User talk:Fish and karate

La page du parle du Proto

Archive 1 (March 05 - August 05)

Archive 2 (August 05 - September 05)

Archive 3 (September 05 - November 05)

Archive 4 (November 05 - December 05)

Archive 5 (December 05 - February 06)

Archive 6 (February 06 - March 06)

Archive 7 (March 06 - May 06)

Archive 8 (May 06 - July 06)

Archive 9 (July 06 - October 06)

Archive 10 (October 06 - November 06)

Archive 11 (November 06 - December 06)

Archive 12 (December 06 - January 07)

Please place your comments at the bottom of the talk page.

I may reply on here, or on your talk page. It depends how whimsical I'm feeling.

This talk page is archived when I feel like it. Usually when it goes over 50k.

Wheeeeeeee.

---

New administrators - please direct your RFA thanks message (or the messages where you curse me for opposing you, whatever) to User talk:Proto/RFAs. I will read it, don't worry.

New to Wikipedia? - hello! See Wikipedia:Welcome and Wikipedia:Help for useful advice to get you started. If that doesn't help you, then by all means come back and ask me your question(s).

Did I delete your page? If it was through Articles for deletion, and you knew about it, kindly proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'll just direct you there anyway. Why not save time? If your page was speedily deleted, read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, and if you still don't see why it was deleted, then please do ask me here.

Here to complain or talk about anything else? - yes, this is the right place. Note that I reserve the right to amend any abuse to make you appear unintentionally dumb, lame, or funny, and I may even resort to disemvowelling.

---

Mr. Lady Records

I still don't think it's terribly notable, but it's well-written enough to be worth staying on Wikipedia - I haven't actually voted myself on the AfD, and I think it's important the process continue. However, I find it highly likely that the decision will be to keep since your overhaul, as already appears to be becoming the case. Well done for your rescue. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, nominated for deletion in the first place :) Thanks anyway! Proto::► 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Delhi FAC

Hi! Thanks for your comments in the FAC. I have provided citation for one sentence. Curbed one sentence and provided citation for that. Removed one sentence as citation could not be given. Please have a look. And a huge thanks for the edits you made in the article. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

oops! Overlooked that. Now citation has been provided for that one, too. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream

When I reverted it, the link no longer re-directed to that short-storey but rather to the short-storey collection by the same name. DrWho42 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The short story collection was a redirect to the main article until you changed the article. As you changed it to something with no content other than "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream is a collection of short stories by Harlan Ellison featuring I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream", it's been turned back into a redirect. Proto::► 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

3 Deleted Articles on Goblin's Translations

Out of 4 articles on Goblin's "funny translations" nominated for deletion, 3 were deleted. Can you please explain the difference between the 3 that were deleted and the 1 that was not? All 4 nominations to AfD were essentially about the same thing. Chronolegion 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the discussions at AFD were different. Proto::► 14:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional police detectives on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of fictional police detectives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AndyJones 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sister Spit

Sorry, I am not yet convinced. this ref only includes tangential mentions of the person in a discussion of another subject (Wikipedia:Notability (music)), and the other article here fails the non-trivial published works requirement, as it is merely a press clipping announcing the next concert in a small paper (not sure how notable the paper is). With only one disc, I still seriously doubt their notability. From here we have two options: (1) We keep the notability tag, and another user will look at it and may delete it in the future based on his/her decision. (2) We start a WP:AFD, where a number of users look at it and judge its notability. The second one has the advantage of being faster and less dependent on one person, and both of us can add arguments there directly. What should it be? For now i add the notability tag again, but let me know if you want the AfD process. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Spit, and will put it life in a few minutes. Please comment there on its notability. On a side note, the AfD is not a process for deletion, only a process to determine notability. I hope this helps. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Boyfriends

I have to say, I do object, and not just because it would be Boyfriends (film). There's an actual film called Boyfriends, so it shouldn't be changed for a redirect. It might a good idea to put "You may have been looking for Boyfriend" at the top, though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be film (didn't spot it was a British release). I can move it. Usually, a plural will direct to the singular (so tables redirects to table, babies redirects to the same place baby does (infant), dogs to dog, sharks to shark and so on. Does this make sense? Proto::► 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because Baby is a crap 2003 film that no-one has made an article for! But, whatever, I'm not going to argue with any more people this week. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (with regards the crapness of that film), but see Baby (disambiguation) - the musical is at Baby (1983 musical), the rapper at Baby (rapper), the Natasha Bedingfield song's at Babies (song), and so on. Proto::► 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, you and your infuriating reasonableness. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Zeta Phi

Hi, why was the Zeta Phi Chapter of Beta Theta Pi article deleted? On what authority? There was note vote to delete. Please explain.

