User talk:El Sandifer

Gone fishing. Back Thursday or when some sanity is restored here - whichever comes first. Phil Sandifer 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Admonishment

Just to be clear, I accept that admonishment totally in the spirit with which the RfArb was raised. I look forward to your continued input at WP:WEB, especially in light of the renewed interest in the matter, and the hopes that a reasonable outcome will be achieved.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology on Log

I got a quick message from NSLE and also saw the block log in the corner of my eye, so please excuse the allegation there. All I wanted is ultimately to get where we're going now apparently --DRV. I also don't mind what SCZenz did, I probably would have done the same thing in his situation.

This was ultimately what I was talking about before. When you have one person who thinks that a particular end justifies a any method, and another user that believes the opposite end justifies any method, you get what we just got there. That's the path Kelly took, that's the path you took, that's the path I've taken many times because I felt there was no other way. Quite frankly, i'm tired of feeling that I have to take that path, but I probably will again if I feel there's no other way because that's just my personality. Let's make a way. Not just for us, but for everybody on here. karmafist 12:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Snow, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My actions over Marsden's block duration

Hi, Snowspinner, I have created an RFC on myself so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel wars

In the light of recent controversies I have done some investigation into wheel warring, and have found you to be one of the three most often involved parties. As I believe wheel warring is disruptive to the Wiki, I have requested the ArbCom to look into this. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wheel warring. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some loose ends

I hope you will find the time to respond to my questions sooner or later. If you wish to discuss it here on your talk page, or on mine, instead of over at the arbitration talk page, that's fine with me. I just want to understand your way of thinking about the issue, and I would appreciate to hear your thoughts about the course of action you took on the way to this particular arbitration case. I hope that the fact that I am being critical of your actions will not stand in the way of a honest conversation about them. Thanks, — mark ✎ 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) / — mark ✎ 09:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Copyvio images

Apologies for those images I used in those userboxes. I've amended my errors to comply with the Wikipedia copyright policy, and will do my best to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

I do have a question though - who sets the rules on Wikipedia for how images are to be used in certain situations, and are these rules ever revised? For instance, hypothetically speaking, could these rules on fair use images be changed sometime in the future, and if so, how would one go about starting a discussion on making rule changes? mdmanser 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (websites)

Hi, I've rewritten Wikipedia:Notability (websites), leaning heavily on Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, I hope you will read the new version and comment on the talk page. Steve block talk 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for Knowledge Seeker

I was just going to complain that you never gave me one for the initial block on User:Dschor. But anyway it is nice to agree with you (it might even become a habit) --Doc ^ask? 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were more respectable than this, Doc. You really should keep this stuff in IRC rather than flaunting your arrogance in front of the whole of wikipedia. If anyone deserves a barnstar in regards to this situation, it is I, not you. --Dschor 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems?

I hear you've got some stress problems and you've gone on a wikibreak. Rest up, and I hope you come back soon :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are back. Either way, hope you feel well soon :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

DCV unblocked

I have unblocked Deeceevoice because I can find no valid reason on WP:BP for her to be blocked. I have mentioned this on WP:AN/I as well. --Angr (tɔk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attack against me.

Please do not make pesonal attacks like this, as it is not civil. --Rob 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Swearing on talk pages

Hi. Your comment on the talk page of Qur'an/Picture Controversy is ambiguous and likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of banning users for swearing. It appears as if you are telling users that they are ignoring blocking policy by swearing. If that was not the meaning you intended, I think you should clarify. Thanks. Babajobu 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoing other admins' blocks

Hi Snowspinner, I feel I've noticed blocks being undone without discussion more and more of late, and I feel it's very damaging, so I've started a discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Undoing_other_admins.27_blocks. Your comments would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

development model for templates

Extract from Tfd of qif:

