User talk:Amicon

Welcome!

Hello, Amicon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –xeno (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You can request a change of username at WP:CHU. –xeno (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Heidi Horten

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Heidi Horten, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Heidi Horten seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Heidi Horten, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Simpson and Delilah

Hi there, I've responded to your comments at the review. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey – thanks for the review and pass. Would you mind looking at Hurricane Felix and give me some comments on the article (or reviewing it for GAN?) Thanks! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do when I get a moment. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, that would be great! Thanks! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article comments

Hi. I read your comments regarding Valley of peace initiative. thanks for your feedback. I will try to give that some thought. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Simpson and Delilah GA

Hi there. I'm just peer reviewing the article now and I think you should take a look here for things to look out for next time you review an article. I really don't mean this as an insult but perhaps you are not ready for reviewing yet: maybe a couple of months more experience and you'll be more aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Congrats on diving straight into the reviewing though! Normally people just write a bunch of stuff and hope it's all good but you seem keen to iron out problems. If you need any advice on how things work (like WP:LEAD or other wiki crap) feel free to contact me on my talk and i'll help you out as soon as. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Double posting - hope you see I was trying to help! A good way of learning how to review is to look at other reviews by more experienced editors. Take a look at WP:Good article nominations and look things through. At the moment though, perhaps WP:Peer Review might suit you better, you'll notice what things people suggest there (though GA criteria and the more informal peer review style are unrelated of course). On peer review you can just post a couple of minor comments or improvements you think can be made - without taking the whole pressure that you are the sole reviewer. I'll try to keep an eye on what you're doing though and you can always throw any comments or questions my way. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

I'd greatly appreciate if you'd review it, though maybe I should hold off on GA nomination, and jut work to make it better. I have, at least, gotten rid of the "Cultural impact" section millstone around my neck, and, in a pinch, could make that whole section a simple "See also" =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll look it over in the mornign and make sure all I think should be in there is. Just don't want to let my frustration at the Cultural impact section cause me to rashly ignore important things. =) But for now, sleep. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Khoo Kheng-Hor

Thank you for your review on the abovementioned. Pse refer to my follow-up edits & reply here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA discussion solution

What do you think of my new solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

You nominated this article for GA, which I have put on hold for now. Please read my comments and fix if possible. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. I've passed it. The only problem is that I couldn't really find a suitable category to put her in on the main GA page, so I put her under "Historical figures - other." If you have a better place to put it, feel free to move it. bibliomaniac15 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Amicon, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Can you tone down your sig

PLease? It is very distracting. Viridae^Talk 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:-( What is distracting about it particularly? how do you turn this on 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The solid black background. Viridae^Talk 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If the background was white, you wouldn't be able to see the text though! What color would be acceptable for you? how do you turn this on 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to... not have a background. —Giggy 09:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but the text wouldn't be able to be seen. I'll figure a different color that works. how do you turn this on 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

YOu could of course not have white text? Viridae^Talk 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not change it, I've decided. Is it violating any rule? I'll happily change it if it's causing a big problem, but I don't think it is, and I think discussion of other things elsewhere would be better use of time. how do you turn this on 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

September regurgitation of same request

Hello;
I don't think that we've ever interacted, so I hope that this request does not seem too terribly left-field-ish: I too find your current signature to be highly distracting. (Note that this is coming from someone who made sort of a big issue about people being allowed to make fancy signatures if they wanted.) Not only is it black, it's big and black.

Also, I note that you've indicated that you're interested in adminship. Without meaning to offend, right now I'd oppose just do to the comment "Is it violating any rule?" I'm happy to discuss further (if you're at all amenable) why that is a problematic thing to say.

