Member No.17 (I was when I joined). :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you're both against the idea, I'll let it drop. WjBscribe 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Link

Hey Buddy. K. I wanna use it on my User:Page. I want it to be a pic of a calculator that links to the page that shows my edit count. -- Cheers! Zazzer 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert at Ahmedabad

Hi. Can you tell me why you reverted my edits on Ahmedabad? [2]. I have reverted your revert. (I used rollback to save time - hope you don't mind :)) Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Maybe you should file a report at the village pump. There must be a bug or something. Anyways, not a big deal. Appreciate your efforts in keeping the article vandal-free. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Neat. I didn't know they had an email. Thanks for the tip! Natalie 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Looks like Will Beback must have finished what he was doing. The few remaining comments are mostly notes that unsourced entries were deleted.

I can do a table, but since it's just a list of names now, it's going to become a big wall of blank fields that need to be filled in manually -- are you ready for that scope creep? —Celithemis 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then, that's easy enough. —Celithemis 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Angelo Sepe

The present version of the article is very different from the one that was deleted as a copyvio. It appears to be fine. >Radiant< 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of...

Thanks for your help with the references. -Will Beback · † · 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently, everyone in the list is sourced so it isn't violating BLP. I think it'd be fair to make a file of all the sourced names that are removed and place it in Chidom's user space so that his previous work wouldn't be lost. -Will Beback · † · 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More Zodiac Killer crap

Can you take another look at this? I deleted whole sections (all suspects, since most have been eliminated, and no arrests have ever been made), and anticipate a lot of resistance to the changes. Maybe you can watchlist it, if you don't mind. There's a Zodiac movie coming out on Friday, and I expect it's going to be hell on this page. Jeffpw 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I suggest that on Friday you list it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so everyone knows its likely to be problematic. WjBscribe 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your deletions 100%. I was very uncomfortable with the coverage of suspects that article. I will watchlist it so that any attempt to readd them will have to comply with WP:BLP. By the way, how reliable a source is 'www.zodiackiller.com' anyway? WjBscribe 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been online for almost 10 years, and is the most comprehensive Zodiac killer site out there. 2 million hits a month. Featured on both TV and newspaper articles about the case. I think it's pretty reliable. [3]. By the way, I already put the article on that notice board. The film is having advance screenings, and there are also several TV shows in America this week. The traffic to the article is way up already. Thanks for your help. Jeffpw 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

open proxies

I've volunteered my comments on the issue you recently raised on my talk page, @ WP:ANI. I hope someone finds it helpful :)

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 08:32Z

Thanks, might be nice if someone actually un-indef blocks that IP as a result as well :-). WjBscribe 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What you wanted an actual logical outcome? Silly :x

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 10:49Z

*grumble* if I *wanted* a timestamp the bot would recognize, I would have added one. By updating the in-comment one, I dodged the problem without sacrificing the all-important aesthetics.

If you need me, I'll be color-coordinating your signature for you :P

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:08Z

Pardon my trying to help :-). I hadn't noticed the change to the in-comment one. By the way, one of Essjay's Bots archives this page too. Though there are plenty of my timestamps for it to go by in thread. What colour do you think my sig should be anyway... WjBscribe 11:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You know I'm kidding ;) I actually like the current shade, although you could always join me in my .sig rebellion and transclude the whole thing. *just got done explaining why it's not going to topple Wikipedia, for the 29th time ...* That's the problem when policy makers try to legislate solutions to nonexistent problems -- the technical aspects of the system (whether transclusion causes load {no, transclusions are rendered when changed rather than on-load}) are best left to developers. And under normal circumstances, you couldn't transclude your .sig even if you wanted to ... policy overlapping an existing technical solution.

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:30Z

I can see the problem where people transclude sigs and don't subst them. But not sure I see any issues beyond that. What does the 'z' stand for in your timestamp anyway? WjBscribe 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What baseline problems do you see with unsubst'ed sigs (such as yours truly's) ? :)

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:40Z

LOL. I'd always thought yours was substituted... Just seen I'm wrong. OK, I'm actually going to shut up now. You know a lot more about this than I do ;-) .... WjBscribe 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Do you like my (slightly desperate) appeal to WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY at Afd? WjBscribe 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to watch me slug the whole thing out yet again, you can check out this thread :x

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:52Z

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
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. Ralbot 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Possible username prob

Hmm, fair enough. It's only come up once before (somebody wanted User:Diff), and we just settled it on WT:CHU/U. IIRC, we mentioned the discussion under the request itself; I don't recall if we linked it from WP:RFC/N. Not sure about the best course of action for resolving these -- I figure taking care of it on WT:CHU/U keeps a (longer-lasting) record the bcrats can easily find and take into consideration, linking it from WP:RFC/N encourages community input. Not sure how well it'll scale, but so long as we only run into these every so often, it seeeeeems like it might be the way to go? If you have any suggestions, feel free -- as I said, this would only be the second time it's come up. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of the CHU/U side, if you'll take RFC/N? :) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N64 Kid

I'm afraid I messed up big time. I confused this kid with the Star Wars Kid. Sorry. I've striked out my AFD comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob- easily done. I only came across this article because it mentioned in a post at WP:ANI. WjBscribe 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted it to ANI

But when are you gonna get the fuckin' shiny buttons, hon????? Jeffpw 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm home if you want to chit-chat. On IRC my name is Amsterdad, on Skype my name is KingCranky. Let me know if you A) have the time; B) have the inclination; and C)which chat format you want to use. Got some great news, by the way: my book project, which was stalled, is back on track after 4 months of trying and failing to track somebody down for a series of interviews. I have one book in me and it looks like it is going to emerge. Joy! Jeffpw 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm on undernet, not in any channel. With my username you can type directly to me. Alternatively, we can use gmail (you have that addy now) or yahoo (trex132). As to the ANI thing, I am going through contributions as we speak/type. Jeffpw 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gmail it is, then, Hit me up when you get the chance. I am working on my second article from that ANI page now. Jeffpw 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Hurdles

Hi, WjB - I've appreciated your comments over at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. As you may have seen from my links on that page, I've been sort of shoved into taking point on getting the Copyeditor's Barnstar approved (as opposed to making changes to the current Editor's Barnstar). Have you gone through the barnstar approval process before? This is my first time and I'm actually rather unclear how much support we need to get a go for a new barnstar, or even for an Other-Related Award. The first run-through was rather abruptly (and, imho, inappropriately/prematurely) archived by Evrik, so we've re-proposed it. It's once again getting strong support, but I'm really unclear on how much is enough. Any thoughts or pointers? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)