User talk:Ral315/Archive 16

edit

History Archives:

Dec. 04 to Feb. 06

Mar. 06 to Feb. 07

Feb. 07 to May. 08

Jun. 08 to Present

2004-2005:

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08

2006:

09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18

2007:

19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28

2008:

29 · 30 · 31 · 32

My RfA and your vote

Hello Ral,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. As you mentioned in your oppose vote about my low amount of article edits, I will focus on making article edits a much larger percentage of my time on Wikipedia. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Not timestamped; correct stamp would have been 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Queen WikiProject — 2006-31-2006

The Queen WikiProject needs your help.

The Queen WikiProject is setting out guidelines for album and song articles and we need all the help of our members, whether its setting out guidelines, reformatting articles, or just some clean up. If you can help please do so in anyway you can.

Not timestamped; correct stamp would have been 09:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

re:Warning

There was no personal attack on Sceptre. If you or anyone percieved it as a personal attack, sorry, but it wasn't. If you could kindly tell me which part you percieved as a personal attack, I won't readd it, but I think my stance should stay up on his RFA. — Moe Epsilon

Incorrectly timestamped; correct stamp would have been 03:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You work for your parents? What do you do? BTW, where do you live? Stream water

Not timestamped; correct stamp would have been 03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fredryk Phox

I do NOT apprechiate this; Fredryk Phox

Deletion without explination.

Not timestamped; correct stamp would have been 23:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment...

See my comment on the Request for checkuser/ForestH2....Please provide me with more evidence as you can see from my comment, I think that your evidence SHOWS nothing as most of the people haven't worked on the articles you suggested they have. Also, request arbitration if you feel need to if it keeps going on. They will take of care it fast and nicely. I've added a couple other sockpuppets you might be interested in seeing. 72.134.40.171 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Greetings, Ral315!
Congratulations on being made the new editor of Signpost. I've not been very active recently, so I've been catching up by reading the signpost and just now saw the story on Michael Snow's departure. I'd be interested in writing for you--if my other obligations permit. So a preliminary question: How do you handle stories? Do you assign them or do people come and propose topics to you? PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance...

I would appreciate feedback on my contributions to ITN. Primarily I am wondering if I am providing too much information - including too many stories, etc. Or any other feedback you may have - thx --Trödel 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well?

Can you give me a reply on my message above? I've added Taretone/Tonetare's IP to the RFCU page....I don't enjoy this sockpuppetry thingy. 72.134.40.171 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASAP! 72.134.40.171 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium

Did you know that Nature is about to publish an item on this project? Unfortunately I learned about this too late to suggest a link to your item in the Signpost. ---CH 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost idea

Hey Ral, I'm an Opinion writer for the Cavalier Daily and this week I wrote a column that you might be interested in for the Signpost. For next week, I'm going to publish the results of an informal experiment I'm conducting with my professors. I've basically given them three articles in their areas of expertise and asked them to evaluate those articles on certain criteria. I know you've had lots of columns about Wikipedia lately, but I think this may be unique because I'm a heavily involved editor (who knows how Wikipedia works). Anyway just let me know what you think....thanks!UberCryxic 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would certainly be interested to hear more about your methods and results, although your sample is obviously too small to do much statistics. ---CH 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did say it was an "informal experiment."UberCryxic 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject

Apologies for posting that on WP:AN - my mistake, sorry! --Gold-Horn 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Interwiki reports -- Signpost

Hi,

In desperation about other people unwillingness to write about their Wikipedias it occured to me that I might write some time in future:

what interesting conclusions regarding similarities and differences can be drawn from looking at Wikicharts [1] in various Wikipedia lang versions
Article Quality Assessment in top 5 five Wikipedias

Interviews with ppl from other Wikipedias will be needed. What do you think ? Kpjas 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives

Hi, the sept 25 issue in the archive says 'report from the Dutch wikipedia', but links to a report of the Danish wikipedia. I could not find the template to change Dutch->Danish. greetings. Aleichem 09:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

CSD

There is something to be said for keeping the numbering intact. Then again, there's also something to be said for not having holes in the numbering. I9 was rather new so I figured it would be better to make it I8 instead and avoid the hole; conversely, we can't feasibly drop out A4 and renumber the rest. Weird issue, though :) >Radiant< 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Can we assume this wasn't you? ;)

[2] (even if you weren't logged in, I'd think you wouldn't mislink the wiki to your username) Syrthiss 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Blocking

You blocked Whicccy for impersonating Wikipedia is Communism. Should not Weeeky, who is most likely the same person, also be blocked? Thanks. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

ROLL headline

To give the ROLL wider appeal, I suggest that we try giving it a topical headline occasionally, such as, this week, "Report on Lengthy Litigation - Jdforrester may be "reminded to main decorum appropriate for an arbitrator"". David Mestel^(Talk) 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Interwiki Report Oct 9th - opinion?

