User talk:Srose

Please click here to leave me a new message.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Srose/archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Archive one (somewhat lengthy - sorry! - 87 sections)
Archive two (beginning 17 August 2006)

Moose

Is it my fault what a moose does? - LD

Smile

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Nick's RfA

Sable, thank you for your support in my RfA. I was actually surprised that you supported me, and I hope everything in Wiki is going well. I can promise that I won't go too insane with my SysOp privelleges. And I hope I still keep everything in the real world great. I'll try to help with that. Nick.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I was pleasantly surprised. Seeing your talk page it can be seen that you make great efforts to be helpful in a positive way. People who will take time to contribute to the "greater good" should be admired. I aspire to be more like that some day. Perhaps Wiki will allow me to do a little something at least in a small way. Kindest regards. Mike CCL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:60.227.39.30

I live near and work in eastwood and I am or oriential desent. Is this not a good enough source???? Please kindly re-instate what was deleted.

contribution

Thank you for your message and helpful hints. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and am learning. I will check and add sources used for the article and attempt to understand Wikify

smile!

Just a good o' smily ;-)
Thanks you for giving me a head up! Nice to meet ya'!

Yo Blair AfD

No problem - I'm sure your motives were positive. I didn't know about "signing on as an IP" - indeed I still can't really grasp the concept - but I realise that I should have logged in using my username before editing anything. I still don't really understand how wikipedia works - edits are not automatically attributed to the person making them, it seems (cf. attribution of posts to Usenet or web boards) - so I was trying to "claim" my comment without realising that it could be mistaken for impersonation. Never mind, I live and learn. How do I set up a disambiguation page, btw? There is a page called "Parliamentary Debate" which is about competitive debating in schools, yet most adults (in the UK at least) would assume that the term referred to debates in Parliament. I've suggested it on the Talk page but it's clearly not a very widely-read page, so I thought I'd try and sort it out myself ... Cheers.

Benjamin Ben Holladay

I wrote the original article and all in it is verifiable. I don't know why it was rewritten.

thanks!

I sure appreciate your comment on Talk:Benier_Koranache; I was really encouraged by your words. --Graham^talk/mail/e 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to commend you on the conversation in Talk:Benier_Koranache. It's an outstanding example of how to handle difficult interactions. Waitak 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"personal attacks"

these people are attacking the validity and popularity of my site, so i'm not going to mince words. if they're going to delete me then they will, i don't care. these people are basing their opinions on terrible reasoning and i'm straightening them out.

i really don't see....

what the big deal is. it's not like i just posted a link to my site and that's it. i went through the process of listing all of it's notable attributes. i think these people are basing their opinions on the fact that they've personally never heard of it. i've done everything myself and haven't had the luxury of having advertising money like myspace, so i think a little credit is due for something that came out of sheer will and determination.

