User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive1–through Nov 11, 2004
Archive2–Jan 5, 2005
Archive3–Dec 1, 2006
Archive 4–Apr 13, 2007
Archive 5–Sep 19, 2007
Archive 6–Jan 27, 2008
Archive 7–May 22, 2008
Archive 8–Dec 15, 2008
Archive 9–Mar 30, 2009
Archive 10–Oct 7, 2009
Archive 11–Oct 4, 2010
Archive 12–Sep 18, 2014


Barneca RfA spam[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and plan on learning from the experience and keeping the criticism in mind. If, in the future, you see me doing something that still concerns you, please let me know about it. --barneca (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a new task?[edit]

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to review Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Glenn L. Pace. It seems apparent that the first one is designed to be purposely sensationalistic and the second to lend credibility to the first. There are some discussions that would be benefited by a broader range of input. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Avram Grant[edit]

Hi there. I see you moved the above title to Avraham Grant following an IP's attempt at a cut and paste move. It has been agreed on the talk page that it should be at Avram Grant, but this was the fourth or fifth time that an IP has cut and pasted it to Avraham Grant. Do you think it would be acceptable practise to semi-protect Avraham Grant as a redirect to prevent any more cut and paste moves to it before there is another discussion? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Seagull_Monument_in_snow.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Seagull_Monument_in_snow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


What I was alluding to is that the arbitrators (other than Fred) clearly haven't examined this case. It's much easier to bury THF than to actually sift through the evidence and come to the right decision. Most of Smb's evidence (cited in 4B) is bogus, and the diffs presented in finding 4B are dubious, yet the finding has 5 supporting votes, including the one you alluded to in your talk page note. Intellectual laziness is rampant on Wikipedia, and it goes all the way to the top. Long ago I lost confidence in the admin community here, and now I hold equally low regard for the arb com. Many editors think that trolls are the biggest problem on Wikipedia; but I think the detrimental effect of the occasional troll pales in comparison a case like this, which can best arbcom-sanctioned POV pushing. Very disappointing. ATren 09:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Middle years[edit]

Well, AfD is an inconsistent process. I think we should WP:DRV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme on grounds that the discussion for the other two suggests a non-consensus. I would support undeletion. It's absurd to have deleted only the one. Cool Hand Luke 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Inconsistent would be an understatement. I agree on the DRV for consistency's sake. Alansohn 15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP consensus[edit]


I appreciate it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Source on {{CongBio2}}[edit]

Please see Template talk:CongBio2.—Markles 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


I accidentally added that comment in the wrong place.

And, yes, he was one of the juvenile "chin mockers". See this section. ATren 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ShankBone's behavior[edit]

I'd like to request some assistance with ShankBone. The Avidor thing has nothing to do with this, and for what it's worth, I stand by every single action I took in that dispute. Despite my repeated pleas, he refuses to stop talking about it or take it to proper channels - he'd rather keep it for use as a battering ram against me in every single conversation. Do you know where I can go for this? User conduct RFC? AN/I? Any suggestions? ATren 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My conflict with Avidor[edit]

I respect that you don't want to judge one way or another on that case. If you're interested, I summarized the dispute here in one of my many unsuccessful attempts to get DS to stop. As for diffs, there were a few I regret from my first month on the project, but other than that I've done my best to adhere to policy and rules. JzG and I had epic battles, because he supported Avidor (long, long story there). He was the only user who really ever supported Avidor on Wiki.

The Avidor/PRT dispute was really something that I fell into. I was interested in the technology to be sure, but I was never a proponent in any way. But when I saw the frequency and severity of disinformation this person was spreading, it struck a nerve. These poor bastards who have made PRT their life work were being ruthlessly attacked by Avidor, and not even fairly (he was caught using at least one sock puppet blog, and I suspect there may have been more). It didn't sit right with me, especially since I knew from studying the technology that almost everything he was saying was a deception. He was literally making up things to smear the technology and its proponents, and he's been doing it almost non-stop since 2003.

