User talk:Naerii/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Another old helpme[edit]

{{helpme}} What do I do if I come across an article that references a webpage that doesn't exist? Kamryn Matika 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

remove it or replace it with one that works..Cheers..----Cometstyles 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Old helpme[edit]

Am I allowed to use my user page to store a few links that I want to use to expand on an article I'm working on? I'm going to go to bed soon and I will probably carry on editing but from another computer tomorrow and it would be easier if I could just store them someplace gettable at online, but I don't want to be seen as a spammer or advertiser or anything. KamrynMatika 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In fact that is a common use of the user pages. Knock yourself out. :)
NerwenGreen 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's great, thanks a lot :) KamrynMatika 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Why do you only make edits to this RHCP album, how about instead changing everything to how you see fit, you change it to help it match the content in all of the other RHCP album pages.

And what is your reason for deleting all of the individual song pages? Couldn't you have talked about in the talk page first before talking apon yourself to do that. All of those pages were in their first stages still, they weren't perfect, they weren't done, unless you give me a good reason I'm going to revert all of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiTfan3 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

RE: Bad album articles

Personally, I don't think the other articles are bad, and that's not what I was getting at. What I was getting at is why don't you make them all match instead of putting certain information on one page that could be put on the other 8? -MiTfan3

personal notes

And I'm not trying to get personal about this, so don't be so hostile about it.

And when you sign on talk pages, dont put the space in your name, it redirects to a blank page.

Right on Time and Savior[edit]

First off, it wasn't me who reverted the Savior page, so don't accuse me of that. But it was me who reverted the Right on Time page because there is sufficient enough information mentioned on that page, not mentioned on the Californication (album) page, to leave it alone. And don't say I've ignored your comments about policy, I left all of the other pages redirected except for Right on Time, like I said, I didn't revert Savior. - MiTfan3

You still haven't provided any sources for Right on Time. Kamryn Matika 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


How about suggesting a different red then? I think a red color in the Red Hot Chili Peppers box would be appropriate... - Bagel7What ya say, what ya say, what ya say, what??? 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly important, just that the bright red was garish and ugly. Kamryn Matika 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


I've been quite busy lately and haven't had time to really update the WikiProject. I'd really love to thank you so much for the awesome additions and for raising Californication to GA status. Hope to collaborate with you in the near future, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 2[edit]

The Second Red Hot Chili Peppers Newsletter has been published. Some interesting things have happened in the Wikipedia world of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, so please take the time to read and review any information. Thanks for being apart of the team! Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 03:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RHCP Collaboration:[edit]

It's quite fine. I was just setting a ballpark date. I didn't even realize it was up and ready-to-go yet. Thanks, though. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[edit]

i answer here:

Woah, woah, woah[edit]

Wait, I think this article is still important separately as one of the Red Hot Chili Pepper's hits. Furthermore, I think you're opening up a whole new can of worms by redirecting one of their hits. - Bagel7What ya say, what ya say, what ya say, what??? 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I thought that Catholic School Girls Rule was a non-single. My bad. However, I'm loath to restore it without any sources whatsoever... if you want to restore it though, I won't stand in your way :) Kamryn Matika 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: :/[edit]

In reply to this message:

Yes, it is a duplicate. The link to the All Music Guide entry for the Californication album already exists in the professional reviews section of the infobox. Note that a majority of all album articles contain a link to All Music Guide in the professional reviews section, but almost no album articles contain one in the external links section. I think that is very reasonable in general, and see no reason for it to be different for this album. --PEJL 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I was just going by featured articles Surfer Rosa and Doolittle (album), both of which have a link to All Music Guide in their external links. Kamryn Matika 21:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. I don't think those are needed either, and will remove them. Instead, external links to the albums at other music databases, such as MusicBrainz (see Template:MusicBrainz release), would be more useful. --PEJL 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've brought this to WT:ALBUM#Duplicate links to All Music Guide. Please follow up there if you have additional comments. --PEJL 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I'll be going on a break for a few weeks (at most), so I trust you'll keep the WikiProject in great shape while I'm gone. Thanks for being a model Wikipedian. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 23:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Will the Article counter you recently added update automatically? Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This Saturday I'm going to begin working on By the Way. I'd enjoy your help and collaboration. It would be nice to get the article promoted to GA status. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Taste the Pain
Arik Marshall
Porcelain (song)
Funky Monks
What Is This?
Maybe (The Chantels)
Suck My Kiss
Jesse Tobias
Stéphane Sednaoui
Knock Me Down
The Mansion
Seaton, Victoria
Resolve (song)
Tobacco advertising
Love Rollercoaster
Chain Reaction (band)
West (cigarette)
Lotus Kids
Psychedelic Sexfunk Live from Heaven
Party All the Time
The Pinkheart Sessions
George Clinton (funk musician)
Echo Side
Add Sources
Californication (song)
Dynasty Warriors
Oakley Haldeman
Stephan Pastis
American rock
Ryukyuan songs
Urban culture
Dora the Explorer

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative music WikiProject newsletter[edit]

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 2 - May 2007
"I will most certainly not be wearing black and lipstick in 2011. That’s a guarantee." - Robert Smith
Project news
New members

Burnedthru, TommyStardust, Grovermj, KamrynMatika, Merzbow and Cbing01 all joined the alternative music fold during May.



To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Delivered by CloudNine 11:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By the Way[edit]

After my rewrite, By the Way has been promoted to Good Article status. I'd like to expand it some more. If you could take a minute or two to read it over and we'll find the most appropriate subjects to incorporate into the prose. After Californication's peer review is complete, I'll request one for By the Way. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I do not understand those two, explain them to me simply without confusing words. Also, I think we're going to see what other people think, according to the other dude I was talking to. Xihix 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I agree that we've both done some great work on getting WP:RHCP a good GA list. I'm going to look over Californication this weekend. Next week I have exams, so I won't be on too much, but we should certainly discuss Cali's FA possibility sometime soon. Best wishes, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

user page[edit]

nah, it's just a joke. Is that stuff not allowed here at Wikipedia or something? >_> Xihix 15:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry my humor isn't the same as yours. Xihix 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Xihix RFC[edit]

You may be interested in viewing the request for comment on User:Xihix and perhaps certifying the basis for the dispute. CloudNine 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we wait for others to get involved (I've left messages at other talk pages), and a third party will then come along and arbitrate as such. CloudNine 08:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Kamryn, thanks for your note of support at my RfA. Cheers. Shyamal 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

By the Way[edit]

If possible, could you aid me in adding some general information to By the Way, such as Release info and other background knowledge? Thanks, NSR77 (Talk) 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an exam tomorrow but I'll try to look at it in the evening or over the weekend :) Kamryn Matika 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Cheers! NSR77 TC 15:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

u2 wikiproject[edit]

thanks for letting me use the template. i am only new to this so i need to "borrow" peoples stuff. i know everything is free but i will give u credit if you want. and even if u cant stand u2, i will always be a rhcp fan! smithcool 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

there is a problem with the template. where i have the section "templates" i want it on the bottom but it is in the right hand coloum. if you have a change do u mind fixing it. thanks. smithcool 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers June 2007 Newsletter[edit]

Chilli pepper 4.svg
The Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, no. 3 — June 2007
"When I joined the Chili Peppers Anthony and Flea could have said 'Listed, we're the whole thing, and you're just here to play guitar', ya know, but we would have never made a record like Blood Sugar or Californication had they said that to me, ya know; instead what they said was 'You're equal to're ideas are no less important than ours are'." - John Frusciante
News and Announcements
New members

Since our last newsletter was sent in late May, several new contributors have joined the project: Bdifjb, stswil, Kaitonkid, G1ggy , MagnoliaPenn and Smithcool.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or want to receive it in a different form, please contact the publishers. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC) .


Can't really see why not, either. I added some extensive background and the Tour info last night. NSR77 TC 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, good work... the article is pretty comprehensive now, I can't think of any more aspects of the album that we've missed. Kamryn Matika 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I was willing to work on the article, no matter the amount of work. Thanks for the kind words, though. Regards, NSR77 TC 01:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A message about links[edit]

Please see here. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Naerii (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

An ArbCom ruling from eight months ago is not policy. The ruling was made with regards to Encyclopedia Dramatica, and in no way could they have predicted what would happen in the Essjay controversy. This is a completely different issue and situation, as the link is informative and a reader of the article would in most instances be likely to be interested in it. Really, I can't believe we're letting personal grudges get in the way of our encyclopedic integrity and stop us from following our mission statement (i.e. to provide a free resource of knowledge) and give a non-comprehensive view of a topic. The blocking was almost certainly unjustified, as the ruling doesn't even define what an 'attack site' is, and the link I reverted to doesn't actually contain an attack. Kamryn Matika 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been warned by an admin not to link to an attack site. You can discuss on the Talk page if you disagree, but to link despite an admin warning is unacceptable behavior. — Crum375 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Oh well if an admin says so. Kamryn Matika 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A nice pincer movement there. Why not take a look at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks while you're sitting on the naughty step. - Nigosh 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, 'the naughty step'. Not sure what happens now. If I re-add the link once my block expires do I get indefinitely blocked? Kamryn Matika 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This essay might be interesting reading too. *Dan T.* 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen and read both, and I vaguely agree, although I don't care much if such links are removed from non-mainspace. Kamryn Matika 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry, I've had to block you. I left a message on your IP talk page, warning you that you'd be blocked, and linking to the ArbCom ruling that stated that "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." It also stated that users could be blocked for continuing to post those links, and that removals of such links were not subject to 3RR. In case you hadn't seen my message after logging on, I left a message for you here as well, alerting you to the message on the other page. Nevertheless, you went ahead and reposted that link. If you agree not to continue to post links to sites that harass Wikipedians (you don't need to say that you agree with the ruling, just that you're prepared to follow it), I'm happy to unblock you immediately. ElinorD (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to agree to that, as the link in question does not contain any attacks or 'outings' of users. I actually signed up to Wikipedia Review the other day, as the public forums didn't contain any outings that I could see for myself, and even in the private forums I couldn't find any information that hadn't already been published elsewhere. Why on earth would I follow rules that I don't agree with? Especially rules that were formed as part of an ArbCom ruling that had no idea what would happen a few months later. I don't really care if we're not allowed to link to WR in other namespaces, but when this idiocy spills over into the mainspace the only purpose it will serve is to make us look like spiteful navel-gazers to the general public. Will the average reader of Essjay controversy care if WR 'outs' editors? I doubt it (and in my opinion, it doesn't anyway). Will they be interested in finding out how the revelations began? I think so. So I'll wait out my 24 hours, thank you, and the very first thing I will be doing when it expires is submitting a request for clarification to the Arbitration committee on this matter. Kamryn Matika 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb[edit]


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence at Charlotte's RfAr[edit]

Kamryn, as has been discussed extensively, there is no need to post links to sites that harass Wikipedians, as such links, if necessary as evidence, can be emailed privately to the Arbitration Committee. I have removed the link. As you do not have email enabled, I shall send it to the Arbitration Committee myself. Do not post it again. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that for any reason should not be posted on-wiki can be e-mailed to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or arbitration clerk for forwarding to the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed the link to the ArbCom. I suggest if you have other such links that you feel should be submitted as evidence that you enable your e-mail preferences. ElinorD (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad, it didn't actually occur to me. Not sure why email wasn't enabled, but it is now :) Kamryn Matika 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You will want to take a look at Fred Bauder's additional comment in the thread on WP:RfAr, if you haven't already seen it. Newyorkbrad 10:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't quit now...[edit]

