Jump to content

User talk:Chairboy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FrixFrixFrix (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 11 October 2006 (The Void (913)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi. i'm new to wikipedia and have little idea of what I am doing. I just wanted to respond to the message regarding sectional charts. It could be as a redirect but can it also be as its own article explaing more in detail different aspects? You can leave the answer back on my talk page. Thanks.Stratoflyer 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


AfD - Kind of confused me wit hthat terminology. Also i don't think i can post images due to being IP user? I also just got tagged for destructive edits by eskog, but not sure what it was. Did he think i wanted to delete AfD?

For past discussions, please see: User_Talk Chairboy Archive (Oct-2004 to Sep-2005)

Welcome to my user talk page! Please sign your messages with "~~~~" and use ":" indenting on replies for clarity. Please leave a note as to where you will be looking for responses (eg, whether you have bookmarked this page or expect responses on your own talk page). Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

could you please tell me why you blocked hughesy be cause he doesnt know what he did could you please reply on my page <campbell99>Campbell99 05:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I should wait until completed and use preview verses publish?

I'm not trying to be a smart well ya know. I'm Just a little unfamiliar with how the editing works here. It took me quite a bit to figure out how to message you back. Your input would be greatly appreciated. I am an avid user of the wiki and I dont want to put junk out there so I'm sorry if it seemed that way

Thanks for contributing to Girl!

An Award
For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Chairboy, this THANK YOU.

It's unfair! Everytime I give 'contributions' to a [girl], I get arrested and then have to join some registry list. You got an award. unfair.... Ztsmart 15:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly howdy from an anon IP

in all seriousness WHAT THE FUCK HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH A BIO ON THE CREATORS OF HABBO HOTEL ??? - Unsigned by 220.235.248.71

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please consider creating an account, you may find it easier to track the status of pages and conversations you're interested in. Regarding your message above, I'm not quite sure I understand. Could you please provide some context? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel De Cériz

What does "mantain" mean? You might be interested in Prince Emmanuel de Cériz, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I figured it out, somebody vandalized your vote. I've fixed it. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sangli

"Mediaeval" (better, "mediæval") is the correct spelling. U.S. English has turned the "ae" into an "e", but this article isn't in U.S. English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sheehan

I know about the whole Cindy Sheehan thing, and I said "True" pov, as a joke, I knew someone would take it the wrong way. But really it was just for joking purposes, so I'm sorry if you didn't like it. Also I fixed my message box thing, I forgot to do that, when my username switched. Private Butcher 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, roger that. It's not that I 'didn't like' it, it just wasn't obvious as a joke, especially considering the heated nature of the Cindy Sheehan edit history. Just a friendly wiki-editor trying to help out, hope you didn't take offense. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Keynes

You put an db-bio on Simon Keynes. I removed it. A department head and occupier of an endowed chair at Cambridge University certainly sounds notable to me. If you want to AFD it, go ahead, but I don't believe A7 is appropriate. Dragons flight 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't realize he was department head! Thanks! CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homelander Generation

You tagged Homelander Generation for speedy deletion, but neither "Neologism" nor "Original research" is a reason for speedy deltion under the speedy deletion criteria. I have removed the speedy tag and placed this on WP:AFD. DES (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! You're absolutely right, time to re-review. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Thanks for doing RC or new page patrol. By the way, when tagging a non-notable bio with {{nn-bio}} you can now notify the creator with {{nn-warn}}. I think it can be a good educational tool. Also, please take a look at the current proposal to add a CSD for blatent copyvios. It is linked to from WP:CSD. DES (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the tips! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for your note about my contributions on functional zoning. I do have an account, but still forget to log in. 209.145.162.130 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) aka TMS63112[reply]

proxy bot

Howdy! Your open proxy bot is a cool idea, great going! My question is regarding the time of day that it is being run. It seems like WP is usually pretty busy around now, and I've read guidance on the bot page that bots should, when possible, be run at off-peak hours. I'm not looking to wiki-stick you, just interested in your thoughts on this issue. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question, but is this wiki busy time? I thought the peak was US evenings? Hold on, I'll go see if I can find some pretty mrtg graphs. --fvw* 17:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to this report from October 2004 (and I would guess the traffic patterns are pretty similar even today) 1600 GMT is pretty busy. I'm going off the number of edits I see in RC Patrol too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What d'ya know, we are sort of climbing the hump right now, at least on the squids. I'll shut it down in a minute, just let me kill a last bug. --fvw* 17:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There, all squashed. --fvw* 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Redirect

Sorry about that SPI problem. I was sure I had the redirect code down right. Thanks for helping me out! :) I'll think about creating an account. - unsigned by 212.147.17.97

No problem, just remember: Show Preview means that you're the only one who sees an error. :D Keep up the good work! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for spellcheking my user page! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallefant

Thanks for speedying Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hallefant, but I was going to.

Hypervideo modifications

Please check out the improved Hypervideo article when you get a chance. --Maestro44 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.


Have one on me

...That is, a barnstar.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would kill myself if everyone in the world were like Fvw - thankfully they aren't. : ) Molotov (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About "nonsense" tag

Please see my talk page for reply. --DannyWilde 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An odd message from an Anon IP

84.226.36.188 11:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC):HOW MANY MORE NEO-SEMINOTABLE SAINTS CAN A COHERENTLY FRAMEMINDED WORLD TAKE,......... .......GURGLE-STATISTICWISE? KAREL WITT (SORRY FOR THE SAME Q. IN ARCHIVE!) (ON WITTBEAT, SKYCUTTING, FATEDODGING & OTHER DADAISMS)[reply]

Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure I understand your question, could you please rephrase in the form of a common language we share? I speak English, German, and a little bit of Spanish and Esperanto. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

84.226.36.188 03:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC): JUST USING YOUR DELETION-TERMINOLOGY (CONCERNING WITTBEAT, SKYCUTTING) ON A MOST RECENT ISSUE: THE SANCTIFYING OF CARDINAL VON GALEN (LÖWE VON MÜNSTER) AS A NAZI CHALLENGER. ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD THE COURAGE TO SPEAK-OUT AGAINST THE NAZIS IN '41 (BUT SURVIVED UNTIL '46), THE GENERAL STRATEGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO LAUNDER IT'S HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE PERSECUTION OF JEWS IS SELF-EVIDENT. AS I ALREADY E-MAILED , IT'S RATHER FRUSTRATING TO BE DELETED (WITTBEAT, SKYCUTTING) BY IGNORANTS (BJELLEKLANG) & MAINLY ON TECHNICAL (?) REASONS (GOOGLE STATISTICS). THE IMPOSSIBILLITY OF UNCOVERING THE HIDDEN REASONS FOR HISTORICAL FRAMES & PERSECUTIONS OF MINORITIES IS PART OF MY ART WORK (WITTBEAT). KAREL WITT[reply]

Falcon 5

Per the payload user guide, the second stage is not reusable. I've pulled an edit that suggested it was. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the Falcon I with the Falcon 5. SpaceX says both stages of the Falcon 5 are designed to be reusable, see [1].--Duk 23:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! You're right, I did. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Nonsense

You marked Liz as {{nonsense}}. I agree that it may be a candidate for speedy deletion, but it's not nonsense. It's clearly English, and in fact it conveys a lot of information about whatever person named Liz the author is referring to. I might mark this article {{empty}} or {{nn-bio}}, or use {{db|reason}} to provide my own reason (hopefully one that's listed on WP:CSD). -- Super Aardvark 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comments in my talk page about copyright, there is no reason to argue with you about this. You are talking about "what ifs" that have not happened to justify a policy of destruction of information.

In addition, based on passed deletions, both Duk and TDC use copyright violations as a stick to pursue their own jingoist political ideology.Travb 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, I have no jingoist political ideology. I have never edited this article, except to address the copyright violation. If you look at my edit history you will find no politically oriented contributions to speak of. I have no interest in politics whatsoever. Please don't malign me behind my back. --Duk 17:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite and fair use

Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."

See [2] for further information.

"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS

The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to

  • single chapters
  • single articles from a journal issue
  • several charts, graphs or illustrations
  • other similarly small parts of a work. "

from [3] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.

The New York Times itself quotes others.

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [4] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.

Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.

While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).

Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi you posted a vandalism note on User talk:206.139.211.21 on the 18th, please look at their current contributions Special:Contributions&target=206.139.211.21.

Hi Chairboy

You asked me on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushytails to "clarify what aspect of the "dildo stuff" is problematic". For the purposes of being civil, I'll pretend you weren't being sarcastic, and answer your questions.

And as the RFA is now closed, I'll reply to you here. There is no aspect of the "dildo stuff" that is problematic. The issue was whether an editor with just 1,400 edits had a suitable level of maturity, level-headedness and experience, and the fuss being created by Bushytail's extreme anti-censorship stand seemed to suggest that this was not the case.