In any case, I stand by my actions here and off wiki. My blog has a total of 16 posts over 1.5 years. It's not at all personal - I criticise his campaign and his tactics. Make no mistake: it's sharp criticism, but it's all justified. If anyone cares I would be more than happy to defend everything I've ever written with regard to Avidor and his campaign.

So there it is, if you're interested. I hope we can put it to bed now, but given David's history I suspect he will take this all the way to arbcom... which is fine, because I have nothing to hide. ATren 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Block user by article/template[edit]

Is it possible to block a user from editing an article/template? I was thinking that if we can't work out some compromise to the name & title of the templates for the econ prize, then it would be best if we just permanently blocked all of us who have been edit warring (me, Liftarn, Vision Thing, Camptown, and Lost.goblin) from the templates and let others work it out. Anyway, I've proposed a name change and we'll see if it goes through. –panda 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


I vaguely sensed a few days ago that maybe it was worth continuing and then the lock up of Whig which was appalling and unjustified except to ambitious creeps like cuerden; and then this today convinces me that quality people with a good 29 year knowledge of this subject are not wanted and not respected here and so I take my leave. I also felt your comments at the weekend were vaguely constructive and encouraging but no it is too faint an echo, too weak a force to pitch against the crude, barbaric and appalling babble of these inexorable cretins who clearly have the upper hand. It's far too much to bear any longer, goodbye. Peter morrell 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA[edit]

Trolley Square shooting[edit]

Thanks for that[1]. I was in the middle of writing a note to the edit warrior on his talk page, suggesting that as a compromise we include a neutrally worded allusion to the controversy about whether Sulejman Talović was a terrorist or not, but it seems you already took care of it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


This [2] makes no sense to me. Which is the "self published" bit you're removing? William M. Connolley 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics[edit]

Your handling of the whole issue is a disgrace. You made controversial page move not following proper procedure and now you are accusing me of "petty" behavior. If you object to the incorrect capitalization then move page back to the Nobel Prize in Economics where it was. -- Vision Thing -- 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Current title is award to NYScholar who started all this. As I already stated, current page name makes request for move nonsensical. Anyone who comes to talk page to express opinion can get the wrong impression that the issue is settled and that page has been already moved. -- Vision Thing -- 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You are an admin and you should have done it yourself. Your failure to do that, as well as all this talk about achieved "consensus" on template talk, led me to assume bad faith on your part. I'm glad we cleared this up. -- Vision Thing -- 17:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Claims by above user on my editing of the article's title are unsubstantiated; I did not "start" the request for a name change; the name Nobel Prize in Economics has been contested by many editors; so far the attempt to change the name from that name to a number of more accurate names for the Prize (Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences; "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel]], e.g.) has garned wider support than opposition. Vision created a typographical error (it appears inadvertently) in changing the name back to "Nobel prize in Economics". After reading the more-recent comments on the requested move (substantiating it), I had not noticed Cool Hand Luke's name changes until after I had already changed it back to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" (which has much consensus). It appears to me that Vision appears to hold a minority point of view about the title of the article.
For the various suppport/opposition comments to CHL's proposal, please see Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics (as currently entitled; a title not currently supported by most commenting). My change was made in good faith but I inadvertently did not see Cool Hand Luke's editing summary before making it. Subsequently, I restored the current title, while the request for move is still under consideration by administrators. I assume no bad faith on others' parts, and I would appreciate it if none was assumed by others on my part. I edit in good faith: WP:AGF.
All editors need to recognize that "Nobel Prize in Economics" does not have most support among most other editors. They should not mischaracterize the discussion in editing summaries. The current name ("Nobel Prize in Economics") does not have consensus among the editors discussing the name change proposal, according to the most recent and current discussions on the talk page. Sources supporting more accurate common names for the Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel are cited in the article itself. Yet, obviously, there is still some controversy about the name of the article. Claiming that one has "consensus" and that other editors (who have much support) are editing "in bad faith" violates Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:AGF. Please allow the discussion of the title to continue without assuming that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is consensus and that other editors who do not support that title are editing "in bad faith." Neither are accurate reflections of these editors' discussions of sources for the name of the article. Please see Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics from the Request for move proposal on. Thanks. --NYScholar 03:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [corrected typographical error; threaded for easier reading. --NYScholar 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]
That's not a problem. It doesn't matter so much where it sits while the RM is resolved. I just moved it back because User:Vision Thing had a good point that the title could confuse potential contributers into thinking the decision had already been made and the page already moved.
I see some participants who I don't recognize on the talk page like User:Will Beback support the move. I never previously heard of this dispute, but I've been impressed with panda's suggestion. I think it was a good choice of title, and seems to have a lot of support. Cool Hand Luke 06:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Where's the bug?—Markles 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. My mistake.—Markles 17:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