I hope your blanking of your user and talk pages doesn't mean you're permanently quitting in disgust. We need people like you around here! *Dan T.* 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Couldn't put it any better meself. Nigosh 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain that's true. Either way, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or the patience to get involved with all this stuff. I just wanted to improve Wikipedia, and hopefully some my efforts have helped with that, however much some people on the mailing list thinks my opinions are inconsequential from a lack of it :) Good luck with your efforts, though and I wish you the best. 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I came here to express the same sentiments as does Dan (although, of course, at much greater length and much less clearly or cogently than he), but inasmuch as it appears unlikely that you'll return in the near future, I'll simply say that the quality of your contributions to project space has not gone unnoticed and that I, for one, commend you for the fashion in which you conducted yourself in policy discussions. Cheers, Joe 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's really quite important that you stay on Wikipedia, considering you are invaluable to various places on this Encyclopedia. I think you should stay out of WP:RfAr for a while, as it seems those heated debates continue to force you to leave. There's still much more work to be done here; I implore you to stay. Best wishes for the future, NSR77 TC 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Do you actually consider yourself a "party" in this case? You opened it, but were not involved in the dispute. You seem to be consistently posting in the "Comments by others" section at the workshop, but you are listed as a party on Involved parties. SalaSkan 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, someone else added me to that section, because I initiated the arbitration case. 21:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Californication (album)[edit]

Congratulations on Californication (album) passing! Great work; hopefully you'll be interested in writing more high-quality articles. A good tip; if you're feeling stressed out, stick to article-writing :) CloudNine 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of dissappointed actually. Looking back, it could have been written better. Even in the lead: "The album's subject material incorporated various sexual innuendos, albeit common with the band, but lyrically introduced feelings of lust, death, contemplations of suicide, and drugs... With his return, Frusciante was credited with changing the the band's style altogether, resulting in a radically different recording than what was produced with Navarro."
I don't know who the hell changed the lead, but it is terrible now. 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the lead's been improved now, thanks to WesleyDodds. It's a shame you're no longer an active editor though.. CloudNine 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists newsletter[edit]

WikiProject Alternative music July 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 4 - July 2007
"Thurston Moore? Is that your real name? I mean, give me a break. You made that up. That's a good one. Did you have a mom and shit like that?" - Gibby Haynes
Project news
New members

Killereditors, Xihix, M2Ys4U and Lostvalley joined the alternative music fold during July.


User:CloudNine, User:WesleyDodds

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC) .

WikiProject Alternative music August 2007 Newsletter[edit]

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 5 - August 2007
"The amount of time it took to get Morrissey onstage was getting longer and longer. There was this great game he'd play of wanting to be asked 15 times if it had been 14 the night before. Johnny was like, 'Let's rock!' and Mozzer would be 'Well, somebody's gotta ask me another seven times.'" - Andy Rourke
Project news
New members

Freaky4jesus32, Razorblade666, and Grim-Gym joined the alternative music fold during August.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 00:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) .

Please don't edit this archive. If you wish to revive a conversation, please drop me a line on my talk page.

By the Way[edit]

I think we can do it (if we did Californication) :). Yes, there was a major tour for By the Way, including three nights at the legendary Hyde Park, London, making that event the highest grossing concert at a single venue in history, with over 280,000 tickets sold. They released Live in Hyde Park, as their first and, currently, only live album. Also there was one at Slane Castle (a DVD was released). The only downside to the information aspect is that Scar Tissue ends a little before the release of By the Way, so the tour information will have to be found elsewhere. Otherwise, I'm really glad to see you decided to come back. NSR77 TC 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

KM I really want to extend my hopes that you'll decide to once again stay. Your efforts, like it or not, have become significant in the Wikipedia community and you yourself are an awesome writer and contributor. While much of life is indeed corrupt, you should just let it all go and take a step forward. I have no idea what keeps getting you fired up, but when you stuck to article writing you were having a good time here. Please, take a Wikibreak, but come back. Best wishes, NSR77 TC 11:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And I wholeheartedly agree. I strongly oppose that RFA. NSR77 TC 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

By the Way's FAC. Hopefully another RHCP Featured Article will get you to stay...=\ NSR77 TC 04:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

YAY! Miranda 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kamryn, you shouldn't leave because people don't share the same concerns as you. Or, are making your oppose look too critical. I have been in your shoes on numerous RFAs. You shouldn't leave because you are a valued contributor to the project. Take a wikibreak and come back, please? Miranda 06:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that it is absolutely nothing to do with RFA.
Okay, feel free to e-mail me to talk. Miranda 07:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

Kamryn, I want to thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which closed successfully. You and I don't necessarily agree on a couple of things, but I think you should know that I valued your comments and will certainly do my best to live up to the trust that the community has placed in me. I want you to feel free to come to me with any suggestions you have, and want you to know that I will always - always - pay attention to what you say. It's not easy to be the sole dissenting voice in any discussion, and I respect that you did it. - Philippe | Talk 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Californication charts[edit]

Hi there. Regarding this change, I don't think it is an improvement. The previous version was much more consistent, in that it had consistent column widths, and had only country names on the first line. I personally don't mind the line breaks, but if you feel it necessary to get rid of some of them, a better way to do that would be to increase the width of all columns to say 6em. In the meantime I've reverted your change. Have a nice day, and welcome back. --PEJL 09:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

PDAs and such are a very good concern. In my experience the major problem with most browsers on such smaller screens (excluding the iPhone) is the limited screen width, and the need for horizontal scrolling. Like on desktop browsers, vertical scrolling is completely accepted, while horizontal scrolling is disliked. So that is a reason to keep the columns narrow. Ideally it would be enough to just set a column width and not have to use any line breaks, but they are needed to hyphenate long words such as "Mainstream", and to fine-tune the line wrapping to make it for example "UK(break)Top 40" as opposed to "UK Top(break)40". (As for <br> vs <br />, see here and search for "As for the XHTML argument" if you want to know why I think using <br> is acceptable.) Moving the charts seems like a very good idea, both because it makes the tables neater, and because it separates the references into a separate section. It can be improved further by including more information about those references, which I note the previous version did. Couldn't {{cite}} be used in that section as well? --PEJL 10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your return[edit]

Good. It's great to hear that you decided to come back, because you're truly a great writer and all around nice person. To tell you the truth, I'm not here to prove myself to anyone, just to expand articles related to the Chili Peppers. Drop me a line whenever you need to talk. Regards, NSR77 TC 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, I guess. ;) I'd love any help and or additions you can give to it. I rewrote the article in one day, so some of if it (even I noticed) is a bit drifty, but Kiedis wrote quite a bit more in-depth about Blood Sugar than any other album, so there was a lot to add. Also, to prove or disprove my guesses, are you female? NSR77 TC 12:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, well Camryn is a boy's name in the US, so I was kind of unsure. But I'll fix most of the stuff shortly. The computer can be an escape from real life, as I generally go out every night and edit during the day. I also wanted to tell you how clear those pictures of your town are! They're vivid, to say the least. NSR77 TC 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, what are you planning on working on in the near future? I see Costello Music is something you have your eyes on. I myself have been torn between John Frusciante and Blood Sugar as to what my next major project should be. Either way, I'd be tremendously appreciative for your help with any aspect on either article. Regards, NSR77 TC 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm honored that you consider me to be ready for an RFA, but I know, without a doubt, that it would be extremely unsuccessful. Therefore, there's really no need to waste the community's time with my pitiful RFA that is sure to fail. NSR77 TC 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I'll try to get nimrod. to FA status, I like the album a lot. Though, I'm probably going to have to watch some documentaries and find various information before, as I'm not much of an expert on nimrod. as much as I was with Dookie. And thanks, I have toned down the language since before ;) Xihix 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Draco and the Malfoys[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to GA review Draco and the Malfoys. The points you made will help when I and others work on it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers July 2007 Newsletter[edit]

Chilli pepper 4.svg
The Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, no. 4 — July 2007
"It was the most horrible show ever. Every single note, every single word, hurt, knowing that we were no longer a band. I kept looking over at John and seeing this dead statue of disdain...that night, John disappeared from the topsy-turvy world of the Red Hot Chili Peppers."Anthony Kiedis
News and Announcements
New members

Since our last newsletter was sent in late May, several new contributors have joined the project: Grim-Gym, Smithcool, Geelcat, Pianoman7692, Skeeker, and Saget53.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or want to receive it in a different form, please contact the publishers. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC) .

Re: Hibiki's Magic[edit]

I have done as you requested. Would you mind looking over the article again?-- 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done ;) Kamryn · Talk 21:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Why'd I get a barnstar? --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, why did you quote me? --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Just put my username next to the quote, OK? --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No trouble, but it would make sense to put my username next to my qoute. :) --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

One other question: What were you thinking?

"I think I love you."

I'm serious! What were you thinking?!?--Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, but OK. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 21:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I delete the barnstar? I don't deserve it...--Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
One last thing...should I delete your message? If you're not comfortable with it, it'll be no trouble. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good night, then (or whatever time it is for you) --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers August 2007 Newsletter[edit]

Chilli pepper 4.svg
The Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, no. 5 — August 2007
"Well, I don't even know how to drive in this life, so I'm pretty far from ever having the life of being a stuntdouble. I had an Evil Knievel doll when I was a kid, that's about it!"John Frusciante
News and Announcements
New members

Since our last newsletter was sent in August, several new contributors have joined the project: MDowdal and Famguy3.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or want to receive it in a different form, please contact the publishers. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 03:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC) .


Please stay! Don't go! WE WILL HELP YOU!!! --The Wiki Loner (Talk to me!!) 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry to see you go. I agree with most of your comments on your user page, and appreciate that you spoke out. --Iamunknown 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers September 2007 Newsletter[edit]

Chilli pepper 4.svg
The Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, no. 6 — September 2007
"John was just up there like he didn't give a fuck about anything. You can't be in a band and not care. It's gunna show. And it did. A lot of the shows were terrible."Chad Smith
News and Announcements
New members

No new members have joined the project.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or want to receive it in a different form, please contact the publishers. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Xihix 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) .

User page[edit]

I have nominated your user page for deletion, see here. User:Veesicle 19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree[edit]

I'd just like to say that your userpage seems very accurate. Sorry about you leaving and all...--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I've just approved your registration at the WikBack and look forward to your posts. If you did not register (or have no idea what this is about), please contact me immediately as someone may have impersonated you. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers January 2008 Newsletter[edit]

Chilli pepper 4.svg
The Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, no. 1 — January 2008
"I remember I was taking a piss at a party once in this multi-urinal stall bathroom, and this guy was pissing next to me and he looks over at me pissing and starts singing 'Under the Bridge' in some twisted key and I though 'Okay. We've definitely made it now; a drunken guy is singing out of key one of our songs next to me in the urinal." - Anthony Kiedis
News and Announcements
New members

Since our last newsletter was sent in October, several new contributors have joined the project: Jack, Pifko87, Dihydrogen Monoxide and Kasperkohler.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or want to receive it in a different form, please contact the publishers. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC) .

