User talk:Indubitably/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

→

The lead of Existentialism still convoluted and inaccessible

Despite WP:LEAD and your clear 7 examples the style of existing lead does not meet the WP:LEAD requirement of "a clear, accessible style" nor do the proposals (A) or (B), and my modified (F) proposal has not been agreed upon despite that it meets the requirement and it is a sort of expanded and simplified variation of (A), but it also adds a simple begining consistent with your 7 examples. Would you help, please? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the lead easier to understand the way it is currently. I also find that your version does not flow well by any means and, therefore, would not be a viable alternative to others proposed. لenna vecia 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have conceded defeat. Goodbye. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Yo? Yo. —Ceran^{(sing / see)} (2102 uıןɐd) 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What up, yo? لenna vecia 01:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just came here to spam you <cough, cough> look in the parentheses. —Ceran^{(sing / see)} (2102 uıןɐd) 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! No!! Hahahahaha! I will not vote for her! لenna vecia 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

lol. —Ceran^{(sing / see)} (2102 uıןɐd) 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thanks for protecting September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore which was subjected to excessive vandalism and POV pushing. There are some more pages which is trolled by a banned editor Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier. He continues to evade ban from several IPs in 59.93.34.0/24 and 116.68.99.0/24 ranges. Can you protect the above page and other few related pages for autoconfirmed users for a longer period ? The main reason is that fighting him is taking most of our WP activity these days :( ...

-- Tinu Cherian - 05:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection isn't preventative, which would be the case for the third listed. As for the others, I think blocking is more appropriate. The most recent IPs are now blocked. It seems to be an easy one to spot, so I recommend blocking any vandals from that range on sight as socks of a banned editor. Feel free to post such IPs here and I'll block them. لenna vecia 05:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP range the sock is using is so vast that it is painful reporting one by one everyday ( also we cant block the IP for more than a few hours /days) . Range Blocking hinders other users in the ISP. I feel a longer semi protection is a better solution. Just my thoughts though -- Tinu Cherian - 06:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RFPP at simple

Better late than never. I've protected all three of the pages you requested. Synergy 05:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... oh, the main page templates? Thanks, لenna vecia 05:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with a comment you made

I was doing some house cleaning over at Black pride and came across this comment.

In a word, this commentary to me is extremely disturbing, from an academic perspective.

I understand that you aren't a content-specialist in this area. I'm not either. But some of your statements are quite problematic even from the perspective of someone with an elementary academic background in social studies and the history of race.

E.g.

"One can hold pride in anything without viewing themselves better than anyone else."

This is a very problematic statement because of the phrase "in anything". It's obviously not true. There are things one can hold pride in that necessarily mean that one views oneself as better than someone else. For example, having pride in one's chauvinism.

and

"Saying 'Latinos are hard workers' is not racist."

Ascribing a quality to a racial category solely by means of racial identity is, by definition, racism. Saying "Latinos are hard workers" is racist. Even saying something like, "Immigrants from Latin America have been demographically shown to work longer hours than other demographic groups." is racist because there is an implicit correlation implying causation in the statement. You then go on to opine that direct comparison between races is the only thing that makes racism. This is plainly not the case. Since race is essentially a social construct, ascribing any quality to race without allowances for its nature as a construct is racist because a comparison is automatically implied by definition of "race".

It is fairly concerning to me that an administrator of the world's most popular encyclopedia would be this cavalier in writing about a subject which is the purview of serious academic study. I liken it to an administrator writing something along the lines of, "it is only one's opinion that two plus two equals four." I had a professor in college who liked to say, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion disagrees with the facts." I think that this applies here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but since your opinion seems seriously to diverge from facts, I have to say that the expression of this opinion looks to me like a very poor judgment on your part. For better or worse, you are in a position of power here, and comments like these reflect poorly on your ability to edit the encyclopedia, let alone adjudicate. Assuming good faith, maybe you weren't aware that your statements disagreed with facts. If that's the case, I hope you consider carefully before writing something along those lines again.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's racial stereotyping. Regardless, I'm not going down this path again. I defended nothing, only pointed out the fallacies in the previous poster's statement. I will, however, retract the "anything", because 1/ I had not heard of chauvinistic pride, and 2/ I didn't mean it that literally. I suppose one could have pride in their hatred of Canadians, but I was thinking more mainstream. But you're right. You can have pride in some things that would make you inherently racist. I'll also point out that I didn't opine "that direct comparison between races is the only thing that makes racism". Not even close, and how you pulled that from my statements is not obvious to me. I gave an example. Oh, and 2 + 2 = 5... where the hell did you get 4? Anyway, if you question my adminship, recall me. لenna vecia 13:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your adminship, just pointing out that it might not be a good idea for you to put such commentary at article talk pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this comment extremely disturbing? She said:

"Saying "Latinos are hard workers" is not racist, it's stereotypical."