Notability for this particular chapter was met in the illustrious collection of alumni, i.e. Sam Walton, Ken Lay, Edgar Snow, Enoch Crowder, Gary Barnett, Crosby Kemper, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.63.10.24 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Forget the alumni. The notability is in that the Zeta Phi Society, from which the chapter evolved, was the first fraternity founded west of the Mississippi River. That is an assertion of a historic nature and of a unique nature; I can't see how that doesn't qualify as an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Hey"

You're very welcome. Any time. Congratulations on your victory! Intheshadows 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on the Entertainment Reference Desk. BeefJeaunt 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't read Hannibal Rising, it's rubbish. Proto::► 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Suz Andreason AfD sock suspicions

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suz Andreasen, do you think that I should have reported the suspicious votes at WP:SSP? My rationale for not doing so was: (a) I didn't consider them in closing, (b) I suspected that they belonged to A____ M____, and I didn't give his opinion much weight anyway, (c) WP:SSP was, and always is, backlogged, and (d), I couldn't be bothered with all the drama likely to result. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the closing admin would have discounted them if they would have made a jot of difference to the result. Just note them on the AFD if you suspect sockery. Proto::► 11:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Had a chat with A.M., who seems like a well-intentioned new editor, so I think it can be forgotten anyway. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Woollybear Festival

I'm still trying to understand why you deleted my Woollybear Festival entry. I did everything as correctly as possible. How can I go back and correct whatever may be wrong if you've already deleted it? HonoluluGuy 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded to user's email. Proto::► 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Travb - Vendetta

Thanks for the support you gave against this users allegations. I do not expect people to take sides in his vendetta against me but I appreciate that you looked at his evidence and were quite neutral in your response. I personally find his User:Travb/m page that he has created against me offensive and full of conjecture and assumption, but I will leave it to the admins to determine his true motives for this. Thanks once again for not taking sides. Mobile 01 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Americas finest city

Turns out it's a legitimate nickname, I'm going to recreate. John Reaves 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify, I nominated it for a speedy while browsing Special:Deadendpages. It was only after nominating, that I realized the San Diego article lists it as a legitimate nickname, therefore a legitimate redirect (despite how it looks). John Reaves 11:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted it. It still seems like a bad redirect, but it's not a speedy. Proto::► 11:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Moondyne

Left a note to say hes offline till the 20th SatuSuro 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

futanari

I am sure you've noticed by now your suggestion that futanari be afd'd was ill-advised. It is my very strong hope that you don't decide to ignore the discussion taking place there simply because the discussion has been posted to various forums. There are obviously dozens of people commenting there that are members of the project prior to your mistake here. ... aa:talk 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Proto::► 10:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

w d nt thrtn dltn whn w wnt smthng dn. w d t rslvs. yr ctns, nd ths md by dmnstrtrs lk y s wll s yr glb nd smg rply, ntrly dsgst m. yr cmplnt tht y "dn't lk th sbjct" nd ths "cn't b bthrd t src t" s scknng. f y dn't lk t, nd ths cn't src t, MV N ND FND SMTHNG LS T BTCH BT. f yu dn't lk smthng nd CN g t th trbl t fnd src (s street racing nd leet fr my ffrts n ths rgrd) y hv vry rsn t cmpln. ths s nt yr prsnl strg st fr nfrmtn y fnd wrthy f th h. spns crpus. y mst ply lng wth thrs — ncldng ths y d nt lk, sch s myslf. ... aa:talk 07:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disemvowelled per warning at the top of the page. Proto::► 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion and protection of Comparison of BitTorrent sites

Hi Proto,

You deleted the Comparison of BitTorrent sites today, under the grounds that it's a recreation of deleted content. I am, however, familiar with WP:CSD, and it specifically states that the article can only be speedily deleted if it is "substantially identical" to the original. This was not the case - as I stated on the talk page, the new article had much more detail (which was the main complaint at the AfD) and cited sources.

If you feel that you cannot recreate this article in the mainspace, please recreate it in my userspace. I'd like to at least have a backup copy.