Speedy deletion of Image:Jon fratelli.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Jon fratelli.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Jon fratelli.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Naerii! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Addhoc (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Re: Bored (Asteroids)[edit]

I have been creating a few stubs, but I wanted to make sure I was creating them properly before doing so en masse. See Special:Contributions/Cobi. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Wow, it is really ironic that I had an error on the same type of page. However, I was unaware of the correct spelling of asteroid, which I now know. On the other hand, Cobi's mistake of "Septemberember" was much more obvious. You'll notice that I did change my !vote at his RFA to reflect my commending of his work in that area. I am now aware of the difficult and tedious nature of what he was doing. Anyway, thanks for the information on the correct spelling. P.S. - Nobody ever writes on your talk page? Useight (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Well, that explains why there aren't any comments here. You don't have to archive the comments, but that's what most editors do. Useight (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD Nomination skipped[edit]

You skipped 101-200, 401-500, 501-600. Since you've already speedy deleted the rest of them, do you mind completing the collection? Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything (I'm not an admin), but I'll tag them for you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


it's not a copyright violation, it's a short preview allowed by wikipedia for demonstrative use. -- (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

the fact that it was taken down my amazon shows that it shouldn't have been released yet. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Advice needed[edit]

I'd say block as vandalism only account. The good contributions appear to be coming at different times to the "bad ones" - so maybe the account is shared? Either way, I'd block. Try asking another admin or go to irc and ask someone else. If you don't know how to connect to irc, see User:Rudget/irc. Rudget. 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedians and WP:AC[edit]

Hi. You just nominated WP:AC for deletion. I have speedily closed this as disruptive and absurd. You also moved WP:Wikipedians to WP:Mob rule. I have reverted this. Please stop being disruptive. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavia Immer is right[edit]

[1] Frustration is fine, but taking such actions in the heat of the moment isn't the best way to make your point. Take your time and think carefully about what the alternatives are before suggesting that the committee be "deleted." It handles a lot of cases that are just too wearying or divisive for the community to take care of; what alternatives to you have to suggest for those kinds of cases? Risker (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Community decisions, but as in the eyes of supposedly respected admins the community is a lynch mob, we're clearly unfit to decide for ourselves. Pathetic. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, Doc Glasgow is not on the Arbcom, and he is one voice amongst many. That discussion has just begun, and will go on for some time now. More editors and admins who agree with your position are logging in and concurring with the community ban proposal. Please try taking a somewhat longer view here; instead of over-the-top reactions, pull together the best arguments on why the community ban is a good idea. Risker (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Just out of interest, what is your purpose here? You've been here just a few days and you seem completely dissatisfied and some would argue you are participating in disruptive editing with your nomination of ArbCom for MfD and moving Wikipedia:Wikipedians to mob rule. They were very pointy edits and I suggest you stay away from that sort of thing in the future. I'm going to be blunt - If you're this unhappy here already, Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Just out of interest, what's the name of your other account? You clearly aren't new here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send this to AIV. Glad someone's noticed this. Equazcion /C 18:07, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
User seems to be making lots of XfD votes that "agree with the mob", probably to make the point that Wikipedia is under mob rule. Equazcion /C 18:10, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Have you even looked at my user page? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I have. Fail to see the relevance. Equazcion /C 18:17, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to Ryan. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Equazcion /C 18:19, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ah right, thanks for that - I hadn't checked your userpage. Still, that only strengthens my opinion that you should re-evaluate how you want to contribute here, because you are clearly not happy with things. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that I'm here to write articles, but it's pretty hard to ignore when the people meant to be taking care of the encyclopedia completely fail to do so in a most spectacular manner. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, it might be a very good idea for you to stay out of meta-discussion and stick to articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And I thought I was the only one who had a problem with him... hmmmm--Niro87 (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol, is this about the copyvio thing? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Free Advice[edit]

I noticed you have added the exact same comment to several AfDs. You should leave a custom summary for eack AfD. Otherwise, it seems as though you did not actually look at the article. J.delanoygabsadds 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the reasons that Naerii gives in the AfDs are short, but are certainly policy based reasons which is better than most.... Ryan Postlethwaite 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I open tabs for the things that I think should be deleted as I go through the list of AfDs. I don't bother writing long explanations as most of the time it's self evident and I don't feel like repeating what has already been said. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your account's editing privileges have been revoked[edit]

It has become clear that your contributions to Wikipedia are not for the betterment of the project, and that your presence here is having a net negative effect on the community as a whole. Your recent filing of an MfD discussion on the Arbitration Committee, your disruptive communications with fellow editors, and a general "chip on your solider" attitude are conclusive proof of this.

Further to your disruptive contributions, I have blocked you indefinitely. AGK § 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef is a bit harsh don't you think? Seems like a temp cool-off period is all that's needed. Equazcion /C 18:29, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Really? Other than my past actions in the twenty minutes or so - which of my edits do you feel show my "chip on my shoulder" attitude? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, which part of half a featured article, writing half a good article, uploading images I took and images from Flickr, helping other people improve articles, creating FAQs, creating articles, and spending hours reverting vandalism led you to believe that my contributions were disruptive? -- Naerii · plz create stuff
Whilst I believe some of his edits are clearly trolling, I don't believe an indef block should be made here - he's got an extensive history over a previous account that should be taken into account. I don't actually believe a block is in order at all here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, Ryan. I would say a block of a few weeks could suffice. I only support this, however, if the editor removes "I WILL DEFINITELY VOTE FOR YOU IN RFA IF YOU DO THIS BORING CRAPPY JOB" from his/her userpage, as that is not appropriate (that's what led me to this talk page). нмŵוτнτ 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a joke. You can delete it if it really bothers you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My issue with it is that new editors may see that, & they may think it's a game & that simply exchanging favors & voting is the way to adminship. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing it, and I know you originally meant no harm by it. =) Cheers, нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No trouble, I didn't actually consider that aspect of it until you pointed it out. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I too think this is block is excessive. This short spate of disruption was inappropriate, but she does have a long history of contributions to the project - a short block, if any, would have been the best solution. krimpet 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the block should be lifted if this user agrees to stop being disruptive. I make this recommendation despite Naerii's opinion that much of my wiki-time is spent as a member of a useless waste of space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, do you agree to stop being disruptive? All blocks are on a damage-limitation basis only, and if you agree to stop all disruptive behaviour, then I don't see why I would object to a lifting o the block. Do you have thoughts on the matter? AGK § 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is true. If the editor agrees to stop, then even a "few weeks" wouldn't be necessary. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not going to continue nominating the AC for deletion, etc. But I'm not going to agree to stop doing the behaviour AGK described either, particularly as I don't know why my "contributions to Wikipedia are not for the betterment of the project" and my "presence here is having a net negative effect on the community as a whole." -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a differentiation between "nominating the AC for deletion" and "the behaviour AGK described"—they are one and the same. I will assume that you are going to take steps to ensure that the disruption ceases? AGK § 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the way you phrased it it sounds as if it's a long term behaviour problem. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise if you picked me up that way: rather, it was simply a reflection of the serious nature of your contribution's disruption level at the time of the block—that is, it was a matter of the gravity of the disruption (an MfD on the ArbCom is pretty disruptive), rather than as a matter of time span. Again, my question: will there any any further disruption? AGK § 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No. As I stated a few paras up: "Obviously I'm not going to continue nominating the AC for deletion, etc.". -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the other admins who have already given their opinions, I just want to add that I support lifting the block. Addhoc (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)YesY Unblocked. I've lifted my block, in the spirit of WP:AGF, and after my discussion with you: please, don't disrupt. Additionally, some editors above have expressed the view that some contributions from your account are constructive, and I'm only too happy to accommodate their views here: I do feel confident that I won't need to reinstate this block. However, please be aware that I am willing to re-block if disruption re-arises. All the best regards, AGK § 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oki. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone remove my autoblock please? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've lifted it. To check that it's now deactivated, could you please click here and report the presence or absence of block messages? Cheers, AGK § 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to post the template :P It's gone, thank you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I am of course a childish, petulant asshole who is trollish at times. I get pissed off easily. I overreact. I completely waste people's time... all these things. Sorry, I feel a bit ridiculous. Thanks to the nice people who supported unblocking me. I will obviously be spending a lot of time working in the mainspace to make up for it now. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought you made a good contribution. Sorry you got slammed, Naerii...-- (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You're the guy who was edit warring over the imeem link, right? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Costello Music[edit]

No worries at all. Just wanted to give you a heads up on why I took out the graphic. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

Andrew 23 aug 1992 1231Z.jpg Admin mop.PNG Thanks for the support
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your first ban![edit]

Public dissent never goes unnoticed. The "vandal only" lie was a nice touch, too!

Now people can use this to attempt to discredit your opinions, like that sockpuppet tried to do on the Don Murphy DRV.

Congrats! Here's to many more! (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Um. Okay... -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I noticed the essay you appear to be writing on BLP issues so I thought I'd go and point out my own essay on the subject which may interest you: User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much an essay as me trying to figure out what I think about things. But thanks for the link, it's certainly very interesting :) -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I especially like solution #4. The "However, Durova pointed out that this standard would make almost anyone who has ever acted on Star Trek be automatically outside the acceptable range of penumbra BLPs" bit doesn't trouble me as it's not very likely that anyone from Star Trek is likely to ask for their article to be deleted. However I doubt that it's anywhere near close to current standard at all. Very few people who ask for deletion succeed, and those who do have usually done so after many, many AfDs. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Naerii. I just wanted to let you know that you are not supposed to cross off reviewer's comments. Instead, just write "Done" under the comments you've addressed, and let the reviewer double check and then strike his or her own comments. That makes sure there isn't any confusion in the meaning of a comment. I'm going to take a look at the one(s) I've mine you've stricken and verify that they've been addressed, so don't feel like you have to undo it now. Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, all this FAC etiquette is a bit tiring. Especially as it changes from day to day. In the last FAC I participated in, *everyone* struck things when they were done. Never mind. Do with my edits as you like. -- Naerii 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That comment came off as a bit rude, sorry. Thanks for letting me know. -- Naerii 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Costello Music[edit]

I'm sorry..but i don't have the magazine anymore. I wish I could help...have you tried looking online? maybe they have a review archives or something...if not i'd say just take it out. I'm sorry man...-Violask81976 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

( It's okay! thanks anyway. -- Naerii 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at the AfD[edit]

I believe that these comments construe a personal attack and would request that you review our policies on civility. Furthermore, were you to have read all my comments, you would see that I was pointing out that your accusations of meatpuppetry were inappropriate, and as you yourself admitted somewhat hypocritical. I use the proper on-wiki channels of notifying five Wikiprojects, two Arab, two Jewish, one neutral, and you get your information from the Wikipedia Review, and you are the one casting aspersions of meatpuppetry? I find that sadly humorous. Lastly, statements such as "you're part of Jayjg's mailing list" are completely inappropriate, as I have no control to whom he sends his e-mail. Should you now be referred to as on Hershelkrustofsky, Johnny Cache, and Kelly Martin's e-mail lists since you are a reader of Wikipedia Review? I would request you strike your attacking comments and restrict yourself to edits that are on content, policy, and/or logical arguments about them, as I and G-Dett have been doing. I will reiterate that it was not my intent to call you a meatpuppet, but to point out the logical inconsistency with your argument, even before you admitted to being canvassed off-wiki :( -- Avi (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I really hope you're joking when you insinuate that [2] is a personal attack.
  • Wikipedia Review is a public forum that is visited by most people who are interested in Wikipedia's internal politics (or if you're like me, find the drama amusing). It's hardly canvassing, unlike the case of Jayjg where he emails people privately that he knows will support him. People on Wikipedia Review rarely agree on anything, and I didn't post at that AFD because someone messaged me there asking me to watch their back, ya know?
  • Amusing that you pick some of the members with the worst reputations for your comment, when you could just as easily have mentioned User:Alison, User:Lar, User:Viridae, User:Neil, User:Fred Bauder, User:A Man In Black, User:Doc glasgow, etc, who are all admins and in some cases checkusers and stewards. But I guess that doesn't advance your position as well as tarring me with the same brush as Johnny Cache, does it?
  • But seriously, give me a break. A person who has been shown to canvass off wiki to people he knows that will support him has an article he is involved in editing AfD'd and he and all the people he is known previously to have canvassed just happen to show up? Lol, pull the other one, it's got bells on. It's pretty sad that nothing happened on Wikipedia about it at the time, but as far as I am concerned you have zero credibility and I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother posting things to my talk page in future that could just as easily be posted to the AFD. -- Naerii 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PPS: Kelly Martin doesn't actually post at Wikipedia Review. -- Naerii 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PPPS (loool): Funny how I mention meatpuppeting and you automatically just know I'm talking about you, isn't it? -- Naerii 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) No, but I was the most vocal member of the opinions that you argued with, and in a sense, was lead counsel for the opposition Face-smile.svg -- Avi (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know KM doesn't post there often, I read that board every now and then too, likely for the same reason you do. Naerii, have you ever been involved in a logical discussion with someone who used reductio ad absurdum? It appears to me that your responses are a result that you feel that I have been attacking you personally. If that is how you have interpreted our discourse, you have my sincere apologies. My points regarding you, as I tried to make clear on both the AfD page and here, were to show you that your statements could just have easily been turned around on you, and since that logical reversal is likely untrue, it stands to reason that the initial statement is just as likely untrue. I did not mean to say that you were to be considered the same as HK, JC, etc. What I meant is that "guilt-by-association" statements apply to everyone, and as they should not apply to you, they should neither apply to anyone else who opined in that AfD.