There is something in your statement. It's a slow creeping process. Somebody comes onto the talk page and asks: "I have an idea, couldn't we do feature XYZ. I need that in article OPXYVKLM". First reaction is usually "Oh, no. Not another request." Then someone comes up with an idea and demonstrates: "look, we can do it by doing trick QSW". Then the "group" around that templates sees that it works and that the "world is not tumbling down by doing it", and it gets implemented. It is damned hard to refuse such request to modify a template. And it is very hard for outstanders to understand why that template group went that way. Problem is also that everybody can finger around with templates, there is no "board" that controls it. For wiki articles, this model is fine, but on heavy use templates that wiki model just does not work. Reverting heavy use templates back and forth is the wrong way. Adrian Buehlmann 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not thinking about edit wars. Just that anybody can come and fiddle around on for example book reference (BTW I'm not thinking about Neto removing qif, he has the license). That "everybody can" fiddle creates an enormous pressure for new features on those kind of templates. It's comparable to the ususal inclusionist track on articles. With templates, all artiles including a template are immediately affected (possibly with a DB lock if use is enough high). BTW you can answer here (if you need to). I'm watching this page. Adrian Buehlmann 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't add fuel to the fire

I have had enough trouble with assorted other folks piling on to attack my user page. You really should know better than to vandalize my user page. I am frustrated that there are so many admins with such poor judgement. I would appreciate it if you would keep to writing the encyclopedia, and keep your (malicious?) editing away from my user page. Thanks. --Dschor 10:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Metatemplates

In the spirit of metatemplates, I would like to hear your opinion on this particular piece of convolutedness. Radiant_>|< 11:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not missuse you admin privileges

On Template:User wikipedia, stop what you are doing, it's forbidden for you to revert to your preferable version, and then protect the page, you must unprotect the page at once and revert your changes at once. _→AzaToth 16:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You havn't replied, but I must inform you that you are distruplting wikipedia to prove your point and you are abusing your admin priviledges. If you do not restor the template, you might get an RfC on you. _→AzaToth 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC against you now Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 4, sorry, buy you gave me no choices. _→AzaToth 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• The RFC has been removed from WP:RFC for lack of certification. Unless Snowspinner objects, I'll also delete the RFC as well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The future of template book reference

Hi. May I ask you to contribute your opinion on Template talk:Book reference#Rewrite due to WP:AUM. Is my proposal ok or what should happen with book reference from your point of view. Please respond there. Thank you. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Hello Phil. I thought I'd drop by to explain why I mentioned administrators in my statement in the first place. I don't expect you to change your vote, and that's not why I'm here. Over the past year, I've encountered many situations where sysops acted boldly in situations that were not in the least bit justifiable. Most of these eventually came before the Arbitration Committee, but it took months and repeated cases before the abuses of power finally ceased. Longevity and position are not a licence to dictate, but I think that's forgotten sometimes. Anyway, that's all. I'd encourage you to read my expanded statement, which was made in response to Fifelfoo, if you haven't already. I think it represents a fuller explication of my views. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; I'm quite content to be disagreed with so long as I've been understood :). And yes, I suspect you're right that a written justification of decisions would prove impossible, but I think it would still be worth trying. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Infinite Crisis chatter

Phil, can you do something about the chatroom discussions at Talk:Infinite_Crisis#One_of_Each_Kind.3F? Talk pages are to discuss editing, not for idle and idiotic speculation. Thanks. -- Dyslexic agnostic 10:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom for Dummies

elements cross-posted

Looks good. I've corrected the capitalisation (sorry, but it's become a pet hate of mine ;-)), but other than that...

James F. (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. Very practical advice indeed, and mostly true. I wouldn't have stated most of those things in such blunt terms, at least not for a public document; I would tone a fair bit of it down (I'm speaking from the perspective of a community-builder, not a writer). The gist, however, is entirely accurate. If I feel so inclined and you're game I may try to tear it apart and defang it later. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Username

I noticed you attempted to change your username from snowspinner to "Phil Sandifer" for some odd reason. My preference lies with snowspinner; its catchy and less generic-sounding. :) -Zero^Talk 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC move into your userspace

Per your request, I've moved uncertified RfC 4 into your userspace (User:Snowspinner/RfC Snowspinner 4). Carbonite | Talk 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Snowspinner

