User talk:Equazcion

Welcome. Here's a kitty. | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

If I left a message on your talk page,

please do not post your reply here.

Reply on your talk page instead. I will be notified of your response.

Click here to start a new discussion.

I will reply on this page.
If you like, I can post a notification on your talk page when I reply. Simply request it.

Re: MFD

Thats Ok, as Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged". I accept your apology with good grace. The C of E (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thanks for closing that before he really embarassed himself. Well done. Keeper | 76 03:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haggis

The WikiHaggis

I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines.

Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someone's talk page!

Wanted to give you a personal user award to soften any unintentional insult of last night's ANI closure. For some reason this haggis looked good. Best wishes, Durova³²⁵ 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hear that stuff tastes as good as it sounds.

That thread wasn't the biggest deal in the world, but I take major issue when people take it upon themselves to decide when discussions have ended and close threads that are still getting replies. Historically this has been a problem for me on Wikipedia. Reverting discussion closures has gotten me blocked. Luckily I was able to restrain myself this time.

That's not to say discussions should never be forcibly ended, but I saw no reason to do that here, especially in a manner that would hide it. This wasn't even a heated thread. Marking it resolved would've been one thing, but to collapse it? ...a thread with something like 6 short replies? There's no obvious reason to do that, so I think there's something you're not saying out loud, maybe for good reason. I won't push it, but since you brought it here, I vented. Thanks again for the haggis. Equazcion (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red, blue, etc.

Ah, but once someone clicks on you, you turn purple. Or maybe it's lavender. One of those purplish kinds of things. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I'm not aware of the scientific research on the mood created by lavender, but it can't be any worse than red. Perhaps people will think I'm choking, and come to my aid. Equazcion (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender, or maybe it's lilac, should be calming, like a lilac bush. Choking? Maybe you'll get mouth-to-mouth from Angelina Jolie. Or Brad Pitt, if that's your thing. More likely, an IP address, the internet equivalent of a Good Samaritan. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the RFA you closed

Not sure if you are the right person to ask, but as you closed this RFA I thought I'd start here. The RFA is listed in the failed RFAs by alphabetical order, but not in the chronological. I presume it is a manual process, and am guessing that the person who closes the RFA archives it, but I could be way off the mark. Any light on this would be gratefully received. Thanks, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault. They are added manually, and I neglected the chronological page. I've just corrected that. Thanks for heads-up :) Equazcion (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To err is human, to forgive is divine". Well I am far from divine, and must be exceptionally human having erred more than I care to comment upon in my past :) I still do on a daily basis if truth be told. Thanks for your help. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omega735

If I may ask, why did you block Omega735? Audi152 (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block him. User:Sandstein did. I'm assuming he did it because Omega735 was obviously a sockpuppet, and was disrupting RfA. Equazcion (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry I must have went to the wrong person Audi152 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem :) Equazcion (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For converting my abnormally long signature into an identical looking but not abnormally long signature. For being cool about it, working with me, and showing humility after the fact, I force upon you, the deserving, this barnstar. Nezzadar ☎ 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Equazcion (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Compromise

Hey, having looked at the comments on the AfD, I've proposed a compromise...no idea if I can actually do it, but I followed WP:IAR and just went ahead and did it anyways. Would love to hear your feedback. Frmatt (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and I think it's a great idea, a good example of what IAR is meant for. I support it and hope it gets accepted :) Equazcion (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated...and I hope that I can spell your name correctly in the future! Frmatt (talk)

barnstar

To **Equazcion** for common sense in helping to resolve noticeboard incidents. -- Samir 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liked your bold edit to the garish signature amongst many other contributions to ANI -- Samir 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated. :) Equazcion (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templating editors

I advice you to read Template the regulars, which is the one I operate by. However, in this case, I made an error, and have promptly correct it by removing the warning on his talk page. --Law Lord (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo History

will you revert the article to the previous condition until he find sources (he got no sources) cause i have a tons of google books about this kingdom books dardanian kingdom

or will you give me permission to revert thanks-- LONTECH Talk 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he edited the article again will you take actions or not?-- LONTECH Talk 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone else already did take action, by restoring the stable introductory section. If you're talking about a block, I can't do that since I'm not an administrator. Equazcion (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that section was reverted again-- LONTECH Talk 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Hollywood AfD

"I pity the poor admin who has to read all this." I would have as well, but User:Coffee gave no sign of having read it; they failed to give a deletion rationale. Fences&Windows 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I've brought the matter to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_26#Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood. Equazcion (talk) 16:07, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

okay

okay Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Wondered if there was an e-mail that I may be able to contact you on regarding the AfD and the DRV as I find myself needing to sound some things out without the fear of them appearing to be my official position. The problem is that I'm not sure enough about policy and am looking for someone to just make sure that I'm looking at things in the right manner before I make an "official" statement on the DRV. Alternatively, if you think that it won't be misinterpreted, I'm happy to do it here...I just don't want any comments I make here taken out of context and used against me as I am considering an RFA in a few months. Let me know what your opinion is. Frmatt (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with email. Wikipedia email is enabled for me, so you can use the link appearing in the toolbox on the right while viewing this page (Email this user). You can also use the little email icon I have at the top-right of this page and my main user page. Equazcion (talk) 19:19, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the toolbox is on the left. Oops. :) Equazcion (talk) 19:22, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long...I've just sent it now. Frmatt (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Just for transparency's sake...I've also sent a copy of this to Juliancolton to get the opinion of someone on the other side of the argument. Frmatt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lontech block