She is right, and her other points are also correct. AdjustShift (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

She is wrong. Dead wrong. And people supporting this position need to learn that racism happens when you ascribe qualities to a racial group based on their race. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Latinos, far from being a race, are a mixture of different races, Indian, Black and White for the most part. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you, SqueakBox. ScienceApologist, take it somewhere else. I don't have the time or desire to deal with you. Go bother someone who cares. لenna vecia 07:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove

Dear Jennavecia, you are LaraLove! Once upon a time, I was an IP editor. :-) I saw your userpage when I was an IP editor. Your previous name is nice. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm LaraLove? Hmm... that explains why people call me Lara. So, are you saying my new name isn't nice? :O Haha, thanks for stopping by. Welcome to the world of the registered! لenna vecia 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason your username always makes me think of The Mafia, specifically The Jennavecia crime family. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahah... We refer to it as The Bathrobe Cabal. >_> لenna vecia 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabal? What cabal?... I see no cabal. Who are you? Why am I talking to you. I DON'T KNOW YOU!... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have photographic evidence to dispute this. لenna vecia 07:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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

"Generic love template"

So Why has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Nah, not really a generic one that you advise people to avoid. Problem with barnstars is, that you never find one that you can use at a given time for a certain task. So, unfortunately, there is no "you are doing a great job, keep doing it"-barnstar (probably because some people would get too many of them^^).
So this cookie is to be but a feeble replacement for such a barnstar. You keep protecting pages at a lightning speed, no way I can keep up with it. So sorry that I used {{RFPP|ap}} today on one of them, too late realizing that you already started working the page. Enjoy the cookie and keep it up! Greetings, So Why 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

\o/ Thanks! :D لenna vecia 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick msg for BRC

I'm doing good right now, I have court on the 5th of Dec., thanks for all your help and wish me well in court, I might be able to get back on the PC for a second in a few days. Love, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

\o/ CHET!! YAY!!! OMG, you have NO idea how much we have missed you! We have been so worried!! Call me if you are able... though you probably don't have my number anymore with your phone gone... hmm.. e-mail me. لenna vecia 20:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"V" Is for Vagina

Reponse left on my talk page. Y B K 21:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ACC. It's me, it's me!!

Ya rly. It is. لenna vecia 01:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't listed to her!!! SHE'S LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't listed to him, he's lying!! لenna vecia 02:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dammit... >:-( (Wow, that is slightly embarassing...) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Slightly? ;) لenna vecia 18:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured article

Hi Jenna, I saw you were active. Do you know if we can semi-protect Joe Sakic now that it's off the main page? It's been taking a beating from IP vandalism. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's only been vandalized twice in the past three hours, approximately. Now that it's off the main page, vandalism should ease. I'll be on for at least another hour. If it keeps up, I'll protect it. لenna vecia 03:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

cheapbooks

jenna, I do not believe you acted responsibly when you deleted the cheapbooks article. if you do not give a valid, detailed reason with 24 hours, I will have a second user contact you to resolve this. then if still unresolved I will file an abuse complaint against you and the others for your false assertion that my information page is "blatant advertising", which it is not. I don't need wikipedia to advertise my nationally-known brand. ask your friends, surely some of them have heard of it.

Hey there dtiberio - I had a good read of the various deleted copies of this page. Firstly despite your comment it was blatant advertising and secondly I note that in the article you wrote CheapBooks Inc is a New York State S-Corp, founded by David Tiberio. David Tiberio previously has experience working for advertising agencies Grey, DoubleClick (now owned by Google), Interactive Imaginations (now owned by 24/7 Real Media), and Agency.com so in fact your edits are in contravention of our guide on Conflict of Interest editing. I appreciate that may have led you to the belief that lambasting Jenna will help your case but in fact she is only doing her duty as an admin and deleting the reincarnation of what is in fact an advertisement for Cheap Books. To that point, I as another administrator and I believe all others, would have done the same thing if we had beaten Jenna too it. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 06:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry, your argument is not going to work. it is not against wiki policies for a founder to edit a page. how can a page be blatant advertising if it doesn't mention the product or service? it is 99% about the company, and nothing about the product or service. if you cannot defend your actions or jenna's actions then restore my page or I will follow the procedure to have jenn'as actions checked for abuse of power, which is what it was. how dare you say it is an advertisement for cheapbooks. you are just saying that because it is your way of making a statement that you believe is undefendable because any page on wikipedia may be deemed advertising. it is an unfair attack on an informational-only page. again, no mention of products or service. I do not need wikipedia to promote cheapbooks when I spend millions on tv and radio advertising. just because you haven't seen it (maybe you dont have dish network satellite) doesnt mean it isn't worthy of wikipedia. clearly the records indicate that I was not given a just chance to correct anything, and they cited very little to fix except for very general statements. Dtiberio (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just returned to my computer and clicked to the page to move the article to your subpage when I was alerted of new messages. Upon reading this, I have decided to wait until I have more time to gather a detailed response. In the mean time, feel free to file a report, however, your article was clearly an advertisement, and there is also a clear conflict of interest, which is why I linked that policy to you earlier today. Additionally, I'll state that I don't appreciate the pointless threats, particularly considering I opted against blocking you, deciding instead to drop not a warning, but a welcome on your talk page. You have ignored repeated warnings from various editors and admins, yet you feel confident in coming here to make threats to me after I twice deleted an article which was tagged by at least two others. So, in review, there are at least four editors who agree that your article was an advertisement.