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Snowspinner. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Expert undeletion

If an expert thinks a topic is notable, or that an article should be kept, surely that expert can site verifiable sources? Doesn't your statement here, if you act on it, open the way to Orriginal research. Will you accept User:Jack Sarfatti as a verifiable expert in Physics for example? if not why not? Please reconsider this policy. Do you have cases where experts cited proper sources and were ignored? if so, lets fram a way to deal with such cases, without this blanket policy of simply accepting an expert's unsourced say-so. Or if you mean to insist on sources, say that, please. DES ^(talk) 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

(copied from my user talk DES ^(talk) 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)):

I would not be inclined to take Sarfatti as an expert, no. And in general I would not consider people experts on themselves for exactly this reason. Phil Sandifer 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I dopn't mean an expert on himself, but an expert on Physics in general. After all, he does hold a docterate in that field, and has published numerous articles in peer-reveiwed journals, some of which have been praised by people with significant reputations. If this is not enough to qualify a person as an expert, what objective standards would so qualify a person? And if the standards are not objective, the whole idea is in trouble, IMO. Perhaps you can see some of the reasons why I think this case shows that people with expert credentials are not always reliable sources, and your proposed course of action is a major mistake. Please don't act on your proposed "expert undeltion" or "expert early closure" principles. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking up the Torch and what not

Listen, I appreciate the friendly advice when it comes to my "picking up the torch" for Nobs, but this is a bit different. Despite CBerlet pleas to the contrary, I am not making personal attacks, something which Nobs was accused of in the RfArb. I am not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and I am most certainly not turning the article on Chip Berlet into a battle ground. What I am doing is making sure that Berlet's strongarm tactics dont allow him to trample on every article he deems its his right to. I think that if you go over the crux of the debate on the related article you will find that my point is a very valid one, namely that Berlet has not substantiated the inclusion of the material is is attempting to cram into every article in dispute.

Nobs was banned for his conduct, not his contributions, which were very solid. If only every article could be the subject of this much real debate, then perhaps every article might be worth reading.

By the way, an absolutely, positively, 100% not a sockpuppet for anyone, and vicey vercey.

Later. DTC 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion broken?

You've claimed on WP:AN that many people involved in the deletion/undeletion process equate a deletion vote with "salting the earth" against any future articles. Since I haven't been following those processes closely for the past months, I would appreciate it if you could point to some discussion indicative of this stubbornness. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 10:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Loose ends

Hi. Did you forget about these threads or is there some other reason you are not responding? Thanks, — mark ✎ 11:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM

As you'll recall, I argued in favor of contacting the developers for clarification (in particular, regarding the extent to which meta-template use should be reduced) before implementing drastic measures on the basis of Jamesday's vague remarks. You claimed that the developers' will was clear and unambiguous, and that it would be foolish to waste their time by bothering them. You also strongly opposed my RfA, claiming that I "was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue." When I politely requested that you correct this flagrantly false statement, you ignored all but the first of my messages (to which you replied with this).

Well, here's what Brion (the lead developer) had to say on the matter:

There's a lot of talk about this 'policy' which attempts to divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details.

Complicated templates-within-templates generally ought to be thought twice about before being used, because they can be confusing and fragile. There are some good notes about that on this page; please don't go all willy-nilly with illegible code just because it sort-of works.

There are other notes on this page about server performance which are not necessarily clear or well-supported. In particular, there's no known evidence that moderate usage of meta-templates has any noticeable impact on server performance.

While there are potential issues with cache invalidation, that's a separate issue which can be separately solved -- and is little better with "regular" templates.

I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time do so based on their ugliness and fragility. Please don't go around claiming "the developers" laid down the law and said nobody can use meta-templates because they hurt the servers; that just isn't true.

--Brion 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

—David Levy 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems rather beside the point, since, well, A) Jamesday is the one who has flatly said to depricate meta-templates, and B) Brion STILL comes down against meta-templates there. Or did you have some other, more arcane point you were trying to make? Phil Sandifer 06:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Jamesday asked us to "reduce" the use of meta-templates. To the best of my knowledge, he never asked us to wipe them out of existence (nor did he specify the extent to which they should be "reduced").