The list of forbidden subjects can be found at WP:NOT. Enjoy. And it is impossible to avoid an inadvertent transgression - this is why such a transgression is referred to as inadvertent. If you were able to avoid them, they would no longer be inadvertent. Regards, Proto t c 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! It is unnecessary to 'pretend' I wasn't being sarcastic, as this is a good faith question. Second, you wrote that your oppose was "per antidildoism". My question was what aspect of that subject was problematic, and you didn't answer, which of course is your discression. I wasn't clear if you were saying that the candidate was not level-headed because he wrote about dildos, or if you were saying that his handling of an issue related to them was immature. If you could clarify that would be great, as I honestly don't follow. Finally, please clarify which item in WP:NOT he violated, as it seems that those who objected to his writing about dildos are unfamliar with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chairboy. I apologise for not assuming your good faith. As to your questions: 1) I opposed as per the people who said that the user's handling of the issue was not mature. I have no problem with the subject (although I do think it should be kept off the main page, purely on a PR level). 2) I said the candidate was not level-headed because his (her?) handling of the issue was not mature. The subject of the issue is irrelevant, for all it mattered it could have been dildoes or bunny rabbits. 3) I don't recall mentioning he violated any item in WP:NOT. I referred to WP:NOT because you asked me to tell you where the list of forbidden subjects was. That list is on WP:NOT (wikipedia not a travel guide, not a memorial, not a crystal ball, etc etc). I hope this clears things up. Thanks, Proto t c 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thanks for your responses, that answers the questions I posed during the RfA. I wasn't trying to rake mud, I just wanted to understand the basis for the vote (per my concern in the talk page for the RfA) and your response reassures me that it was a legit concern and not a veiled reference to censorship. BTW, the 'list of forbidden subjects' request of mine was in response to another Oppose voter who opposed because Bushytails wrote "gross links", which I'm pretty sure is a censorship issue, but that's a discussion for another day. Thanks again! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. I was confused as you'd put it on the same line. I'm not a censorship kind of person. My only personal rule would be not putting anything potentially offensive on the main page, but that's to do with avoiding any kind of fuss / panic / commotion / mass hysteria / complaints. One thing I don't like is people deliberately trying to offend the more sensitive users in order to make a point over Wikipedia not being censored for the protection of minors. But let me emphasise I don't think Bushytails was guilty of this at any point. Take it easy. Proto t c 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that! Have a good one! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and adminship

The desire for admins to appropriately use edit summaries is in no respect a violation of WP:POINT. Please see User:Durin/Admin_criteria_comments#Edit_summaries. One of the typical prime duties of administrators is fighting vandalism. Providing edit summaries is one way in which people can make the job of RC patrollers looking for vandalism easier. It is very appropriate to request admins, who are likely to be fighting vandalism, to aide in fighting vandalism. --Durin 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! As an editor who probably used edit summaries in excess of 95% of the time and who actively fights vandals, I very much appreciate the need for them. My comment was that opposing adminship based on the percentage given seems to be making a WP:POINT as I don't see how that is an indicator of whether or not he would abuse the added functionality. Hope this clears things up! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally find criticism of other contributor's criteria for voting on suitability of nominees for adminship to be out of process and not of use to the RfA process. I understand you feel it is violating WP:POINT. That implies that myself and several others who feel this is an important quality in being an admin are doing something nefarious to disrupt Wikipedia. This implication is, to say the least, mildly upsetting. I would encourage you not to criticize the votes of other people who are making votes in good faith. RfAs should be focused on the candidates, not on the voters. --Durin 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I really don't think you're doing anything nefarious, but I have the personal opinion that some of the voters are applying the criteria with a strictness that seems out of proportion to the 'crime'. 64% over the past 500 seems ok to me, but freestylefrappe disagrees, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Ironically, I'm considering changing my vote to neutral for reasons unrelated to this discussion. I'm troubled by the nominee's response to [[User:|hydnjo]]'s question about improving his use of summaries. He first promises 'gradual improvement', then, when hydnjo says "Why not just do it all the time?" he makes a kinda weird sounding "if you want me to say that, I will" type statement. Regarding mentioning other votes in mine, I've considered your point, and you may be right. I'll think twice before doing that again in the future, I definitely do not want to do anything that might distract from the RfA process. Thanks for your time, and I appreciate your insight. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Pamri

Hi, Thanks a ton for voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator and I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 03:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA.If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 15:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator AFD voting

You asked on User_talk:MarkGallagher#Nominator_AFD_voting "I put the text in question into the template, where's MarkGallagher's comment you're referring to? I'd love to participate in the discussion."

Though I don't know where the original remark came from, more recently he stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Noblemen, "Please don't indulge in the silly habit of voting in addition to nominating."

I am interested in the proper protocol to follow when nominating articles for deletion as well (I vote as well as nom). Keryst 14:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, there is no proper protocol. Ben took it upon himself, despite previous discussion (see User:Kelly Martin's comment on AfD talk), to add the "you should also vote" text to the AfD instructions. It has now been removed. So let's not have any talk about uniliterally "changing official Wikipedia policy", please.
I understand why the "nominators should vote" suggestion was added: because of fears that nominators' intention might be ignored. However, I strongly disagree with it, as I explained on the AfD talkpage. The intention of the nominator should be made clear on this strength of her arguments; if it is not clear, then her arguments weren't very good, and no amount of copy 'n' paste "I, the nom, vote delete per nom" bullet points can – or should – hide that fact. The fact is that a great many votes on AfD are pathetic. "nn d", the stereotype paraded about outside AfD, is quite true. At least one person should be able to explain why an article is deleted, and that person is the nominator. By encouraging the nomination to be Just Another Vote (which we have all seen happen, and not just from the pen of User:ComCat), we are doing a grave disservice not just to the articles, but to anyone who doesn't choose to label themselves as an extreme inclusionist.
Why am I pointing this out in my comments to individual AfDs? For the same reason I am pointing out every good nomination, and every poor nomination. "AfD is broken", "the atmosphere is toxic", "the community is close-minded", all common refrains on Wikipedia, and not at all unjustified. I am trying to encourage good behaviour, and discussion on bad behaviour. It may not help, but it certainly cannot do any harm. Now, everyone I have asked about this nominator-voting thing has done one of three things: a) ignored the question; b) said "but I don't want my vote to be discounted if it gets close"; or c) said "it's in the instructions for using the template ... isn't it?". 'a' I can do nothing about, 'b' is patently silly, and 'c' is, as far as I am aware, entirely Ben's doing. I am hardly working against consensus; there is no consensus to work against.
I trust I have answered both your questions, if not necessarily to your liking. Feel free to contact me at any time; if I am unable to respond immediately, however, I may forget (go ahead and remind me if you must). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I believe Kelly Martin severely mischaracterized my change, and have left a comment to that effect in the AfD talk. I understand and respect your position, but I still feel that anything that adds clarity to consensus should be strongly considered, especially for something like AfD. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FireFox RFA

Chairboy

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel de Cériz

Hi Chairboy, I just saw the successful vote for deletion that you had put up for Emmanuel de Cériz in September. However, it seems the same user has recreated the page, along with Emmanuel Cériz, Cériz, Prince Emmanuel de Cériz, Transmutalism, Transmutalist Art, at least ten works of this "artist" on commons, and possibly others. Phew. Speedy delete ? (Please reply on my talk page) Ze miguel 08:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chairboy, if you have just a minute, please check the following images for deletion [5]. Thanks. Ze miguel 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles

Hi, Chairboy - I think we've reached a consensus. I've posted a final comment on the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles page.

Cheers! 

- DR1819

23:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Public computers at this IP Adress

This IP adress is the same for about 30-45 computers at Edmonds Wodway High School. What was the deal regarding LOL (Internet slang) - why were the comments posted inappropriate? I happen to know the person that did it - why do/did you keep reverting those changes? 168.99.166.56 23:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I removed one unsupported, unreferenced, and demonstrably false claim (namely, that LOL was somehow a misunderstanding of the Japanese abbreviation "loli"). That was the only revert I made. If you know the person who did it, feel free to share my comment with them, and I encourage both of you to create accounts. As you can see, it's been over a month since the revert in question, and it's likely that you would have noticed the message I left quite a bit earlier if either of you had been logged in. Plus, having an account makes it a lot easier to track changes to pages you have interest in! It's a win-win situation. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello there, you recently reverted some vandalism on my user page. The anonymous user was actually a friend of mine whom I allowed to test out editing on my page. At that exact time, he was asking me (via AIM) "What about vandalism, etc" when you showed up and reverted it in under a minute, even before me! It made for one good example! He is now convinced of the resiliency of wikipedia. Thanks!the1physicist 06:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and your WikiTeach idea sounds remarkably similar to the proposed Wikiversity. [6] [7]the1physicist 06:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Space warfare

Hello, good work on Space warfare, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Space warfare? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 20:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added an external links section with a link to an article on Almaz that I refered to when writing the article. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BABSG

Thanks!  :) New pages patrol is just one of the weirder aspects of Wikipedia. Why people think they rate an article in an international site of these proportions is beyond me. Rather entertaining, actually. Anyway, thanks for the help with the "tags and bags." - Lucky 6.9 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Forgotten Realms project

Hi,

We are working on a Forgotten Realms Project to map Toril (mostly Faerûn, at the present). Since you contributed quite a lot on a Forgotten Realms-specific entry, I'd like to invite you to join the project, so we could improve the “Mapping the Realms” project.

The goal is to create a sort of World Factbook for the Realms. This means:

  • A consistent content
  • Use of templates
  • Entries should be limited to “sovereign places”: states and free cities, as well a moderately-inhabited place such as the Western Highlands.

On top of this, we also plan to cover Lost Empires, such as Pelvuria or Imaskar and, of course, Netheril

Main contributors are presently

If you know some other person who would be interested, feel free to forward the invitation!

Feel free to take a look. We hope to see you soon mapping the Realms with us! Reply to David Latapie 12:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RfA

Chairboy, thanks for voting in support of my RfA (I know it was a while ago, but I'm creeping through the list). I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality. BD2412 T 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pathoschild's successful RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my request for adminship; it passed with 23/0/0 (plus one duplicate support and an oppose from a vandal IP). If you're still interested, the WikiProject on User Warnings is doing quite alot lately. You're welcome to join in. ^^ // Pathoschild 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Heya, I just wanted to thank you for the response on Linuxbeak's RFB. It's been an increasing concern for me and I wanted to say something where there'd be a lot of readers without having much effect. I expect that over the next week I'll get responses that aren't quite so understanding, thanks again! Rx StrangeLove 06:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Subst tags

Thanks for reminding me! I use subst tags occasionally, but sometimes forget. With a comment on my talk page, I think I'll remember from now on =) — TheKMantalk 07:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (AfD Woohookitty)

I was actually in the process of reading those AfD steps and performing them when I realized that the link to the article itself wasn't working anymore.