As far as your claim that you were not given a chance to make corrections, I extended every opportunity to you, encouraging you to write this article within Wikipedia's standards and even offering to help you should you need it. Unfortunately, I no longer have that desire. You were given several links and advice regarding how to prepare this article. Your choice to ignore those links falls solely on your own shoulders. Furthermore, a simple review of current developed articles on Wikipedia should have indicated to you that your article was not being constructed in a way appropriate for this encyclopedia. So again, any further concerns from you can be expressed on our administrators' noticeboard for incidents or on your talk page, which I will visit tomorrow with a detailed list of how your article failed multiple criteria. For now, I'm off to sleep. لenna vecia 07:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[EC] Dtiberio - please don't belabour your point here this is Jenna's page. Indeed I have told you already that Jenna was only doing her job. If you don't like that take it to this page where someone else has already filed a complaint about you, or file your complaint about what admins have done etc at the correct page. Also no-one is making fun of you but we (that is admins and editors alike) are questioning the suitability of your edits.--VS ^talk 07:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rogue admin

Did someone add the Rougue Admins category to this page recently or is it not related to this complaint??? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

noian, are you trying to avoid talking about specifics by bringing up this rogue admin thing? you are circumventing the fact that you have denied me the right to tell the truth using verifiable sources because you require everyone to have 100% experience writing wiki pages. I can verify sources IF YOU LET ME. your group gave me less than 5 minutes to fix what amounted to a lack of verifiable complaints. you merely cite general policy without verifying the source (the specific material that needs to be changed). the admins acted irresponsibly. don't make fun of me. Dtiberio (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess verifying sources only matters to people who aren't admins. Dtiberio (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

erm, that was a side comment, not related. And on the 100% experience, I don't have 100% experience, and I never denied anything. let me repeat: I AM NOT A ADMIN!!!!! Read WP:IDHT!!! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Noian, a look at the history of this page and my user page would have shown that the category has been there for many, many months... nearly a year ago. لenna vecia 07:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of an image on commons

Could you please help to delete this file Image:F-16-Aircraft of the Royal Saudi Air Force.jpg from commons as it is wrongly captioned and is also a duplicate of another image. Thank you~! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on Commons, but I can ask someone. What's the duplicate image? لenna vecia 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see. I'll see what I can do. لenna vecia 18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

by Howcheng لenna vecia 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You can always bug me for Commons stuff, Lara. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

o.O When have I ever bugged you for Commons stuff? I always bug you for other stuff. >_> لenna vecia 18:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As many "interesting" pictures as there are on Commons, and the fact that we both have digital cameras, I don't see those two as being mutually exclusive... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. <3 لenna vecia 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or do threads on this talk page degenerate into discussions like this more frequently than other places? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak for everyone else, but I know that Lara and I jump straight to inappropriate comments pretty much from the moment we start ~~humping~~talking. I can't remember the last time we had a conversation that didn't have some innuendo in it (and I wouldn't have it any other way; I'm the same way with several of my female friends in real life as well). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an exceptional ability take almost any topic and pull out some sexual innuendo. As for EVula, I'm still waiting to become his third (or is fourth?) internet fiancé. XD لenna vecia 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I only have one internet fiancé (though I do think the official tally is four now). You're my official mistress, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Take that, bitches! Envy me. لenna vecia 21:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Damnit. And I was hoping to be picked for that "job"... ;-) So Why 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

← "Is it just me or do threads on this talk page degenerate more frequently than other places?" I think you may be forgetting someone… Does Lara have Moulton, JeanLatore and a guy who thinks "The customary death for most humans to while being conscious, being completely separated from reality, giving the person in question to do whatever they please." is a coherent sentence on her talkpage? She does not. (Well, not until now.) – iride scent 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

When I made the previous statement, I was noting that conversations on this talk page frequently degenerate into a specific topic. Your talk page degenerates period far more frequently than any talk page I know of, Iridescent. However, your talk page's degeneration very rarely involves innuendo and/or similar topics. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If I swing by Iri's talk page more often, I can increase that ratio. However, I usually leave her talk page feeling stupider than when I got there. I don't know what it is she does, but it somehow attracts a lot of crazies and stupid to her talk page. لenna vecia 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... innuedo?!? How's about this one...