2.You claimed that the developers (not merely Jamesday) had agreed that meta-templates harm the servers. I argued that such a stance was not readily apparent, and that we should attempt to consult the other developers (for clarification) before jumping to conclusions. You told me that there was no valid reason to waste their time (because their unified will was clear), and my refusal to blindly accept your interpretation of the situation was labeled "ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue." Now, Brion has explicitly indicated that the developers (as a unit) do not agree that meta-templates are inherently harmful to the servers, and have not condemned their use. He also criticized the attempts to "divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details." Attempting to "divine meaning from things other people have said" is precisely what I opposed, and "just asking for details" is precisely what I advocated.

3.The meta-templates have been replaced with CSS hacks that are FAR uglier than meta-templates. I had assumed that this was a necessary evil, but now I'm not so sure. Brion has indicated that meta-templates "ought to be thought twice about before being used." I agree (and would extend the same standard to any type of complicated template syntax), but that's hardly the same thing as outlawing their use. I've seen some pointless implementations of meta-templates, but many are well worth tolerating the esoteric nature of their code (assuming that Brion's comments are accurate).

4. For the record, I'm not saying that we should rush to restore the meta-templates. I'm saying that we should have gotten our facts straight (which we still need to do) before hastily turning the place upside-down. This is what I argued in the first place, and you acted as though I was recklessly denying an incontrovertible truth.

—David Levy 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you: no developer has advocated the use of meta-templates. [[Sam Korn]] 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, no developer has advocated the use of CSS hacks that produce incorrect output in any non-CSS-capable browser.

Brion has now indicated that "conditional 'if'-like constructs can be very easily done in the software." Had we consulted him in the first place (as I suggested), we probably could have prevented a great deal of unpleasantness. —David Levy 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We had (multiple times). Eh, no: it was Phil Boswell on wikitech-l (ok so not directly asking Brion). But forget about the past. The future looks bright. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Brion has expressed the opinion that the CSS method is harmful and "very ugly." —David Levy 21:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

boxes

LOL. -- Netoholic @ 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Worst of the best or best of the worst?

• Whats this about?

Sam Spade 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a comment made in a particular and light-hearted social situation at the wikimeet. Phil Sandifer 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not trying to make anything more out of it than it was, but it still begs the question: do I truely have such a peculiar status, and how have I achieved it, perhaps even how might I rid myself of it, if I do indeed possess it? Am I more special a case than yourself for example? Both of us are controversial, and yet both of us recieved about 1/3rd of the wikipedia's support in the arbiter elections...

In any case my interest is sheerly out of curiosity, with no malicious overtones. I certainly did not take it as a personal attack, as tomer was so clearly concerned regarding. Quite the opposite, I see it as a fascinating oportunity to gain some insight into how I am viewed in the comunity, and where my strengths and weaknesses lie.

Cheers, Sam Spade 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy and Incoherency

What you say is very true. I tried being an informal advocate for a user who had a POV that I felt was under-represented, and it backfired on me. Robert McClenon 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Webcomics RfAr closed

The Webcomics RfAr has been closed. Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent. Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner/Arbcom

Somehow this comment got lost in the jumble that is my talk page. Anyway, my reply is - SPOT ON! Excellent, and totally true. Raul654 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac

Hi Snowspinner!

When you blocked Zordrac indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, Kelly Martin's temporary block "overrode" it when it expired. I have reapplied the block (being a bit more lenient than you, assuming that he will want to use this account when the ban expires I set it to 355 days = 365 day ArbCom ban - 10 days already served, rather than indefinite.)

Also, Greenlighting was deleted back in December, and I put it up at DRV in case your interested. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if you're up for this

• Seems to be some fuss about this notice that I put on WP:DRV
• See also this email on Wikien-l which got some favorable comment.

I would like it to become the norm that good faith listings on WP:DRV may be undeleted for the purpose of the discussion, at the discretion of an administrator, provided there are no special circumstances that make undeletion inadvisable (copyright, defamation, inflammatory content, attacks, etc).

