User talk:Mike V

Archives

Welcome to my Talk Page!

You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite. I'll try to reply on your page, and I would hope that you reply on my page. That way no one has to keep checking his or her watchlist. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Clerking at Wikipedia:Changing username

When clerking at WP:CHU, please use Template:CHU and its parser functions to leave basic clerk notes, as you didn't in one of your earlier clerk notes. It makes it easier for bureaucrats to see, at a glance, that there maybe a problem with the request. As well as this, it saves having to write out the clerk note in full. Cheers, and thanks for your clerking there. Qst (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool I wasn't aware that there were templates! Icestorm815 • Talk 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Backlog is GONE

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		For your help in finally putting an end to the monstrous backlog at Articles for creation, I, *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c), hereby award you the Articles for Creation Barnstar! Well done, and thank you for your dedication to the project! *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 22:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Icestorm815 • Talk 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Those practice sessions are very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations – and best of luck. Shoessss | Chat 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate it! Off to admin school! Icestorm815 • Talk 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! jj137 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Go easy at first, but I'm sure you'll prove the opposers wrong :) Majorly (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. You might want to remove the "this user is not an admin..." userbox. ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Well, thankspam is over, so I'll do that! Icestorm815 • Talk 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminfied. Dloh cierekim 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You'll do good! Spencer^T♦^C 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfA

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Tiptoety ^talk 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting a mop! Chetblong^{T C} 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations! Basketball 110 _hello 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, congrats! Happy editing! Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Icestorm815 • Talk 03:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Congrats! All that's left is to head on over this a way. :) Jmlk 1 7 06:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, despite my reservations I'm sure you'll do fine - take it slow and enjoy the new responsibilities! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ... didn't notice you were standing or I would have voiced my support! MSGJ (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:WP:RFPP

Hey Icestorm815, congrats on the new admin bit! I just wanted to let you know that when filling out requests over at WP:RFPP, that when you use the {{RFPP}} template that you have to indent the template, so a response would look like :{{RFPP|nea}} or *{{RFPP|nea}} making sure to indent the template with a : or a * or the bot will not realize the request has been filled. Keep up the good work and if you have any questions feel free to ask. Congrats again. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I went back and changed it so it would look similar to the other ones. (Not even knowing it had anything to do with the bot!) Icestorm815 • Talk 05:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yeah I noticed. You know bots, they can be picky sometimes :P – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomness

Just to say thanks for semi-protecting randomness. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, prob. Glad to help stop vandals. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently completed this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Pribich

The article was deleted here for lack of notability and other reasons. Flash94 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy'd as an attack page. The article now differs greatly from the one back in 2006. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 50 in California

I've unprotected this page. I've warned the two users to stop reverting (which should be attempted before protection). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem with that. Thanks for the advice as well! Icestorm815 • Talk 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Ralph Nader

Icestrom815, Thank you for your insights. The comments I added are the widely held conclusions of the impact of Mr. Nader political style (and perhaps his narcissism I left that to others to discuss). I believe the total article discusses the his reasons and delves deeply in minutiae of electoral post-mortem; however, the larger consequences are not otherwise brought out for the reader to see the larger implications and why Mr. Nader has engendered such strong reaction over his career and even during this"Harold Stassen" phase of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensonrt (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

`{{CUU}}`

Since you reverted what I was doing I thought I would tell you that I fixed it and its working fine now. I just thought that if there is a case where it might be up to crat discretion they should know about the log entries too. Alexfusco⁵ 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's cool. Glad to see that you fixed it! Icestorm815 • Talk 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hello. I was trying to make sure I had the correct template. I see now that I must of put it on the talk page for the sandbox, and not the sandbox, which I assume looked a little silly. Thanks! Beach drifter (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, don't worry about it. We all make mistakes. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and falsehoods mentioned in the page on Satyashraya - Western Chalukya King

Sir,

There are several intended and deliberate inaccuracies in the page on Satyashraya which are excerpted as under:

The next king Satyashraya is again described as having won victories against Rajendra and Raja Raja I. Let me inform you that NEVER in the history of the Chalukya and Chola Empire was a war between these two sides EVER FOUGHT IN CHOLA TERRITORY. WARS WERE ALWAYS FOUGHT IN DESTINATIONS LIKE KOPPAL, KUDALA SANGAMA, VIJAYAWADA (PART OF EASTERN CHALUKYA TERRITORY) AND OTHER PARTS OF KARNATAKA, BUT NEVER WITHIN ANY AREA CONTROLLED BY THE CHOLAS. With that being the case, what is the proof that Satyashraya defeated both Rajendra Chola and Raja Raja Chola I? It is also a fact in Chola history that after becoming the Yuvaraja Rajendra Chola was the one who participated in all wars for the Cholas with Raja Raja I only deputing his son to wars. That is the reason the statement of Satyashraya defeating Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola I is absolutely concocted and false.