But now I know for future note. =FaxCelestis 07:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty

I deleted the AfD right after I deleted the article as not to propogate the attack. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you were rude, you are blocked for 24 hours. Amaas120 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, not according to Special:Ipblocklist. You probably shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight, friend. I hope you reconsider your approach to Wikipedia, we've got a great community that you could be part of, and I hope you choose to join us in a constructive fashion. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference

Thanks for pointing out Category:Wikipedians who are pilots!

Thank You

Hi Chairboy, Thank you for your support on my RFB. I withdrew it with a final vote of 14/5/2 and am planning on wait awhile before possibly re-applying. Thanks again for your vote. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Hi there! In the Linuxbeak RfB, you asked me why I thought Everyking's vote might be an example of WP:POINT, and I thought I'd bring the conversation here to avoid cluttering the other, especially seeing as how Everyking has changed his mind. To answer a question with another question, would you agree that Booothy was using WP:POINT when he voted against each and every RfA? I believe that community consensus is yes, and for the same reasons I suggested that Everyking's vote may have been the same. Namely, Everyking stated that he was making his vote for symbolic value. I don't believe that whether this specific RfB passes or fails will have any lasting effect on Wikipedia, but using your vote to "make a point" (which Everyking said he did) seems to meet the spirit of WP:POINT in spades. Of course, I strive to learn, and if my analysis is incomplete or has made a wrong turn somewhere near Albequrque, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. - CHAIRBOY (?) 05:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is incorrect. There is no WP rule against "making a point". WP:POINT is a rule against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; indeed, the full name is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Boothy's votes were silly, perhaps, but were not a disruption, and Everyking's vote certainly wasn't disruptive. If you had just called it a tit-for-tat, I would have said nothing, as I can see it being interpreted as such. But accusing a distinguished member of our community of breaking an official guideline is a serious thing, which is why I ask you again: Where was the disruption?
Also, Everyking never said his vote was symbolic. Read his comments again, carefully. He said that the position of a bureaucrat has more symbolic value than that of an admin. So, before you jump and throw wild accusations, you should read people's comments carefully, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines you're quoting, and apologize when you find yourself in error. Owen× ☎ 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. With respect to Boothy, if you'll review his RfC, you may notice that there are repeated statements that he was violating WP:POINT. You may feel that's not a correct viewpoint, but I did say that community consensus seemed to suggest that he was executing WP:POINT. Based on that discussion, I believe that biting my head off isn't terribly appropriate. I learn every day, and I hope that in the future, you'll be a bit more forgiving for those of us who are continually trying to learn.
In regards to Everyking's specific wording, I hope you follow up with JTkiefer about the same thing, as he posted "So let me get this right, your opposing him based solely on symbolic value, how does that make sense?".
Best regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for retracting the WP:POINT part of your comment to Everyking. I'm sorry if I came across as being too harsh, and apologize if I offended you in any way. The RfA/RfB page is one of the most hostile areas on WP, and voting against a massive consensus can be a harrowing experience. This is why it's important to defend minority opinions, even—or especially—when their vote is opposite our own. I'm glad to see this has all been settled amicably, and appreciate you having taken this seriously. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Cat

Thanks for pointing out or creating the category, but I have one question. I am only studying to be a pilot, and I'm not one yet, but I will be in about a year (maybe less, depends on when i take my solo flight). Can I still be in the category even with this technicality? -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage!

FireFox 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

SRB's

Sorry but I cannot always find a link to back up my knowledge. It is well known that the Challenger's right SRB leak in 1986 caused a deviation in the shuttles trajectory altering it's vector. In fact the force was so great the other engines gimballed to compensate and that caused the srb to crush the expendable fuel tank. It will take awhile for me to find a link for this fact. It is under the Challenger Accident Investigation Board report.

24.44.77.99 01:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral thrust from the SRB burn through did not cause a significant flight path deviation. It's true the SSMEs gimbled to compensate for the lateral thrust, but this was well within their limits. The initial breakup was caused by the lateral SRB flame impinging on the external tank, weakening it, and causing structural failure. While that was in progress, the right SRB broke lose from its lower attach point, and rotated into the external tank completing the breakup. More info: [8] Joema 16:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iemma

Hi, can you explain why you moved Morris Iemma to Lemma? As far as I can tell Iemma (I for Igloo) is the correct version, at least as used on his parliamentary web page [9]. - Randwicked 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy presumably thought the 'I' was a lowercase 'L'. In actual fact, it's an 'I', as can be seen by picking up any newspaper or listening to a newsreader struggling to pronounce the Premier's last name. I've moved it back. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk this up to the perils of Arial... - Randwicked 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh, sorry! I are dumb. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

hi, im currently a college student majoring in biochem. I am pretty much sure that biology is a law. It can also be defined as a process but more specifically a 'law'. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.106.105.84 (talk • contribs)

Hi there! Please review WP:3RR. The change you're making is pretty big, and other editors have asked you to discuss this. As a student, you should understand the importance of being able to provide citations, if you can do that for this, it'd really do a lot to help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haha, sorry for this minor change. I don't have the time to find a citation but I believe both way work so we will stick to your 'process by' then. By the way, this is my first time trying to edit a wikipedia page and i am surprised at how many people try their hardest to keep updating the info. I guess with people like you can make wikipedia a better place :) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.106.105.84 (talk • contribs)

Nothing to be sorry about, just remember that this is an encyclopedia, and any bold pronouncements that create controversy really need some evidence to back 'em up. It's nothing personal, it's just part of a strategy for keeping the quality of data in WP as high as possible. Welcome to the project, I hope you'll create an account and continue editing! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review for RfA

I'd be happy to review you! Give me about a day, ok? --Durin 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What am I"

Just wanted to say your "What am I" section on your user page makes me think of Nikola Tesla, especially the electricity bit :) --Durin 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I'm in good company! Personally, I think that death rays are a perfectly reasonable device for home defense... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images of one of your kids accidentally tripping the death ray defense system while on the way home for school, kinda like daffy duck getting fried :) I tried chatting you on IRC. No response. --Durin 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Actually I did catch it, I saw the bit in the 2nd paragraph and went back to revert. After that I'm not quite sure what happened....I reverted again back to the last good version by Bkwillwm but it didn't show in history. I see that you reverted during the same peroiod so it must have gotten crossed up somehow. Rx StrangeLove 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Greenough

I saw in the intro paragraph that she had been reviewed in some journal, so that to me qualifies as some claim of notability. That's why I sent it to AfD instead. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note, the "The Hants Journal" is a community webzine in a small town in Canada. Their top story this week (www.hantsjournal.ca) is about a local music teacher who was given a plaque by his band.  :) Again, no biggy, VfD will sort it out in the end. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Finally, it's done :) After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chairboy. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. --Durin 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you're off to a great start. 15-0 after three hours. I'm very sorry it took so long to put this together. Non-wiki events have been dramatically affecting my available time. Thank you so much for your patience! --Durin 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to message on Star Trek

I put them in there initially anyway but then realised that it has a subgroup so I decided the best thing to do would be to revert it back, that's all. --Pally01 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer!

I read your comment on your RfA about your frustrations on Wikipedia. I was very impressed by your answer! I think you're very right in your analysis that Wikipedia is still being run as if everybody is still going to feel as connected with Wikipedia as in the beginning. But what can you do? I wouldnt know where to start! Any thoughts? The Minister of War (Peace) 12:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats ^_^ Deckiller 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And another. Congratulations --pgk(talk) 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations and welcome to the wonderful world of admin abuse. Please apply to be "suitly emphazi" as soon as possible. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! May you wield the mop and the bucket with grace and humility. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. Enjoy the mop, it sure is stinky! --Deathphoenix 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations :) —Quarl (talk) 23:46 2006-01-27
wow, that's the strongest rfa consensus i've ever seen 79/0/0. you must be doing something right. Derex 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats my Libertarian buddy. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good job and congrats!--MONGO 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Blumenfeld

Thanks, it smelled like a vanity page, but thats why admins review the CSD tag before deleting it. Thanks again! J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarl

Hi, I noticed you on Quarl's talk page. Although he's been reluctant for adminship I nominated him anyways... and I'm awaiting for his response... but feel free to vote and hopefully he'll accept Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Quarl .

~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 19:59 2006-02-01

Don't panic proposal

Hey, thank you for telling me about it! It's nice writing, and I'm reading it over. It seems like it concentrates more a "slow down" kind of message than a moral panic kind of "don't panic", though that isn't a bad thing. It's definately applicable to a moral panic kind of situation, but I thought that maybe something more specific against moral panics might be needed.... There are things like POV or factuality issues with them in general, and many panics are generated outside of Wikipedia by the general media without people being aware of them; I think your paragraph focuses on panics triggered within Wikipedia. Maybe it's just because you didn't start with the "molesting dogs" example early in the paragraph, so the context ("someone has said something") seems unclear?

Maybe replace "like to molest dogs" with "would like to molest dogs", as AFAIK molesting dogs is illegal and can be reported to police (I think it might fall under Cruelty to animals or something)? Raul654 also posted at WP:AN about a possible new guideline "Don't put anything on your userpage that could bring the project into disrepute", which might significantly affect the "The press!" part of your examples.