Here is another point: do I go around saying that G-Dett, eleland, Noor, and Tiamut are all meatpuppets of each other? Of course not! They are editors who share many of the same interests due to their common upbringing and religious faith. They frequent the same Wikiprojects, work on the same articles, and likely have each others' talk pages watchlisted. That is actually a good thing about wikipedia (in the main) in that it fosters collaboration between editors with shared interests. Furthermore, I will take full responsibility for the detailed responses to this AfD; I cross-posted it to the deletion discussion boards of five separate projects. That is exactly how we are supposed to get "more eyes on the subject". Insinuating off-wiki canvassing remains, in my opinion, unfounded, uncalled for, and inappropriate. In regards to civility, I accept the fact that your tone of voice and responses come from the fact that you felt attacked, but if you would kindly re-read your statements, I think you would agree that they could have been phrased in a less accusatory fashion.

Lastly, I will extend to you the same invitation to an exercise in intellectual honesty that I have extended to others. My editing history is clear and open to all. While it is true that editors with similar backgrounds and upbringings will often tend to edit similar articles and have similar points of view (e.g. Tiamut and eleland, for example) there are plenty of examples where I argue, vociferously, against Jay, and others who may be lumped in with him (SlimV for one). In my 22K+ edits here, I have always taken pains to make my own decisions, regardless of who has informed of what and when, and I daresay my history proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I invite you to look, and make up your own mind, and I am truly curious as to what you would have to say.

Thanks for listening. -- Avi (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'm sorry we got off to such a bad start, and I wanted to thank you for striking out your meatpuppetry comments. I have reciprocated. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling corrections: millenium[edit]

I notice that you are correcting some occurrences of "millenium" to "millennium". I commend you in your efforts - I have recently made several hundred similar corrections. :-) However, you are 'correcting' some which I have deliberately left, because they are correct misspellings, or accurately reflect misspellings on external pages. In each case, I double-checked the spelling and left a note in a comment in the page text:

<!-- PLEASE NOTE that "Millenium" is the correct spelling here. -->


<!-- PLEASE NOTE that "Millenium" is deliberately spelled incorrectly here, reflecting the mistake on the external page. -->

I'm going to go back and undo those edits where "Millenium" really should be there. I'm sorry that some of your efforts haven't worked out, but please keep up the good, tireless work. :-) TimR (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry - I noticed that after you reverted one of my edits. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for fixing my mistakes! :) -- Naerii 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No problems. Thanks for taking it so well. :-) TimR (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain[edit]

Thanks for the quick response, but you might want to check the history of the article to see what I was refering. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I can has mop?
Hi Naerii/archive! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again!
CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Further to your WP:3RR message, if you check the articles edit history and the articles talk page as well as the ANI incident that I brought up with regard to the article, I was in no way whatsoever involved in an edit war. I was trying to stop an edit war which had been ongoing between two users on that article for two days, by restoring it to what appeared to be the last good version before they started edit warring. Having left a message on the articles talk page that the article had been restored to the last version before the edit war I then reverted further edits which constitued vandalism and requested Admin intervention which then happened and the article was fully protected. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring no matter what your intentions are. Here you make your first revert, again here, and again. If people are edit warring and you want to stop it, you should (a) contact the users on their talk pages, (b) make a note on the talk page of the article and (c) report for 3RR or request page protection if the users fail to respond and the edit warring continues. It's always a bad idea to join in yourself, because then you run the risk of being blocked for 3RR and you just increase the tension between the edit warriors of the article. I'm sure you were well intentioned, but then pretty much everyone who edit wars believes they are doing the right thing. -- Naerii 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, however I still believe that your "Edit warring" warning was excessive, particularly when the incident had already been dealt with by another Admin before your messages. I have been using wikipedia for a long time and I constantly look out for and revert vandalism. I have worked hard to ensure that articles are not vandlised. I also constantly look out for newly created pages for any vandalism, nonsense pages and so forth and also work to improve newly created articlesa, and to help new users with creating articles as well as working constantly toward imporving wikipedia. I clearly made a mistake in this instance, and should have reported it when the first revert of my edit occurred. However in your list of three things I should have done above, I did two of them, I just made the mistake with the third of not reporting it sooner and trying to deal with it msyelf. I fully take on board what you are saying and will ensure that I take the right steps in future. However, I think that your warning was uncalled for. Yes a personal message pointing it out, which I would have fully accepted but not a standard "you appear to be involved in an edit war" warning when it was quite clear I was trying to resolve the issue between two users. And when you had after all already pointed it out on the Admin noticeboard, by which time the incident had by then already been dealt with by another Admin, who had protected the page, and who had given a short block to one of the two users who had been edit warring for two days. Thank you and have fun.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for pissing you off. I gave you the warning before I realised you were the person who posted the notice on ANI. Sorry :( -- Naerii 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


There is a new discussion regarding the cabals which were brought up at MfD last week. I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


See in you in July. -- Naerii 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, was about time someone called time on that. Even I was starting to go in circles. :) Have a good break. Orderinchaos 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"going in circles" is exactly the term I was looking for. Watch now, someone incensed with my decision will revert me and accuse me of attempting to stifle and censor discussion.. -- Naerii 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In 3 months we'll be looking back and laughing at this debate. Some neutral parties probably already are. Orderinchaos 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, in case you're interested; here you go. And have a nice break! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I.. no words. -- Naerii 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Debate at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Will Beback is claiming in this edit that you now have changed your mind and that you now oppose my proposed attribution edit. Is this what you actually meant to say? --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose it no, I just decided to give up. -- Naerii 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Considering you just reverted the edit of BLPwatchbot back to an edit by a blocked SPA, I've removed your rollback. Feel free to reapply when you get a clue. John Reaves 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: WebCite[edit]

Huh. Maybe it's because of the index.php and query string in diffs. --Random832 (contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate vote[edit]

Hi! You currently have a duplicate vote in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redfarmer--you have a valid vote in both the support and oppose sections. Just wanted to call your attention to this. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I put my support on the wrong RfA. Too easy to get confused when you're scrolling up the massive RFA page, sorry :( -- Naerii 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries--just letting you know what the RfA bot was reporting. Darkspots (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Although this seems to be a pretty much white talkpage, I'll risk treading on it :)

Thanks for the edit fix at the RFA (I think) wasn't quite sure how to list my support. Jacina. (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problemo amigos. -- Naerii 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD Closings[edit]

I will be online today at 12:00PM (my time its currently 8:27AM) if you wish to discuss these and I can tell you my rationale for closing these AFD's. Thanks and Happy Editing!! Dustitalk to me 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am now logged on. I would like to get this settled if possible. Dustitalk to me 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Abi Fry[edit]

Hi David, just a note to let you know that I have changed the image at Abi Fry as I found one on Flickr that I think has a better angle than yours. Incidentally, are you a Bat for Lashes fan or is it a photo you just happened to take? :) -- Naerii 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Naerii - I could see where you think that photo is better. Mine was nothing special. It's difficult to photograph in the low light of a concert space. I'm a fan of Bat for Lashes, but I did not know their music before I approached their management for an interview. --David Shankbone 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Riva Tims[edit]

You listed that article as a Prod, but it has been listed as a prod before so cannot be listed that way again. I listed it as an AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riva_Tims. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Foley scandal[edit]

The article is a disgrace; only an overview highlighting the major details and immediate concerns is necessary. The article as I had seen it was 14 pages long. The article is written like an in-depth national media outlet exposé. This is not our place! Moreover, it is not our place to present "all" the evidence therein. This is most definitely being given undue weight, in that so much of this material could be summarized, and the references that cover most of the points directly related to the alleged actions of the subject and reactions to them by the public et. al. could be cited. Don't get me wrong; it's obvious to me that the man is undeniably guilty and what he did was inexcusable on so many levels, but the "original research-"like presentation overreaches the scope and intent of Wikipedia in my opinion. The discussion of this subject needs to be overseen by administrators and Wikipedia's scope reinforced from an administrative direction, not freely allowed to constantly be thrown about by biased editors -- one way or the other. The deletion review looks nothing like a review, nor, in fact, was the article deleted, but redirected.

I sincerely believe that I was acting in the spirit of NPOV by my actions, and I am unconvinced by your understated accusation that my use of the tools was "bad." Please have a discussion; don't just chide me.

CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...[edit]

Thank you...
...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerenetalk 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


By the time you get back it June, the subject will be gone from the village pump, so I'll tell you here that there is a gadget to restore the + in your preferences and save on tab space. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. -- Naerii 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Why? Shouldn't it stay until the subpage is inactive? John Reaves 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No edits for 36 hours and the last edit was too say that too much time has been wasted talking about the topic [3]. As there have been no edits but that one for 48 hours I figured it was probably a good time to timestamp and let it be archived and moved on from. I doubt the discussion is going to find an influx of new participants at this stage? Feel free to revert however. -- Naerii 09:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I had assumed it was still active. John Reaves 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of socking.[edit]

I didn't sock. I've already provided a number of users the evidence which clears me. I'm more than willing to email you if you want that evidence. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to email me. -- Naerii 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sent. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Responsible Editing Pledge[edit]

Restored - thanks for pointing that out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. (How long would I be blocked for?) Master Redyva 23:02, April 23, 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not an admin, but I think 3RR blocks are usually 24 hours. -- Naerii 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats really not too bad. It may be worth it. I may have to give it a little more thought. Thanks again. Master Redyva 23:20, April 23, 2008 (UTC)
Really? It'll just be removed again when you're blocked. And then you'll be blocked and your questions won't be on the RfA. Suit yourself however. -- Naerii 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering its not that serious, yeah its worth it. Anywho, thanks. Master Redyva 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfA support[edit]

Thank you so much for your support at my RfA. I decided to withdraw my self-nom before a windfall of opposes! I shall continue my work however, and thanks again. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hope to see you again in a few months. -- Naerii 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Naerii[edit]