At the moment there's a bit of a kerfuffle about the notice. It's being discussed now on WT:DRV. The usual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

See also deletion logs:

• List of Louisiana Baptist University people
• Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk application approved

Your application to become a clerk for the Arbitration Committee has been approved. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration is for recording organizational work and communication between clerks. Raul654 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting 2

I find your sarcasm innapropriate. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikiquette and civility. -- Dragonfiend 06:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Considering your previous history of personal attacks and incivilty directed towards me, perhaps you ought to err on the side of caution. Or, better yet, just leave me alone. -- Dragonfiend 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not know you had written the article. Your sarcasm on the AfD is a petty example of incivility. Leave me alone. -- Dragonfiend 06:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your sarcasm is rude. It is also belittling. Rudeness = Incivility. Belittling = Incivility. Please, just leave me alone. Your history of personal attacks, incivility and death threats creeps me out. -- Dragonfiend 07:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.
brenneman^(t)(c) 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Request on Pope Pius XII

You have a reputation for being an admin who is willing to do the right thing. Could you please take a look at the talk page for Pope Pius XII? The problem for the past six months has been EffK. The ArbCom is now one vote away from a one-year ban (with no opposition to the ban). It appeared that we were about to make progress on the article again, but now EffK is filling the talk page with his rant. Would it be in order to block him for personal attacks? Thank you. Robert McClenon 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I had not known that you had summarized the evidence. In that case, you can see why I had to request arbitration against him. Robert McClenon 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Not sure whether this is really your field. A cartoonist. Article deleted after an AfD that was closed as a keep despite quite a few delete votes, on the grounds that it had been improved. I've undeleted and someone has actually been working on improvement, but then Splash protected the article--don't know why. I unprotected. There also seems to be an attempt (so far successful in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)) to prevent articles being listed on AfD while there is an ongoing DRV discussion. That's a little worrying because it could mean that I'd have to do repeated undeletes to get a second AfD on the state-named Avanues (which would almost certainly secure a good keep result). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin stuff

Just to clear one thing up - I do not support lynch mobbing or arbitrary deadminning of impopular people. The code of conduct is simply a concise list of already consensual things that admins shouldn't be doing, such as blocking users over a personal dispute, or continuing a revert war on an already-protected page, or wheel warring. Any competent admin can continue doing a good job without needing to do any of that. Radiant_>|< 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis Red Links

While I agree that the red links would be helpful for writing articles, but the Wikipedia Style Guide states, "Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters, the songs on albums and the villages in a municipality, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one." I see no extraordinary reason why Infinite Crisis should not conform to WP policy.--Gillespee 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm so confused. I'm certainly no expert on WP (I've been on about 3 months), but you're an administrator telling me to ignore the MoS? So, does any of it apply, or are just certain sections considered a tangled mess and disregarded by veteran users? This is so weird, why is it not fixed if it's so messed up?--Gillespee 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

172 RFA comment

At 172's RFA you wrote it is not concievable, regardless of 172's actions now, and, frankly, over the course of the next year or two years, that a longstanding editor with a past arbcom case is ever going to clear RFA. I present myself as a counterexample [1] [2]. I'm not sure if I'm a terribly useful example, and I didn't answer you on the RFA cos I doubt it would help anyone, but I thought Id comment here. William M. Connolley 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Autobiography

Hello! I was wondering if you were still planning on writing your autobiography, "Lapdog in Lapland"? I'm quite intrigued by the prospect. --Orange Flowerpot 08:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Diffs needed

Could you provide about ten diffs that nicely illustrate this proposal: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop#Tendentious_editing. Please add them to the proposal. Thanks, Fred Bauder 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RFAR on Xed 2

The Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration against User:Xed is closed [3]. Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation. Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of. Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

Hi, Phil. I noticed you've been doing mostly sysop work lately, but I would like to request your attention on something related to the WikiProject Critical Theory, where IIRC you were working in psychoanalytic theory.