catalog vs. catalogue[edit]

Just wanted to point out that both are valid spellings of the word. :) --Starwed (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I notice you removed the following from Groklaw:

'While the site includes text versions of various legal filings and court proceedings, with commentary thereon, it also contains links to the original versions so that readers can verify details as required.'

Could you explain why, since as far as I know it is a completely factual statement.

Murray Langton (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'll watch this page, so reply here.

It's just not a good summary of the contents of the article, and it looks almost promotional. Would not mind it outside of the lead. Cool Hand Luke 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
For comparison, it's as if the article on eBay began with the current lead block, then continued "For the convenience of its sellers, eBay accepts Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and PayPal online payments." It's a small promotional detail out of place in the lead, and it's not even unusual. Law blogs usually cite primary court documents. Cool Hand Luke 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I'll see if the sentence or similar can reasonably fit somewhere else in the article. Murray Langton (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On the alleged DoS attack on Sys-Con[edit]

In the Groklaw history entry for 17:02, 21 November 2007 you say "The denial of service attack seems well-supported" but the cited blog entry does not provide sufficient data to support the claim. Note that this Slashdot comment raises some relevant technical issues and the author of the blog post responded essentially admitting that he has not seen the data but has a feeling based on conversations with various people. The blog shows three redacted log entries amounting to a total of less than 140K bytes retrieved, and says that these were three of five entries revealed to the blog author. There is no hint anywhere of the total number of log entries, the total data volume downloaded, or how traffic at that time compares to normal traffic on an average day, let alone on a day when a news site has a controversial and widely referenced story; there is no hint that any particular client IP address was responsible for a disproportionate number of requests or data volume - these are all statistics that any web log analyser will give the site operator. There is not even a hint that the retrieval of '/' was followed by retrievals of the embedded content (such as images) let alone by retrievals of referenced pages that use of the recursion feature of wget would imply. The evidence revealed in the blog post just does not support the DoS claim and we are left with essentially "my friends who still work there tell me there was a DDoS attack". I will leave it to your judgement to decide whether or not the blog post is a sufficient citation for the remark about the DoS attack rather than hearsay involving a weakly supported allegation by a party to the dispute. Personally, I think that the DoS remark deserves to be labelled "alleged".

GrumpyOldWebmaster (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This belongs on the talk page. And it's not in my judgment. I'm just an editor here. See substantive reply on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 09:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aron Tendler[edit]

I have read your comments on various pages, and wanted to thank you for your objectivity. You have provided constructive criticism for all editors concerned with it, and it is sincerely appreciated. Jeffpw (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi Cool hand Luke: Thank you for contacting me. I have now completed my response to your question at User talk:IZAK#Aron Tendler redux. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question re. Brigham Young[edit]