RfA and not needing tools

Srose, let me begin by saying I'm not here to dispute your weak oppose of Stevie's RFA. I was curious, however, about a position I see frequently. RFA participants often say that someone shouldn't be made an admin b/c they don't need the tools, even though they won't abuse them, that all of the tasks they are working on can be accomplished without the bit. I've never understood it, though I may well have missed something. What's the rationale behind it? You can reply here. Thanks.--Kchase T 19:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, my rationale is that the community doesn't need to hand out tools to folks who are high quality contributors (much like Stevie - please see my excessively lengthy message on his talk page) when others who actually do admin-like jobs would like them and be more deserving of them. We already have too many admins that do not regularly use the tools. Adminship isn't an elevated status. Admins are merely a group of users who do extremely behind-the-scenes work: closing XfDs (see WP:AfD and its backlog - if it still has one; it changes by the hour), warning and blocking vandals (Wikipedia:Blocking policy), reverting vandalism (administrators have a tool to revert that is much faster than any of those available to non-admins), answering newcomers' questions, deleting non-controversial pages (see WP:CSD), protecting pages that are receiving high amounts of vandalism (like Elephant, after that infamous Colbert Report), and negotiating compromises for users in conflicts. As Stevie rarely does some of these things (and never does the rest), I just don't think he needs the mop and flamethrower. Adminship isn't a reward for particularly good editors: it's an added list of duties for those who have experience in admin areas (XfD, WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, vandalism) and are trusted enough by the community to have the ability to block users, delete articles, close XfDs and protect articles. Srose (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also JS-assisted non-admin rollback. I've been using it for a while now. Anyway, I should have been more specific, but I think it's just because we disagree. To me, it seems like an inefficient use of community time to evaluate a candidate and then not give them the tools because they will rarely use them, even though they will not abuse them. Perhaps the reason for such voting is more global: to discourage RFAs from good editors who don't need the tools and thereby encourage RFAs from folks who are more keen to help with our backlogs?--Kchase T 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That last sentence is exactly it, boiled down to a drop. I guess I went on a bit long, huh? Well, in any case, I imagine Stevie's RfA will succeed, just looking at the pattern thus far, and I wish him all the best of luck. I would like to see more candidates who are intent on helping behind the scenes with backlogs, etc., because essentially, that's the entire difference between an admin and a regular, registered user. Srose (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I think Stevie's going to get the flamethrower. Thanks for the dialogue, Srose.--Kchase T 20:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ack, I was just about to add a PS, and it appears we edit-conflicted. Anyway, the PS was: I use JS rollbacks too, but the admin version compresses several of the steps, so it's faster and easier. Nice chatting with you, too. If you ever need anything, my door's open! :) Srose (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Thanks for the brownies. Even though I'm on a "diet", I find that eating a picture of brownies on my computer screen doesn't add too many calories. :) Let me know if I can do any admin-ish thing for you! --Aguerriero (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Antelan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I'll no doubt have some questions soon, so thanks again for the warm welcome!

Thanks very much

Thank you very much for the comment as well as the explanation on the Calvary Church article. I am amazed at how quickly things get done on wikipedia! One question, does wikipedia have any kind of spell check feature (I know that I am going to need it). Thebigaster 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Hey, thanks for the cookies and the good advice. As well as the suggestions. I am a little new, and if I make some more valuable edits, maybe I will qualify. Again, thanks. --imdanumber1 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki's RfA nom

It was my pleasure. He's an incredible user, and he absolutely deserves the title and the tools. -- Kicking222 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Well deserved [2] [3] -- Samir धर्म 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

I was, we went in because of the heat and lunch. It's starting to get shady so I'll probably go out again. Yank sox 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll e-mail you all the details. Yank sox 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me half an hour, I'm going off line. Yank sox 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome!

I appreciate your warm welcome, and I look forward to participating in the Wikipedia project. I'm about to upload my first entry, so I'm sure I'll have some input from a number of people (hopefully you included!).

Cheers, Goinhome50 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 21st


Volume 2, Issue 34	21 August 2006	About the Signpost

Politician's staff criticizes Wikipedia after being caught editing it	Board of Trustees elections continue with call for candidates
Report from the Swedish Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

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. Ralbot 04:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Bias

Why do you find a particular article nominated for deletion as an "excellent nomination...quite exemplary..."?

Do you like seeing articles being put up for deletion? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a place where people would add articles, not nominate everything in sight for deletion... Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the nomination was well done and thought out. That doesn't mean she likes to see everything deleted. Yank sox 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ^Aww :)[reply]

Wow. I was just drafting my reply. I copied it and somehow lost it after my computer "illegal op'ed" following that edit conflict. Anyway, the gist of it was that I'm glad to see a nomination that says more than "Fails WP:BIO". I commended the nominator because s/he put a lot of time and effort into the nomination and didn't just stick it up there. Personally, I believe that since articles take an extraordinary amount of time and effort to write, anyone who wishes to nominate an article for deletion should put a great deal of effort into their nomination. Srose (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for making my day, btw. Yank sox 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am on my e-mail, I'm waiting for you. Yank sox 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Promet