Sorry I'm being so nitpicky! Thanks for showing it to me. :) --AySz88^-^ 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback, thanks! Please feel free to edit it yourself to make the changes if you feel it has potential to expand into something for the project. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually about to head to bed, as it's 3AM here, but I'll be sure to try to help out tomorrow if I get the chance. :) Lots of things happening. :p --AySz88^-^ 08:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Trigger Finger

Hi. Please wait at least a few minutes after an article has been created to delete it. I was putting in the proper links, and saved my article only to find you had deleted it. I don't think waiting ten minutes or so be such a bad idea. My $0.02. Ionesco 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Through use of the preview button, there's no reason your article can't be ready in the initial edit. Feel free to recreate it in a state that's ready for Wikipedia! BTW, if you let me know which article it was that was deleted, I can respond to your comment better. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T PANIC

I'm wondering if, perhaps, your latest edit to Don't Panic perhaps violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references... -Theaterfreak64 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I thought that disambiguation pages were exempt, ala at the top of Template, Admin, etc. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyan waliullah

Hello fellow Oregonian. I was trying to delete that page and merge it into Adhan. Do you think that's a bad idea? or did I use the tag wrong? Cuñado - Talk 01:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! In the future, just take the content you think belongs in the target, merge it into the appropriate article, then use the db functionality to request a speedy delete. If it's less of a slamdunk and needs a lot of effort to do the merge, tag the articles using the mergeto and mergefrom templates. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey/ help

I need to create a page and I dont know how to do it correctly. Can you please offer me some type of assistance? Thanks! JJstroker 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I can absolutely help, what are you trying to do? Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. Thanks I really appreciate it. I would like to know how to start new pages for articles that I would like to write with the correct title. How can I do that?
Thanks,
JJstroker 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you're asking for. If you'll review WP:MOS, you'll see that article names should have proper capitalization. For instance, don't capitalize every first letter to each word unless it's a name, etc. I'm thinking the biggest thing is to google the person/item you're writing with wikipedia as one of the search terms first to make sure someone else hasn't already written about it. Without more data, I can't suggest anything more, what specific article are you trying to write? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VolksZone

Yeah, that's fine. I often use {{prod}} as a second attempt, i.e. one step down from speedy but one step up from Afd - where anyone that wants to vote keep can vote keep by just removing the prod tag. That's my understanding anyway. If I can get away with that and not bother anyone with Afd, I figure that's easier. If not, I go ahead with Afd. (I'll watch here for responses). —Wknight94 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed the tag the first time before you put it back, does that count? :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put it back. The first time I did a speedy tag, {{db}}. The tag there now is {{prod}} which is very different. This is a fairly new process described at WP:PROP. It's kind of an intermediate process between WP:SD which can be deleted in minutes and WP:AFD which requires a weeks-long voting process. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! You're absolutely right. I was working a PROP issue with someone else, and I mixed your original nomination up with theirs in my head. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh, not a problem.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modele space

Yes, it's a modele from Wikipedia in french, it's to say that the link is in french, or in english, or whatever. MaThQc 06:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some documentation or other examples showing this in use elsewhere? I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but I'm concerned that this may be a well intentioned but misdirected series of edits. If I'm wrong, I will tender my apologies of course, but I'd really like to see an example of where this is used first. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh! I understand... you using "Template" in english version of Wikipedia... in the french modele it's "modele"... So sorry :S MaThQc 06:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-created Brent Price

Hi, just for your info (no action required), I recreated the Brent Price article which you had deleted. You did the right thing as it was a mess to begin with. Whilst I was editing it you must have killed it off, so I recreated it. :) Cheers, keep up the good work. bye! Downwards 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH better looking, nice work! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFA

I think you've misunderstood what I said. I do not mean that we abandon the 7 day limit, I just mean that, if an RfA is closed a few hours late, as they usually are, that we allow anyone who gets in before the closure to be listened to. It seems crazy to say "well, I see that you have something to say, and you've said it, but I'm going to ignore it". On AfD, we routinely take account of all opinions stated up until the debate is actually closed, which frequently makes a difference since AfDs are usually closed late. I'm just stating exising practise, and not proposing anything. Splashtalk 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South by Southwest Festival

Why did you delete South by Southwest Festival so quickly? I just created it a few minutes ago; people could have added to it. You could have at most marked it as a stub. --Gary King 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please review WP:CSD. The content of your article was a single line without any context, specifically this. Not quite enough to be a stub. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bot, it's me!

...doing everything by hand. HTH, Pcb21 Pete 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, that's some fast work then. Thanks for the heads up! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually playing poker at the same time, so I reckon I could be faster if I wanted too ;) Happy wikiing. Pcb21 Pete 04:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Scene

I was interested in making a little article on Teh Scene but it was deleted & protected. I wrote in the discussion page trying to get some kind of respond (nothing so far). Now I'm writing to you and wondering if you should leave the page protected or not! I dunno why that user did what s/he did but what about other people's chance to contribute? I'm trying to understand your POV, that's all. --Unbreakable_MJ 15:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh & I "expect responses on (my) own talk page" --Unbreakable_MJ 15:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock yourself out, I unprotected it. FYI, it's been repeatedly deleted because it has been persistently written as an article about a non-notable website that does not appear to meet WP:WEB or any other notability criteria, and in addition to that, the articles have been one liners like "Teh scene is a parody of The Scene" with a link. If you can write a quality, sourced article about a subject called 'Teh Scene' that meets Wikipedia standards, by all means, do so! If that's not the case, I predict a strong chance of more deletion in the future with a forecast of more page protection. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very suprised to see any contention about the justification for having an article about the show Teh Scene. Within the subculture of people for whom it is targeted, it is quite well known, and abslutely notable. And, to echo what others have mentioned, * Teh Scene is not a website, it is a show *. It is a suprisingly well done parody of the web-released show The Scene, and achieved a noteworthy degree of popularity. It is itself web-released, making a website it's home. I'm commenting here due to the fact that upon checking wiki for information on the show, instead of finding at the very least a poor article on it, I found an enforced deletion. While poorly written stubs about only barely notable topics are justifiably deleted until a better attempt can be made, the topic of the new-media Teh Scene in no ways rates as that: I would prefer a short, poor article to a page that has forced it's deletion. Dxco 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta fag

Why did you vandalize the article about Gangsta Fag, by deleting what I had written?

-Z—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ztsmart (talk • contribs) .

Hi there! Please take a moment to read WP:CSD, specifically A7 (the section regarding non-notable musicians). Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Gangsta Fag is non-notable? He is the FIRST openly gay rapper, he is like the rosa parks of homosexual gangster rap. check out www.gangstafag.com, and if you still feel he is non-notable, can we put it to a vote?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ztsmart (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your messages with ~~~~. Can you tell me which of the WP:MUSIC criteria he meets? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style <<Homosexual-themed gangsta rap>>

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, <<His song "The faggots" is notable>>


Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network. <<He has been the subject of broadcast exceeding half an hour multiple times on the Opie & Anthony show>>


Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.

<<Homosexual-themed gangsta rap>>

Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. <<Homosexual-themed gangsta rap>>


Ztsmart 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re copyvio

It's from http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conflicts/Turkey-Kurdistan-web/Turkey-Kurd_briefing_main.html one of the paragraphs in the article. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Ranelagh

Why the hell did you just delete this? - I just created it , give me a bloody chance! Jooler 18:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! The article contained nothing but three wikilinks, and all three were to non-existant articles. Please review WP:CSD A1 to see why this meets criteria for speedy deletion. A suggestion, use the preview button while writing an article and don't save it until it's actually ready. This will help you avoid confusion in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be an ass! - An awful lot of peerage articles contain red links. The viscountcy is real and the people are real. The article was extant for less than five minutes. Jooler 18:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to read WP:NPA. No need for attacks, we're all friends here, right? The fact is, you created an empty article. Even if the three links had been to existant articles, it still would have needed more context info. You can't just create empty pages, ya know! A suggestion, create the target articles first, THEN create the peerage article that goes over it. It's a step in the right direction. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to take your head out of your backside . It ISN'T and empty page. It is an article that is taking shape. It currently contains three people of the peerage. You are obviously not familar with articles of the peerage. Take a look for example at Baron_Norwood. These articles are commonplace. Now kindly leave me to work on it. Jooler 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sociedade de Turismo e Diversões de Macau

Kindly refer to the Stanley Ho article, where how Ho and his companies are influential is explained in details. Please be reminded that every article starts small, and that's exactly the purpose of the stub sorting project. Cheers. :-D — Instantnood 20:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Actually, very few articles start as small as the one you did, and those make an assertion of notability. Your article makes no assertion of notability (and consequently meets the A7 criteria of WP:CSD. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there are some established rules for keeping the quality of WP up, and I'm trying to help you meet them. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect first, before I recognised the article itself was not existing yet. Anyhow, the links I've included in the article already provide adequate information to assert its notability, in case you're not yet aware. — Instantnood 17:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subtelomere cleanup

Hello, I just expanded and edited the subtelomere entry (along with providing my own graphics!). How does one remove the "cleanup necessary" and "better introduction necessary" business from the top of the page? I would like the Wiki crew to know that the article is adequately explained now. It is certainly well beyond the "JETFA" stage now as well, I would hope...

Thanks!

Lesotho 01:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)LesothoLesotho 01:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps, i'll check back here for responses. if you prefer, you can also use my talk page.

Lack of experience

As a new admin, I did not know that had to be done too. Thank you for letting me know and it has been done.Gator (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Warwick McKibbin

curious as to why you deleted my entry on Warwick McKibbin on March 3? Wmckibbin 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appeared to be mostly copyvio'd from http://cama.anu.edu.au/camaboard.htm. There are minimal differences between the two, the first halves are almost identical. Copyright violation and plagiarism are not solid foundations to write an encyclopedia on. If you can take another stab at it, writing originally this time, I'm sure nobody will object. Be sure to assert his notability, that's the other grey area with the original article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History merges

Hi. You speedy deleted Ciaphas Cain and Gideon Ravenor yesterday after I tagged them with {{Template:db-histmerge}} to perform history merges from Commissar Ciaphas Cain and Ravenor respectively, but as far as I can tell, no history merge as been performed. My understanding was that admin intervention was still needed to actually perform the history merge: if not, could you please give me some pointers as to how to do things. I understand you may not have time to do the merge at the moment: if so, could you undelete the articles so another admin can have a go? Cheers --Pak21 10:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I guess that shows that I've still got some things to learn! I didn't realize further admin action was necessary, I've restored both. Time to go read up some more in my "Being a Wikipedia Admin For Dummies" book. :D Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DS9 edits

Yes, I took out the part about the usage of Christ in addition to moving the footnote to the proper place and adding a space between paragraphs since one is about the profanity and the other homosexuality. That's the only reason it looks like "blanking" in the differences page - I didn't make any other major changes. --Vedek Dukat Talk 03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, amigo, slow down on the deletion edits--Isn't there something more useful you can do

If you're doing this on some kind of auto-robotic sweeper, turn it off!!!

04:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)rossfp

rossfp@gmail.com

Request

Hello Chairboy. If it lies in your power, would you please delete or change Jtkiefer's 10 April edit summary of his talk page [10]? Obviously, it's the worst sort of personal attack, especially as Jtkiefer is aware I have terminal cancer. Thanks. JDG 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No can do? JDG 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you don't respond. Do you believe I'm malevolent? JDG 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you're malevolent, but... I'm not interested in changing the edit summary. Whether or not you have cancer has no bearing on the nature of a personal attack, and as far as PAs go, I've seen worse. My advice? Brush it off. Be the better person and walk away. If there's a continuing problem, let me know, but sanitizing edit histories is not in the best interest of the project or you. It's not like me deleting that edit summary will make you forget that it ever happened, ya know. I'm not trying to be a hard case here, but... perspective. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Investigation

You seem to be highly involved in the project, which is great! Have you considered adding your name to the list of members? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MessedRocker (talk • contribs) .

Sure, will do. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A point of contention

    • I have used wikipedia for a long time, and not once have i had problems with u guys, but when i try to edit or add my own Viable content u assholes delete it. if u feel that its not usefull, u shuld look at ur admin profile, it is a waste of space ur a libertarian dousche who can faster than a speeding building and can jump a bullet in a single bound wtf? noone cares, how fucking esoteric.... my group is not up to ur requirements? some asshold admin is not good enuf for his job but i havent kicked u off have i ? i leae this here so u see it , u delete it i dont care. sorry for any inconvienance.. and because i have no idea wut i am doing just send me any kind of message to this here>>>>>> **—The preceding unsigned comment was added by biopledgiance (talk • contribs) .
Hello, and welcome to wikipedia! Your own content must meet the same requirements for notability as anyone elses. Thanks, and I hope you continue your contributions! Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a webhost. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Your libertarian 'dousche' admin friend)[reply]

Re:Ori Hofmekler

This one is a hard one, a borderline case. It does make an assertion of notability, seeing as it says he's the author of a book that has a Wikipedia article (admittedly, that book has a {{importance}} tag stuck on it). So I wasn't sure, and I'd thought I'd revert to the {{importance}} tag to see if whoever wrote it can improve it. But if you think it's a definite nn-bio, sure go ahead and zap it. enochlau (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Township Edit

Fair Enough. I don't suppose you can reccomend Some Software or Templates So tha I can List those Townships that no longer Exist—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainkang (talk • contribs) .

Qa'pla, I suggest creating something like List of Ohio Townships that no longer exist or something along those lines. A single article with a list of 'em describing common reasons why would probably be welcome. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bash

Hey, i noticed our little exchange about Canada has made it to m:Bash, and deservedly so, really. Just wanted to let you know that for the most part, I'm not an over-sensitive asshole, and I'm slightly embarassed that my first appearance on Bash shows me up as one. Anyway, kudos for your sharp IRC-wit, no doubt I'll see you on there again sometime. :-) Nuge talk 03:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.

Thanks you for help me to solve this problem. You are very nice person. The reason when someone was in bad situation, you ask someone "What's the problem with blocking out of editing?".. Anyways, Thanks alot.^^ Daniel5127, 04:41, 21 April 2006(UTC)

Thanks a lot, Could you answer my question? Please. Daniel5127, 19:17, 22 April 2006(UTC)

Hi Daniel! What question? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?!

(Copied from my Talk page -->) Ok, this is unacceptable. You've been harranguing me to delete an edit summary you find offensive, and you're continuing to make little jabs? Wikistalking is not cool. Keep it up, and you'll have a block in your future. Disrupting the project is not the right answer, take it elsewhere. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?! You're about as insensitive a person I've run across since, well, since Jtkiefer-- and before him I'd have to go for years to find something comparably disturbing. I don't know what your problem is with people suffering from advanced metastatic cancer who take offense at being told to "Fuck off and die", but I really think you should at least control it or be silent if you can't get yourself to be sane and moral about it. And your threat of a block, besides being ridiculous, has earned you a fervid un-admirer who will be sure, as long as he's around, to take every appropriate opportunity (that is, during votes involving your status) to remind others of your insensitivity, fondness of threats, and odd tendency to be the champion of aggressors. I've done nothing resembling "wikistalking" and my attempts to keep my chin up in the face of Jtk's violence, all of it happening as it is on user Talk pages, does zero to "disrupt the project" (which project, by the way, in terms of substantive article edits, I have contributed to about ten or twenty fold when measured against your "contributions", which look to be 80% user Talk babbling, 10% Trekkie ephemera, 5% minor edits and 5% prose that may still be part of the `pedia two months from now)... I came to you because you granted Jtk's request to lock a Talk page, thinking this meant you're amenable to users' requests. It turns out you were wrong to lock the page in the first place and apparently your motive anyway was some sort of warped sympathy 1) for Jtk and his abuse of his admin powers, and 2) his disgusting, profanity-laced wishes of death for the dying. You need to shape up, Chairboy-- and fast. In fact, if I have the energy in the next few days I'll be calling for a little roundtable to help you get started. JDG 09:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that I've violated any rules or you object to my behavior, I encourage you to use any of the existing RfC procedures available. I think JTkiefer was incivil and acted like an ass, but I also think that your hunt to sterilize the edit summaries is misplaced effort. I _also_ think that you're being hypocritical when you use the exact same communication method to continue to make jabs at him after the situation has been resolved, hence my warning message. If you would like the community to evaluate my behavior, please feel free and I'll participate fully. If I deserve censure, then I'd love to know, but you'll pardon me if I don't take your word alone for it. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Scene

Hi.

I know that the old "Teh Scene" article been deleted, and it was protected. Then someday I had a chance and it was unprotected, so I've made a new article, and did my best to make it as good as possible. I see it's deleted too and protected again. That's fine, though no reason is given or stated anywhere. I just need to know what is it that was wrong with what I wrote, or is it just the type of articles that should not be included in Wikipedia? I know that the old article was deleted many times because it didn't include much more than a link and such. Thant's all. Anyhow thanks for your time. --Unbreakable_MJ 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! There's no claim of notability, the Alexa ranking is over 1 million (as in there are 1.3 million websites more popular than it), and so on. Not every website gets a wikipedia entry, even if it is well written (btw, you did a good job considering the subject matter, it's the website that's the problem, not you). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the kind reply :) One thing I don't understand though: why everyone's keep refering to it as a website? It's a miniseries exactly like the original "The Scene". Did you mean their website doesn't contain enough information for it to be a good reference? If so I totally agree. Actually I tried contacting them but with no luck. Thank you once again. --Unbreakable_MJ 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPCA page

Chairboy, you've seem to have deleted the Motion Picture Corporation of America page I've created. Why? Why did you think that I edited the other information for the page from the original site? People should know about MPCA. The page has been put there for a reason.

Questions or concerns? Let me know.

King Shadeed

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! The article you created was a direct copy/paste from the MPCA webpage. That's not cool, kosher, nor allowed under the licensing of Wikipedia. If you're the person who wrote the text and control the copyright, you'd have to A. Prove who you were and B. release all rights to the text under the GFDL. This means that anyone could and would come along and edit your text. A is usually so hard that all the people willing to throw themselves at B give up. I suggest just writing an original article in Wikipedia about MPCA, seems like it's a good candidate for an article and I'm surprised it doesn't already have one. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Scene (cont.)

Thanks for your reply above about Teh Scene. I replied and still didn't get an answer from you, so I thought maybe you missed reading my reply. Here's another copy of it:

Thank you very much for the kind reply :) One thing I don't understand though: why everyone's keep refering to it as a website? It's a miniseries (video) exactly like the original "The Scene", and both are disterbuted via torrents. Did you mean their website doesn't contain enough information for it to be a good reference? If so, I totally agree. Actually I tried contacting them but with no luck. Thank you once again. --Unbreakable_MJ 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited the article after my original post, and s/he added a website stub mark to it, which I thought was totally wrong, but I didn't do anything so I won't get blocked or into arguments. If you wanna check if it's really a miniseries or not, go here to download the torrents: www.welcometotehscene.com/download.shtml

Anyhow, I stopped really caring about contributing here, though I'm thankful to your contributions and kindness. So just do what you think is right and keep it up the good work. Peace. --Unbreakable_MJ 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Lee Morel

Hi, you deleted this article and we talked about it on IRC briefly. It has been recreated, and formatted, but it was still a word for word cut and paste. I have trimmed it severely and left a note on the talk page requesting (again) that it be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you want to weigh in too or whatever. Thanks for your time. --W.marsh 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zed Bazi - Vol. I

Two months ago a user entered some spam info at this non-article. You soon deleted it. The user recreated the article with similar nonsense which you, again, deleted and replaced with Template:deletedpage.