Hi,

for the upcoming issue:

WP-PL is more or less finished but is so different from our usual reports that it's rather controversial (to me) Please see: nl:Gebruiker:Aleichem/Signpost
The Portuguese report is not ready yet but I'll try to motivate its authors Please see pt:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

Kpjas 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks bad. It seems neither will be ready for publication. As a replacement I've put together a text that is a preliminary version. I know it's not very good and it still needs some expansion, a lot of grammar and style corrections etc. Do you think it might be suitable for publication in future ? please see this text. Kpjas 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

Both Michael Snow and I included mention of the NY Times article on AfD - we cover it from different angles, but thought I'd let you know in case you want to remove one of them. --Trödel 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlist

I won't have time to take care of the spamlist, but I did at least get the basic wiki pages changed. --Michael Snow 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost delivery

Thanks for the signpost delivery. Here's a tip. :)-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permalinks

Because the parent page of transcluded articles seems to be used in the magicwords - I think we would need to have a hardlink for all the files - this wouldn't be "that" hard, but would require that the date be updated in the link each time. I can add some to this weeks articles like I did here, but am not sure we want the admin overhead of having to update them manually. (alternatively we could use a template for the issue information and then put that in the link string and then just update that template each week). Let me know what you think --Trödel 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

ForestH2/Sugarpine/etc./etc.

I seem to have made friends with a notorious sockpuppeteer. Any suggestions on how to dissolve my relationship and all ties to him -- especially since I've somehow (by accident) managed to arrange sharing the load of writing F&A articles with him. I looked at the IP talk page, and I've seen my name mentioned about a half dozen times. I want to make sure that I will not be associated with this annoyance. Any thoughts? Am I overreacting?

Also, any idea on how to dissolve the F&A writing agreement? I thought this was okay, but perhaps I've gone too far:

Per this notice by the editor of the Signpost, I'd recommend not wasting your time and writing any more articles, as they stand to be rewritten by someone else. I really wished the switching off could have worked out, but it looks like that it won't happen. Sorry. If you have further questions, please contact me at my en: Talk page, as I don't think I'll check my simple: account too often, if ever. IanManka 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for your time. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple accounts to your list of ForestH2 sockpuppets, on the basis of User:Streamwater/Sandbox, in case there's any need for ongoing attention to the situation. I suppose I could be wrong, but given the patterns it's an easy guess that these were vandal accounts being operated by the same person and used to manufacture credibility for the "legitimate" accounts. I suppose it should be flattering that Signpost work is seen as a way of establishing bona fides, but this case was mostly a nuisance. --Michael Snow 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outing Forest's sockpuppets matches with Aquafish's story: if they're brothers, it's reasonable that Aquafish might know about the other accounts and disapprove. And reporting your own sockpuppets is fairly odd behavior for a sockpuppeteer -- I know someone did it once to try to improve their own reputation (can't remember - Conrad Devonshire?) but I can't think of a good explanation for it here. WP:AGF applies here. If Aquafish starts acting abusively, he can be blocked. Mango juice^talk 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support blocks over sockpuppetry but sometimes they bootstrap off themselves so much that they become too punitive, because all those blocks end up indefinite by default. Even if Aquafish is the same user as ForestH2, ForestH2 has been blocked for 2 weeks already, as far as I can tell, mainly for creating other accounts. He can't anymore thanks to the IP block. On top of that, I believe Aquafish is acting in good faith in wanting to edit. That said, I don't mind my admin actions being undone if others disagree with them. If you do decide to reblock, I just ask that you explain yourself fully to Aquafish, including why you disagree with my decision. Mango juice^talk 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- just to let you know, I've backed you up on User talk:Aquafish. It's too bad, really, I mean, you're right, it must be a ForestH2 sock. But, all the contributions I looked at, including the diffs you gave (particularly [3]) were good-faith, productive edits. The guy wants to edit openly and honestly, I can tell that. Mango juice^talk 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppets are not welcome here at wikipedia. His edits were not in good faith because he lied about being using sockpuppets numerous times from the history I just got through looking at. He even tried to become an administrator and when this was brought up, he lied over and over again. Dishonest edits are not in good faith. Who knows? If he has one sockpuppet around here, he probably has more that we don't know about and there has to be a reason behind that. I ask you Ral315 not to be influenced by a friend of user Forest and just consider the facts about him. They banned him for a reason and he needs to serve his full ban. Thank you Hungrygirl 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision. KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances. Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Spamlist #2

Hi! Can you check Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist#Edition missing? Thanks, Jon Harald Søby 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