“

Damnit~! It never gets any easier! And each time I'm here, it just makes things harder and harder for me~!

”

PS: How on this earth could they have made such a big mistake of having being able to switch off their IFF whilst in the process to identify the correct nationality of the air forces, even though both Royal Saudi Air Force and the Republic of Singapore Air Force shares the same acronym "RSAF", fact is F-16s were never operated by the Saudis. Geesh! Have a great weekend~! Cheers and thanks again~! --Dave1185 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was like, What the hell is he talking about? And then I was like, Oh, right... this thread started being about airplanes. Right, right. :D I have to work all weekend. It's not going to be the best. :( لenna vecia 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, it doesn't hurt to make it a happy and fulfilling weekend even if you are at work, right? Have fun~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact that I keep clicking here as fast as I can every time I see that an edit was made in a section titled "Deletion of an image on commons". On practically any other talk page, this would be one of the most boring, humdrum things you could image. But here.......

...

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Faster, faster! لenna vecia 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Faster? Mayday mayday mayday... Jenna is outta control, someone has to go in deeper to save her... who will save her? XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually when you say that, you're wearing a... oh, nevermind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh... you know Jenna... she's a magnet for these kind things (looks kind of, I think) and to think this thread started off as a request for deletion of an aircraft image on commons by me, but somehow it just spiraled out of control! You could add something if you'd like to but please... don't quote me! *eeek* Here she comes, we better hide!! XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many jokes can be made about "here she comes," I can't pick just one... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't pick just one... That's what you say to (about) all the ladies. لenna vecia 16:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know we all already know it, but I'll say it anyways: This thread is just so full of win it's awesome. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheapbooks/Dtiberio

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Your work in helping Dtiberio understand what Wikipedia is for, how to use it, and why some of the things the editor has done were Not Good Things is excellent. You have stayed calm...I wanted to bite him/her. I am sure you don't do this for the appreciation of random editors, but... Thank You. sinneed (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Cool barnstar. Thank you. I understand how you're feeling. It helps to just walk away for a while, sleep, do other things, whatever, then come back to it later. Key to remember these things don't have to be dealt with right now. I appreciate the barnstar, note and thanks... oh, and you're welcome. :) لenna vecia 00:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the barnstar... people keep coming up with fun ones, and my spouse and I have several in the real world. On the helping thing: I had made my suggestions and shared my ideas and am done. You sank a great deal more time into it. :) sinneed (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

hugs

*hugs*--Gurch (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

:) *hugs* لenna vecia 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability and our post

Hi Jennavecia - thanks for you speedy response!

Per your request, I'm putting our discussion here on your page. I have to say - I appreciate that you are giving us the opportunity to discuss this further, it's just what I hoped for when posting my question.

In a nutshell, we just want to be treated the same way as others who have similar postings in our category. For example, Adobe Captivate and Camtasia Studio are two product postings from large companies, and we think we should have the same opportunity to post, and not be prevented just because of an assumptiont that since we're small, we're not reliably "notable." After all, isn't that like saying Wikipedia isn't reliably notable, because unlike large corporate encyclopedia publishers, the posts come from individuals?

I'm sure that's not Wikipedia's position, so if possible, could you give us some specific guidance to follow that would make our posting acceptable, on the same terms as those mentioned above?

Here's what we tried to post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DemoMate

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.146.163 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for replying here (and be sure to sign your posts using four tildes, ~~~~). Uhm, Wikipedia's notability is not in question, as it is the eight largest website in the world. So it's not a fair comparison. I took at look at the article. You're comparing your product to those of Adobe and Microsoft. Clearly, those companies are widely known and notable. This product, DemoMate, is from Morse Best Innovation, which doesn't appear to be notable. In order to have an article on either the company or the software, you'll need to establish notability. That would be coverage in the news, magazines, journals, etc. The best advice I can offer is to look over the pages I linked on your talk page. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Also, WP:COI should be read... that one first, actually. The article, as it was written, reads more like an advertisement. It's something I would expect to see in a pamphlet in an electronics store, or hear in an infomercial. However, it's not as bad as a lot of the COI articles I've read, which have a tendency to use exaggerated and editorial type wording. "Innovative" and "state-of-the-art", for example, are popular in COI articles. This one is at least pretty much neutral, but includes some unnecessary info, such as the info about the free 30-day trial, and the external link for downloading it in the body.