I've edited out the Lilli Promet link (it's still there, but encoded), because it doesn't link to the Lilli Promet profile on imdb. You linked to profile number 181237, which is a certain Rolando Cortegiani. Lilli Promet's link is 1818237. I'll fix it right away. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it - I had the correct number written down (copy and paste is acting funny). Argh. Thanks! :) Srose (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello Srose. I would normally post this on your editor review, but you seem to have closed it so I will ask you here. I know that Yanksox is your boyfriend, but what will you do if you break up with him? Will you both be able to continue a positive working relationship? I have seen some fights on Wikipedia that were influenced by events occuring away from Wikipedia. I just wanted to make sure that you will not have that problem. Thank you and have a nice day.--Chili14 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my editor review is closed... it might have been taken off the main page but I don't plan to close it for quite some time. I'm very pleased with the feedback I've been getting.

First of all, let me thank you for taking the time to review me! :)

Next, I'll address your concern. Yanksox and I have been dating for over two years now and over that period of time, we've developed a very good friendship beneath a very strong romantic relationship. I imagine that in the very unlikely case that we do part ways, the friendship would hold firm. In any case, I certainly would not hold a grudge against him (and even if I did, I wouldn't vent it here). I would never let the quality of Wikipedia suffer from the termination of any of my various relationships (with family, friends, and of course, Yanksox himself). I might take a break for my personal benefit, but I would not resort to squabbling at Wikipedia: it would accomplish nothing (everything would be reverted), and this is a public venue rather than the private one I require for discussing private, personal matters. I try to keep my "real" life and my "Wiki" life as separate as possible, although certainly I always go to my Yanker of Oxen (ask Crzrussian) for advise or help in handling vandalism first. I hope this answers your question! Srose (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ER

I'm putting myself on Editor review - feel free to comment! --TheM62Manchester 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville's RfA

File:Scarlettanager99.jpg

Hello, Srose, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop...they gave me the mop already! I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Question: those cookies look nice. How can i get my hands on some of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqraboy (talk • contribs)

Bake away!

Bake away! I'll take my chances. I can get chips ahoy here in Indonesia. But seldom bother. On a diet now: no cookies. I have often used Wikipedia to get info about something, and have always found that the little bit of knowledge I did get was a lot better than the nothingness I knew before. I am pleased that Wikipedia exists - I've encouraged my English students to use it. I have been a Muslim for 10 years now, and am currently writing a book about Islam in Indonesia. I found some stuff in the Wikipedia pages that was useful and so ended up looking at more and more. But the more I read of the discussion pages, the more I began to wonder about how Wikipedia can exist with all of the differing views that people have about religion. Some of the content in the pages about Islam is enough to give me a headache. Some of it is quite surprising for me, and I wonder whether the authors really want to inform others, or just present their own personal opinions in opposition to mainstream views? I am still learning about the editing process, but after I get the hang of it, I may dive in and completely change some paragraphs to make them more user friendly. I have taught dozens of new Muslims and so (hopefully) I have a good idea of what people are looking for in terms of answers when they type in a word like “Islam” or “Koran”. Unfortunately, there is so much “scholarly” information on some of the pages that the whole process seems more to turn lay people away. A lot of it should be moved to specialist pages where people who want in depth views can get them. E.g. if a person wants to know about the Qur'an then they are not asking for a lesson in Arabic at the same time and shouldn’t be given one. If a person looks in an encyclopedia then they want brevity and clarity in the space of a few paragraphs. How can you deliver that when every guy with a keyboard seems intent on throwing in his two cents worth? I am interested to get involved for the sake of “knowledge” itself, but already I am starting to feel that the whole process of having to constantly check that what I contribute hasn’t been deleted by someone else of unknown religion will lead me to give up in despair. How do you cope with giving knowledge and then having others (perhaps far less knowledgeable) change what you wrote each week? Any suggestions? Or should I just give up now and stick to writing my own book? (Iqraboy 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]