While I agree that this was the right move, at the time, to prevent further recreations, I feel sufficient time has passed to remove this. It has since been subst'ed and so is consuming a little disk space. I'm leaving this message to show good will and to give you an opportunity to respond. Have a good day, Oldak Quill 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Adams, John Hills

Sorry about that! I guess I just got a bit carried away with the new template. I will be adding stubs or full articles for all the red links in due course anyway. Just out of interest how did you find the pages so soon after they were created? Dan1980 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I figured it was as much, I admire your drive! I monitor the Special:Newpages data. I look forward to seeing their replacement articles. Even stubs that just say "Zippy Jones is a player for the XYZ ball club and was born in 1901" or whatever plus your template will probably be fine. Try and include a statement of notability in each article you create about people to avoid the other common deletion criteria, WP:CSD A7. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrold Manapat and Erica Kaufman

...still alive. You underkilled both. FYI. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Standards

Howdy! You left a note on a recent RfA opposing because the user didn't meet your admin qualifications. I encourage you to document your criteria and link to them from your user page, it may help future admins to know what people are looking for. Keep up the good work, and consider my suggestion. One well thought out oppose is worth more than 10 copy cat supports. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll do just that. (Although they're already on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, in case you didn't know.) Stifle (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Hey thought you might want to know that 70.68.114.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized your userpage. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, Chairboy, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Nanyangosaurus

Sorry, the article creation was a mistake. Thanks for the friendly note, though. :)--Firsfron 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the note, Chairboy. I was creating the talk page in preparation for the actual articles which will not be prepared until Tuesday. Normally, I'd wait until the articles were created to create the talk page, but these five articles are listed on the missing dinosaurs page, and as soon as the links turn blue, we tend to have overzealous editors remove the blue links, meaning it's hard to tag the talk page without going back into the history to find out which dinosaur article was removed from the page. When you have over a thousand dinosaur articles, it's hard to guess which one was the one that was removed, which is why I placed the tag in preparation for the article. I'd had no problems doing this earlier, and you're the first person I've run across who speedy deleted dinosaur talk pages: we did this earlier with no problem for all the dinosaurs beginning with the letters F and G.--Firsfron 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup!

 Thank you, Chairboy!
Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

EWS23's RfA

Hi Ben! It was an honor to have your support at my request for adminship. Thank you very much for your well-researched and kind comments, they really made my day. I see it's American Idol time again in an hour...best of luck faking interest! :o) Thanks again, and if you ever see anything that I could be doing better, please leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR reminder

Thanks for the reminder on 3RR. Having been blocked for this only once a year-and-a-half ago, I'm very aware of how the policy works and what the limits are. There is a certain art to protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. While edit warring is NEVER acceptable, I do not consider reverting poorly explained deletions or additions to be edit warring. That said, I hold true to the spirit and letter of 3RR and have never violated the rule since that first block. Peace, --ScienceApologist 02:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi Chairboy. Can you help out on Talk:Apollo moon landing hoax accusations? I archived the discussion per suggestion of Noodleboy and others, only to have Noodleboy revert my archiving a number of times (between edit conflicts, I was adding new sections). I don't want to violate 3RR, so can you get us back to the clean version of the talkpage and explain to Noodleboy the problem? Thanks. --ScienceApologist 03:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went through and checked my edits and it appeared that I never technically reverted (which surprises me considering how many edit-conflicts seemed to have occurred over that time). As such I have returned that page to the version where the previous discussions are archived. I hope this isn't too problematic. --ScienceApologist 03:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Prata

Plese read the Comment left by king of heart's on the lucas prata page, I will expand in the next 24 hours. --BrenDJ 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brion

Hi - I saw your note on Brion's talk page. He's not just any developer, but one of only three full time employees of the Wikimedia Foundation and the CTO - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_staff. Among other things, he decides what code contributions get accepted into the main branch. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy here, I guess because the title "Administrator" sounds quite big to him, has a habit of getting aggressive with people who... well... with people upon whose good cheer he is then very dependent. He's had great luck so far. Cheerily, JDG 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was un-called for, JDG. Please remember to remain civil and not be a mean ol' snarky person, we don't like that sort of thing here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Chairboy, I second Rick's comments. Please be more careful. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Can we restart this whole thread? I was not suggesting any criticism, I just thought Chairboy might be interested to know who Brion is (his user page here not being too illuminating). Brion's comments are sometimes quite curt, which I suspect simply reflects how very busy he is. Looking at the thread on his user page, my bet is he was amused (I wouldn't be too surprised if anyone who tried to block him wouldn't themselves end up blocked or worse). I don't think there's any need for anyone to have done anything different here. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what's up? I saw someone making nonsense pages (something like asdfhgjhg and I asked them not to do it using the 'Leave Comment' functionality. Then I saw that there was a lot of other traffic on the page, read the user page, then realized that I had made a mistake and apologized. I appreciate Rick's followup, but I don't understand where JDG's comment came from. Why be hating? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what JDG's problem is. I guess this is a reason to avoid those new-fangled automated toys and stupid templates, then ;-). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, figured it out. JDG is upset with me because I wouldn't sanitize some edit histories that he didn't like. I forgot that he had promised that he would stalk me, it's ok. Nothing serious. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chair, you're headed for some very rough times. The mentality that sees "stalking" in 2 or 3 (well-deserved) critical comments and a promise to vote my conscience when you're up for advancement is a paranoid mentality that soon suffocates here at the 'pedia, unless the person wakes up. I'm trying to wake you up. I've been here since early `02 and have seen dozens of folks earnestly cry "stalking!" when it was really a senior editor trying to get them to calm down and be fair to all parties. Some of them woke up and have become good contributors (maturing past their busybody admin phase); most are long gone. The edit summary you refused to expunge was cruel and broke at least 5 policies (not guidelines) in one blow. Please try to get your mind around the fact that I sincerely object to that and will simply vote accordingly. Characterizing that as "stalking" is itself uncivil at best and is probably actionable in one way or other. But I'm not interested in springing all these little disciplinary doodads that Administrators have peppered this project with. I'm interested in you wising up, that's all. I lay even money on "Chairboy" even being a registered name on this date next year. JDG 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! As I suggested on your talk page, if you feel that I'm not doing a good job as admin or that I'm the wrong person for the job, I invite you to use the RfC process. The process exists for a reason. Additionally, when you say "I lay even money on "Chairboy" even being a registered name on this date next year", I've got to tell you, that sounds kinda like a veiled threat. I'm certain you didn't mean it that way, but I urge you to consider your words carefully. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm not interested, in this case, in "the RfC process" or any other process. I'd just like you to question your own assumptions a little bit, hopefully coming to see how you misjudged what was happening in the Jtkiefer dust up, and how that misjudgment led to further unnecessary friction. If you can't listen to me, perhaps take another look at what user:El_C had to say (mostly on my talk page). In a nutshell, Jtk was grossly unfair to me and you, out of an apparent sort of "fellow-feeling" with Jtk as an Admin, inexplicably chided and even threatened me as I simply stood my ground in the face of inexcusably abusive actions and words from Jtk. Then, when I state that I'll remember all this in the future during any votes that may involve granting you more authority in the community, you characterize it as a "threat" and a "promise to stalk". No, it's just declaring how I'll vote and why... <sigh> Cause-and-effect gets so tangled up in goings-on like this. Maybe one clear lesson is: "as an administrator, don't aid and defend a fellow administrator who has told a terminally ill senior editor-in-good-standing to 'fuck off and die'". That's rather narrow to be applied as an overall precept for wiki-admin-behavior, but maybe it serves to get you back to the true point in the cause-and-effect chain where you made a seriously wrong turn. Sincerely, JDG 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:User christian

I didn't protect it. I'm not citing the current DRV. Nothing saying I have to.Geni 01:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maquis Forces International

Hello. In ref to recent deletions of this page:

  • 11:21, 9 June 2006 Chairboy deleted "Maquis Forces International" (a1)
  • 22:55, 5 June 2006 RadioKirk deleted "Maquis Forces International" (Does not assert notability)

Another contributor User talk:Maquis53 was working in good faith to repair issues of notability first brought up by Admin User talk:RadioKirk. RadioKirk had initially deleted the page then was helping guide the restoration effort by Maquis53. Your subsequent deletion is a mystery to me (and others I am certain) because the only record is your comment (a1). This code means nothing to me and is not identifiable by running a search in wiki.
Is it possible you were not aware of the ongoing work?
Thanks, --Steve 17:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I stumbled on your meaning of (a1). I still am confused as to your purpose in deleting material being repaired under guidance of another Admin... Thanks, --Steve

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGI blocked

I'm part of the Home Gateway Initiative and this is the official text provided by the Secretary, and ussually is the text we use for providing a brief description of our activities. In fact, the page you mentioned is copying us! What do you need to unblock our contribution?

Best regards,

--Alalga 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

I believe if you look, I answered it on the page. Carfiend 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "I'm not calling anyone a troll" was suffiently unambiguous, but, since you ask, I do include you with 'anyone'. Carfiend 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla's "accidental" purges

Hi there, if you could please revise your comment ("accidental") at Ghirla's talk page after accustoming yourself with the following edits [11] [12] [13] [14] which only mark the tip of the iceberg of the editor's practices. The word "accidental" is simply wrong, even if you assumed angelic faith, and falsifies reality. Regards. 83.5.187.88 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'm giving him a chance. There's nothing to be gained by backing him into a corner. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary on Space Shuttle program

"Romeo, romeo, replaced arte w/ are" has to be the funniest correction I have ever seen here, and by goodness we need more laughs around here. Thank you for making me smile. --Guinnog 15:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Seduction

How does this page you deleted qualify for A7?

  • non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject. You can put {{subst:nn-warn|page name}} -- ~~~~ on the user's talk page, or, if it seems that someone has created a user page in the encyclopedia section instead of their user page, you can use put {{subst:Userfy warning|page name}} --~~~~ on their talk page.
  1. Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).

The article claimed the artist to be very popular, and by the looks of a google search they may be.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.--Andeh 16:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Andeh! You're right, it should have better been deleted under A1 instead of A7. I had just deleted a handful of A7 musicians and missed the assertion that he's a famous HH DJ. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you for being a bit hastey, as I do some new page patrolling sometimes and see the amount of nn band articles that get made.--Andeh 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

Hey Im just trying to invite stephen into ISV! Just tell me how i can get a hold of him, email or something. Mr. Vacatour 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen real sorry but do you know his email becuase im having trouble their, i tried to email him but i dont think it went through or something. Also uh ISV is going to destroy wikia. Thanks for helping me. Mr. Vacatour 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Re: ISV. Best of luck! And best wishes getting that email address. Have you seen this yet? It's pretty nifty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

The issue is what makes his/her writings that pretend to be conclusive, more valuable than the entire discussion? No mala fide intent. Apologies. Bunty.Gill 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize to me, just be civil and don't delete other people's comments. If someone does something to upset you, work it out in discussion, not w/ "quid pro quo". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

I don't understand what you mean by roll back my comments. At first glance, I assume that meant I had been censored, which would worrying, but I checked the talk page you were talking about and that wasn't the case, so I was wondering what you were talking about.