Hi Cool Hand Luke. Quick question regarding the section you reverted on the Brigham Young article. Originally there was more in that section, including the statement about Young's speaking style, which was uncited. I added only the block quote some time ago to source the statement that was originally in the article regarding BY's speaking style, but I believe that you are saying the the original statement (the one that I didn't write) was OR. If I understand correctly, you are saying that it would be acceptable if we referenced a source in which an author was talking about BY's style of speaking, rather than using a quote from BY himself. Is this correct? Also, there was another cited paragraph in the section on personality that was removed that I haven't added back yet until I check the reference (too busy working on Wikisource right now to spend much time on Wikipedia). The exact same situation exists in the section "Beliefs about blacks" - An unsourced introductory statement about how Young was criticized, followed only by sourced quotes from Young himself, and it sounds like it ought to be removed using the same criteria that you applied to the "personality" section. My issue with the "personality" section was not necessarily with the specific contents of the section (I'm happy to find appropriate sources as long as I understand what is appropriate).- My issue was with the idea that statements regarding the subject's personality don't belong in a biography, since the reason given by the editor that removed the entire section originally was that it was "unneccessary." Thanks, Bochica 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points. You may be correct about 1856 being more atypical - I believe that BY was initiating the "Mormon Reformation," so he may have been prepping them for that. Any treatment of the subject should take into account the full range of his speaking career. I want to edit the BY article, but I can't give it the attention that it deserves until I'm done with some other things, and I don't want to do a half-baked job. I'll do some research on what author's have said about BY's personality and speaking style per your suggestion and eventually give proper attention to the article. Till then, I'll mostly leave it alone unless some serious vandalism occurs. Best regards, Bochica 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your notice of the discussion ongoing at BLP disputes. I've made a brief comment there. Snocrates 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again; since you were involved with the complaint involving User:Jsmith 51389, I'm asking you for advice more than anything else. He seems convinced that I am engaged in "harassing" or "wikistalking" him because of my edits which added his name to the Temple Lot articles and because I won't give him my legal name on the talk page. He now has begun editing some of my comments on talk pages, which I hope will not develop into a pattern. What do I do if someone does things like this? Should I just ignore it and restore my comments or is this a serious thing that should be reported somewhere? Thanks. Snocrates 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment/review[edit]

There is quite a dust-up in the articles for Joe Klein and Glenn Greenwald. If you are able and willing, would you please review the diffs of the articles? A request has been made on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, but the only people who have posted to it are the (bloodied but unbowed) combatants, er, editors. <br. />--Nbahn (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

dust-up basically resolved<br. />--NOBahn (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

3rd AfD for ViaViente[edit]

Hi Cool Hand, I just logged into Wiki after a month hiatus. I had been very busy with my real life. I apparantly logged in a week too late to address the 3rd AfD. I wanted to let you know that the DMN article was real, as stated in the archive discussion of the AfD by another editor. I just couldnt find a proper link to it. Was it a fluff piece, maybe, but does positive news automatically have to be bad? I am not employed by that company nor am I distributor. Time to time I have taken that product, but again, I am not affilliated with the company. I don't see how a positive mention by the DMN can consider the article an advertisement. I also dont understand your repeated attempts to delete it without modifying it instead. Apparantly people have problems with it being read as spam. I can appreciate that and it may come off like that to someone who does not have a positive image of the company, but shouldnt the wording be changed as opposed to having the entire article deleted? Terry Bradshaw's piece was also aired on his syndicated show he had at the time. That was sourced as well. I just don't get your logic here. Arnabdas (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but there was also the link with the Susan Komen Foundation for Breast Cancer as well as that outside firm teaming up with them stating its business. I would think that earning $36 million a year should be something of notability. Arnabdas (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on the Romney article. You said in a December 1 edit summary: "Remove WP:UNDUE weight given to non-notable great grandparents. Unless and until we are willing to commit a section to fully and fairly explore this issue, it has not place in a BLP." You were right, and now there's a full section.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Screaming Mechanical Brain[edit]

Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I'll post here rather than there as I will not be part of that "discussion". I left en wp a while back because of attitudes exemplified by the other user who posted & swore I would not come back. I merely do what I can to help. If you look around you will rarely see any form of animosity in my postings but I have to draw the line somewhere. I'm posting to you as I do feel that your suggestions are basically worthwhile and should be explored, however not be me.