brenneman 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this more suitable? how do you turn this on 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hey there. I will say it directly: I strongly suggest you withdraw your current RfA. There is basically a 100% chance that this RfA will be closed under WP:NOTNOW because with only one month experience people will not be able to judge your performance correctly. We appreciate your contributions and encourage you to continue to do so but I am afraid your request for adminship will not be successful and you should consider withdrawal. Have a nice day SoWhy 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I closed your RfA. You just registered a month ago, and I'm afraid that a user that new has no chance of passing a RfA. If you have any questions, let me know. Enigma ^message 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Just saw what happened here — don't be discouraged by this. The wikipedia administrator tools aren't actually all that important to most contributors and whilst I'm sure you'd use them well I'm also sure you can continue to do good work on articles without them. Good luck and happy editing! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this as well--congratulations on getting an article to good article status so quickly. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia, and if you decide adminship is for you in the future I'm sure it will go much better—the longer you wait, the better your chances. Darkspots (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Nice job with this article. I've been wanting to work on it for a while, but never did. I'm currently quite busy, but, in the future, do you want to collaborate for an FA? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'd love to! :-) Have you written one before? I'm still feeling my way round here it seems, and FA seems incredibly difficult. What kind of stuff are you interested in? how do you turn this on 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I basically wrote all of Lazare Ponticelli, a featured article. I also have 1964 Gabon coup d'etat and 2002 Bou'in Zahra earthquake at FAC. I tend to cover places that are poorly covered (such as Gabon) and earthquakes (mostly in places poorly covered). FA is incredibly difficult to attain, trust me. The FAC frequenters look at every little issue with an article, from prose to citations to comprehensiveness. You have to ensure all of these before you bring an article to FAC. Personally, I don't think Calment is comprehensive enough yet, and the prose may need a bit of tweaking. We first have to dig up everything we can find on her, then I think a peer review may be in order. Then-yay!-FAC. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not watchlisting your talk page, though I can if you want me to. Oh, and either Biography or Life is acceptable--I personally like Biography more, but that's just my opinion. I still think that more than 9 sources can be found on the World's Oldest Woman. I'm currently working on politics-related articles like Felix Houphouet Boigny, Leon M'ba, and Jean-Hilaire Aubame (sounds like Obama). I'll give you a review tommorrow--off to bed for me!--but in the meantime, could you review me? No, I really am not that much more experianced than you--I registered in January. Regards --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christopher Dorling

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Christopher Dorling, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. chrylis (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi. I noticed you left some comments at 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake's FAC, and i was wondering if you could make a !vote please? Thanks, —Sunday ^Scribe 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicktropolis GAR

I wonder is the user may have once been on the game and hated it, so maybe bias? Doubtful, but can we collaborate on a thourough GA review for the article? Thanks! Jon How's the weather? - talk about me behind my back 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I'll go through it this afternoon. how do you turn this on 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - I've given it a review, but I think you should check it, see if you agree, since I've created the article. I shouldn't pass it...... the event horizon (t • c) 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bans and blocks

Hey there, I saw you were a bit confused about the difference of these on AN, and the discussion sort of took a turn away from you before you got a clear answer. Just in case you still were confused, I thought I'd drop by.

• A block is a technical means of stopping a single account, IP address, or IP range, from editing any page except their own user talk page. Blocks can be applied by anyone with the "sysop" flag, that is, anyone who is an administrator. Blocks are preventative, and intended to stop problems before they get worse. They are not intended to punish users for their actions, and so blocking someone in a heated dispute to "cool them down," for example, is not acceptable; however, they may be blocked for incivility and personal attacks in an effort to protect other editors in the discussion and allow the discussion to continue without further disruption. If a user is found to be evading a previously placed block such as with a sockpuppet, then that account is blocked and the original block may be extended as well. The reason for this is to make sure the block does its job - they are intended to prevent disruption, which it can't do if the user blocked keeps hopping IP addresses to keep it up.
• A ban is a similar but different matter. Bans are a means of enforcing Wikipedia policy and expected behavior by the community at large. Bans can be placed by several sources: a consensus of the Wikipedia community, usually formed on WP:ANI; User:Jimbo Wales may ban any user; the Arbitration Committee may ban users as a remedy for a request for arbitration; and the Wikimedia Foundation may ban users, however this is only rarely done. The main difference between a ban and a block is that banned users are still able to edit, and in some cases may still be permitted to edit. It may sound like I'm repeating myself there, but bans are usually applied to users in such a way that they are forbidden to edit the whole project, however more limited "topic bans" can also be placed, restricting editors from editing a certain article or genre of articles, but allowing them to continue to edit other pages freely. Other forms of bans include revert limitations, where instead of the usual three-per-article-per-day guideline, an editor is limited to one revert per day, etc.; mentorship or probation, where an editor is placed under the watch of an appointed editor to ensure that they do not continue the same disruption that led to the ban; and any editor who is blocked, and whom no administrator is willing to unblock, is also considered to be under project-wide ban. Any edits made in violation of a ban are reverted on sight. Pages created in violation of a ban may be deleted without discussion under CSD G5. If a user is found to be in violation of a ban, they may be blocked to enforce the ban, however a block might not be placed at the onset of the ban, giving the banned user a chance to show that he intends to remain within the limitations placed on him and thus return to good standing after the ban is lifted. In this manner, bans tend to be more punitive than blocks are, a form of modern ostracism directed specifically at a person and their actions in an attempt to bring them within the community's standard of expected conduct.