Protected or not, going back and forth on a potentially contreversial edit is counterproductive. I wish there was a more solid mechanism to determine consensus on contreversial edits, but i'm sure we'll all get there eventually.

Hope things are well, thanks for the heads up. Attic Owl 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

You blocked Stephen Colbert which was supposedly an impersonation. If this is the official policy then you should also block David Cross. --Macarion 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stephencolbert

You should at least leave the link to his edit summary. --Kalmia 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taping of the Colbert Report starts around 7:00, and goes through with a few practices before the actual taping. I don't see why the user stevencolbert /wouldn't/ be stevencolbert, nor do I find it likely that he'll bother to respond to a voice mail, considering his long animosity with Wikipedia in the past. (Look at the Tek Jansen website feud, and all the semi-hostile comments about Wikipedia that he's made on the show) - on the contrary, since its unlikely that an audience member would be able to leave mid-taping, and get to a computer that fast, unless they had some sort of pocket machine with an internet connection, it seems almost certain it was the actual Steven. Hewhorulestheworld 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For The FYI

I'm listening to last night's On Point with Jimbo being interviewed right now via podcast; i've been feeling alot better lately due to the few sockpuppets i've made engaging in wiki-politics. Either way, i'm still breathing, and I gotta remember sometimes that's the big thing that matters, even though there are always a bunch of nice little extra things, like that article on Andrew Sylvia that's been deleted like 10 times :-) Karmafist 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alfrem/irgendwer

I thought sockpuppets worked both ways. If X is a sockpuppet of Y, then Y is a sockpuppet of X. No? Anyway, somebody else created the category; I just added the users that I suspected were also used by that same person. But, yes, I know Alfrem was created earlier. But, the point is, it's all the same person. --Serge 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Pacific Ocean's Angola

Thanks for the FYI, I was wondering that in regards to Colbert. I'll just wait a few weeks until the fervor's died down to give it to him, "if that is indeed him"(wink,wink)

Until then, I think i've found my niche with the (potentially) hundreds of sockpuppets, making little edits here and there, voting on stuff, doing whatever a spider can, until in 2014, I am the entire arbcom :-)

Or, whatever works.

Keep on keepin' on, brutha Karmafist 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_talk:Stephencolbert and notice that I added a comment to that discussion.
"before reverting on User talk:Stephencolbert, the current state reflects an admin consensus and should stay as is for now." (source)
It sounds like you are exerting ownership over a Wikipedia page. Is there a Wikipedia policy that gives you the power to do so? --JWSchmidt 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! You may not understand that the text there is not mine, it and the static nature of the page is the result of a group of admins coming to consensus. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You may not understand that the text there is not mine, it and the static nature of the page is the result of a group of admins coming to consensus." <-- I do not understand your reply. You seem to be suggesting that some group of wikipedia editors has exerted ownersip over a page and that no explanation is need for this beyond, "they are admins". I must be missing something because I find that argument to be very poor indeed. If this really is the nature of your argument, then I will continue to take action to allow all Wikipedia editors to edit User talk:Stephencolbert according to Wikipedia policy. --JWSchmidt 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! I am an administrator, and I worked with other administrators on the issue. We came to consensus on the message and keeping the page clear, then implemented it. If I can answer any other questions, lemme know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand that you're an admin too, I guess I'm not sure I understand your confusion about the timeline we followed and the purpose of my post to WP:AN." <-- I do not understand why administrators in particular have anything to do with this matter. What concerns me is that Wikipedia editors have been editing User talk:Stephencolbert, some of those edits appear to be attempts by Wikipedians to communicate with User:Stephencolbert and these edits have been reverted as if they are obvious vandalism. --JWSchmidt 01:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ageo020 user page.

About my page in which i made an admin claim, I'm sorry. I just copied that section from another user's page. I line checked the code but i think i may have overseen this. Really sorry if this caused any trouble. Thanks User:Ageo020

RYULONG and your BULLYING

CHAIR BOY, you can't block me. read the notes at here and you will see that you can't block me. You can't block my 31 ISPs all of their IPs and all of the ranges... if you can, I'll just sign up for more. Read some of my notes and you will see that I'm also a perfect gentleman. My argument was valid. I have left my version of events as to what led up to my 'blocking' on that very same page. Why not have a look instead of trying top get on my shitlist. I have two ADMIN bullies that I will revert up to 50% of their work for the next few months. I am handicapped and I have a lot of time and 31 ISPs to play with. Go ahead... bully me and see where it gets you, but if you choose to be more fair and wholesome, then please go have a look at my version of events. Just don't try to bully me. You won't like it.

YourCousin--86.29.121.113 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Liberty and Power, revised, August 5, 2006

Will and Chairboy:

I hope that this passes muster. What do think? Thanks!

znrwl

LIBERTY AND POWER (Revised entry, August 5, 2006)

Liberty and Power is a group weblog established in 2003 and is part of the History News Network of the Center for History and New Media. The members share a libertarian or classical liberal perspective. They are primarily university professors and represent diverse fields. Past guest bloggers have included Nicholas Von Hoffman, a former 60 Minutes commentator.

Liberty and Power played an important role in shaping coverage of several news stories. For example, journalists Debra Pickett of the Chicago Sun-Times, Ellen Barry of the Los Angles Times, and Jerry Mitchell of the Clarion-Ledger quoted David T. Beito because of his entries on the Emmett Till case. Beito had conducted the first interviews in decades with Henry Lee Loggins, an alleged participant in the crime, and Willie Reed, a trial witness.

Entries opposing the Academic Bill of Rights sparked a running debate on Liberty and Power with David Horowitz, the chief sponsor of the bill. They were also instrumental in two articles on the subject for the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. Radley Balko’s blogs emphasizing flaws in the charges against convicted murderer, Cory Maye, have contributed to media coverage of the case. The regular members of Liberty and Power include:

znlrwl 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

That's no moon, it's a space station!

Don't deny it, you know the image of the Death Star belongs on Space warfare. --NEMT 23:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pilots

Well, I'm not loath to revert my change, and I see your point. I wonder if there's a way to refer to professional pilots and non-professional pilots. Anyway you can think of to distinguish them? (Actually, now that I think about it, if other people didn't see the distinction, maybe they wouldn't categorize themselves the way we might split them. Is there any place we can poll people on this?)--Mike Selinker 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Headline text

Hello

Hi, I saw you on K's page where I land sometime to rest. On K's page you told about his name being mentioned in the national radio. What did they tell? --Bhadani 11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was just a silly reference. A user with a bone to pick called in to rant about rogue admin bullies on WP, and he mentioned K as his example. Nothing different from him or any other random person who has had a disagreement with an admin, he just happened to focus his anger on getting onto the call in show. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty and Power?

Chairboy:

Does the revised version of the entry (see above) pass muster with you? Will also has some comments on my discussion page. znlrwl 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for removing that template at the top of my page, I totally forgot about it in all of this. I'm pretty discouraged at the apparent lack of any oversight over administrators, but in any case, thanks for helping out there. Attic Owl 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Seem So Evil

There's good and bad of everything in the universe, and i'm sure admins are no different, but maybe I just haven't seen your "evil" side yet ;-)

In any case, thanks for stopping by. Attic Owl 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemoncrater

I was not the creator of the article, I marked it for speedy deletion. Wildthing61476 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, roger that! No worries, I protected it against recreation. Thanks for tagging it! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, wanted to make sure you got the right person! Wildthing61476 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you please tell me why you blocked hughesy be cause he doesnt know what he did

Huh?

Do you mind explaining why you deleted the article on Gummarus when it had been tagged as {{inuse}}. I lost a lot of work because my browser was open the data disappeared because of the edit conflict. --evrik 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It met WP:CSD A1. Don't create a brand new article that contains nothing but an inuse tag, that'll be deleted. Reviewing your talk history, I see that you've had disagreements with other admins regarding speedy delete tagging of new articles that are essentially empty, so I won't go into detail and bore you with stuff you already know. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say, "Reviewing your talk history, I see that you've had disagreements with other admins regarding speedy delete tagging of new articles that are essentially empty, so I won't go into detail and bore you with stuff you already know." You cited WP:CSD#Articles #1 saying he article was short. You mind telling me which disagreements you're talking about, and what do past disagreements have to do with the fact that you ignored the {{inuse}} tag and deleted the article? --evrik 02:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Anyhow, don't start an article with {{inuse}}, start it with an actual article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot...?