You can consult any number of historians and they will all tell you Raja Raja I, Rajendra I, Ashoka, Samudra Gupta and Narasimha Varman never lost any wars in their life.

Also in the page on Satyashraya, how shamelessly the Cholas have been described: See for yourself:

Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unakal near Hubli and plundered the entire county, slaughtering women, men and children and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta. Satyasrya was thus compelled to withdraw from Vengi and retreat to his kingdom in the western Deccan.

LET ME SAY IN CLEAR TERMS: NEVER IN HISTORY HAVE RAJA RAJA, RAJENDRA CHOLA I EVER BEEN KNOWN TO ATTACK WOMEN AND CHILDREN, AND THE ONLY MEN THEY ATTACKED were soldiers and their adversaries. WHILE I SHARE YOUR DESIRE THAT ONLY THE CORRECT INFORMATION ABOUT CHALUKYAS SHOULD BE WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO ALSO WRITE ABOUT THEIR RIVALS OR ENEMIES ALSO IN DESPICABLY DEROGATORY TERMS. Please take time and read about the Chola country and society given in your own Wikipedia pages, including status of women etc. which will prove how wrong is their description of attacking women and children. I am sure you will advice the concerned to delete those remarks against Chola Kings also.

In a blatant and desperate attempt to cloud actual facts with fiction It is described that Rajendra marched up to Donur, Unakal and Kudala Sangama while at the same time trying to show the brave Cholas in poor light by showing the leader of their army, crown prince Rajendra I as one who slaughtered women, men and children. But the same biased historians committed a mistake side by side. They added further that Rajendra threatened their capital Manyakheta.

Sir, I would like to ask you only one question: How could a killer and slaughterer of men, women and children also have the capacity threaten the Chalukyan capital, especially when their King Satyashraya was supposed to have carried forward the aggressive policies of his father Tailapa-II? That means not only he was an aggressive King but his army was equally valorous. Then how come the Cholas led by Rajendra would march all the way from their then capital Tanjore and reach Manyakheta through Kudala Sangama and Hubli in middle and South Karnataka through the Ganga country. Did the Chola army massacre children, men and women on the way too in Ganga country? Was the extremely valorous Chalukya army merely watching like innocent bystanders when the so-called massacre of innocents was being committed by the Chola army? Sir, in the absence of any light being thrown on these aspects, it would be patently wrong to allow continuation of this article in this form and hence the lines describing Rajendra I and his army as murderer of men, women and children should be deleted immediately, mainly because there are many, many facts pointing to the contrary.

In fact, Sir, you can physically verify that during the more than 100 year rule of the Cholas over the Karnataka provinces of Nulambavadi, Gangavadi, Kadambavadi etc. many Dravidian temples were built from the times of Raja Raja I, Rajendra, Rajadhiraja, Rajendra II, Vira Rajendra, Kulothunga I and his son Vikrama Chola which can be verified with the Archaeological Survey of India.That being the case, the areas of Karnataka till the time they were under Chola occupation were never known for their disturbance or rebellions or quelling of the same, as was the case with Pandya territories under Chola rule which saw consistent rebellions and many quellings right up to the time of Kulothunga-II and Kulothunga-III also. These cultural achievements could not have been possible had the Cholas been murderers of men, women and children as is sought out to be made out in these pages with the aim of portraying Chalukya kings as great while making out the Cholas and portraying them as looters and killers. (It is of course, relevant to point out here - though the same is not relevant to the topic on Satyashraya - that one of the later Kings Somesvara I - again eulogized as a great Chalukya King who got repeatedly routed and humiliated by the Cholas and whose only achievement was that in a war his forces killed Rajadhiraja - son of Rajendra I - but the army of Cholas immediately identified their new leader, Prince Rajendra II on the war-field, who galvanized the Chola forces and defeated the Chalukya armies of Somesvara I - turning imminent defeat into victory- in fact encouraged his son Vikramaditya VI to sack Kanchi and the then Chola capital Gangaikondacholapuram - but was routed and chased all the way from the Chola capital to Kanchi, to Kudalasangama all the way up to Manyakheta - later the same Vikramaditya VI also got routed by Vira Rajendra - who showed compassion on the defeated Chalukya king by giving the hand of his daughter to the vanquished - who was more than eager to become son in law of a more powerful emperor which proves that it is not the Cholas who were raiders and looters but this quality actually belonged to the Chalukya kings who without trying to confront the valour of the Chola Kings tried to win them over by making unannounced attacks on their territory and capital only to be humiliated time after time - you can read your own wikipedia history pages of Satyashraya, Jayasimha, Vinayaditya, Somesvara-I and Vikramaditya VI for absolute clarity on the character of the Cholas and the Chalukyas.

