User talk:Splash/Archive5

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005

Copyright violation on modulis page

Hi splash, there were no copyright violation on the page modulis, I'm the owner of the content, can you explain how should I describe my company so that it does not hapen again ? adrien (a) modulis.ca

"somewhat vain..."

Not vain at all. Keeping your awards in your User page also encourages others to add any new ones there, rather than bury them in your rapidly-growing-and-quickly-archived Talk page. Owen× ☎ 02:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

I was just about to come and give you a barnstar for your work on copyright problems only to see that redwolf24 had given you one. Keep up the good work! (There's hardly a backlog anymore!) -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was going to mention this to you last time you brought it up, but I thought it might be a little bit complicated. Anyway, what I do is I have an extra g-mail account that i set up just for wikipedia. All the e-mail that it gets is forwarded to my real gmail address. That way, I'll always know if I have wikipedia email regardless of which gmail account I log into, and if I want to respond to/write a wikipedia email i just log into the wikipedia gmail account. Just a thought.

P.S. If you want a gmail invitation, let me know. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to use your real name? The reason I have it automatically forward a copy of the e-mail I get to my normal e-mail account is so that I know when I've got new wikipedia mail. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I use my first name sometimes, but generally I don't have any issues with people not believing me. I mean, what are you going to say that they would be skeptical about? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Bot

FYI, the bot that helps maintain AFD Bot is actually my bot, not Uncle G. Just thought to let you know since I saw that note when I was leaving a note on Uncle G's talk page. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a small duration where his bot was making changes. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social Technology

Dear friend,

Thank you for removing the afd tag from my article on Social Technology . I will try and extend this in the next few days. I am trying to add a section every day.

I feel like Alice in Wonderland. Please correct any errors that I make.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor neeray 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsport

Yes, and I disagreed. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

Splash, message for you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:DreamGuy. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The discussion has migrated to DreamGuy's talk page, since he can respond there. -Splash^talk 00:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd stuff

Hey, I'm gonna be on a trip starting tomorrow and probably back Tues. I may or not be able to acs the net while I'm gone. I'm also gonna let Kbdank71 know, but was wondering if you fealt like closing some till I get back. ∞Who ?¿? 02:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ToxicMercury

It should be noted that ToxicMercury is a recreation. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ToxicMercury and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ToxicMercury (2nd nomination). --AllyUnion (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, there was a lot of sock puppet voting and vote tampering. Make sure to check the vote history in cases like this, especially when joy stovall says things like Nought wrong with the article, but nothing's wrong with the above two votes as they were both added by cool people (which she didn't).

Nice catch though AllyUnion! Thanks for your vigilance. --fvw * 04:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth did you catch that weeks after I closed without even participating in either debate?? Anyway, however you did it, thanks. I've repaired things now. -Splash^talk 12:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a manual list for the purpose of checking the Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion move. See User:AllyUnion/September_2005. For the most part, Uncle G's bot has been getting most of the pages, but there are a few that his bot has missed. For that reason, I've devised this manual list as a way to double check against his bot work. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern analysis

Argh. After I was all nice and friendly and explanatory to the author he never posted formal permission. He seems to have lost interest. (FWIW, he said he was Nello Cristianini.) Delete with my blessing. FreplySpang (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Frieda Harris copyvio

Hi Splash,

busy elsewhere but I have received confirmation back:

Dear Steve,

Permission was sought, and I am very happy for it to be used on Wikipedia

Best wishes,

Paul

Steve Block wrote:

> Dear Paul > > I am writing to confirm whether permission is granted to use a page from your website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL ). A user has pasted in text from your website http://www.supertarot.co.uk/adept/fharris.htm to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. > > The text concerns Lady Frieda Harris and the original submission can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Frieda_Harris&oldid=21623222. > > This user claims on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Frieda_Harris to have permission to use this material, but for the page to remain on our site, we need further evidence that this is the case. > > The article will be deleted in seven days time if permission is not confirmed, though can be undeleted at a later date if you choose to respond later to state that such use is allowed. > > Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. > > Yours faithfully, > > Steve Block