No it's not a bot. All manual :D Hello32020 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, fast fingers! I'll try to avoid challenging you to a thumb wrestling match. :D Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin right abuse

please undo your deletion of Kayah Li, which is not justified by WP:CSD Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:CSD A1. An infobox and a single line of text does not an article make. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
don't try to distract. your deletion is not covered by WP:CSD, please undo your abuse. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
more at Talk:Kayah Li Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Kayah Li has been deleted as the talk page of a delete article. His moving of the debate there was improper. Good luck trying to get him to restore it to his user talk. pschemp | talk 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this about? Kayah Li is one of the world's writing systems. There are many people working on articles about the world's writing systems. This preremptory deletion was an abuse of Wikipedia principles. Indeed it was remarkable in its obtuseness. Shame on you. Evertype 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! You appear to have misunderstood the reason the article was deleted. Please review WP:CSD A1. It was a single sentence long and lacked anything near the context needed for an article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not have patience as people work on articles? Did you leave comments on the Talk page for long enough for people to react? Evertype 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Evertype! To avoid having an article deleted during creation, don't actually save the changes until it's at least big enough to stand on its own and steer clear of the A1 CSD. The preview button allows any level of fine tuning that is necessary and helps keep the project together. If you would like, I could provide some introductory documentation on how these policies work on Wikipedia. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a newbie, Chairboy. I don't need a lecture. Thanks. Don't be so quick to delete things. Give ediitors a chance. Your actions have not been helpful to several editors. Take the hint, please. Evertype 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If you feel I have done something wrong, I strongly encourage you to bring an example to WP:AN/I or RfC. I welcome constructive criticism and opportunities to improve. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've criticized you here, and so has Tobias. You can improve by taking this advice on board. I have better things to do than go to to WP:AN/I. Evertype 19:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, Tobias's criticism was that he objected to my proper interpretation of policy. Your criticism seemed to suggest that I had somehow deleted the article because I didn't think it was a real language, which is why I drew your attention to the WP:CSD so you could better understand the circumstances. If you have any actual actionable criticism that is based on the community consensus, policy, or other, then I invite it. I feel that your messages above lack that, so I can't really do anything with them. If you feel you cannot properly word the advice or criticism, you may find others on AN/I who can assist. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism is that you rushed a deletion through about an article which is a member of a category which has a great many active users (Writing systems). A stub in such a category need not be deleted hastily. Instead of quoting the "rules" at people who have been trying to object to something you did, you might listen to their advice. Here is my advice. Do not be so hasty in future. When someone protests that he intends to augment a stub, you should let him rather than proceding with a deletion. Evertype 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! However, another small misconception is now evident. At no point did he ever protest that he intended to augment it. He appeared to feel that it was A-OK as is and did not express any intention to expand it at all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chairboy, your repeated statements that the article was 'too short' to pass A1 are incorrect. There is no 'size limit'. To actually quote CSD A1 "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." The simple statement that 'Kayah Li is a writing system used by the Kayah' people defines the context of what it is completely and should not have been deleted. That all by itself is a reasonable stub not unlike thousands of others which are now articles several pages long. Look at the first edits of various articles and you will see that this is common practice... and thus people are generally discouraged from deleting articles immediately after their creation. While I'd call this a 'misunderstanding of the criteria' rather than "admin right abuse" I do have to wonder why you couldn't have just re-created it and seen what happened. --CBD 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CBDunkerson! Actually, I understand CSD A1 very well, and my decision to delete it was based on the judgement call that the content lacked sufficient context. I have consensus with the other admins with whom I consulted on this, so I'm not coming in from left field on this. Second, I _did_ restore the content almost immediately to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand it appropriately. The user chose not to. Please familiarize yourself with the case before passing judgement, we're (Wikipedia) all in this together. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have familiarized myself with the situation and was aware that you had userfied the content. But that wasn't what the user had asked (in an admittedly less than polite way). Maybe you were unaware that your statements (e.g. 'learn CSD A1', 'familiarize yourself with the case', et cetera) could be taken as condescending / provocation. As to A1, I find the arguments of any and all admins involved wholly unconvincing (humble, aint I?). That wasn't an A1 candidate by any means and I've seen such deletions routinely overturned/slapped down in the past. The A1 criteria exists to allow deletion of things which there is so little info provided that you can't tell what it is. That clearly was not the case here. Whatever, there is a page on the subject now. It just seems that there was no need for this argument had anyone been something less than needlessly difficult. --CBD 19:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#What_constitutes_.27context.27_for_A1? for further discussion on the A1 issue. (I keep thinking of steak sauce... now I'm hungry). --CBD 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please obstain from discrediting

my contribution and edits. This is annoying. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a diff where I've discredited your edits? This is the third time in the past few minutes that you've made that claim, but I'm not familiar with the specific instance to which you're referring. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you took offense at my factual statement, but I would like to draw your attention to a couple things: Since this began, you have been blocked, censured, and counseled on civility by different users and admins. When I refer to hoping 'that you'll return to your previous productive role', I mean that I hope you edit in a fashion that does not result in the things I mentioned above. You've amassed quite a few edits, and made a number of great contributions. Your actions during this incident do not fall under the mantle of 'great contributions', hence my encouragement above. At no point have I criticized your usual editing behavior, and even now I'm operating under the assumption that your behavior in the last 24 hours is not-typical. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for apologizing. Of course this can have been a factual statement, but it was used to discredit my edits and my behavior. My last-24-behavior is quite typical if admins abuse their rights and stick to it. I don't know where I have been censored, but yes I have been blocked. For what? For moving an IMO article related talk to that's article talk page and answering there. And then the blocking admins engages in making false statements, protecting my talk from editing by me, and putting up in pure mockery Template:Unblock on my talk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word is censured, not censored. Very different meaning. Which false statements were made? You still have not provided any diffs to that effect. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
read the above passage where it mentions a template. The template states "This blocked user has requested to be unblocked." This is probably not only a false statement, but actually a lie by Pschemp. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was an attempt to be nice to you Tobias. But sadly, you can't see past your own rage. I can only assume the next time you are blocked that you wish to remain that way. pschemp | talk 18:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop deleting my edits

pls stop copying the whole conversation to my talk. And of course stop deleting my reference to this place here, if repeated the deletions of my edits on my talk by you can be considered vandalism. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drohobitsch

Hi there; no, you are wrong. If an article is empty, it is empty. If there is a rational redirect in place, then ok. Otherwise, it goes.--Anthony.bradbury 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the article technically meets the definition, the general rule of thumb here is that if the content is "see x", it's better to just turn it into a redirect. I was the administrator that removed your tag and made the appropriate change, this is just a heads up for future reference. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drohobitsch

Hi there; Ok, if you say so. Incidentally, your user page does not flag you as an admin, or I would not have argued the point.--Anthony.bradbury 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't matter if anyone is an admin or not, if you see someone do something wonky, ask 'em! We're all human, after all. Anyhow, just a tip for the future re: redirects. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: just for the record, he has now made a perfectly acceptable article from his previous hopeless attempt.--Anthony.bradbury 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I ask you remove your warning thingy as the concensus on the page is that its not a WP:CIVIL violation and perfectly permissable when discussing editors in a frank manner, such a manner that is permitted on that page specifically. You can read the posts directly above mine to verify the communities opinions on the matter. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT warning #2. Please don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I have saved the dif of this conversation. PS its not raining. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity

Why does it matter? Fact Check (Unofficial) 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a friendly sock of an existing account, it'd be nice to link the two on their user page so folks know who's who. If you're a sock of a blocked or censured account who is in the middle of flexing WP:POINT, it'd be nice to know so we can act appropriately. Totally innocent request, I look forward to hearing back from you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're being accused of being a sock puppet of Zer0faults --Pussy Galore 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter anyway, I see you've mysteriously been blocked for an inappropriate username, a fate soon to befall this account I feel. --Pussy Galore 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZF is a sock of Fact Check? I doubt it, the only reason ZF posted to the Fact Check user talk was because he was following me around and I had edited there. But... why did you post this message to my talk page if you're talking to fact check?- CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated on my talk page, where you copied the above text to, the rest of the text is here. --Pussy Galore 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You've gathered quite a following, CBD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --CBD 13:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always take your (Chairboy) incivility with a laugh. freestylefrappe 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I don't understand. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks!

You're very welcome. My userpage was vandalized today as well. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old user account

I used to be MilkMan, didnt you know?? --Balmayres 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, don't know who MilkMan is, but you might want to make a note on the respective userpages. Like I mentioned, it'd help people get ahold of you and probably make your editing easier. Just a suggestion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin review

Hi Chairboy - I'm thrilled that you took the step of creating this effort but I don't think your proposal is developed yet - you've written a platform, with the solution still to come. I'm gonna throw some ideas, questions and issues to be discussed. I suggest you also take a look at WP:AN - Dab said that this is already a review mechanism but its prolly not as effective as we want. What is missing? How can WP:AR be made different to address the problem? Rama's arrow 13:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phossy

Whats wrong with it?

How

Why did you delete my gobbledigook page? How did you delete it and how did you know it existed? I created it as a test 2 seconds before you deleted it.

Thanks

Bonaparte

Ok. I don't have any personal reason for creating the referendum, I just think that guy is nice and will benefit wiki on E. European subjects. Cheers! Sosomk 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if wiki is not a democracy, then what is it? A left-wing dictatorhip? Sosomk 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stanislav_Petrov#Minuteman_image

Please see this talk page regarding a status update to Stanislav_Petrov. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, edited wrong user talk... ha. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you had deleted Westview High School (Tennessee) with an edit summary of A1 [15], meaning, per WP:CSD: "Very short articles providing little or no context ... Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub. I would point out that the article was indeed created as a stub, flagged as such, and had obvious context (it's a school). I would also advise you to re-read WP:CSD where it states, Please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. In this particular case, I was on my way to further expand the article, but noticed you had already deleted it. I will go ahead and re-create it, but please try to be not so quick on the draw in the future. --Elonka 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I deleted it quite a while ago, so the "it was going to be expanded shortly" argument doesn't seem to apply. I strongly suggest that you increase your use of the Preview button. There is no reason an article cannot avoid being a CSD A1 at any point in its lifecycle. The article also met the A7 notability deletion requirement, I merely chose A1 at the time because it was the most relevant. I look forward to reading a new version of the article that asserts its notability and contains enough content to stand on its own as an encyclopedia entry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the stub last night, and was going to expand it this morning. That counts to me as a "too quick" deletion. As for A7, I strongly disagree, as there is a clear consensus that all public high schools are deserving of pages. Or are you just in the "anti-school" camp? In any case, since you're obviously active on Wikipedia at the moment, I would appreciate if you would undelete the article so that I can continue working on it. --Elonka 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I've restored the content to your userspace here. I'm not anti-school, I'm just pro-CSD and anti-cruft. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV and Improv

Hi. Sorry if you thought I was critical of you. Obviously, I intended my last comment as a reply to Improv, not you! Pascal.Tesson 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Void (913)

I would appreciate if you stop deleting this article. This is a legitimate social organization with verifiable reference. You're personal "holier-than-thou" quest to delete what you personally find inconsequencial is inappropriate. I find it to be against the intent of Wikipedia and object to it outright.

thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chairboy&oldid=80751153"