As it looks to me, at this point, the article would not survive on Wikipedia. Until notability is established, it doesn't meet our standards. If either the company or the software is covered in reliable, third-party sources, then notability may be established. It just depends on the sources and how much coverage is given. As it is, the only links in the article were to the company's website. Sorry. لenna vecia 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Remember that Cookie I gave you? I want it back. You can keep the message, but the way I presented it, well, I didn't like it. It got me thinking. So, with the situation in mind, I decided to create a new barnstar which can be used exactly for those cases, where you want to honor an admin for their great work but all other barnstars do not apply. And as I created it with aforementioned message to you in mind, I wanted to give the first one to you, to replace that generic "cookie"-thingie. ;-) So Why 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah!! That's so awesome!!! :D Thanks! Work sort of ruined my night, but this just brought a smile to my face. Thank you!! <3 لenna vecia 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to enrich people's days even by the tiniest bit, so I am very happy you liked it. Have a nice day! :-) So Why 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deo Volente

Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. لenna vecia 17:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Joel McHale

Hey pls dont 4get me jennaV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Joel_McHale_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29
Thx! 70.108.91.250 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

Hi
Just FYI, I mentioned a user talk page you protected at WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages since it's one of a great number of indef semi protected user talk pages. I'm explicitly not complaining or reporting, it just happened to be one that I used as an example, since it's in principle against WP:SEMI.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lara, interesting debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Indefinitely_semi-protected_user_talk_pages I've had some pretty nasty vandalism in the past, and whilst I don't want my talk or guestbook protected, would you do me the favour of semi protecting my other user pages such as talk archives? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) لenna vecia 13:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly milady, Ϣere Spiel Chequers 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reform redux

I've recently had a chat with a couple of the contributors, and we think it may be worth revisiting the GA reform proposal put together by the working party during the Summer. Since you contributed to the proposal's development, I was wondering if you'd care to comment? I've left a brief recap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux; your input would be much appreciated. Thank you, EyeSerene^talk 13:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:RPP and other phenomena

Just noticed that my requests were declined. However, I thank you for the advice. While I am a RC patroller, sometimes the difference between vandalism, NPOV vios, and unsourced materials is fuzzy. In addition, I had a rough day here on Wikipedia yesterday and am trying to recover. That is where you folks come in and give me great advice.

Keep up the great work...thanks for all you do. :) Willking1979 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Revert and warn for all of those things. And when it gets to a ridiculous or unmanageable level from multiple users, then report. :) Sorry you had a bad a day... I know how that goes! Let me know if you need anything... I'd be my pleasure to improve your bad days if I'm able. :) لenna vecia 19:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed

"Malleus, I think it should be you who determines when a [GA] reviewer has reached the esteemed level of experienced."

I agree. It should also be me who decides who should and shouldn't be an administrator. Well, no harm in dreaming. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In this dream, wherein you are choosing administrators, do I get to retain my bit? لenna vecia 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In my dream, I delegate the responsibility to you. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I support this proposal! I'd have some cleaning up to do! XD لenna vecia 20:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy frantically starts Huggle, hoping no one notices his writing experience (or lack thereof....) as he reverts mass amounts of vandalism J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this your application for adminship? لenna vecia 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. I guess it could be better termed as my application to remain an administrator in the New World Order™. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think that's a dodgy application for adminship you should hear mine ...... :) Pedro : Chat 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll consider your request. Currently, you beat me to admin actions quite frequently. So I could rack up a higher count were you not working the same tasks as me. I'll let you know. ;) لenna vecia 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, please submit. لenna vecia 22:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I should have teh adminship for the lulz. Sound fair to me. Pedro : Chat 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Explain what type of "lulz" you refer to. Also, who such lulz will affect, i.e. content creators, vandals, Jimbo, etc. لenna vecia 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Awwww, now I have to think about justifying it - I'm not that clever at this time of night (or indeed most of the time!) Pedro : Chat 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Jenna) I would make some comments involving evil laughter, but with you as the liaison of Wikipedia's new god-king, that may not be a good idea. I'll leave you to imagine the specifics. In the meantime, I've got solid homework from here until at least noon tomorrow (EST), so if you want to inflate your logs without competition from me, now would be a good time. :P J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Avicenna