In the news questions

Webaroo has made Wikipedia available online - I have not included this ITN since I think it is more "press release" rather than "news," but think that some users would be interested in this. If you think it fits ITN rather than News and Notes - let me know. Ditto Wikicharts - I think wikipedians would be interested in it and it has been announced in some news stories but I think it is not the kind of thing we should put in ITN. --Trödel 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so late - I am going to need to use Sunday as the ITN deadline going forward because of work issues - so the very latest news may not make it. --Trödel 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-publication

I moved the existing articles and set up the footer for them, including the ones that aren't finished yet. The footer still has the interwiki report, so you can take it out if you decide to hold off on publishing that. --Michael Snow 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Audio

We're sort of doing it on Wikipedia Weekly not word for word but a lot of it is there. Not sure if this helps a bit :) -- Tawker 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit you have in this about replaceable fair use actually isn't accurate; we've been deleting stuff for failing FUC #1 for ages, it's just that we haven't had an independent system to handle it until now. I'm not sure how you guys feel about people making serious content changes to the signpost, so I thought I'd tell you instead of just changing it. --Robth^Talk 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RoLL

Ral, I'm really sorry about this week's RoLL - putting the link on the newsroom page just slipped my mind. Also, after writing it on Saturday, I completely forgot to update it to reflect recent developments. I can assure you that it will not happen again. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single page view

The delivery of the signpost does not include the single page view link. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be added? That is how I normally view it (it's a bit like reading the paper!), oh and as always thanks for your great WP:POST work. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-ref in CVU

Hi there. I added back the self-ref to CVU in a way that tries to address your concern. It currently makes it very clear that CVU is a self-ref. Is that good with you? --BradBeattie 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; self-references should rarely ever be used. It's understandable for policies, guidelines and processes that are essential to Wikipedia, but the CVU is essentially a club and isn't comparable to other selfrefs. See Esperanza as well. Ral315 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I took a look at some Wikiprojects (essentially what CVU is, I agree) and found that the disambig pages that would otherwise point to them don't. As such, I'm convinced. No Counter-Vandalism Unit reference in the CVU disambig page. --BradBeattie 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge of Danny Phantom stuff

I'll give you a good reason - the close result on the AfD was keep, not merge. I'm very much opposed to a merge, and request that you do not do so given the lack of consensus for such a move at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that (check DP's talk). My main complaint was the implication from your comment that you were going to just up and do it. If you're seeking further consensus, I have no room to complain, so thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there was already a List of Danny Phantom characters and List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts, so if you do create a minor characters list, I would just merge these into one article like List of minor characters in Danny Phantom and link major characters at the bottom or in the context of the article or something. — Moe 17:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now commented there :) — Moe 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for informing me of the direction events had turned in - I've left my opinion there. Blood red sandman 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

krankcrook

i am the new person well theres many though im here for somthin the ip address of cant sleep clown will eat me?? will you ask him about the legal grand figro.. if you do know about it please reply or boom ........ im not bad.......??? why am i even talkin to you oh well lol??? can i create a page which shows a new phrase lol<why do it for kid?> please dont steal Krakcrook 09:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Problem w/African bit on News and Notes

I've replied on that page, although someone already had responded to the post saying that one was a milestone in the number of edits and the other the number of pages. That being said, though, the underlying issue of taking milestones from m:Wikimedia News has been a issue I've been wanting to mention briefly for some time now. Because, as I"m sure you're aware, that page is open for anyone to add their project's milestones, it's possible that some inaccuracies may have been reported, either inadvertantly (not being aware of another project that had already reached a mileston) or purposefully. I do try and check every major claim (i.e. first of this language to reach this many articles), but it's sometimes impossible to compare the other projects, and many times Special:statistics has non-Western scripts, making it impossible for me to accurately look at their statistics. Thus, soemtimes errors will be inevitable when taking the news from those pages, but I don't think it's a major issue now; however, I jsut wanted to mention that potential problem to you. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Interwiki report for Oct 23rd

Hi,

Please take a look at fi:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost Interwiki Report and review the report. Please consider including it in the forthcoming Signpost issue.

Kpjas 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROLL

I'm really sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to do the ROLL this week, as I'm having intermittent problems with my internet, and it won't stay on long enough to write the whole column. Sorry. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scrap that, I'll make a start on it. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to ED

Instead of linking to encyclopediadamatica.com, which is a parked ad site, could you remove the links altogether? I ask particularly regarding the Wikipedia Signpost pages you changed, but also all pages that link (used to link) to ED. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better, but there are several hundred of them. Feel free to edit your pages to your own satisfaction, but please don't end up with an active link. You can check at [4]. Fred Bauder 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost subscription

Hello how do I subscribe to Signpost delivery? Yamaguchi先生 08:20, 24 October 2006

Since RAL315's userpage says he will be out I'll answer. You sign up here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, as I do find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Esperanza

[5] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why did you add a link to the Esperanza Organization on my talk page?--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6] I just discovered this message on my talk page, and you definitely pushed the limit. Now let me ask you nicely: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]