Best regards,

Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ultra-Loser/Comparison of BitTorrent sites 2. If you intend to recreate it as an article, let me know first so I can check it isn't virtually identical to the originally deleted article, as the one I deleted yesterday was basically the same, with the addition of some text - visible on the article(!) - informing people of the rules for how to add things to the list. Please don't re-add it to main article space - or try and create a similar page but with a different name - without checking with an admin, as it will probably be deleted again. Proto::► 10:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for userfying the article. However, my point with the citing of WP:CSD was that I believe the article was improperly deleted - it did not meet CSD G4 - and that it should be restored to the mainspace. Can you recreate it in the mainspace please? I'd rather not have to take it to WP:DRV. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

0.9461 litres of lager and 42.5 grams of crisps, s'il vous plaît

Sorry! I'll make sure I know what I'm talking about next time, rather than the most cursory of checks. Cheers. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: 195.195.244.67

I thought that this IP originated from a university and therefore shouldn't be indef blocked? (Just curious, that's all.) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Mea culpa for not reading the block logs right. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

French's categories

There's a problem with the categories of the article. But I don't think removing some and leaving some is fair. French is not just a language of selected countries where it is an official language, be it France, Canada, Burkina Faso or Seychelles. If you don't think African countries should be listed as separated entities, they are separate countries unless you haven't noticed, then why should other countries from other continent be? Africa is not a single country and not all of its countries are French speaking. --moyogo 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to suggest something on the talk page (also see your talk page). Merci, Proto::► 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

209.66.18.165

Hey, Proto, sorry to bother you, but got another IP vandal from another school it seems. Think you can help out this one? (And also, point me to where I'd report vandals like this? WP:AIAV?) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, but the only problem is that persistent vandalis like these school IP vandals usually do not get blocked under WP:AIV or so I thought... Either way, thanks! -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends who you ask to block them! I have no patience with them and tend to soft block (anon editors only) if there's been no good edits. Proto::► 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Rape

Um, the vandalism was from "are" to "is", and the revert you linked to undid that change. I reported the IP who made the ungrammatical change and has a history of vandalism. Xiner (talk, email) 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. November isn't the last time the IP vandalized, only when anyone bothered to complain. Xiner (talk, email) 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about what you said, and it's possible that I could've been wrong. Thus two questions: certain habitual vandals have a sign on their talk page posted by some admin who blocked them before, saying that any further infractions could bring blocks without a warning. In such cases, do you think one warning is sufficient before blocking? Second, is there anyone I can do at WP:AIV as a non-admin to learn when blocks are actually issued, besides watching the page? I'd like to learn how admins arrive at the decisions. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LoHo

I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo, and since you've commented on LoHo, I hope I can get your input. Thanks. Mosmof 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your recent comments

Unfortunately, given your recent misplaced comments without actually finding out what was right, and passing judgement on something that never happened, you've lost the trust I thought I could put in you when I supported you for the ArbCom. Please apologise for jumping to conclusions, I am quite unhappy at your comments which are way off base. – Chacor 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... got my desysoppings mixed up. You were the guy who unprotected an article in order to edit it with a sock immediately after. That's a completely different abuse issue from votestacking, and I apologise for getting my wires crossed. I can't edit / replace my comment right now as I'm editing with Opera Mini but will do so in the morning. Feel free to hide my comment yourself with <!-- --> tags in the meantime. Proto::► 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, apology accepted. Check your email in a bit, I'll be emailing you something. – Chacor 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

2 Requests:

Hey Proto, what's the tag I add if I need a particular image I uploaded to be deleted? Also, I currently am undergoing Wikipedia: Editor review, so I'd appreciate it if you can help me out. Thanks! -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I am still unhappy with your afd with regards to the C&C stuff I wrote/created/edited. Having meditated on the loss of something I deemed valuable I have come to relise that you were only doing your job, insofar as any of us actually have one here on Wikipedia. For this I can not fault you, I have told many people to "never apologize for doing your job". In this case, I feel feel the need to apologize since I believe that I was out of line and out of order. In my meditation on the subject I have come to relize that my assumptions on how the page would be tagged were incorrect; I believed that any objections would be raised on the talk page first, allowing me a chance to reshape the page to keep it here. In this I was mistaken; I see that clearly now.