Thanks you for your approach in this - I understand your frustration and hope I will be able to be more help in the future to you - regards --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You could do it but.... I do think that would be unwise as you are involved in the discussion.
I think the idea of those dealing with the likely pages being responsible for excessive placement is well worth consideration but the request really has been open a very short time.
Local blacklists (& white) have been available on all 700+ wikis since early Summer (I started using them elsewhere immediately). Prior to that the global list on Meta was used (& I have been dealing with that for some time now). </history lesson!>
Involvement of another (balanced) view on the blacklist would be great - passing knowledge of regex is required but little else other than the ability to think (fairly) clearly. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think an RfC is a good idea, but personally, I'd wait 24 hours to issue it. Let people walk a way a for a bit and hopefully leave the attitudes at home when the discussion picks back up. You are the best one to start it as well give your inherent coolness. I'd be willing to certify.--Isotope23 talk 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Heh. Thanks. I think that's a good idea, and it's a good idea for RfC's generally. Nothing's worse than a poorly-considered RfC. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your legistorm efforts[edit]

I have this fantasy that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where likeminded people work together to gather and refine knowledge into articles in a constant upwards ratcheting cycle of improvement for the greater collective good. Then this dream is crushed by incidents as we are dealing with legistorm. It seems that rather than acknowledging that the blacklist was an ill-conceived, hastily-implemented solution to a problem that really didn't exist, the strategy seems to be to stand by the admins, right or wrong, and push off the issue for some indeterminite perios of time, while acknoweledging that there is nothing really wrong with the site. I guess some fantasies were never meant to come true, bu then again, I haven't had much like with my fantasy that involves three blondes, either. Thanks again for your efforts to insert some much needed rationality and common sense in a discussion that seems utterly fruitless. Alansohn (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: History merge category[edit]

My apologies. That shouldn't have been deleted. There was a rather large list of empty categories that I was cleaning out... Probably would be best to mark that page somehow to indicate that it shouldn't be deleted if it's empty. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how fast the categories are deleted... if there's no indication that the category may sometimes be purposefully empty, it has the possibility of getting deleted under WP:CSD#C1. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not possible to determine with certainty... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There isn't one that I know of. Category:History merge for speedy deletion was expanded to make it clearer that it's part of the speedy deletion series. There probably should be some sort of marker, something like Template:Category redirect, which is big and annoying enough that it stops categories from being deleted. However, you're correct that in most cases, if the category becomes filled again, it can quickly be re-made. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

minor suggestion[edit]

Since you appear to be changing your vote to "weak oppose" at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/E2, may I suggest you make this clear by striking out the word "Oppose" at the beginning of your vote and putting "Weak oppose" next to it. Just a suggestion from someone who doesn't necessarily know if there's a right way to do that. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

Have you mention this to SA who has four reversions? Anthon01 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


For sorting out those history merges in spite of the database locks. I notice you said, "You're very good at finding these." - I wish I could take credit but whenever someone copy/pastes an article, User:Coren's bot notices it and reports it as a copyvio at WP:SCV, where I have taken to hanging out. CIreland (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Gardner[edit]

There's around 80 article with links to Frank Gardner as Frank Gardner the racing driver. Is fixing all of those in hand? Or do we start restoring both Frank Gardner pages to what they were now? --Falcadore (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the remaining links in the article namespace. Thanks for your efforts. DH85868993 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC). P.S. Are you familiar with AWB? It makes this kind of thing much easier/faster. DH85868993 (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Asian fetish[edit]

Where in the wikipedia policy does it say that "non-WEIGHTy non sequitur" items can be removed? There are a lot of 2 sentence sections on this page, why weren't they removed? Seeing how you haven't recently updated this page in the past, I am wondering why you didn't talk about your deletion on the talk page before hand? Did you know that more than 1 out every 10 korean in america came here by way of international adoption? Did you know that these adoptees are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then other childrens? I added this information in but somebody said that I needed a reputable source to back up the inclusion of this data on this page. Anybody can see that these adoptees are being objectified which is the basis of asian fetish. the problem with adoption is that people doing the adoption are trying to prevent any negative information from getting out regarding the process. You can see this issue in the edit warring going on the International Adoption and other related pages. Tkguy (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think about as a source? Since you brought the importance of a reputable source I think you should answer why you think is a reputable source. Tkguy (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
We will see how this pans out. btw I provided my side of the story. Tkguy (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Do you know if there's any way to assess the quality of a list? I recently created a list that will likely be fully expanded very shortly. Maser (Talk!) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And allow me to say that I agree with your statements regarding RfA standards. Too often, people oppose because of factors that are very small in what being an administrator is, like edit counts or how many DYK's the guy wrote, or how addicted the editor is to Wikipedia. It shouldn't matter, because the only standard I'll ever REALLY use in the end, is so I trust this candidate. Maser (Talk!) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I mean how to get it assessed. :) Maser (Talk!) 09:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