I realize that was a bit long, but I hope I've explained things fairly well. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. It'd be a nice break from the sort of questions I usually get on my talk page. Anyway, I hope this helped, and happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-edit

I've reconsidered and implemented your suggestion at MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-edit; you can read my reasoning at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-ca-edit. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! how do you turn this on 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 2008 (UK)

Until you can provide a solid source that states W had X nominations, Y had Z nomination etc, the section remains off. Dalejenkins | 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What's not solid about the source provided? how do you turn this on 22:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plasticup

"getting the tools to assist with your own articles, as it seems to me, isn't really appropriate." Why not? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point of being an admin (or janitor) is to assist others, and not yourself? how do you turn this on 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From a meta standpoint, assisting yourself in bettering the encyclopedia helps everyone. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Château de Candé

On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château de Candé, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good job on this! I'm probably just extremely stressed and thinking irrationaly, so I most likely will be back. I simply can't deal with User:Ling.Nut's statement at 1964 Gabon's FAC and that I can't translate directly from other Wikipedias per WP:V. Now I feel my effort at various articles Nishkid and I translated was of no value. Take care. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather ironically, I translated the above article from French, and simply added sources (both French and English). But I suppose a featured article is a lot more demanding.how do you turn this on 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

St Ives

I link to St Ives (disambiguation) so that when I look at the "what links here" for St Ives it is easy to spot which are deliberate links to the dab page, and which are accidental. This is quite a common practice for dab pages. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

St Ives should really be moved to St Ives (disambiguation) in that case. I dislike there being a redirect. how do you turn this on 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, St Ives should be the disambiguation page, if it isn't someone will come along and write an article on it, and that will make dabbing links even harder. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the link is supposed to go to the disambig page, not the redirect - it's just more efficient imo. But I'm not overly concerned. how do you turn this on 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By linking to the redirect, it makes it clear that it is meant to go to the dab page. Linking directly to the dab page makes it impossible to tell if it is intentional when viewing what links here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Earthquakes

This is an incredibly random question, but are you interested in earthquakes? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they were a big interest of mine, but I'm not disinterested in them, if you know what I mean how do you turn this on 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi How do you turn this on. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huh?

Read my userpage, you'll find out there. Also, check out some of the newer threads on my talk page. That should give you enough info, I really don't want to go into a full-blown explanation. Jn t • c 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments of yours

Hello. I have a question regarding this comment of yours. Did you mean "the bot was a bad one" or "the block was a bad one"?

The block.-- how do you turn this on 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have a comment reagarding your statement on RfAr. First of all, your experience with me seems only superficial and the description you provide oversimplifies my actual reaction. It's not a mere "stop wonking", it's rather "stop wonking unless you have an actual concern". Furthermore, your statement that I'm not interested in what the community thinks about my bot is patently false - they were public knowledge for a long time and the way to express concerns is right over there all the time. Anyone who comes with a question or a genuine issue is treated seriously and has always gotten a due explanation. Lastly, regarding your concern of my refusal to get the bots aprroved, please be advised that: 1) my bots have community approval already, 2) there is no current process of approving adminbots (save an RfA, which is a retarded way to do it) and 3) I am putting a lot of work into actually creating a workable policy out of the RfC (WP:BOT/WT:BOT) so that adminbots can follow it without unnecessary nonsense in the way.