I still disagree with you descion to actively hunt down and eliminate the material you deem "cruft"; however, I understand the need for an encylopdia to be free of such material. If this is path you have choosen then so be it. I wish you good luck and happy hunting. Finally, I am sorry for anything that I may have said or done that my have upset you during the afd process. Have a happy new year. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Two little points - it's not my job, we're all volunteers here. Also, nothing you did upset me, I understood you were perfectly entitled to feel irritated or annyoed - but thank you for the polite apology. Good luck with everything. Proto::► 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev920 RFA

Just to let you know, Cylonhunter removed your vote of support when he voted to oppose. I reinserted it for you and messaged him about it. Cheers, Jeffpw 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Jeff. Proto::► 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Proto. I did not mean to cause you any harmCylonhunter 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No harm done, don't worry about it. Proto::► 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disemvowelling

Okay, I see you've been up to some disemvowelling. Are you making an homage to PZ Myers, or does this have more ancient roots in dealing with comments on talk pages? Anyway, the process of disemvowelment seems highly insulting and very unlikely to bring about any positive response, so I would respectfully ask that you please stop doing it. If you don't like someone's comment, either ignore it or remove it wholesale, but chopping it up into little unintelligible pieces is not going to help anything. Also, I noticed that you seemed to be doing the disemvowelling manually. That's what programming languages are for, man! Here's a little line of Perl that would do it for you: $str =~ s/[aeiouy]//gi Regards, Cyde Weys 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It has roots in seeing it on your talk page and stealing the idea. But it did prompt me to read up on PZ Myers, so it's a good thing. As for the perl, thanks, but here is the sum of my programming knowledge:

10 PRINT "BOOBIES"

20 GOTO 10

RUN

... so it's maybe not that useful. But you're right, disemvowelling is probably quite rude (even given the context). I won't do it again. Proto::► 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship...

I'll reply by e-mail soon. Many thanks for remembering that I'm not a total retard... Marskell 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Happysad deletion

Could you reconsider your speedy deletion of the Happysad article? It is quite popular band in Poland and I'm sure that the article is going to be recreated soon. If you feel it should be deleted please nominate it for AfD instead. Thank you. Jogers (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can provide a valid assertion of a) why the band is notable and b) multiple reliable sources backing this up. Proto::► 10:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The band has released two albums on important independent label [1] [2], has gone on multiple national concert tours in Poland (here is a scanned article from Gazeta Wyborcza about a tour with notable Polish artist Kazik Staszewski) and has been placed in rotation nationally by major radio networks. I'm aware that sources in English are preferred but I couldn't find any. Regards, Jogers (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I'll restore the artist article. Can you make sure those references go in the article? Cheers. Proto::► 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you already did this. Why don't you restore articles about its albums too? Jogers (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Because they entirely failed to assert the albums' notability, containing just a tracklisting. Did either album rank in a significant way in a major national chart? Did either gain any awards? Proto::► 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it but it's customary that studio albums of notable artists have individual articles. Some editors expressed different opinions (see Notability (albums)) but they failed to gain consensus. If you would like to revive this discussion WikiProject Albums might be a good place to start. Jogers (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused over here. Isn't speedy deletion meant for clear-cut cases? This one is clearly not. There are thousands of album articles with only track listing and infobox and they doesn't seem to be deleted aggressively. I guess this is just more convenient than to put this information in an article about the artist itselt. Maybe most of these pages should be deleted, I don't know, but I'm sure that deleting just a few of them doesn't solve anything. If you list these two on AfD it may spark wider discussion. What do you think? Jogers (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

LoHo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of LoHo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I would like to know what went into your thought process in the ultimate removal of the LoHo article. You seem to have made an arbitrary decision and perhaps, there may be room for further discussion with you or to ask what it will take to have the page placed back one day – eventually.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo. See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? Proto::► 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Spura Span

Check the permisisons emails, I sent in the owners' permisison as requested three weeks ago to the email given to me, and it was acknowledged. What the heck is going on.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in the image text. I have restored temporarily. Proto::► 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank youJuda S. Engelmayer 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ears are burning

I don't like to talk about anyone behind their back, so I wanted to give you a heads up that a comment you made in an AfD discussion is being discussed at the talk page of an unrelated essay. (Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument). - Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see why the comment was brought up, or why a lying statement was attached stating that the comment was incivil, but thanks for letting me know. Proto::► 15:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV comment mixup