Would you mind if I removed my two comments (not strike-out, remove) and your one reply on the Philosopher AfD? (Not removing your reason for support, just the three diffs after that). We have a reasonable disagreement, but I believe I am personally giving an early undue weight to my oppose against Philosopher and would like to remove it, as I don't want it to unfairly show any sort of "controversy" regarding the RfA, especially if I contributed to such a dispute. Let me know as quick as you can, I'd like to remove it soon from the RfA. Thank you. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. -- Naerii 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Did you ever think that you and I would be referenced in the same sentence? 8-). -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

lmao at his comment :P -- Naerii 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


My mistake. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA[edit]

One-hundred-WikiThanks.gif Naerii...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reward board[edit]

Are lists included in the offer? Specifically thinking of List of furry conventions. -- Naerii 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect RainRat did not have that in mind for his reward, but I would be willing to give you $50 if your edits led directly to its placement on Wikipedia:Featured lists. Lists are not eligible for GA status, but I feel the effort you would need to expend is roughly equivalent. GreenReaper (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hmmm[edit]

Naerii, Thank you for the kind words. I admit I have though about running for admin recently. although my total # of edits would surely guarantee a failure. As I said to Keeper76 recently, sometimes I spend hours reviewing one RfA, all in the end to produce one edit, or in some cases no edit. Of course, this doesn't mean I can't become an admin, but rather that I'll have to wait a few months until I arrive at an edit count that is acceptable to the community. That's no problem for me, I still think I have a lot to learn. I hope I have nominators when the time comes, so again thank you for suggesting that you may nominate. Gwynand | TalkContribs 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox? Are you kidding me?[edit]

Hi, I saw the debate about the atheist userbox was already closed, but I have to take issue with your characterization of that Userbox as somehow "soapboxing" above and beyond what other userboxes do. I present for your edification:

User:N/modern Jesus

User:DBD/Userboxes/Religion/User Christian

User:DBD/Userboxes/Religion/User saved

User:America Needs Jesus/ubx/creation

User:America Needs Jesus/world


User:Winhunter/Userboxes/carefree anglican


User:UBX/Unconditional Election

User:UBX/Limited Atonement

User:Justin L Raines/Userboxes/Affirm

I really could go on. Policy allows people to express their opinion in their userbox as long as it is not blatantly offensive. Frankly, I think some of the examples I cited above are blatantly offensive, but we let them go because, well, it's normal and expected.

I know the debate is already closed, but this is something that really bothers me. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't specify that it was soapboxing above and beyond what others do. Merely that it soapboxes. I would support the deletion of any of those userboxes. Thanks. -- Naerii 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff, I can accept that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium[edit]

Zytglogge clockface detail.jpg Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Previous Accounts[edit]

You indicated you had edits under a previous account, you might want to add them to your RfA or it will fail. Your edit history here on this account really isn't long enough on it's own to pass an RfA---and the fact that you had a prior account may be deemed as "hiding something" if you don't share what they were on the RfA.Balloonman (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on the RfA. I'm not 'hiding' anything, my accounts have been linked from my user page for ages :) -- Naerii 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind message - have we met? Peter Damian (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ah you are Kamryn Matika? Peter Damian (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's me. -- Naerii 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Wow, that looks great. We should do that instead. Can you implement that? Useight (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Give me five minutes or so :) -- Naerii 18:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Wooh, it took me exactly five minutes :P -- Naerii 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering that this is the English Wikipedia, I'd think it would be fair to say that all the editors would speak English. They may speak second languages, perhaps. I can speak Tagalog, at least conversationally, but I don't know if know if we need to work that into the table. Perhaps bring it up on the Highly Active talk page and see what people say. Useight (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the list is pretty large. Once a little time goes by after informing people of the list's existence, those who don't reply will be removed from the list. I'm not sure of the ideal number of editors in the list, but I was thinking that maybe 100 would be sufficient, if they were all very active and their combined editing schedule was 24/7. Useight (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

your RFA[edit]

hello. I gave you a support for your RFA. Just out of interest, is there anything in your edit history that I should be aware of; anything that would make me !vote oppose? I'm not interested in the little stuff, or the "instability" that other people mention. But if it's a frivolous nom or you have a bunch of bad-hand sock puppets please feel free to email me. Kind regards. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well, I don't know you, so I can't tell what sort of things would make you oppose. The nomination of ArbCom for deletion is the clincher, and possibly the block I had last year for posting links to attack sites. I don't recall anything else I've done that's been incredibly objectionable, though I'm sure someone will pull a few forgotten diffs out of the closet to prove me wrong. I do not, however, have any sockpuppets or the like and the nom is in all seriousness, although I have no expectation that it will pass. -- Naerii 21:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The arbcom thing isn't something I'd oppose for. The attack sites block . . . well, I've recently said that editors and admins are allowed to make mistakes, that the bit i no big deal, and that most mistakes are easy to fix, so I guess I should stick with that. Thus, you still have a support from me. Thanks for being so open. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

I know that you are getting a bit disappointed with the results of your RfA, and to tell you the truth, I know exactly how you feel. While I haven't posted an RfA onto this site yet, I have tried 5 times to have a successful RfA on the Simple English Wikipedia, all of which didn't make it. The last 2 that I've had on the Simple English Wikipedia got me 50% and 59% respectively, so this is what I have to say to you: Keep up the good work and eventually, people will recognize that you are a good editor and nominate you for administrator in the future. I hope I have given you good advice! Cheers, Razorflame 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts, but I actually feel just fine about it :) -- Naerii 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Although on reflection I guess you could say I was a little bit disappointed with aspects of some rationales, but that's neither here nor there. -- Naerii 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem! I can tell you that I did disagree with some of the rationales, but you have to understand that I can't support a user to become an administrator if he or she was just recently would probably do the same for a user who was blocked recently and posted up an RfA too. Cheers, Razorflame 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's fine ;) No hard feelings. -- Naerii 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles (album)[edit]

Thanks a lot for your input. It seems I've got too much on my plate to take care of that. (If you really want to know, I have to help find about 42 references for List of best-selling albums worldwide, and I'm working on Like a Rolling Stone). Thanks anyway, I read your comments over and I thank you for being specific, not being too broad like some PRers (?) are. I'll definitely use your advice when I get around to it. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


While I am usually loathe to contact editors on their talk pages during an RfX, your actions were above and beyond what I could have expected. I am humbled. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, of course, Face-smile.svg. But your actions took a certain amount of magnanimity of spirit that I could not let go by without recognition and thanks. Now, what will it take to get you to like me? Face-devil-grin.svg -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You want all of my secrets already?! Face-surprise.svg -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote that philospher-gutairist, Eric Clapton, "It's in the way that you use it". Also, you might want to append a |25px at the end of each one, such as [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] to keep the sizing down. Last thing anyone needs is a 50px version of Smiley green alien KO.svg on their page Emblem-annoyed.svg -- Avi (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually quite liking the crazy looking one. *snag for userpage* -- Naerii 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There is something vaguely unsettling about the image of a crazed, vampiric alien with its head askew as the first thing that greets you on a user page Face-grin.svg -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!![edit]

I am in your debt. Your explanation of the citations is a heck of a lot clearer than the entire page devoted to it.  :) Many, many thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh man I love nice messages on my talk page (as opposed to "you have been blocked indefinitely", which, let me tell you, is not a barrel of laughs). It's no problem at all! I found the references help page far too complicated when I started, too. I find it's best to just look at other articles and see how they do it, it saves a lot of time and confused head scratching. Have a nice day :D -- Naerii 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Please take a look at what I did at WP:HAU and let me know what you think. Also, if you have any ideas for making the page more well-known and used, I'd like to hear those, too. Thanks. Useight (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's future[edit]

Crystal Clear app reminders.png Naerii...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add this to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - LA @ 10:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"wth why did my edit remove all this content?"[edit]

See WP:TW/BUGS#TW-B-0013 (open). It's a known bug in Twinkle, but I wish that we could figure out why it happens. nneonneo talk 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


You beat two co-nom's support :-P -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The devil is in the details :) -- Naerii 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Owe you an apology[edit]

I owe you an apology, my comment on your failed RfA was inappropriate and I'm sorry. I probably should have come here and left a friendly note advising that you withdraw your nom, rather than agreeing with Dortroffel.Balloonman (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User Page Inspiration[edit]

Bad luck on your recent RFA, but it did cause me to click through your user page and be inspired by your user page design, which I then fitted into my page. I like green better than pink, but other than that you helped clean one eyesore user page off of the Wiki! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC).



Can an admin please protect my monobook (User:Naerii/monobook.js) until June 20, please. Thanks in advance. naerii - talk 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Only you and admins can edit your monobook, so I see no need for protection. Tiptoety talk 03:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
He/She wants it protected because this way s/he cannot undo the wikibreak enforcer that was added today. I'll do it for you, Nærii, e-mail me if you need it undone. -- Avi (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The COOKIE MONSTER ate the cow[edit]

Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods Push my button 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge[edit]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [4] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable. Please note that you have not been invited because you are being accused of anything, or suspected of any improper conduct. You are not being invited because of any perceived difficulty with your editing, or any potential conflicts. You are under no obligation to try the AGF Challenge. --Filll (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, because I was actually the first person to take the multiple choice version of it :) naerii - talk 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Music For Tourists[edit]

Updated DYK query On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Music For Tourists, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks[edit]

Hello, Nærii.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for the olive branch that you extended, even if it still means that you don't like me :) If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Hi Naerii; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ready to Die[edit]

I've took care of your concerns and left a message on the talk page. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and passing the article as a GA. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how I laugh. naerii - talk 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Still laughing. naerii - talk 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pay for edit[edit]

Hey Naerii. Saw your new project. You may run into some problems with it, check WP:PAY. Also might want to show it to the community before it goes live. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reward board. naerii - talk 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I.e. it's basically the same as every other post made there, I just decided to make a subpage too avoid making a really long list on that page. naerii - talk 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. That's why I came to you first, I was unsure of thoughts surrounding this practice. Although I think generally it creates a de facto conflict of interest, it's probably harmless. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, to be honest I don't expect it to inspire much editing anyway :) I just felt like any added little motivation would be a good thing ;) I've never really understood the COI arguments - perhaps you'd care to explain? I don't have a vested interest in any of the articles listed and I doubt anyone responding will have either. naerii - talk 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well in your case, a limited amount of money, limited to 1 per week, probably won't lead to any real COIs. It's not your conflict of interest, but immediately the editor that starts getting paid to edit a certain article gains--maybe just technically speaking--a de facto COI. It's not for obvious reasons like NPOV issues, but for others. Say the guy trying to earn the money adds 10,000 bytes of data. Another user comes along and removes a good deal of it for various reasons. Then an edit war starts... the guy who is trying to get paid has the 1. Interest to build the article, 2. Interest to keep the article this way. and 3. (most important) Interest to do this as fast as possible in order to get paid as fast as possible. Now, these all work off various presumptions which for any individual may not be true. Furthermore I could see some real issues with people who are GA/FA reviewers, now having to review with the knowledge that actual money is on the line in regards to their decision.
However, all that said, I guess a small amount of money limited to once a week won't likely lead to these issues. Think of someone offering 10K for a FA... that could be problematic. Gwynand | TalkContribs 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I see :) I have considered that and would probably intervene and take down a reward if it began causing disruption. Thanks for your thoughts, I'll bear it in mind! naerii - talk 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help[edit]

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind if you're going to snow-close an RfA...[edit]

Make sure to tag it as such; I went ahead and corrected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TreasuryTag so that both WP:SNOW and your username were attached.