Regards, Миша13 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you show me the bot approval page for your adminbot(s)? I'm sorry, but I can't take you at all seriously when you describe RfA as the "retarded" way of doing it. I appreciate the work you're doing on the policy, but calling processes you disagree with "retarded" is hardly a good idea. -- how do you turn this on 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't work, it's retarded. And it doesn't work for adminbots (no opinion about regular users) because 1) it's a vote instead of a discussion aimed at building consensus and 2) attracts a good deal of people who have no iea what they're voting on, so will vote oppose because of nonsense such as "not enough edits", "zomg Skynet!" and the such.

The approval for my bots is not focused in one place. For the image deletion bot you might start with this; it should lead you to several archives of my talk too. The blocking bot is more complicated, as it's been on AN/I way too many times for me to remember; though you could check this (and the threads that immediately follow) out as an example. Миша13 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, one bot successfully passed through the RfA process. Only three requests have ever been made there. That's not a good indication that it doesn't work. And it must work if one has passed that way. If you haven't tried it, how do you know?

My point with my question was showing there is no actual page showing official approval. Sure, people have accepted it over time, but we also accept the fact there are criminals in the world. Doesn't mean it's right does it? If you just got it officially approved like every other bot, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. -- how do you turn this on 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're hitting about but not the point. One might've passed but there won't be another. The first ever attempt was shot down due to nonsense, mostly, that's why there haven't been many more thereafter. If you suggest I try it then you probably also walked into a car to make sure it hurts?

Oh yes, no official approval but it's approved nonetheless. That's a tricky one to accept, right?

Your parabole with criminals is a complete miss. Criminals elude law enforcement; I'm here all the time, the block button is right there, a way to desysop too, I'm open to recall all the time. If there were really any issues, I'd be without the bit long time ago. Thus, what remains must be non-issues. Миша13 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked just the other day. Don't claim that's a way to stop you running it. -- how do you turn this on 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you put your bots through a BRFA like Cyde has done? It'll help end all this bitterness. -- how do you turn this on 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Cyde's bot does only a limited amount of uncontroversial deletions. Putting through a bot that actually blocks people will require more preparation, so it's not shot down for some idiotic reason. Also, an actually agreed (not proposed like it is right now) process for that would be most welcome before I attempt this stunt. Миша13 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying your blocks are controversial? Why are you doing them then? I think that while this business is going on, if you haven't already you should stop running the bot to show some good will, and wait until it's properly approved. -- how do you turn this on 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you entirely understand what "controversy" means or what I'm saying. And it's not the blocks that are controversial but the concept that it's done by a bot. And no, I have no intent at all to discontinue the operation of my bot for no reason; the vandals certainly wouldn't do the same just to "play fair". This is a nonsensical suggestion. Миша13 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought not - it was nonsensical to believe you'd be willing to be reasonable about this. -- how do you turn this on 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on snopes

That's you're third revert at snopes today. Please stop or you are quite likely to be blocked. I am open to discussion on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted twice. I need four to be blocked, and I don't intend to continue. -- how do you turn this on 21:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Talk page

Yeah--that is annoying, I know. I think it's hidden in User talk:Editorofthewiki/Header, though I'm not sure how to fix it. Do you? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look -- how do you turn this on 13:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the fact you've got the TOC on the right hand side, and it obviously grows larger. You'd probably be better off converting the whole thing to a table instead of floating divs. -- how do you turn this on 13:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I still am. Why? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 16:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I might like to nominate you sometime. What do you think? -- how do you turn this on 16:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, and I was half kidding about Speight. I didn't actually think you were going to review 1,000 news articles. Just a hundred or so. :)

(Reply to Hdytto) Sure. go ahead. I really think the chances of me beind promoted are rather slim, but still, I'm leaving the door open. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd stand a better chance if you follow some things mentioned in your editor review (such as, unlink your sig a bit, or make it more obvious where the talk page is) -- how do you turn this on 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How bout this: Your friend User:Editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/random article/editor review) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should remove the Special:Random page, as it's not about you, and remove User: from the first bit. Otherwise, it's OK. Oh, and btw, have a look at this - is there anything I've missed off/or is inaccurate? -- how do you turn this on 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