This comment is unacceptable. See WP:CIVIL. Comment on the content, not the contributers. 09:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I deliberately said what I did. Censure me if you must, it needed saying. Sometimes the pinheads need to be let known that they are pinheads. Wikipedia is not a blog such that they can trash others' userpages to make a WP:POINT, I'm not the one being watched on that article, my edit to the article was not such that I needed to be dragged into his crap. Do what you need to. Chris (クリス) (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Tkguy just threatened me about violating the 3RR rule, which I find rather confusing. Do you always get blocked for violating 3RR? Doesn't every edit virtually "undo the actions of other editors?" Also, I don't know how the reversions are counted. It means I can revert 3 times every 24 hours right? While I did revert 4 times in the past 24 hours (blocked), I also reverted 6 times in the past 48 hours (okay?). What will happen? миражinred 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to edit articles with good intentions and I hope I don't get blocked. миражinred 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks a lot. Counting my reversions is really putting me at an edge. There are so many editors against his edits to the article and still I feel so outnumbered. миражinred 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RE Seth Finkelstein[edit]

You're quite right - I was half-asleep and didn't realise that the DRV was only opened yesterday. Honest mistake. I've reverted myself. WaltonOne 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw you'll have to re-add your endorsement of the deletion - I reverted you in the process of reverting myself. WaltonOne 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging Trolley Square shooting and Sulejman Talović[edit]

Merge is complete.[3] --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian fetish[edit]

Please remove your personal attack on me from the talk page and post an apology otherwise I will start the arbitration process. Tkguy (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine you made your choice. Arbitration it is. I've asked you to resolve this issue but you've just marked the disparaging comments. So you have chosen arbitration. Tkguy (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to remove these comments and post an apology. Seeing how you yourself were aware that this stuff violated WP:CIVIL and yet you proceed to post a few external links to disparage your notion of my beliefs on the Asian fetish talk page. And this is the reason why I can't accept just your marking of the comments with the {{hat|reason}} tag. You had an earlier chance to remove User:Kintetsubuffalo personal attack on me but yet even then you didn't do so. This is the last time I will ask. Either do it or I will submit an arbitration request. Tkguy (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine you made your choice. Arbitration it is. I've asked you to resolve this issue but you've just marked the disparaging comments. So you have chosen arbitration. Tkguy (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3[edit]

Admin mop.PNG

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for clarification on Richard Gorringe RfC[edit]

You commented on Dec 23rd on this talkpage's RfC.[4] I wonder if you would clarify which you response. You commented "Agree with Crum375. The council didn't find what the article claims they found. We're drawing new conclusions, and it's a SYNTH problem." It would be helpful if you quoted the text from the article that you feel doesn't reflect the what the council found. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian fetish - a work in progress[edit]

Hi Cool Hand Luke. The article is literally days away from being unprotected so I wanted you to see my draft at my sandbox. I was wondering if this draft can be used after the article becomes unprotected. Other users provided feedback on the talk page. I hope you would do so, too. Also, if you see anything that should be improved, please feel free to edit it. Thanks. миражinred (speak, my child...) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully the article will become better after it becomes unprotected. миражinred (speak, my child...) 06:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding personal attacks on Asian fetish[edit]

I have issued a request for arbitration case involving you. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Unfettered_Personal_Attacks,_Bullying,_and_Stalking_on_Asian_fetish. Tkguy (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Getrag transmissions[edit]

Hi, I know from your efforts at WP:SPLICE that you're one of the move repairers-in-chief, and I was wondering if you could assist in what I reckon is a small GFDL violation.