FWIW, I checked the history of the page, and made sure that that last unblock request happened after you warned him -- otherwise, I would have given him time to retract it. Since he coupled it with an attack on you, I didn't see much hope for a peaceful resolution at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. He didn't seem to be getting it anyway. Equazcion (talk) 23:39, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood

I am confused about the current status of Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood - is it still deleted, but the deletion still under review? Or is it still deleted, and the review is over (as most people endorsed the delteion)? Ot has it been un-deleted, and merged with Anti-semitic canard? I consider the third possiblity plausible, although I personally have several caveats about a merger. More importantly, I did not see a consensus for a merger. Even more importantly I do not see any declaration that the review process is over, but maybe I missed something. Can you bring me up to speed? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review process isn't over yet, and it's as yet still deleted. DRVs get closed by an uninvolved admin just like other discussions, and this one hasn't been yet. I'm sure merging the previous content with other articles would be fine though as an ad-hoc result for now, since almost everyone at the AfD seemed to support that. Equazcion (talk) 12:59, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Do you have strong thoghts, either way, about the merges I proposed? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the specific details of the various merges proposed by people, but if the deletion is eventually upheld, I'd obviously be fine with the article's content being present in other articles, as opposed to nowhere at all. You or another admin would have to restore the deleted article to someone's userspace though, so editors could have access to its content. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)

The article is still deleted. I posted on the page about the deletion discussion that I had made the merges. If anyone objects, I would be happy to delete the merges or redirect to other pages. --AFriedman (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, and thank you for the email. I am sorry for replying here, but I do not have a secure means of responding otherwise. I am not a native English speaker and so my expressions are sometimes odd, but I meant what I wrote and understand the impression. I was more interested in staking out a point of principle than scoring a PR victory so am fine if someone chooses to interpret it negatively. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Anything you can do to help me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts where Dmcq has brought me to would be beneficial. I know you have to be fair, dont worry if my feelings are hurt as long you are being honest I cant hold anything against you.Camelbinky (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there, though it might not have been what you wanted to hear. The risk you run in being a man on a mission to stop another man on a mission is that you basically become the same as him, at least in the eyes of the third party. It's better, I've found, to not take up causes too personally on Wikipedia. Especially when dealing with a difficult editor, it's better to pop your head in and make occasional comments, rather than racing to respond to everything he says. Regarding your long posts, this is a complaint you're probably not hearing the last of. Although they're often insightful, still, they can usually be boiled down to more concise terms. It may take a conscious effort at first, but brevity is a virtue on talk pages. I'll be watching the Wikiquette alert and will participate more if need be. Good luck! -- Equazcion (talk) 23:41, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

PS, is there an email address where I could contact you? If you don't want to disclose one on-wiki, you could fill in your email address in you Wikipedia preferences to allow people to email you without having to make an address public. Equazcion (talk) 23:56, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with disclosing my email- it is camelbinky@aol.com however if you email me I would appreciate a heads-up on my talk page each time, as I dont check that email unless I'm given notice there is something to look for, so it might get buried with junk mail if I dont know to look for it. I thought your comments were fair and even-minded, nothing for you to apologize for; I dont want someone on my side just for the sake of being on my side; I respect you for being fair and speaking your mind, I wouldnt have that respect if you werent honest and fair. I will walk away from the policy talk and attempt in the future to be more brief. Thank you again.Camelbinky (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've sent you an email there. Equazcion (talk) 01:22, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :-)Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq's "quotes" arent what the diffs say

Can you check some of the diffs that Dmcq points as me being "uncivil" there is one, I believe it is the third one listed, where he puts quotes that the diff has me calling him "are you stupid" or something like that, but the diff doesnt mention that. I believe this is further proof he says things that arent true. I know the matter should be dropped, but its that type of slander (libel) that started this; his exagerations and again he mentioned that "Camelbinky's proposal to put blocking in the lead", but I never proposed to do that I dont know where he gets that idea. If you could also point that out I would be grateful.Camelbinky (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't see his quote in the diff. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing this up though at your request. If you've noticed something like that you should really bring it up yourself. Equazcion (talk) 04:06, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

RE: HarryAlffa's MfD

Nothing's really "backfired"; I'd notified the people that HarryAlffa had listed as parties on his page because I felt they deserved to know that they were being included. I had no intention of votestacking, but merely getting the opinions of a wider audience, especially the involved editors. If the number of messages I left was improper, it's only because the number of parties listed was so large. I was extremely careful to keep my wording short, to the point, and neutral. GlassCobra 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notifying "involved parties" was prudent in this case since it isn't an actual arbcom case, just a user page, basically one that attacks those editors. It seems moot though since they voted keep anyway. But for the record I didn't intend to accuse you of anything; I wasn't questioning your motives, just saw it as a technical infringement. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it did come across as an accusation. For the record, I will restate very clearly that nothing has "backfired," I do not see this as a personal matter of any kind. I expressed my opinion on the page, and others have expressed theirs. The discussion is simply an exchange of ideas and opinions, which is all I was trying to facilitate. GlassCobra 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you of making a mistake. That's all that was intended. If I worded it the wrong way and it sounded like something else, I apologize. Equazcion (talk) 17:19, 4 Nov 2009 (UTC)

talk

can you hop on irc so we can chat back and forth easier? FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hound:173...*

Please review this. The request is to change from full to indefinite semi- for the reasons given. Please read carefully. There's no sign that Hound:173.*.*.* will change. 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]