No big deal, just a friendly reminder. EVula // talk // // 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism[edit]

What you describe here is exactly what I went through too. :) Acalamari 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh: same here, and before I knew about rollback, I used to wonder why on earth vandal-fighters always typed in "reverted edits by (vandal) to last version by (editor before the vandal)" whenever they reverted someone. :) Acalamari 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Good luck on exams and no problem - hopefully after you can do a review (or two ;-) ) a month. Thanks for the comment, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks! When did you get back? I didn't even realize! NSR77 TC 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've actually seen this username around but I never once thought it was you! Especially since its so different than your prior ones. What made you decide to come back? NSR77 TC 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, people keep accusing me of sockpuppeting etc and obscuring my previous accounts.. it's really weird, people never seem to notice the statements on my userpage that make it clear who I am :P Just boredom really. I see you've been racking up a ridiculous amount of FAs. I'm going to have to work hard to catch you up over the summer! -- Naerii 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Never noticed you replied on your talk page! I'm always bad at it when people do that. Haha. Yeah they just seemed to accumulated. My ultimate goal is get every Chili Peppers album to FA, which I hope to accomplish by the end of the year (if possible). What are you up to? NSR77 TC 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Stadium Arcadium is indeed radio friendly. Too over-produced if you ask me; the beauty of Blood Sugar is that it is raw and imperfect. At the moment there's not too many left to go. Stadium Arcadium, Mother's Milk, Uplift, Freaky Styley, and The Red Hot Chili Peppers. Which is only....five articles. Hah. Hopefully the band's first three should be much easier than the rest, but who knows. I'll definitely give you a call to copyedit! Those, in between some of my other projects (like Disintegration and "Under the Bridge") should be "fun". Indie pop is good, not going to lie. I don't love the genre but some of it is really nice sounding, like the ones you mentioned. I can't think of any band that I love, however, that was formed prior to 1990. I've always felt like I was born in the wrong time, you know? NSR77 TC 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've thought about running a couple times but the spot of adminship just doesn't seem right for me, at least now. Perhaps in a couple months (which is what I keep telling myself every other month). Thanks for your support, though. :) I'm kind of disappointed I could not have commented on your adminship. I would have definitely givem you support. NSR77 TC 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I've been trying... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal of Imperial China[edit]

Awesome! I'll have a look and see what I can suggest.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see a gigantic wealth of pictures to show in the portal, take a look here at what commons has for the Art of China.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For biographies, the article for Shen Kuo that I brought to featured status would be a good start.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For more China-history-related articles that are either FA or GA status, you might consider adding to the portal such articles as

Just some suggestions to improve the portal.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:History of Imperial China[edit]

Wow. I'm very happy that you've taken on this task. Nicely done so far. I look forward to seeing how you finish it up.

The "Things to do" box could list articles from various maintenance projects, "improve an article to GA status", FA status, adding articles to the "Selected" frames' queues, creating a "Did you know" for the box of the same name, and (I'm sure you can think of more), and "add more tasks to this list", etc.

The "Topics" box will be more involved, entailing that you browse the subject's articles, and its categories, gathering links as you go. It doesn't need to be comprehensive; all the main articles on the subject plus a good cross-section of the rest of them.

The most major thing I noticed was the big gap under the selected biography - you could rename the top box in the left column to "Selected Dynasty", and then create a new box for "Selected article" (under the biography box), putting non-dynasty and non-biography articles in the new box - like articles on artifacts, places, customs, events, etc.

Portal:Charles Dickens does a very good job of balancing columns, by standardizing the length of excerpts for each specific box. Tricky, but the effect is nice.

Note that "selected" articles don't have to be "featured".

Just some thoughts. I hope you find them helpful.

I can't wait to see the final outcome.

The Transhumanist    06:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Reward Board, the Big Picture, etc.[edit]

I'm planning on putting up a long term post at the reward board based on my subpage here. As you've got an extensive list of basic topics and things you'd like to see up at AWC, I was wondering if you could give me some ideas for some core topics that need improving? I'd like to limit the list to ~50 articles. If I can motivate even one person into improving something it'll be worth it :D naerii - talk 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You wish to be an overseer of quality coverage on Wikipedia. Excellent. Not too many people who I know of are keeping an eye on the Big Picture. But you are. Congratulations.

As you know, I've been occupied building a system that doubles as a multi-page site map of fundamental coverage on Wikipedia as well as a fundamental outline of knowledge. When completed, it will present a solid core of subject matter.

The building of subject outlines that tie-into Wikipedia's coverage provides a bird's eye view of what is covered, what is covered well, covered not so well, and what isn't covered at all. Our editor Earthdirt said it best: "I am certain you know but, doing "basics" lists really lets you see how much work some of our most basic articles need. For instance, interphase was horrible, unreadable, and inaccurate (obviously I couldn't leave it that way). I hope it's a bit better now. Doing [the List of basic cell biology topics] allowed me to find lots of basic inaccurate stuff about biology in lots of articles and to fix them, thanks."

Therefor, I highly recommend that you select a major subject you are very familiar with or very interested in, and develop the basic topics list for it. In addition to providing a valuable navigation tool for Wikipedia, the effort will expose you to Wikipedia's coverage in your chosen subject area, and will increase your awareness of what is needed the most for it.

Or you could explore the lists that are already built or in the process of being built. Currently, I'm focusing on Geography, and specifically on Wikipedia's coverage of the countries of the World. To present this coverage and make it more easily accessible to Wikipedia's readers, I'm in the process of constructing basic topic lists for all of the countries of the world.

Those lists have many redlinks, showing gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of the corresponding countries. That might also be a good place for you to start. Articles are needed to replace those redlinks. (On the drafts, beware of the government and regions sections - they contain temporary topic names, which are invalid for many countries - they're there to provide a starting point only, and need to be changed to fit each country.)

Or as Earthdirt pointed out above, you could click on the links provided in a list of basic topics of your choice and evaluate the quality of each article presented.

The best way I can think of to make a list of items needing coverage is to keep a window open with a subpage of your user's page dedicated to just that. Then, as you explore and read Wikipedia, anytime you come across something that needs work, add it to your list. The more specific and creative your suggestions are, the better. That is, as you are reading and an idea occurs to you like "wouldn't it be cool if this article had such and such...", those make the best development tasks.

While working on the List of basic Australia topics I was searching for a cool picture of kangaroos to include on there, and I noticed that almost all of the pictures available of kangaroos are either out of context or in a single context, showing roos in captivity or just sitting around doing nothing. There's only one of a roo in flight, but it is cut off too short at the top (cutting off an ear). What is needed are some professional quality pics of roos in flight, a large group of roos (doing whatever roos do), and multiple roos in flight. It's the most famous animal from Australia, but our coverage of it leaves something to be desired. Maybe you could add these to your list.

We could use some more pics of koalas and saltwater crocodiles too. You hear a lot about crocs coming into people's backyards in Australia, but we don't have a single picture of this.

I hope you find the above suggestions helpful.

By the way, upon realizing just how huge a task the development of 200+ country topics lists is (each one takes at least a day of effort which can stretch out to years if you can only put in a couple hours per day), I started taking your approach of spreading the word to reach out for help. Taking that a step further, with the help of several others, I'm currently in the process of preparing a big competition (which will take place at the WP:AWC) for those who like to use advanced tools (like WP:AWB and Linky), to build small parts of the whole set of lists at once. Right now, we're building the awards to be given away to participants and winners in the competition.

I'm looking for some people to help coordinate and oversee the collaboration/competition to make sure it runs smoothly, and to make it an exciting event. It will be one of the largest collaborations ever attempted on Wikipedia - larger than the WP:TOTD, larger than the help system redesign, and even larger than the main page redesign. Hopefully it will start in about five weeks. (Assuming the awards are ready by then).

Are you interested?

The Transhumanist    20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I love your Core Articles reward list. I was thinking of duplicating it myself, but I thought maybe it would be a better idea to come up with some sort of collective pot. Would it be possible for me to add $10 for every GA and $30 for every FA? So that way we could collectively offer $50 for every GA and $100 for every FA. What do you think? Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that would be fine as long as you're definitely sure you're willing to honour the commitment (it would be a bit awkward if someone made an FA and didn't get the reward they were promised!). Does your offer include other currencies (i.e. the equivalent of $10 in whatever currency)? naerii - talk 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would definitely honor the commitment. I've paid out several rewards already on the Reward Board ($30 for Emma Goldman, $10 for Tennessee State Museum, $10 for photo of the Anne Frank tree). I'll pay whatever the equivalent amounts are in any currency, if it can be paid through PayPal. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then that's awesome - thank you for your generosity! :) I'll make a note on the page now. I will probably be expanding the list slightly in the future (to one more column) - please watchlist the page and let me know if you have a problem with any of the additions. Thanks again! naerii - talk 21:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I favor adding articles that counter Wikipedia's systemic bias (African and Asian topics, Female biographies, etc.). Not so much science and math as I think those are already well covered generally. Margaret Sanger might be a good addition. Kaldari (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggstion! The list there was just a few things that came off the top of my head. I'm going to revise it in a bit and it should hopefully be something along the lines of countries, important events and the cultures of Africa, Asia and (maybe) Latin America. Things like the Second Congo War. I just recently started flicking through high priority articles in areas of systemic bias lately and was absolutely amazed by the breadth of our shortcomings. I'm having to contain myself and not make the list a massive huge thing :) Is there a limit that you'd like the list to stick at? Feel free to edit it yourself! naerii - talk 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to keep it focused to 50 or so articles if possible. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Sounds good. But the image has to be a free one, so I assume the one of the Chili Peppers' at Pinkpop will be chosen instead. NSR77 TC 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Awwww. Bummer. NSR77 TC 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for chipping in on FINSAS. Arunram (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. naerii - talk 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Monobook unprotection[edit]

Done; welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA/DHMO 3[edit]

Rudget has reverted you, accurately pointing out that rather than remove votes and comments, you should strike them. :) Regards, LaraLove 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I indented it as an interim measure per your stated intention in the edit summary. Feel free to fix up as appropriate. Orderinchaos 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever floats people's boats. :) naerii - talk 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it...[edit]

Hey there. I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. I must admit, I was a little confused when you changed from oppose to support with that Eminem lyric as an edit summary. Quite curious what it was that made you change your mind! Anyhow, I've posted an in-depth RFA analysis that touched on the main-space contribution issue and noted how I plan to improve on that. Your comments are welcome. P.S., there's some templated thank-spam below. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not embarrassing at all - Eminem rocks! or raps... or something... Sorry, I didn't meant to make you out to seem crazy, I wrote it that way for comedic effect. =) (I can change it if you want) I must admit I did have a chuckle when I read it. at first I was like... wtf? until I realized where it was from. Still, I was rather confused - thanks for clearing that up for me. and I might take you up on that offer, though, my area of expertise... well,... it's been getting some scorn from the GA/FA review projects recently. as for addressing the opposes, I feel that they are the most important part of the RFA, they really need to be taken into account and you need to look at how you can improve for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. anyways, thanks again. xenocidic (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