Category:Getrag transmissions was created some time in 2005, and existed for about two years. Then, late last year, another user created the duplicate Category:GETRAG transmissions instead of going to WP:CfD to get the original renamed. He depopulated the original category (here, here), and here, and I noticed yesterday that the "empty" original category had since been deleted per WP:CSD#C1.

I asked the deleting admin to restore and merge the cats' histories, as I felt that we were obliged by the GFDL to attribute the category's creation to the original author (User:Sfoskett), but he declined to do so. I wasn't sure if WP:SPLICE covered stuff like this, so I thought I'd come here first and get a more experienced hand with such issues to confirm (or allay) my concerns. --DeLarge (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I put a category redirect in place to ensure it doesn't get deleted again. --DeLarge (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:About history merge[edit]

Thanks for the note, but {{db-redirmisnomer}} is for useless redirects, no? What I wanted to do is to move a page to a proper title when the target page already has a history. Another admin has told me to use {{db-histmerge}} on the target article to get it deleted, to then move the article in the normal way. I did not know If the new title is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, then you can move the page in the normal way. I know it for the next time, but now in these articles the history pages have more than one line, and as you removed the db-histmerge tags, can you move these two articles please:

  1. List of Tehran University people to List of University of Tehran people, per official title University of Tehran
  2. Interior Ministry of Iran to Ministry of Interior (Iran), per official title Ministry of Interior on the official website

-Thanks. Siba (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the articles and the info about the template. I'll use it next time. Cheers. Siba (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was surreal.[edit]

Anyway, I really don't know enough about Mitt Romney to edit. Your arguments sounded good to me. Let me know if you need me to undo any damage I did in reverting to the "stable version." Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian fetish[edit]

I am edit warring? This is once again where the expression the "pot calling the kettle black" comes in. And adding that WP:NOR in the WP:LEAD just because some 3rr blocked person calls Asian fetish a slang? Where's your source for this? Talk pages are not sources. Tkguy (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You come to this article and the first thing you do is start deleting away. You came for a RfC. And you use abuse your admin privileges by merging the page with a User:Saranghae honey's sandbox version of the page that was obviously being used to circumvent community input on a locked article. We were told to come to a consensus but you don't want any of it. either we agree with you or the changes does not go in. You didn't even seek consensus on this merging of the history. Plus you personally attacked me on the Asian fetish talk page. YOu have no credibility. Tkguy (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

delete revision[edit]

I request oversight of personal information of a user on their talk page on their behalf. Someone oversighted the revision, without removing the text, can you fix it? I think you can figure out what needs to be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Please do not bandwagon an ongoing attempt to editwar. 'Outbreak' is the official term and is used in all the references. It is not the same as a cluster. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your work on Mitt Romney[edit]

Whatever our different perspectives in the past, I just wanted to let you know that I think you are a very fine editor and admin and that I admire you for that. Thank you for always keeping a cool head in the midst of discord and for encouraging others to do so as well. Qworty (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Old RfC[edit]

Cool Hand Luke, thank you so much for your input at the RfC. As a result of a heated edit war the talk page became really big in a short amount of time, so I just archived Asian fetish (already on archive13) along with the RfC. I wasn't sure if I could just get rid of the RfC template on my own. What do you do with an old RfC? Should it be put back from the archive? миражinred (speak, my child...) 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Technics (brand)[edit]

Hi. Thanks for repairing my mess up there. Having been notified, I was on my way to do it when I discovered it already underway. I appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ann Coulter talk page[edit]

IMHO you were out of place in deleting Travis Cleveland's stuff while retaining equally soapboxy/hateful stuff in close proximity to it. For example, these are still there:

"It's not that surprising I guess I mean no one ever said she was smart (that's probably why she thinks women shouldn't vote she presumes everyone else is as dumb as her) and most people don't really have time to analyse everything she says since most of what she says is dumb and often wrong and no one really cares."
"You can't be "neutral" about Coulter."
"With all the crazy things she says, any number of them could be listed in the lead..."