Steve block talk 06:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeisa Chiminazzo

Sorry I din't get back to you sooner. The only correspondence I can find was an email from Drakulita saying "Hi. I'd just like to inquire about the Jeisa entry? What's the problem with it?" and my reply is "At the time when I first looked it was a straight copy of someone's material with no indication that you had permission to use it. If I had known I would not have flagged it. Sorry about that.". I've been through my user and talk pages and the only other thing I can find is on User talk:Drakulita. It would appear my reply on his user page is in answer to his remarks on Talk:Jeisa Chiminazzo. I can't think of anything else. Sorry it's not much help. CambridgeBayWeather 14:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU layout

Oops, sorry. Just looked wrong to me. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ngb

Did Ngb ever get back to you about those copyvio followups? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that he had recieved permission for some of them, noted such on the discussion pages and reverted the copyvio warning, but forgot to remove them from WP:CP, so I've removed those ones so far. I'm not sure what to do either. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pen is blue

"The damn pen is blue!" - Jim Carrey

"Quick! What is your most deeply repressed memory?" - Kate Winslet

"The moment of truth, boys. Somebody's life's about to change."

"Curiouser and curiouser."

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

"Maybe you're into necrophilia"

"This town needs an enema!"

"How to you spell 'conscience'? This can't be right. Con - science?"

"Great men are seldom over-scrupulous in the arrangement of their attire."

"People who talk in metaphors oughta shampoo my crotch."

"This, for instance, is under 'H' for toy"

"If there's a mental health organization that raises money for people like you, be sure to let me know."

"You people! If it hasn't been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing about, is that it?" -Metatron

"So, uh, what are we saying here? If we save LA from a nuclear bomb, then you and I can get together for dinner and a movie?"

"What I am saying, Captain, is that I think my horse could run this army better than you! "

"There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

"I just want to say one word to you - just one word....'plastics.'"

"Let's get out of this ladies clothing and get into our tights!"

"It's a scale really, with a perfect mission at one end and a total pooch screw at the other, and we're right about in the middle."

"It's not a tumor!"

DR

You wrote: I'm sorry about that, I hadn't seen your suggestion on VfU talk until it was too late and I went there to post a message of my own. I hope I didn't mess up. My main concern is taking the discussion to a page on no-ones watchlist. Hopefully the VP will help out there. -Splash-talk 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not ia problem i was just trying to get things moving again. This may well be a bettre way. I mentioned the original propsal in the list of centralized discussions on AfD also. Some mentioned it at TfD and CfD I think. Perhaps it should be renoticed in thsoe places. i think we want as many eyes on this as we can get. DES ^(talk) 01:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is it policy or not

Hi - user:CalJW and I seem to be somewhat at odds regarding the use of speedy to enforce the conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Do you suppose you could comment either at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suppose you could restore the speedy clause to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and criterion #4 to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:CalJW#CFD speedy for by-country conventions. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wik?

Hi. Further to your comment regarding my strong suspicion that Wik = Rivarez, I don't have any evidence (yet), however I do have 2 years experience actively dealing with his trolling. As per Wik, Rivarez' edit history is focused strongly on history and politics, (particularly German, Polish and Czech), and follows exactly the same pattern of trolling/edit-warring on Sealand as I have seen occur with every past incarnation that Wik has adopted subsequent to being repeatedly banned, ie abusive comments, arguments conducted via edit summary, use of deliberately misleading edit summaries, non-participation in consensus discussions, non-reply to/deletion of talk page messages and conspiracy accusations. I intend to keep an eye on things for now, and I've notified Jimbo of my suspicion, since he was the one who imposed the last hard ban. --Gene_poole 05:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be drawing a long bow, but Rivarez is a character in a novel by Ethel Lillian Voynich called "The Gadfly". --Gene_poole 05:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Social Technology

Dear friend,

I have been reading the rules and regulations that guide the Wikipedia articles. I have rewritten the article on Social Technology and removed all original content. Is there a good Wiki forum where original content can be placed? Please let me know and I will place the whole article there. At the moment it is on my web log.