God when you said you thought about nomming me I didn't think you meant today! Give me some time to think this one over. Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I imagine you forgot to support my RFa as the nominator. :) Your friend the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you nominate Editorofthewiki if you aren't going to support him? EJF (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to, but he added the nomination after I went to bed. -- how do you turn this on 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You can still support him now, the first support does not have to be the nominator's. Regards, EJF (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, missed that, I didn't see you added a support a few minutes ago. Cheers, EJF (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AN thread

This AN thread may be of interest to you. EJF (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but common sense suggests you shouldn't be nomming RfAs

• I'm glad you're eager to participate. I hope you stick around.
• AFAIK, there's absolutely no rule saying that you can't nominate RfA.
• But you shouldn't. You been around for about a month. You almost certainly wouldn't pass RfA yourself; how can you nom other folks? You do folks a huge disfavor by nomming them—if they are rash enough to accept your nom... Please take a deep breath, relax, and get some experience writing articles. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I do find that quite offensive, Ling. I've done plenty of article work, and have been around over 2 months, not one.

It's the editor's choice if they choose to accept the nomination. I put a lot of effort into writing EOTW's nomination, as you can see by the statement. What's next, are you going to be telling me I can't vote either because I'm too new? If I'm allowed to vote, I'm allowed to nominate. -- how do you turn this on 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspected you might find it offensive, and was willing to take the bullet in that regard. And you 'are allowed to nom. But do you have the exp. to distinguish when to nom folks? As for your exp... I won't dig into it. But please, take a deep breath and consider listening to others: The meta-aspects (including nomming, voting and running for RfA) are not the main point here, and should not be the main focus of attention... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see it as an issue, but your opinion is noted. -- how do you turn this on 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So if he came across the best admin candidate ever, stellar record, likely to pass with 0 opposes, he wouldn't be a good person to nominate that person? Sounds fishy to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't Hdytto's fault of nominating me, more so mine of accepting when I didn't think I would pass. But I gave it a shot, and made myself look like a dick in the process. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. You're a great editor, and even a lot of the opposers said so. You just aren't ready for adminship it seems. -- how do you turn this on 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there How do you turn this on... I know what Ling.nut said came across wrong, but who nominates a candidate does have an affect on the nomination. In theory it shouldn't but the reality is that it does. A person who has been around for only a few months will garner additional scrutiny to the potential admin. The relative newbie hasn't developed a reputation yet... either at RfA's or in other areas of the project to indicate that the newbie understands what is expected. Thus, not only is the newbie's perspective on what is expected incomplete, but their judgment hasn't been developed on the subject yet. On the flip side, when an experienced admin with a solid reputation at RfA's nom's a candidate, they are more likely to buy their candidates additional supports because people realize that the experienced admin doesn't nom somebody who isn't ready. For example, I'm here because I've been reviewing Ling.Nut for the past four hours! People know that I do this with my noms/coachees, thus when I nom somebody, people are more likely to trust my judgment. In short, what I think Ling.nut was saying, is get experience on the project and develop a reputation, then start looking for potential admin's. If you find somebody you think should be an admin, take that person to somebody else. If you feel strong enough to nom somebody, try to get somebody else to co-nom with you. That will help others trust your judgment. This isn't something new, see point 4---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So what's the magical time someone is suddenly allowed to nominate someone? (Not that I'm planning to, just interested.) -- how do you turn this on 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