In the Spanish wiki, where I'm most active nowadays, we're having some serious issues with a notorious if courteous POV-pusher who's turned the articlo on psychoanalysis into an all-out disqualification of its methods and practices. He claims extensive empirical testing has shown psychoanalysis' sucess rate to be similar to a placebo's, and official disavowal of psychoanalytic theory by the APA.

Not being an expert on the field, and even less in its current practice in the Ango-Saxon world, I'm at a loss for answers, although I perceive something distinctly fishy. If you have the time and inclination, I'd very much appreciate it if you could point me to relevant literature, or a trustworthy assessment of the statu quo.

Thanks in advance, and sorry for bothering you. Best, Taragüí @ 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joking, of course

Sorry if it didn't come across that way... dry humor is tricky online. I just thought your phrasing was funny. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

:-)

-GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramil/Armenian Genocide-denial-guy

I must admit that I am not very au-fait with the Rfc procedure. Could you possible start it and then ask for my comments? Or perhaps it would be a good idea to post on the talk page and ask the other guys to chip in. If you don't feel that you can do it, could you please explain the process to me? John Smith's 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So I'm waiting to see how the arbcom will vote on the issue, but I have a couple of questions for you Phil, since you seem a bit more experienced in dealing with them. First, if they vote to accept, what will we be dealing with? Will the issue be proving WP:POINT, sockpuppets and such? (Oh and a note, if you check the history, user:ramil did not identify his sockpuppets on his user page, other users who figured it out did. one of them being me. there was no attempt on his part to make that public knowledge.) If they vote to reject, what do you think an Rfc needs to be based on? I'm so tired of the ranting, just today he did this: my revert of it and I want to make sure there is something that can be done to stop the insanity. (And the 6 socks). Thanks, pschemp | talk 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate your opinions and help on this. User:Cool_cat has now jumped in the fray claiming that the POV tage needs to be there because the Turkish Govern. doens't recognize the genocide. It is starting to get disruptive again and I'm afraid that he will incite an edit war. He has already incitied a flood on comments. I'm not sure what if anything can be done. pschemp | talk 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

YMBJ

Please tell me you're joking with your ArbCom barnstar-related statement. Sarcasm is hard to identify online, gotta be sure ;). — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is, even without context :) Just making sure you weren't Headcrabbed — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner/Arbcom

Nice page. I did a slight tighten of it - check the diff. I'm not sure the page would actually work, since the clueful of good will won't have a great need of it, and anyone else wouldn't take it in ;-) - David Gerard 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject subproject notificatin (late, sorry)

Hi Snowsoinner. I'm contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. This project is inactive but exists. Anyway, I recently created a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia which by right ought to be subproject ot Sexology and sexuality. In fact, I was (properly) upbraided for creating this project without consulting the members of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Sorry, I just plain forgot). Anyway, my questions and comments are:

• Are you still an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality?
• Hi! As a member of the (logical) parent project, you are invited to view, contribute to, oversee, and/or join the subproject Wikiproject Pedophilia.
• Be aware that we have had a difficult birth and are considered by some to be inherently controversial, and may have some future controversies due to the sensitive nature of the material in our purview, although I hope not.
• In the normal course of things, I would join WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and edit it to include Wikiproject Pedophilia as a subproject. Do you have any objections or comments on that.
• We are considering renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia to Wikiproject Paraphilia, for various reasons. As a member of the parent project, do you have any thoughts on that?Herostratus 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner ---> Phil Sandifer

Hello. I was curious as to why you are attempting to change your username. My preferences lie with "Snowspinner". :) -Zero^Talk 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion

I see that you were the admin who created the TfD page last year. I'm hoping that means you can help me figure out how to handle the apparent speedy deletion of Template:User ACLU. I cannot find where this deletion was discussed, and I'm sure I'm not the only user who would like to see if there is a consensus for its removal. Can you offer some guidance?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 18, 2006, 06:24 (UTC)

So there is no way to bring this up for discussion? The deleting admin marked the edit "T1" which is "divisive." That's certainly a debatable conclusion. Is there a way that a discussion can be had?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 18, 2006, 06:33 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