Some of us agree with Cleveland that "This entire article reads like a raving liberal rant about her being evil,..." In fact, I would say that any objective reader would agree with that general principle, if not with those exact words.

I have noticed that Andyvphil seems to think of himself as the arbiter of what should be in this article. I hope that others don't take the same attitude about the talk page. Lou Sander (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some insight on who's "mainstream" and who's not.[edit]

I'm a bit surprised by your comment that only and it's "agents" are opposed to illegal naked short selling and seeking to end it.

Here are a few more for you to consider:

...and many, many more.

The extreme irony is, Gary Weiss is just about the only person willing to go on the record in favor of this form of fraudulent stock trading. You didn't know that because his is the only view allowed here on Wikipedia.

I guarantee you, if you're open to learning a little more, you'll be among the many, many Wikipedians scratching their heads over the day-is-night approach to truth that this place has adopted under the influence of Weiss.--Post Doctorate y-o-y (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. I just gave you the names of about 1,200 people who wstrongly disagree with Gary Weiss and his support of fraudulent stock trading. By your logic, if any of them should edit Wikipedia accordingly, they qualify as Wordbomb meatpuppets. What I'm telling you is that Weiss/Samiharris are the black sheep on this topic, yet this place would have the world believe otherwise. And because I've said as much, I suspect I'll be getting banned here soon, too. Nice chatting with you.--Post Doctorate y-o-y (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Luke, I think it is more than a little unseemly to have the talk page of an administrator used as a forum for yet another Weiss-obsessed SPA. Yes, I know, the fact that he walks like WordBomb, talks like WordBomb, and spews like WordBomb, does not in any way, shape or form make him a WordBomb meatpuppet, God forbid! But I would expect better from an administrator in terms of proper use of his or her talk page.--Samiharris (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And with that ↑↑↑↑↑(!) I suppose I rest my case. No...allow me to add one more point. With that, the defense rests. --Post Doctorate y-o-y (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa[edit]

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


The "problem" is that Post Doctoral Y-O-Y is a confirmed sock of indef blocked user WordBomb.[5] The exchange above consist of contributions of a sock of a user evading his block. Are you going to delete them as per policy? Just wondering.--Samiharris (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that it's an SPA, but a blocked user evading a block.

Are you saying you think that blocked users should be continue to allowed to evade their block, as Post Doctoral Y-0-Y did? I thought it was customary to remove posts from blocked or banned users evading their blocks. I am not sure why you are making an exception for WordBomb.

Also I am curious about the edit summary you used here [6]. I have no problem with your blanking his talk page, but I did not ask you to do that or say that I had a "problem" with that particular exchange of posts. In my comment above, I was talking about his exchange with you, where he uses the usual WordBomb innuendo. Why did you delete the exchange I didn't mention while not deleting the one I did mention?--Samiharris (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but the practice of removing edits by indef blocked users applies to all Wiki space, including user pages. User talk space is not exempted. That is why I was curious why you, as an administrator expected to set an example, would let your user page be used as a forum by this blocked user. I understand your explanation, I just don't think it is consistent with standard practice on edits by blocked users.--Samiharris (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the policy on reversion of edits by banned user.[7] WordBomb, as permanently blocked, is "effectively considered to have been banned by the community" under WP:BLOCK. Enforcing bans by removing edits is certainly something that Wikipedians do every day, and in my view your failure to do so is tantamount to giving a platform to a particularly vicious troll.

But more importantly, his post above runs afoul of BLP, which applies to user talk pages as you know, as well as NPA as regards to me. That would have been the case no matter who had posted that stuff, and the fact that it is a blocked user just makes it more conspicuous. No, I do not believe that the contributions of WordBomb can help to "build an encyclopedia" and I am a bit surprised that you do.--Samiharris (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)