User talk:flaming
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information.
- Should all administrators seeking resysop have made an administrative act within the previous five years?
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
| Archives |
|---|
| 1· 2· 3· 4· 5· 6· 7 |
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome from the past
Can you fix the date you put in with this edit please? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just did, but... Why couldn't you do it? Just be bold - it's not taboo or anything... flaminglawyerc 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My RfA
You said you'd support my RfA for now, until you saw my answers. Well, here's your chance to change your mind!
CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note: I saw that you added, but later removed, a question about my odd acceptance statement. Because several other users commented on this, I resurrected and answered it. If this bothers you, feel free to strike your name from the question.
**CRGreathouse** (t | c) 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Q8 for RFA:CRGreathouse
Re: Question 8 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CRGreathouse. Interesting question. If it were me, I'd fire off a note to the bureaucrat mailing list and if I didn't get a reply within a day, to the administrator's mailing list. If I didn't get a reply within a day to that from someone, then something is seriously broken. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice. I'm surprised that you answered that voluntarily. I might start asking it to like every candidate I see, like Xeno did. flaminglawyerc 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, I answered it without being asked. Feel free to ask it should I ever step forward and volunteer for mop duty. Of course, by that time, my answer might have changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you ever do "step forward," I'll be one of the first supports :) flaminglawyerc 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was planning for later this month. To be honest though, some of the excessive drama lately has put me off and I may wait until things cool down. I try to avoid drama and I'd rather edit than wade through more, and my RFA will have enough drama as it is after this historical block and its edit summary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- AH!!! I HAVE A FELON ON MY TALK PAGE!!! GET IT OFF!!! <stands on chair and jumps up and down madly, like a housewife trying to avoid a mouse> I always thought that ArbCom cases were to structured and civilized. It's a weird process that I'll never be able to understand. flaminglawyerc 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was planning for later this month. To be honest though, some of the excessive drama lately has put me off and I may wait until things cool down. I try to avoid drama and I'd rather edit than wade through more, and my RFA will have enough drama as it is after this historical block and its edit summary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you ever do "step forward," I'll be one of the first supports :) flaminglawyerc 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even better, I answered it without being asked. Feel free to ask it should I ever step forward and volunteer for mop duty. Of course, by that time, my answer might have changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
HD
did you get the HD working? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
RD regulars
Hi, thank you for naming me a Reference Desk regular. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Side Q
Various odds and ends. Makeing a working redirect in the image namespace would be one. An irreversable admin delete would be another.Geni 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith
Hello. Please forgive the spam but since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is heading toward a very close decision, I'm contacting all editors who were in the "Neutral" section in the hope that they can take a second look at the RfA and make a more explicit recommendation (either way). Thank you, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Flaming for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
My (failed) RfA
Dear Flaming, thank you very much for participating and for asking me questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
My social security number
I appreciate your trying to protect me, but I can't see what I did. I went through the history, and unless oversight has taken place, I never posted anything like that.
I checked what I copied from and it's not there. I don't think that information would have any way of being there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was a joke. I wrote <!-- just kidding --> after it, but I guess you didn't see it. flaminglawyerc 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, please do NOT do that sort of thing in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, no problem. flaminglawyerc 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, please do NOT do that sort of thing in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
|
|
| Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
RE: Speedy deletion
Hello!
I have just come to say that I expanded the Hawkin's Bazaar article in the best way possible. Would you mind checking it for me please? Thanks. Calvinps (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite yet... What it needs more than anything right now is a reference. Find a reference to/about it in a reliable source, then put the reference on the article. Without it, the topic isn't notable, and can't be included on Wikipedia. flaminglawyer 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again! I tried to add a citation to my Hawkin's Bazaar page. Can you verify it please? Thanks! Calvinps (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- That helps a bunch :) . But it's still not enough. It needs an external reference - a reference from a source unrelated to the topic. i.e., a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. After that it should be fine, and should be able to stand on its own. flaminglawyer 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I have cited an article from BBC News on the Hawkin's Bazaar page, giving a bit of detail about expansion. It is dated 02/01/2006 - is that OK or is it out of date? Calvinps (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect! I'm removing the CSD tag. Good job, you just made your first article :) flaminglawyer 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is for helping me to successfully create my first article! Calvinps (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect! I'm removing the CSD tag. Good job, you just made your first article :) flaminglawyer 03:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I have cited an article from BBC News on the Hawkin's Bazaar page, giving a bit of detail about expansion. It is dated 02/01/2006 - is that OK or is it out of date? Calvinps (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- That helps a bunch :) . But it's still not enough. It needs an external reference - a reference from a source unrelated to the topic. i.e., a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. After that it should be fine, and should be able to stand on its own. flaminglawyer 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again! I tried to add a citation to my Hawkin's Bazaar page. Can you verify it please? Thanks! Calvinps (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Ultimate ciara
A tag has been placed on Ultimate ciara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. roleplayer 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am now aware that you didn't post the above article, it's just an automatic thing... -- roleplayer 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeh, Twinkle does crap like this all the time. flaminglawyer 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Commenting out Conoms
In future you'll want to be careful about jumping to conclusions and striking things without checking with folk first. As you saw, your commenting out my conom was not needed (a note on my talk would also have been a way to find that out). But even if the conom was an undesired one, you need to be cautious... an RfA I was involved in, long ago, that had perhaps more conoms than needed or desired by the nominiee engendered some rather bad feelings because some of the conoms took umbrage at being removed, to the point of switching to oppose. It ended up all working out in the end but it's something to watch out for. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
RegentsPark's RFA
- ) Well, the nominator's support is usually implied, isn't it? The RFA is not a vote, so I don't see if adding an extra support will make much of a difference. For now, I prefer to challenge and nip fallacious oppose statements in the RFA to avoid a swing of the tide. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)