I know on RfP you said you were sprotecting the page, but it seems it's not and it's getting irritating. Drini removed the sprotect template from it and said it wasn't sprotected...can we get sprotection on it for now? Thanks.  RasputinAXP  c 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello me

[4] is a thread started by me. Phil Sandifer 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Money money money fat fat fat (talk · contribs)

Do you know the person in the image? I recall seeing him on wikipedia somewhere... Image:Philpo.jpg

Thats all I got. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you have taken care of it :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

this doesn't help

You're being a bit rude over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters. Surely it's possible to disagree and still be nice about it? Friday (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomasine Church revisions

I have changed Thomasine Church to a disambiguation page instead of a redirect, because most of the links to it were being redirected to the wrong location. In my disambiguation list, the first bullet is the page where it redirected until I edited it, and the third bullet is the church whose page you are currently hosting at User:Snowspinner/Thomasine Church.

I was also planning on removing many of the links to this page that are essentially nothing but ads for the miniscule "Thomasine Church" based somewhere around New Jersey. Details are on the Talk:Thomasine Church page.

Since you have been involved with this page, and are currently hosting an old version of the page, I wanted to run it by you to see if you had any objections. I know they say to "be bold" on Wikipedia, but in my experience timidity saves time! Lawrence King 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't plan to redirect any pages to your namespace. Are you saying that there should not be any links on the Talk:Thomasine Church page which reference User:Snowspinner/Thomasine Church? I am removing the current link just in case that's what you meant. Lawrence King 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk page can properly refer, but nothing in the article namespace ought to. Phil Sandifer 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Snowspinner. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sequart.com and Julian Darius

I want a second opinion, because I'm leaning towards these looking like vanity, but you're a lot closer to academia than me. Julian Darius and Sequart.com, are they credible? The book looks like a what do you call it, um, not vanity, but a sort of cafe press thing, do you know what I mean? Anyway, I'd appreciate your opinion, I'll probably also ask at Wikiproject comics, but I'd appreciate your thoughts first. Steve block talk 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Phil, sorry not to get back to you sooner. Did you get a chance to look at Julian Darius? At the minute I'm thinking redirect Sequart.com there. Happy editing! Steve block talk 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bucky

I was wondering the exact same thing - of course since I would vote him off if I could - I didn't think I could make an NPOV observation about his username. LOL Trödel&#149;talk 17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: fact?

You'd think that all the other variations would at least be redirects. I guess it's all because we have too many damn cleanup messages: "no reference" bar at the top, "no reference" superscript in the text, "no reference" tag for the talk page, etc. Kirill Lokshin 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page

Hi! I'm just curious as to what you mean by "Oppose linking to portals until there is more quality control there - too many are used for POV pushing." The proposed design links to the same portals as the current main page, so I don't understand what distinction you're drawing. —David Levy 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose increasing their prominance. Phil Sandifer 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification! —David Levy 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Corporate nav templates

Hi Phil,

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 17#Template:Corporate navigational templates? For the reasons that you deleted Template:Microsoft at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Microsoft (guideline violations), I've proposed the rest of the corp nav templates for deletion. However some are now proposing that my tfd be immediately withdrawn given near-unanimous voting to keep. I'm concerned that one template, Template:Microsoft could be deleted, and others kept, despite them being exactly alike. Kurieeto 15:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner sub-pages

You still have subpages under your old username: [5]. I don't know if they're worth moving into the Phil Sandifer subspace, but it's something to consider. Ral315 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In that same vein, I was tempted to use eminent domain to take User:Snowspinner/Arbcom for use by the arbcom ;)

But then I realized, for our purposes of trying to inform people of how to present effective arbitration cases, it's probably better off if you're the only one allowed to edit it. Raul654 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - feel free to reference it at will though. Phil Sandifer 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, can Phil please explain to me the reason for giving up the perfectly good name of Snowspinner...? I'm quite utterly baffled. -Zero^Talk 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

E-mail for you, Phil. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)