I don't really know how to deal with the situation on Avicenna, I thank you for your revert. I don't want to take out the information about his faith, I just want to keep the dubious tag there until I've completed the research on the topic. The editor keeps taking it out and it is frustrating. If you can help me out I'd appreciate it. --Enzuru 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If it happens again, add a {{subst:uw-vandal4}} and drop me a note if there is yet another bad edit. لenna vecia 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And he's done it again! --Enzuru 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If he does it one more time after that warning I'll tell you. --Enzuru 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And finally, once more. --Enzuru 00:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A long lost vandal came into this issue and reverted me using his famous "ismaili vandal" line, which makes me expect they are the same individual. Please see here. --Enzuru 05:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not online, and I can't block now. It's stale. If I'm not around next time, report to WP:AIV. لenna vecia 05:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Front page

Hello. I came across this and wondered what you thought of it. The color reminded me of your design for the headers:

Count Blofeld 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nice. لenna vecia 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes at the top of your page

Would you like me to set something up so it (semi) randomly picks a quote to display at the top of your page? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but I appreciate the offer. My quotes are really for one person. I change them periodically when the mood strikes me. There have been a few exceptions when the message was wiki-related, but those are few and far between. Either way, the quotes are chosen after careful consideration each time I update. :) لenna vecia 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:BoogieKnight5000

He's requesting unblock. His sole offense, as far as I can tell, is the one incivil edit summary. Is there something else there that justifies an indefinite block? Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. There's nothing here, IMO, that justifies an indef block; a stern warning, sure, but not this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the IP's talk page was deleted as well. I'm not sure if it was to erase a warning or if BoogieKnight left a message, but it might be worth looking into as well, as it could shed some light on this. ^Law_shoot! 08:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He has deleted edits. An attack page if I recall. Let me double check. I may have screwed up. لenna vecia 12:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, guys. :) I've responded there. Law, the only one not an admin here, spotted the reason, even though he can't see it! Hahah. Good job. You should be an admin! It's in his deleted contribs. لenna vecia 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JV. Adminship, from my own !votes, seems stressful. I'll look into it during tax season so I have a distraction :P. I certainly don't want to nominate myself. Thanks for the kind words, but as a tax researcher, I was just doing my job. I didn't mean to answer before you had a chance to, but I figured you were asleep or doing something else. ^Law_shoot! 08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So he responded to an IP's vandalism by badmouthing it. Why the need for an indef block? Where's the warnings or at least incremental blocks? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm an advocate for escalating blocks and warnings, and rarely do I deviate. However, when a user states that he is here to "torment Wikipedians", then I believe it is reasonable to conclude that this user is not here to make constructive edits, particularly when the contribution history supports that conclusion. لenna vecia 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was emailed about this as well, and after reviewing the other evidence it seems the indef block was justified. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll drop it unless the user says something to change my mind. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible non-free

Hey, would you mind taking a look at Image:TheMoneyMan.jpg? Uploader claims he made it by himself, but it looks iffy. It should probably be removed from the article too. GlassCobra 11:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it's a mash of images. It would be good to have some sources. It's possible, I would say, that he's taken free images to make this. But some confirmation with sources would be good. لenna vecia 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. I see Pedro found a source, and it's totally a copyrighted image. I deleted it. لenna vecia 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I forget if you're a Commons admin or not, Lara -- Image:Flyleaf3-1-.jpg is on Commons, but I highly doubt it's non-free, or made by the uploader. Can you or one of the TPS take care of this? GlassCobra 13:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on Commons, but I've nommed it for deletion. Although, their deletion pages don't seem to be getting much attention. لenna vecia 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Keyshia Cole

Pls look @ this again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Keyshia_Cole_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

Thx. Also, did you look @ Joel McHale? It too is being locked by a wikipedia who only wants their version to remain. Wikipedia is a colaboration afterall. Thx. 70.108.91.250 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded there. لenna vecia 05:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Me again, perhaps for the last time

I am fucking furious about Tony1's block earlier today, and the admin cabal's refusal to face up to its dishonesty. I'm also furious that I've been threatened and bullied by admin-kiddies since then because I supported Tony and spoke out against his block.

What is the fucking point in this project? Is it just to give kiddie's something to write on their school applications? "I am an administrator on wikipedia"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another longstanding contributor randomly blocked for "violating the 3RR"? What the heck? Geez, {{subst:uw-3rr}} exists for a reason, as does appending &action=protect on the end of the URL. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard about this earlier today in IRC. I could not, however, find the discussion. Probably on Tony's talk page, but I was heading out. I don't know what to say, dude. I thought about this while I was at work today. I don't think established editors or admins should get completely free passes for violating policies. Leeway, sure thing. I'm of the mind that blocking should come before page protection. When I work WP:RFPP, I'm always one to decline in favor of just blocking problematic editors when possible. But it occurred to me this evening that it's a project page. There's a difference between protecting an article and protecting a policy or guide. No changes (outside of minor cosmetic or semantic fixes) should be made to such pages without consensus. So, in those cases, I think protection should come before blocking. Particularly in cases where the editors warring are prolific contributors. The loss to the project because of their absence is greater than any purpose served by blocking them. Additionally, there is the side-affect of pissing off not only them, but other prolific editors.