After you've been around long enough to develop a solid reputation---which doesn't occur in 2-3 months. I would say that if you don't have enough experience to be an admin yourself, you probably shouldn't nominate somebody on your own. Ling.nut was trying to pass on good advice in that noming somebody after 2 months usually hurts a candidate because people wonder "Why didn't somebody with more experience nominate the candidate? Is the nom a meat puppet?" They are thus more critical. It also looks like somebody who is ready to play the game---why are you interested in noming after only 2-3 months? Is it because you have your eyes on the prize---eg you want to be an admin and that is your focus? In other words, it can also hurt your chances if you want to become an admin. If you still want to nominate somebody, ask them if they are interested. Express interest in noming them and find out if there is somebody else who is interested in CO-noming them. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"which doesn't occur in 2-3 months" In your opinion. As Swatjester notes, it's not relevant who nominates. It doesn't matter at all. Does it matter why I wanted to nominate him? The truth is, I thought he'd make a good admin (and still do). I didn't do it for myself. And why exactly do you refer to adminship as a prize? Is that what you see it as? I don't want to become an admin (yet - I already failed one RFA). I don't want to co-nominate people. One nomination is enough, and as long as the nominator isn't brand new (like one day), there's no issue. Stop trying to make problems where they don't exist. -- how do you turn this on 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

email?

Do you plan to set up email? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally rather not. Unless it's completely confidential, or potentially damaging, I'd rather contact was kept on-wiki, and not off. Why, is there something you wanted to ask? -- how do you turn this on 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was something I wanted to email you. A few more sources for Speight, although I won't guarantee that they will add anything new. I just skimmed the hundreds of articles about his death/girlfriend's death, and copied about 5 ot 6 that looked like they might have info... e.g. he allegedly introduced his girlfriend to drug use.. etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be useful if you could add this to the FAC. -- how do you turn this on 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You want me to paste the full text of half a dozen long newspaper articles into the FAC? That wouldn't seem to be the best way to share them. If you don't need them, I'll delete them. I'm not promising they have useful info anyhow. I just kinda skimmed them. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Haley Joel Osment's father

I've provided three citations for Michael Eugene Osment's full name, since you don't accept the IMDb. What I have not cited, since it would be OR, is my own knowledge, since Michael Eugene Osment is one of my best friends. I hope the additional cites will be sufficient for you. Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is he known by his middle name then? There are numerous references that refer to him as Eugene Osment. -- how do you turn this on 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He is known as Michael to friends and family. He uses Eugene as his professional name, as an actor and producer. He used to go by Michael professionally as well, but began using Eugene professionally in the mid-1990s. Monkeyzpop (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Chav

Thanks for the help. I don't intend to keep reverting the IP, and have left them a note on their talk page. GlassCobra 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Speight

[1] - New article from today, could be useful. Gran² 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, highly useful. -- how do you turn this on 13:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be big enough for a DYK now. Any ideas for the hook? Gran² 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Scott Mills Show" Peer Review Request

Hi.

If you have time could you please take a moment to review The Scott Mills Show. I have been working on it for quite a bit and just need someone to review it and give their opinions.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but can't promise anything. -- how do you turn this on 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Speight FAC

I've hidden my comments. I've read your responses and trust you to have to corrected them, in general, as you said you did. I don't have a great deal of time on my hands for any one specific issue at the moment but I've removed the oppose. I'm sure, if Sandy is happy enough, your bronze star isn't too far away. Good luck, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving house? Nah. I'm off travelling for five months! I guess you could call that continual house-moving... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"trying to make enemies"

I am not "trying to make enemies." I was trying to help you with the article. You said you'd rather I raised my concerns at the FAC. This I did. They you started badgering me, rather than reading what I was saying. You also don't seem to understand the FAC process very well as yet. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, being my first FAC, so help me out a bit more, instead of saying vague unhelpful comments like "prose issues". If you have issues, raise them all, not one or two - how am I supposed to improve it if you don't tell me what to improve? It seems to me like you've come to the article with a mindset to oppose and not help me improve Wikipedia. I'm not doing this for my own ego. I think the article is fine, so I'm not going to be able to magically find the things that are wrong with it am I? If you want to review it, review it properly, and point out all the mistakes. Saying "prose issues" isn't the slightest bit helpful when at least 3 others have gone through it and thought it was fine. I'll see if I can fix the publishers for consistency. -- how do you turn this on 13:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I will say this only once more: I have raised the issues on the FAC. Reviewers aren't (and shouldn't be) required to give all instances of those issues. See Tony1's similar random examples of prose problems. If, following on from the examples given, you yourself can't see any other places where there are problems, then (as I said) you should ask someone else if they have time to take a look at it. That is how FAC works.