The lack of character of the Chalukyas was borne out further by the fact that Somesvara I challenged Vira Rajendra for a war at Kudala Sangama but later could not muster up the much-needed courage to march up to the designated place and face the Cholas. This shameful episode is backed up in the page on Somesvara I with the lame excuse that Somesvara I was indisposed and hence could not take the field. Could he even not have intimated his adversaries on this and fixed another day for war???? There are no answers or enquiries with regard to this aspect. In all probability Somesvara I was shamed by his own subjects including his wife which caused him to commit suicide on the banks of a river(which goes completely against description of Somesvara I as one who consolidated his empire and safeguarded it against the Cholas - (not that the Cholas were overkeen to occupy Western Chalukya territories, with the main cause of conflict between the Western Chalukyas and Cholas being that the marital alliance betweent he Eastern Chalukyas and the Cholas was always resented by the WEstern Chalukyas who constantly interfered in the affiars in Vengi by trying to install their own puppet in Eastern Chalukya kingdom. This was the basic reason of war between the Cholas and Western Chalukyas).

To sum it up, Sir, the fact that Rajendra I stood at the gates of Manyakheta (threatening the Chalukya capital) was because he was a brave, valorous and able commander of men and armies and by backing his ability he overcame all opposition in war and marched freely inside the enemy territory. This simple fact cannot be digested by some historians with malice, regional outlook and complete prejudice towards the Cholas vis-a-vis the Chalukyas, their favoured rulers and have therefore, gone on by completely bull-dozing over actual facts and replacing them with absolute lies, innuendos and false information and that too with complete impunity.

I would like to add Sir, that it was purely on the strength of their valour, capacity for waging a war and that too successfully, that the Cholas repeatedly marched up to the Chalukyan capital, that is an unmistakeable conclusion one would reach after reading and absorbing the fact of Rajendra I reaching deep into the Chalukya country with his army and threatening the Chalukyan capital,Manyakheta.

The above episode clearly proves the capacity of both Rajendra and the Chola army to penetrate deep into enemy territory. How many attacks did Chalukya Kings lead into Chola territory. They have nothing except the night attack and looting of Gangaikondacholapuram by Vikramaditya VI on the orders of Somesvara I during the time of Virarajendra, for which the Chola army not only routed them from their territories but also led the battle right in the heart of the Chalukya territory. No doubt the jingoists, not wanting to digest what actually is the truth are resorting to such cowardly and manipulative tactics as describing the greatest Chola kings as looters and killers of women and children.

Therefore, I request that those objectionable, unfounded lies about Rajendra I killing men and children in Chalukya territory be deleted. I eagerly await your positive reply upholding the cause of truth and impartiality.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a comment on your talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurption request

Icestorm815,

I just wanted to clarify something I have been wondering about. When I see it written on the usurption pages that 'Editors with GFDL significant edits cannot have their accounts usurped', does that count for talk page edits as well? Fusionmix and I are the same account (as you saw), and the reason I filed for usurption was because I do not want an account hanging around that may get me accused of sockpuppetry, and because I was not sure that talk page edits were GFDL significant. If it does turn out that talk page edits are significant, I will remove my request, and file for a name change instead. Red Zion^X 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the explanation. Red Zion^X 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Cite_book#name_anchor

Why did you disable the request without making the changes to the template? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template as the edit was not done by Happy‑melon. Once the concerns are addressed you can re-add the {{editprotected}} template. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to name usurption request

Hello. I am not really looking to argue, just for clarification. Even if a user has a single action, one that is not complete, and that hasn't been touched in over a year cannot be exempt? If so, thank you for your comment.