In the case linked by J.d, I've never understood blocking established editors for a matter of minutes or hours. One controversial admin, whom I see no point in naming, has a habit of blocking for a few hours. That seems completely pointless, and very much like what I would consider cool down blocks, which are, as we all know, unacceptable. To be real, I think CDBs should be okay, but I digress. Regardless, as it is, there's too much drama in this project. It's out of hand. I can see both sides of the coin. Established users don't listen. They don't believe they can or should be blocked, and they throw caution to the wind and whatever. I've done it; I'm not judging. The problem is, how do we control it? I have no idea.

All that epic insight aside, I just took a few to look over the history of the page in question and I seriously would have never even considered handing out blocks. But, again, that's just me. I would have protected the page until a consensus was reached. Sigh. Don't leave Malleus. I'm bitter, cynical and sarcastic; and I'm tired of seeing those like me leave... either by choice or forcibly. Stay on the project and keep this page on your watchlist. I welcome vents, bitch-fits, and the like here always from most anyone. If there's something else I can do, let me know. لenna vecia 05:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection script

Thanks, I noticed, but you beat me to it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

O, ha. I was dropping you a note as you were dropping me one. :p لenna vecia 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another rough day....

It's been another rough day....IP User:24.18.46.102 claims that Misery (film) had trivia and blanked the sections. Myself and other RC patrollers reversed the changes because the pop culture references seem to be legit. IP user had some harsh words in some of the edit summaries toward me and other RC patrollers. He/she later sent me a message on my talk page. User was subsequently blocked, but later appealed. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The blankings look appropriate to me. I'm looking into it. لenna vecia 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep me posted. I too noticed the unsourcing, but I went along with the other RC patrollers thinking it would be vandalism/3RR based on IP user's behavior.Willking1979 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bukay article, sockpuppets, etc.

Thanks for your note. Roland is correct that the editor in question is one who has been harassing him for two years. Although the socks are all attributed to the account "Runtshit", in fact the earliest one was User:Szamuels, and he even signed one of his first posts:[1] I've been strongly tempted to change the notifications to all point to his earliest account, but I'm not a bot writer.

Regarding your second point, you're correct, Roland is being misleading. It is, indeed, Roland's edits that are a violation of WP:BLP, not those of the idiotic vandal who is trying to remove those BLP violations. If I had the time and energy I'd clean up that mess too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I guess I'll jump in this clean it up. Do you care if the sock pages and cats are just deleted? Do we really need a shrine? :) لenna vecia 03:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on deleting these pages because they a) help document the vandal, including typical IPs used, so that people just becoming aware of the issue can get up to speed and b) they provide a measure of the extent of the problem. When someone creates several hundred vandalizing sockpuppets over the course of two years, it indicates a level of harassment that is most likely actionable, at least in terms of contacting ISPs. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair points. Thanks. :) لenna vecia 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the first named vandal was User:Fumigate some weeks earlier than Szamuels. As well as posting libelous comments on the now-deleted Roland Rance article, he was also posting very similar edits to David Bukay. At the time, User:Dmcdevit noted that the main IP of the many identified socks was 132.74.99.84.[2] It should be noted that this IP, which is on the University of Haifa network[3], is again operating after several blocks. Earlier this week, it posted a further abusive edit,[4] clearly characteristic of Runtshit. By the way, many of the edits from these IDs have been oversighted, so cannot easily be seen. RolandR (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Roland. Thanks for the details. I'm just confused as to why all the socks are being attributed to two barely used socks rather than the original accounts. Regardless, the article needs to be cleaned up. Hopefully you can help me do that. Currently, it contains BLP violations. لenna vecia 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The category was created (by Slim Virgin) some weeks after the plague of vandals started; I believe she used the name of the first vandal identified that day. I agree that it would have made more sense to identify Fumigate as the sockpuppeteer; but it would be disruptive now, two years later, to change this. Since all of these are in any case single-purpose, throwaway accounts, it really makes little difference which fictitious ID they are collectively known as. And, although several people have made the same guess at the identity of the perpetratoe, it has not yet been possible to substantiate this.