You made a comment on today's Deletion reviews that ended up in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24#Speartip Alliance saying that it was a valid AFD. I suspect that the comment belongs to a different DRV, as that particular page never had a AFD. Would you care to sort it to the review you intended to comment upon. GRBerry 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant CSD, not AFD. Fixed to "valid A7", thanks for spotting it. Proto::► 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

SPURA

Has the newly input references to bona fide media stories satisfied this?Juda S. Engelmayer 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:-)

I am flattered you would revert to one of MY previous versions on one of the schiavo article pages, and I looed at the details of the edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case&diff=102901328&oldid=102656900

However, I wonder the reasoning used here: Surely, Kevorkian is notable enough to have opined on the schiavo case. What was your reasoning? (you mentioned nothing in the edit summary) --although I did not make the edit, I support it.--GordonWatts 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back in, and re-removed the links an IP had sneaked back in (the ton of links about euthanasia in general, not about Schiavo). Proto::► 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the (5+6) vs (6+5) balance; This seems only fair. Also, most of the links that you booted seemed like they weren't directly related, but a couple (Fight4Terri and Blogs4Terri) seemed directly related, but I don't add them back in now because I would need to add 2 opposing sites to balance, and my brain is a tad electro-fried at the moment; Maybe it can be done later, and a couple more sites on each side might not be bad. Otherwise, looks OK to me. Later,...--GordonWatts 12:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Gordon. Proto::► 13:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. As of now, I do not care about the outcome of it, I did not even ask to be nominated. I however would like to clear up a misunderstanding. I at no point claim that I plan on using reversion tools to handle content disputes. I made a mistake on RC patrol, and reverted a good faith edit as vandalism. That is what I am claiming will happen again in the future. I am human and I make mikstakes. If I were to say, "I will never accidently revert a good faith edit as vandalism again," as good as it would make me sound, I would be lying to myself and everybody else. If that makes me unfit to be an administrator, that I will have no problem withdrawing my RFA. To be honest, I am a little frustrated with it currently because it seems like a vote. So many, Supports per nom. I think those are people just perusing RFA's and going with the flow. I have much more respect for Oppose nominations (especially ones with a good explanation as to why, such as yours). You are an administrator that I have seen around alot, and have respect for. Do you personally reccomend that I withdraw my RFA, due to thisRC patrol mistake?. If you honsetly believe that it shows I am not worthy to be an administrator, I respect that opinion much more than the torrent of empty Supports. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to state "I will never accidentally do something again". How can you know? All you have to do is pledge to never use your rollback tool for anything other than vandalism reverts. The problem was not that you misused the java tool, and you accepted that it was a mistake. My issue is that you outright stated 'I'll probably make the same mistake again' - you should not. It is not a complex issue, and it's not a difficult judgement call to make. Don't use it for content disputes. Make sure an edit is vandalism before you use one of the tools to revert. The rule is in place as using a tool provides no edit summary, providing no clue as to why you reverted an edit. In the case of blatant vandalism, tere's no need, but if it's a good faith edit, it's now a content issue, so changes should be backed up by explanations. Misquoting George Santayana, "we must learn from our mistakes, or we are condemned to repeat them". Proto::► 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can pledge that I would never use reversion tools for anything other than what I truly believe to be vandalism. I, to this day, have only used them to revert things I believed to be vandalism. If such a question were asked on the RFA, I would have gladly answered, clarified, etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I truly believed that edit to be vandalism per the diff and the anons edits here that had been previousley reverted. I guess what I am wondering is, in your opinion, does such a mistake show that I am not ready to be an administrator?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You had failed a prior RFA less than two months ago for very similar issues, and this suggests you are either unable or unwilling to learn from what you admit were mistakes. Such an uncaring approach does not lead me to believe you are - at this time - sufficiently capable. I'm sorry. Proto::► 14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does any edit with a manually entered edit summary require a manual revert vs. an automated revert? For example. I very regulary see vandalism with edit summaries that may say, "just updatinga date", "adding missing information", or some other deceptive title when in fact, it may show that a large chunk of the article has been removed. In your opinion, do those count as content disputes or blatant vandalism? Is that a situation where I should err on the side of caution and manually revert to quell the fears of fellow editors? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries are exactly that, misleading, and are therefore very poor conduct. Not blatant vandalism (although they can be used to mask blatant vandalism), but they are not acceptable. I presume when you say 'manually reverting' you mean actually putting an explanatory edit summary - yes, this is always a good thing. Proto::► 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this articles, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jogers (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of BitTorrent sites on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of BitTorrent sites. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)