User talk:Ali'i

Aloha! Welcome to my talk page. I don't want to archive. Anything of great import can be found in the history. A hui hou. --Ali'i 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your work in removing watermarks from images! It was work that really needed to be done. —Bkell (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I try. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also a hearty thanks from me on the removal of the watermark from the Gettysburg Lincoln Monument. It helps the picture in a featured article. CJC47 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Just an FYI that at least one person (myself) recognizes the substantial contibution you have made to the article. While everyone else is bonking one another over the head you're doing alot of the heavy lifting and making it a better article. Just wanted to say thanks. Midnight Gardener (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Angry Gardener. :-) Thank you for your work there as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And very nice improvement to the footnote. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kapu

Aloha! I was wondering your reason for removing Liholiho after Kamehameha II on this page? Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aloha, Makana Chai. I had removed Liholiho after Kamehameha II on kapu because the internal link to Kamehameha II was broken when "(Liholiho)" was added: Kamehameha II (Liholiho). See? Anyone who clicks on the link to Kamehameha II can see his full name. Maybe it could be re-added like this: Kamehameha II (Liholiho). I think that would work. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply re:Request for eyes/policy proposal?

Hi there, it's Webfan29 I just wanted to let you know that I had left you a message reply at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding images. NOTE: the images i've uploaded on wikipedia are from my Canon PowerShot A560 camera and these images were taken by me during my trip to Cuba in January 2008. All other images were either scanned from a book or found on the internet. Thank you. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webfan29 (talk • contribs) 02:03, May 20, 2008

Thanks I'll take a look. In the meantime, did you know that you can sign your comments on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~~~~) which will give your name, date, and time? Mahalo, Webfan. --Ali'i 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Aloha, Ohana

Aloha! (I'm not Hawaiian though) Thanks for your suggestion, I'm going to change the notice now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Zoogz Rift

Hi, just saw your note that you were considering a "PROD" for the Zoogz Rift article. The "Musical career" section does cite references, and in my opinion establishes the subject's notability. The subject does meet notability criteria 1 and 5, as listed in WP:MUSIC, and (if I can find a source for it) he also meets 4. If it helps establish further notability, one of his records was the featured record review in Spin. But this was 20 to 22 years ago, I don't even know if I still have that issue (and it will be about a month before I could go looking for it). For what it's worth, I've always known of Zoogz Rift as a musician; I don't think I even knew about his wrestling career until I saw it in the Wikipedia article. Anyway, my $0.02. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gyrofrog. I had actually wrote the edit summary without remembering the music stuff (basically on the wrestling stuff alone). By the time I had finished trying to fix the wrestling stuff, I forgot to alter the summary. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I had just tagged the wrestling section with unreferencedsect. I think older versions may have used in-line external links, but these were to Youtube etc. that are generally avoided. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Brief question

Would you mind saying how you came across Harold Baily Dixon (thanks for the edit!). I'm trying to find out how people find articles that I've created. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aloha, Carcharoth. Well now, that is a very good question. I didn't remember off-hand, so I tried looking back through our contributions to see if I could remember. I have a couple of guesses: first, I saw your name somewhere (admin noticeboards, an arbitration case, or bot approval group discussions... places I remember going where you also frequent) thought something about you, and was looking through your contributions, and found it. Second, and what I am now thinking is more likely, is clicking random article. I don't remember doing any kind of new page patrol in recent weeks, so I doubt that is it. I looked where the page is linked to, and I didn't come across it that way. So my guess is that it was just a random article that I tried to fix up a little. If in the next couple of days I remember exactly, I'll let you know. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I noticed, despite nominating Fogster for rollback rights, you don't have the rights yourself. You do a good job with reverting vandalism, and seem trustworthy enough with rollback: would you like me to give you them? Acalamari 02:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mah... I think rollback is a nice tool, and very effective and useful for vandal fighters, but I don't think that I would really ever use it. When I do revert vandalism, I don't have a problem using the undo button or reverting manually "the old way". Reverting vandalism for me is not a race, so I don't feel the need... the need for speed. ;-) Thanks for the offer, but I can't see the need for the tool currently. I have no problem being a ROBE (Regular Old Boring Editor) for now. Thank you for the kind offer though. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine then: I just asked in case you did want it. :) Just contact me in the event you ever decide you want them. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello. I reverted your reversion of a reversion to a deletion you made. Hold on...yeah that's what I did. The reason being that the editor's comment, while not exactly super friendly, wasn't exactly uncivil and that editor has had time to contemplate this comment and still wants it to be made. As it's not blatantly offensive I do not feel that it should be removed by anyone but the editor that made it. Unless, of course, the target of the comment feels insulted. Didn't mean to look like an asshole, so I figured I'd let you know why I did what was done. Beam 21:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I definitely am not going to revert war over this. I was made aware of the comment at the Incidents noticeboard. (See more discussion there.) Although I would probably disagree with you that it isn't uncivil. Calling someone a fuckwit isn't very nice. And that's how I read the comment. The comment was rude and does not contribute to a productive conversation. Therefore, it has no place on the talk page. So I removed it. Alas. Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate the current climate of "Civil Nazis." He didn't call him a fuckwit right out. Anyway, I appreciate you being decent enough not to have an edit war. Beam 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You are aware of the idea of confirmation bias, right? While a proper analysis of voting patterns might reveal something interesting (or, more likely IMO, reveal that there's nothing all that odd about the voting pattern you pointed out), making a list like yours will reveal a pattern, whether there is one or not. You chose to present data without analysis in a manner that plays upon people's confirmation biases. Your intentions may be good, but you are being misleading.

If you were to assume good faith you'd make an attempt to answer the question "is there something going on here" first. Presenting the sort of evidence you presented creates the impression that something nefarious is going on - regardless of whether the data supports it or not. It plays upon the tendency for people to see a pattern, whether one exists or not. Maybe it isn't an assumption of bad faith, but it has as a necessary presupposition that one totally discard any assumption of good faith. Guettarda (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)