I agree with the cleanup. I propose to start by creating an article on the AAHR, which is in any case long overdue. Meanwhile, I trust that, in addition to hiding the existing insufficiently cited section, you will also remove any further racist suggestion that all of Bukay's critics are Arabs and liars. RolandR (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any additions need to be sourced. I took both versions recently in the article and attempted to write a neutral section this morning, however, I couldn't find sources... at least none that I felt were reliable and unbiased. There was the NGO Monitor, but it did not appear to be a neutral source. لenna vecia 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard response to someone threatening suicide here is 'Don't leave a mess'.

If they want to die, that's their prerogitive. Any time someone says 'Oh, I'm gonna kill myself' you jump through hoops. I don't. HalfShadow 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I? How ignorant you are. DIAF. لenna vecia 04:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Halfshadow, you are going out of your way to jump through hoops to push your prerogative. That's called hypocrasy. If you honestly don't care, don't even respond. Dude. Keeper ǀ 76 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that 'standard response' some part of policy that I haven't seen? ^Law_shoot! 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The second you post on my talk page, I have the right to respond. Oh, and 'Die in a fire'? That's a personal attack. HalfShadow 04:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And her prerogative, according to your politics, to wish upon you. There ya go. Keeper ǀ 76 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn skippy, champ. Don't like it? Too damn bad. Watch your mouth, lest you get back what you give. لenna vecia 04:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure JV meant to die in a fire of puppy dogs and cotton candy. We should all be so lucky. ^Law_shoot! 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, and I'm pretty sure Keeper meant that he should stfu when it comes to his opinion about the user threatening suicide, as opposed to not responding to my opinion of him. لenna vecia 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LEAVE LARA ALONE. YOU BASTARDS! SHE'S A HUMAN! ALL YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT IS MAKING MONEY OFF OF HER! LEAVE LARA ALONE!!!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG, hahaha, that guy! Hahahaha. I was watching some of his vids the other day... fucking insanity. He did look damn good all dolled up in his blog ad... still crazy, tho. لenna vecia 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you watchlist this page

User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations - People will think you are psychic, because it points to every hot zone on the wiki. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, okay. Noted. Thanks. :P لenna vecia 18:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dutch empire

Thank you for telling me about the rule. I really do was a bit confused about what to do because I was only trying to help out whith the article, and honestly it was a bit hard to read and understand the begining of it. Warrington (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also left a message on the talk page of the editor that undid your work. Let me know if you need help with anything. لenna vecia 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You were wery kind. Weird enough you made exactly the same edit I did = Dutch Empire consisted of the territories controlled by... wich The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick disgreed with. That does not even make sense., was his opinion (or comment on my talk page). So I reverted that one to its original 'shape'... and hoped that he will leave the rest alone. Have a nice Friday Warrington (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Actually, your version was Dutch Empire consisted by territories controlled of... which didn't really make sense, but it seemed clear what your intentions were and extremely quick and easy to fix. Hopefully there are no other issues now. Enjoy your weekend. لenna vecia 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For an Excellent Administrator Warrington (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope Barnstars are not prohibited on your page :) Warrington (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no, they're not prohibited! I appreciate pretty much anything that is customized in some way, as with a personal message as you have here. :) Thank you. I'll look into the edits below. لenna vecia 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully there are no other issues now.

No, not really. I was just about to correct "wich" to which (misspelling) when I discovered that he made some changes, good changes as well, but I do not understand why he has to remove historically correct information which would help to understand the Duch history better, like this edit [5] and this edit [6]. It is really not helpful in any way removing those parts. (except that he may like the article like it was before) Warrington (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the lead should be a brief summary of the article. So generalities and such. Going into too much detail weighs down the section, which is what we don't want. We want people to have questions when they read the lead section, to encourage them to read the entire article. If you continue to have disagreements about what should or shouldn't be included in the article, initiate discussion on the talk page and invite him to contribute there. Let me know if you encounter additional hiccups or need any help. لenna vecia 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that a hint of mystery is good in the lead, but edit nr 5 removal is not from the lead but the next section and the part is still quite mysterious when it should explain things. Warrington (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up on the talk page. لenna vecia 04:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: User talk:24.72.1.33

Thank you for the message on my talk page. While my intention was to block 24.72.1.33 (talk · contribs · block log) for one hour more than the IP's previous block, it appears that I used days instead of hours. How embarrassing! Accordingly I have decreased the IP's block by 1288 hours and also updated the block notice on the talk page. Thanks for catching my Wrath of Khan moment and especially for letting me know about the mistake! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, no prob. I noticed the block time seemed odd, but I was more concerned about the fact that the block came after a warning that was 16 days old, and I'm still confused about that. لenna vecia 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)