And no, I didn't come to the article with a mindset to oppose (why would I?). I was working on the article myself until you asked me to stop. You'll find, by the way, that adding inline queries is a very common way of indicating minor problems that aren't worth taking the time to raise at FAC. But this badgering of yours has simply taken up too much of my time now for me to continue. All the best with the article, but it does need a thorough look, probably (it seems) by new eyes if despite my comments you still think it's "fine." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked lots of people to look at it already, and none of them had issues. And again, I didn't ask you to stop working on the article, just to stop peppering it with unneeded fact tags and hidden comments that I'd never see. -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate checkuser

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/72.35.4.220, already linked from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. Feel free to merge yours. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

on using sources

I just checked a couple more of the sources. (And yes, when you check a source you should update an accessdate... that's the point!) Here's your problem: most of them, as far as I can see, are very poorly paraphrased, bordering on plagiarism. However, I note that as you try to produce a better paraphrase, you tend to distort the meaning of the original source. E.g. (in addition to the earlier example re. the wedding) here. The service wasn't "complemented" by the choir's performance. The performance was clearly an integral part of the service. So you've fixed one problem, but introduced another.

But here's your solution, if you have problems paraphrasing (as it seems you do): use direct quotations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To jbmurray and HDYTTO

Hi guys.

Just a little patronising note (sorry, I can't help it) to remind you both that you're on the same side.

I have seen enough of both of you around the wiki to know you're both committed to improving the encyclopedia and developing high quality content.

Somewhere, something's gone a little awry in your communications with each other. Please see if you can attempt not to appear to be riling the other one or scoring points.

The kind of dispute you two are beginning to cook up never ends well and is particularly silly when you realise that you're actually on the same side.

Please excuse this well-intentioned personal comment.

I am, as ever, Dweller (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NB You can score the first brownie point by amending references to jbmurray to use his full username - use of the surname does come across as harsh, rather than abbreviation, particularly given the context of a dispute. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, done. -- how do you turn this on 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I award you a brownie point. You're both great contributors and you've just had a miscommunication. Neither of you is looking for a fight. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you rack up brownie points at this kind of speed, you'll be a guide in no time at all. <grins> Thanks --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My approach was that if I found that many issues, at speed, in one section of the article, it wasn't ready for FAC and should go back for a third party copyedit or PR. That you've fixed the items I brought up is great, but doesn't change the premise under which I presented them. To be fair, I'll review the article with an open mind; if I don't think there's much tinkering left, I'll list any issues at the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU clerk

It doesn't look like anyone has replied to you specifically about this, so just in case -- a requirement for RFCU clerks is that they be administrators. This is because a primary duty of a clerk is making blocks as appropriate for identified abusive socks. If you've already been informed, sorry for the inconvenience. Avruch ^T 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was informed by Tiptoety and Nishkid64 that this wasn't the case. I can't do any blocks, but I can archive the page, and remove bad requests and such. Also I can tag sockpuppets, and if any need blocking, I can report to AN or something. -- how do you turn this on 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well perhaps it used to be the case and isn't any longer. I don't recall seeing a non-admin RFCU clerk before, but maybe you can be the first. Avruch ^T 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this. -- how do you turn this on 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't an admin when I joined the clerking team (back in... wow March 2007 apparently). It used to be the case before that. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then - I simply have no idea what I'm talking about, and should be quiet! Avruch ^T

Just saw you clerking about and wanted to thank you for that. If you run into any questions about the process, I (and doubtless any of the other former or current clerks) would be happy to help answer them. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I probably could have been more clear about that one. It should be ready to archive, yeah. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clipping the church

Loved this one. Congrats! NVO (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-D -- how do you turn this on 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Calygreyhound

Whoops, didn't notice those were the links; my bad totally. Keep up the good work (and Mark Speght will be an FAC in no time, I can feel it) :D RkMnQ (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV notice

User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal is currently at deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 8#User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal and I'd like to ask if you could clarify your support in the MFD. Basically, we are wondering if you felt the page violated WP:MYSPACE. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)