This has made me curious. Why is it then, that you participate, if you cannot trust anything a candidate says in the spotlight? — MaggotSyn 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there's (usually) a history of editing before they run for whatever position? Although I suppose people could (and probably, some do) spend their entire time on wiki being politically correct with the aim of becoming a sysop (some people really do have too much spare time on their hands). There's not much I can do about that. But I wouldn't change from oppose to support on the basis of something they said in response to a question at an RFA as any sensible person is going to respond with whatever they have to say to get support. It's what they do when they think no one's watching that is truly telling. naerii - talk 08:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And I didn't want to leave you with the impression that I was asking you to switch. — MaggotSyn 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I just wanted to drop a line to tell you how hard I'm laughing over the image on your user page. That is one of the most enjoyable images that I think I've seen in quite some time! With your permission, I'd like to include that on my page? Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted above and saw that it was a freely-licensed image. Thanks!  :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hello, Naerii, and thank you for your recent participation in my RfA, which was closed per WP:NOTNOW after reaching a vote tally of 5/15/2. While I am disappointed in the outcome, I understand that it - as well as the comments left by yourself and others - was in the best interests of Wikipedia at this time. I plan to take everything that was written to heart and improve myself here on Wikipedia with a goal of perhaps accepting a nomination again in the future, should someone choose to nominate me. As a way of gathering further feedback, I have created a page in my user space for other editors to leave comments about things that they might have observed during my RfA and to continue my "education process," as it may be considered. If you would like to contribute to that page, it may be found here. Again, thank you for participating and I appreciate your comments! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Try try again.[edit]

If at first... ;) Thanks for the accrediting.--Bedford Pray 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa[edit]

Thank You[edit]

Naerii, I just wanted to say thank you for your support in my RFA. Although I withdrew it, it really means a lot to me. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA comment weight[edit]

Due to the discussion in my RFB of the way I weigh RFA comments, I'd like to hear more on what the community thinks regarding all supports weighing the same (as the default category) or if they should be assigned slightly different weights. I would assign this support little weight in the event of a very close RFA. Would you agree on this matter or, if not, can you explain why you think it would be of equal weight with some of the other supports in that same RFA? Useight (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think 'crats are demigods who can lord it over the rest of us and decide whose comments are worthy. They are members of the community just like everyone else and if I think someone would make a good admin then that's my decision - it's not up to them to decide if my reasoning is good enough. They can bugger off if they think they can tell me that my opinion is less worthy than someone else's on the basis that I didn't care to write an extra paragraph about how awesome the candidate is.
RFA isn't AFD. Rationales aren't required; deciding who's going to be an admin is extremely subjective, and posting a rationale is therefore completely unecessary as people are going to make their own minds up based on their own criteria. It's not a discussion - no matter how much people spam that meme around. There are too many participants to make it a discussion. So why make long extended comments? I never read people's support comments. I don't need to see "This guy would make a great admin!" written in fifty different ways before I make my decision.
The problem for me is that what you think is a poor rationale might sound like a really good rationale for someone else. And who's to say you're right, or I am, or some other guy is, or anybody? No one can. If 'crats are going to close RFAs based on whether they think the participants have made good reasoning or not, they might as well close the RFA based on their own judgement of the candidate - it amounts to the same thing. When you start discounting reasonings because "one of my favourite people" isn't good enough, it's just one step until you decide "fails my requirement of having 3000 edits" isn't good enough or "i really think this guy would be a great admin!" isn't good enough. I don't vote for crats so that they will start imposing their personal judgement on RFA discussions. I vote for them because I expect them to be impartial - and this includes not judging other people's criteria according to their own. Naerii - Talk 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, correct me if I am wrong, but you have added certain supports in SNOW RfAs where I assumed you were kind of kidding around, not actually supporting. Am I way off on this? Gwynand | TalkContribs 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Mostly just kidding around :) Naerii - Talk 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well not exactly kidding around - more, an RFA goes up and sometimes 15 people will come along and oppose before one of them realises it'd be a good idea to just close it. So I like to plop a support on in an attempt to make the candidate feel less like everyone's against him. Naerii - Talk 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yeah, which is no big deal, but in the example that Useight gave, was that really a serious support for Tinkleheimer? Again, being honest and not trying to offend, I didn't read that as a serious support by you, although the RfA wasn't in SNOW territory yet. Gwynand | TalkContribs 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't all that serious, no. As you can see I was the first person to vote, and when I came along and read it, it looked like a certain SNOW to me (judging on his answers to the questions), but I liked what he wrote and figured I'd give him a bit of support before the deluge began. Obviously I was proved a bit wrong in that he got a lot more support than I expected. I wouldn't like the candidate to think I didn't support him though - it was quite refreshing to see someone with that level of cheerful enthusiasm. Usually by the time people get to RFA they're at least a little bit tarnished :) Naerii - Talk 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I only take the time to write out rationales when I'm opposing someone who looks like he has the chance to pass. If I oppose someone who obviously isn't going to pass, I usually ignore the RFA, and if I support someone it's either because (a) I've seen them around and thought they would make a good admin or (b) they're well meaning but not going to pass. Naerii - Talk 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)OK then, working through this logically, the reason I thought it was a bit of a joke is because I see your overall contribs and your involvement in RfA/RfB. Sometimes you write some stuff that is just brilliant... gets right to the heart of the issue. I see who you seriously support/oppose and for what reasons. So, Useight poses a great scenario here... what if Tink somehow made it to the 70-80% support area by the end of the RfA. Also, say, your internet connection went down and you couldnt come back on to change. Would it be that bad for a crat to look at your vote, you writing "awwww" (I think I know the reasoning behind you writing that), and give very little weight to it? Gwynand | TalkContribs 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflit) Ha ha, with a name like Tinkleheimer, how can he not be cheerful? And as to my original point, yes, I agree with you that bureaucrats (or admins even) are not demigods, that's for sure. However, if they don't use any discretion at all, and instead make all !votes equal, then it becomes a straight-up numbers things. If they got three out of four supports, regardless of any other factors, they'd pass the RFA. And if it's just about the numbers, then there'd be no need for a bureaucrat because a bot could just determine if the 75% threshold had been met. Useight (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh - I would be very much happier if we just had a bot to pass people who were over 75%. And that, my friends, is why I'll never become a 'crat (and probably not an admin now, heh). Naerii - Talk 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be terrible no, but - in most RFAs I support I leave just a signature. So if we came to a 70-80% RFA where I seriously supported, I'd be a bit pissed if my support was ignored just because I didn't take the time to write a few sentences that were another way of saying "This guy would be a great admin". Additions like that are pretty much pointless because the fact that I'm signing the support column says by itself that I think the guy would be a great admin. And my reasoning beyond "I think this guy would be a great admin" (i.e. WHY I think he would be great) isn't really relevant because (in my opinion) it's none of the 'crat's business to decide if my criteria are sound or not. I realise that this is probably not what happens in practice - people are human and 'crats aren't accountable, but in RFBs I think I'm allowed to at least hold people to fairly high standards (that they probably won't keep, but eh... people will be people).
If your point is something like "well how is the 'crat supposed to know if your support is serious or not", it's a pretty good one, that I can't really answer satisfactorily - other than to say I wouldn't have minded if Tink did become an admin and I certainly wouldn't regret giving my support. Naerii - Talk 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said. Useight (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what? Weren't we just on opposite sides of the coin? :P Naerii - Talk 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had to attend my Managerial Economics course, but my "Well said" is a compliment indicating my appreciation of your well-articulated response. We don't have to agree on everything for me to appreciate the manner in which the discussion took place. Sometimes I agree during a discussion and sometimes I disagree, but I always do it agreeably. I disagree that a bot would be better than a 'crat, but I agree that you should "be a bit pissed if my support was ignored". Your support should never be ignored. No bureaucrat should ignore any comments regardless of length, presentation of diffs, etc no matter if it's in the support, oppose, or neutral column. I was saying that some comments weighed less, not were worthless. Useight (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, I don't want to be offensive here, but after reading this thread and since you dropped a note on my talk page, I'm just going to say one thing. Try and be more serious from now on. If you're going to make snippy comments about how other people cast their !vote, you should think twice the next time you want to joke around at another SNOW close. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814[edit]

I've requested a peer review for the album and was wondering if you could give some ideas on how to improve the article. If you choose to review the article, thankyou in advance. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB[edit]

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Ping. miranda 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


As per your request Wikipedia:Don't Accuse People‎. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aww, this gets the Naerii stamp of approval: Naerii - Talk 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


You're an asshole btw. Not an idiot though. (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (Dorftrottel)

I think I can agree with that assessment. Take care. Naerii (complain) 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy[edit]

"Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Solar Power. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Naerii 05:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices."

quoted from" User talk:

You are taking the wrong side of the argument to support. Mrshaba is an SPA with a possible COI, who does not wish to include useful content in the solar energy article. Also, it is inappropriate to warn one editor who is engaged in a 3RR edit war without also warning the other, Mrshaba. Please revert your edit to Solar energy. I would be perfectly happy to use disput resolution, although I have little hope of it having any effect. (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Looks good - was going to do that one but got caught up with something else (as my contribs will show). —Giggy 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer[edit] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded. Naerii 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, I r serious[edit]

(Re [5]) the reason I don't tend to support candidates who don't follow self-nom instructions is because it is (most likely) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is (imo). The fact that they don't fully verse themselves in the process of RFA doesn't build confidence that they will follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions. –xenocidic (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I (obviously) disagree, but I can see where you're coming from. I guess it doesn't matter anyways, as he was clearly going to fail. Naerii 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You disagree with the reasoning or...? As to your point about old school people who aren't aware of the rule changes, if someone has been around prior to April 2007, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt (but you would still think they would bring themselves up to speed before diving into RFA). –xenocidic (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that signing a statement that says "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination" shows that someone won't follow the guidelines. Naerii 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not that they signed it, it's that they didn't read the bolded instruction to delete it. As such, they might not read the instruction to disable "account creation blocked" when applying a username block, for example. –xenocidic (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, I get what you're saying, I just (personally) don't think it's fair to hold it against someone. You are of course entitled to your view however, and I apologise for being overly-reactionary to your original comment. Naerii 20:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I normally just go "neutral" when they don't follow that instruction (and then I consider switching to support if I find they are an otherwise worthy candidate, or remove the line with a herring), but because the particular candidate was also canvassing, it tipped the scales for me. –xenocidic (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tyw7 2[edit]

Sounds good. I re-opened it per Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, "If you did not wish to have your RfA prematurely removed, you may petition the person who removed it to reinstate it." But, yeah, there's no reason for it to be there at this point. Useight (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. It was overkill. I was afraid that if a pile-on continued, that if he every re-applied, there would be a lot of bad blood. Good job. America69 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I endorse the closure. I just thought I'd humor him a bit. He does have guts, that's for sure. Useight (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


You don't really seem to be on a break so I'll go ahead and start a new thread... hope you don't mind! Thanks for the nice note about the RFA review. I'm willing to give them my thoughts, and I suppose the introspection is healthy and even fun, but I'm skeptical they'll be able to do anything: On one hand you have some people saying that RFA needs to "return to consensus", "less emphasis on numbers", "ignore bad faith opposes" (as if that means something) and on the other hand you have an editor who has actually suggested in apparent seriousness that Wikipedians are going to end up getting murdered if we continue to allow discussion at RFA. I don't really see how we're going to reach any sort of compromise between two sides that are convinced RFA is completely broken but are thus far oblivious that they think it's broken in completely opposite ways. --JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sigh[edit]

Oh ok, a part of me thought it was you just being facetious, but RfA has become sort of a battleground lately. Supporters hunting opposers, opposers become indignant and creating myriads threads at WT:RFA. That sort of thing. I could have worded my support vote a little better I suppose, but I wasn't doing it to be pointy. I should have alluded to the users experience first before launching into a Per opposition. Glad you were just having a laugh though. Cheers N...aerii. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Naerii, I noticed this comment you made regarding the acceptance line of self-nominations. Interestingly enough, I read most RfAs that get submitted, and I only found out three or four weeks ago when a self-nom candidate didn't remove the line that the "remove the acceptance line from self-noms" part was now in the instructions. Maybe I should self-nominate candidates more often: that way, I would have seen the instruction. :) Acalamari 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it seems even the "regulars" aren't always familiar with the self-nomination instructions, and anyway, it's not exactly hard to create an RfA without reading the instructions. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA[edit]


Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA[edit]


Thank you, Naerii, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]


"I know, I know, more FAs on alt rock articles is exactly what Wikipedia needs, right? You can thank me later." HAHAHAHA I love it. NSR77 TC 02:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of overseas, 5000 mile away, never met face-to-face kind of friend would I be if I didn't? NSR77 TC 02:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yay! You sound like such a non-American by putting "American" in quotations. Hahaha. I wouldn't know how hard it is to play lefty guitar but I hear it's much harder. But, then again, how knows because you can't be left and right handed at the same time so no one's ever been comfortable with both. That I can think of...And if it is 4 AM why are you still awake? NSR77 TC 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lefty on righty is definitely possible. You should try asking a friend who knows guitar to help you out. It's hard teaching yourself, especially when the guitar in question is righty and the player is lefty. NSR77 TC 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#I_don.27t_agree_with_failing_Beslan_school_hostage_crisis. —Giggy 12:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how did I feel like this would happen? I don't have the time to respond right now (about to go to work). Isn't there a good article review or something? I seem to recall Sceptre did one to dispute a review I did a while back (without notifying me at that - what is this, a habit amongst unhappy reviewees?) I'll re-review the thing later, although I suspect that wouldn't make him any happier. Thanks for the poke :) Naerii 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There's WP:GAR. My advice is don't bother; you're clearly in the right (IMO). —Giggy 12:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
(Bit more time than I thought) I went and struck through all the issues that he's resolved, but I still don't think it's GA quality. And since when did being in the right ever count for anything on Wikipedia? Naerii 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol - good point. —Giggy 12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day![edit]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


" gay icon"[edit]

There are currently three articles of which I'm aware on this topic, Madonna as gay icon, Janet Jackson as gay icon and Judy Garland as gay icon. They all follow the same naming format. If you believe they should be named differently, please initiate a discussion before making the unilateral move. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message[edit]

AFA Graduates.jpg Thank you for the support!
Naerii, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your vote at my RFA, which has closed as a success. You were one of several people who had concerns about the whole coaching issue, and reading more and more into it, I can understand why you all have concerns - it probably did look like I was being handed a cheatsheet. I can assure you I wasn't, but this isn't what this post is about. It is to say that I have taken your comments (and all the others) to heart, and I will be seeing about making some recommendations about admin coaching from a past coachee. Once again, than you for your participation. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


[6] = see Wikipedia:Barnstars, and choose any one you wish. :) (If there was any humor in that comment of yours and I missed it...) Acalamari 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note from a nobody[edit]

Hi there, you probably have no idea who I am but I thought I'd pop by to let you know how nice I found your comments on Yechiel Shalom's page. RFA's really aren't a way to tell how good an editor a person is, it's nice you let him know that. Failed RFA's can be disheartening. = ) Best, --Cameron* 10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Bagpipe performer.jpg Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.

All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I don't want you off the project. You, with your personal attacks and ignorant comments, just seem like you're not able to contribute to the project in a decent way. Maybe your comments towards me and about me are an odd occurrence. If that's so, than maybe you are good for the project and just aren't good for me. Oh well.

The bottom line is that I have no personal problem with you, and have never acted like it. I don't understand the provocation for the recent comments against me. I hope that you now realize that there is no need to call me an idiot or such, or to say that I make a fool of myself. It isn't appreciated, and it isn't needed. Good luck. Beam 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Hey I responded there, cheers Gary King (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: My RFA[edit]

It is not a big deal. I understand what you were trying to say, and I did not take offense at your statement at all. When I started this RFA, I expected that most (if not all) of my opposes would involve the fact that I have very little article writing experience. So, like I said, I know where you were trying to come from, just don't sweat it, it's perfectly OK. I appreciate your willingness to support me, although I must admit that that was probably the last thing I expected you to do. If you don't think I would be a good administrator, I don't want you to support me just out of feeling bad for saying what you did in your original oppose.

Anywho, I guess I'll cya 'round teh Wiki!

Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 14:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Show Your Hand[edit]

Thanks for sorting out the refs mate. Cavie78 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweeps[edit]

Thanks for offering your help. Can you tell me (roughly) how many reviews in total have you completed? And for future reference, Hibiki's Magic shouldn't be a GA. The lead is ok, but the article dedicated too much contents towards plot and character analysis (and both sections do not contain any sort of references). OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Littleton[edit]

Hello Naerii:

Thank you very much for reviewing "Harvey Littleton" and for deeming it a Good Article. I am thrilled.

Your recommendations have been acted upon. "Filial piety" is an old-fashioned way of saying respect for one's family or parents. This has been changed to "respect for his father's wishes." I broke the lead paragraph into three paragraphs for ease of reading, per your request.

I did not quite understand, however, your comment about spaces between periods and references.

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Glassnote (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lazer Beam[edit]

I think I've addressed all you concerns, have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks for reviewing Hey Venus! as well, will get to work on improving the article and renominate. And Super Furry Animals are ok I suppose... (MEGALOLZ as 'the kids' would say) Cavie78 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking the time to help with this - bet you're sick of reading about the Super Furries! Cavie78 (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the review! I haven't found sources [yet] for the recording, music, etc. but I plan to get this article to FA eventually so I'll be doing a lot of research. I want all of Janet Jackson's studio albums to become a featured topic so I'm working on them one by one. See my other work on Control (Janet Jackson album), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, and The Velvet Rope. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:SummerSlam (2004)/GA1[edit]

How is quick-fail applied here? -- iMatthew T.C. 12:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Because it needs a pretty extensive copyedit (at the moment, it sounds like it was written by a fan - not that it's a bad thing to be written by a fan, it just shouldn't be that obvious) and some work to remove the wrestling jargon (per recent consensus at WP:PW). Not typically the kind of thing that is accomplished with a few changes. It wasn't "quick failed" (whatever that is supposed to mean), it just failed (as it doesn't meet GA criteria). If you think you can improve the prose well enough within a week I'd be happy to switch it to "on hold" however. naerii 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can place it on-hold, that'd be great. -- iMatthew T.C. 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've completed a copyedit of the entire article. Cheers, -- iMatthew T.C. 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks![edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, Naerii!
I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks[edit]

RFA thankspam[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.


J.delanoygabsadds 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Naerii. Thanks for notifying me of the status of the GA review of Force. I have listed it as a Good Article, as it appeared to meet all the criteria. Many thanks, J.T Pearson (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you[edit]

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam[edit]

Wikipedia logo (svg).svg Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! RlevseTalk 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Redirects[edit]

Fine, whatever. Wasn't aware of that. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog Comment[edit]

Very cute, Kamryn Matika. --David Shankbone 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Wasn't it? Completely truthful though! I don't think I've ever said a more honest word in my life. Was that some kind of sad attempt to bother me by using my Power Word: Real Name, btw? Because it isn't :) --naerii 19:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. You left your e-mail address ( and a Google for that name gives the second hit as User:KamrynMatika, which redirects here. Hardly a Powerword: Real Name - just a two second deduction. --David Shankbone 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but then many people know the exact same thing and never feel the need to leave a message on my talk page with the edit summary "Kamryn Matika". In fact, in all my time here I don't think I've been addressed as "Kamryn Matika". Odd, really. naerii 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. Whether it's adopting the name of some fictional character you identify with, or in thinking I'm here like ole' Scratch. Whatever drama you need to make it all seem interesting, Kamryn Matika. Run with it! By the way, *have* you been given your dying friend's child to raise, or did someone just sleep with your fiancé? Would you Shankblog about it if it's true (I'd need verifying photos)? --David Shankbone 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it was the story about her sleeping with her boss that appealed to me the most! Not sure if providing photographic evidence would be legal, sorry. naerii 03:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's very legal. And we'll keep it very anonymouse. You know where to reach me.... --David Shankbone 03:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
See, it's things like this that make me leave comments like that on your blog. naerii 03:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis/List10[edit]

It looks like you finished this range of responses, so I changed the status on it to {{done}} on Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis#The Lists. Feel free to revert if I'm wrong. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I read through the missing response and added their comments to the master spreadsheet, but didn't actually add them to the list10 page - so, It was a premature  Done, but I retrieved the comments anyway. No worries. My spreadsheet is at home, though, so - since I'm at work - I'll update list10 tomorrow, probably. Thanks again for helping out! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No spam...[edit]

Just a thankyou. If I ever start drifting off the rails, pleas feel free to slap me. I appreciate your trust, and hope to do well by you. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Answered ya again. Btw, when in doubt, google. Like this. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting GA Sweeps[edit]

Per your request in mid-July, we would like to welcome you to the sweeps team (yeah, we're getting desperate to find more reviewers). Instructions can be found on the sweeps page and you keep track of what you did at the running totals page. Let me know if you have any questions. 09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP: Trying again[edit]

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling 09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


What have you been up to these days? On holiday? :) NSR77 TC 00:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh the ~south of france~. I love the ~south of france~. Hahaha. I'm currently in London for a few days for only god knows why. I've been traveling all summer but I never really liked London much, which makes me wonder why I'm actually here. I haven't found any pictures that seem interesting to add. I have a couple saved on my computer but I've been figuring out a way to fit them in and make it relevant. I'll be sure to review the article as soon as I'm back in LA! NSR77 TC 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha! I would never expect any woman to ever say that! London reminds me too much of New York. I grew up in the suburbs so I could go there whenever I want. But, you know, I love New York and London feels like an imposter. Hahaha. How could you not love the south of France? It's serene! NSR77 TC 18:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject[edit]

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Black Holes[edit]

No problem. Don't worry about my aestethics as much, that's just me griping, but a peer review can do loads to help an article. Like I said, I liked the album, and want to see it get FA too... if I still had access to my ProQuest account I would have been happy to give you some print sources for use, unfortunately I don't have it anymore. :( Good luck, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Poke me next time it's up there (you went to FAC without me! :( :( ). —Giggy 06:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Naerii, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikijunior AfD[edit]

On the contrary to your reversion of the AfD nominations....

I disagree with your action here, and find that it is not giving proper information to those seeking to understand that this is in fact the third AfD for this article... and IMHO should be noted as such. It was reviewed "by the community" and certainly if it had stuck out as a significant exception at the time, it would have been noted as such.

I won't get into an edit war over this, but I strong disagree with your actions here. As there is no forum to dispute this action, I'll just leave it where it is. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Muse album[edit]

What happened to the FAC? I was about to comment several days ago before I noticed you withdrew! NSR77 TC 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


What are the templates for closing an RfA?(Not that I'm about to, I'm just curious)--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter[edit]

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


I appreciate the undramatic oppose. :-) It's not unexpected, as I indicated there. --Dweller (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Now it's listed for deletion. NSR77 TC 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, what would I do without you? :) NSR77 TC 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tooth Interior Fatigue Fracture[edit]

Hey Naerii,

This is what the article looked like when I placed a CSD G1 Tag on it. It was uncategorized, contained no links whatsoever to any other article, contained example images and the text seemed to have been out of context. Therefore I placed the article up for Speedy Deletion. Cheers --Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 10:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA concern[edit]

I've addressed you concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Morbidthoughts, if you're interested. Best, --Cameron* 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/Collaboration[edit]

As a member of WikiProject Discographies, I thought you might be interested to participate in the collaboration. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)