I am sorry, I should have read all these rules and regulations before posting this article. I saw “Any one can edit or write an article” and posted it right away.

Please, can this notice be placed in Bold on the main page of Wikipedia where it says “Any one can edit or write an article” :

“No Original Research Neutral Point Of View Verifiability and a note about GNU free license.”

It would improve clarity. It would save a newcomer like me from afd and copyvio notices.

I hope the article is fine now. You are welcome to edit it and make it better. Thank you for helping me to write my first Wikipedia article.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor neeray 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a stupid question day

Tiresome as it is, Ask a stupid question day just needed reverting: it was, I think, an ok article which had been mistakenly pointed to a non-existent one. -Splash^talk 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, I assumed that since it was on VfU it had been AfDed already but apparantly it was different content and not an AfD but a speedy. Still not sure what if anything should happen with it, so I'm hesitant to even revert, but I've undeleted it. I'm sure you have a better idea of what to do with it so I'll leave it in your hands. --fvw * 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cl

Hi - hope you don't mind, but I've just reverted your changes to {{Cl}}. Suddenly the SFD template that appears at the top of all the other deletion-related pages blew out to nearly twice its former size. "Cat:" was deliberately used rather than "Category:" in order to stop that happening! (Oh - as to "standard to use the full name on CFD", {{Cl}} has been used there since early August and no-one's complained about it only saying "Cat:") Grutness...wha? 08:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Followups on WP:CP

Hi Splash, thanks for the note. I will get back to processing WP:CP eventually but am on wikibreak at the moment due to pressure of real work. Anyway, you can see the status of things I was investigating at User:Ngb/Possible copyright violations under investigation -- I got no responses on the three items currently listed on WP:CP as being followed up by me, so they should be ok to delete. --Ngb^?!? 09:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear friend,

Thank you for all the help. I will definitely write many more articles for Wikipedia.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor neeray 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming

The proposals at the above page, given Radiant has taken a break, are they just dead now or can we utilise them? Steve block talk 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How was it intended that these discussions would be advertised?

We already advertised at the village pump, on template:CENT and at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. Steve block talk 04:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy attack

Hi Splash! I just noticed that you are editing right now and that are an admin, so I thought that I might ask you a favor. There is an open proxy address (IP: 64.34.173.133) that is being abused to revert the Rules of war in Islam article, and I though I might ask you to block that address forever. -- Karl Meier 21:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty easy. I just added the address to my browser, and now I am suddenly 64.34.173.133 ;-). Anyway, yes, I also think that irishpunktom is violating the ban. -- 64.34.173.133 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (Karl Meier)[reply]

I am not sure, and actually I am not too familiar with these technical issues. Usually I just try the address in my browser and see if anything happends. I don't know how to do anything beyond that.. ANyway, I tried the other addresses too, and they didn't work for me, but I don't think that means anything, really. They should properly be tested by someone with more knowledge about these issues. -- Karl Meier 22:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts regarding this issue. I appreciate it. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I Did Spell It Wrong

You're right. I did spell it wrong. DotSix's latest sockpuppet is User:Ehrlich, not User:Erlich. Sorry. --Nate Ladd 04:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceCenter

ServiceCenter has been recreated. Can you speedy as a copyvio? --NeilN 14:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HappyCamper has just this minute deleted it. Strictly, the copyvio speedy isn't quite in effect yet, but it can be speedied as a recreation per CSD G4. -Splash^talk 15:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia Higher Education

Hey, Splash! Thanks for letting me know the TfD status for Template:Virginia Higher Education. I'll take care of them as soon as I can this evening if someone doesn't beat me to it :-). Hope you are having a great weekend!!! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User subpage

Congrats on the RfA! I have a favor to ask, would/could you delete the redirct for this page. I accidentally typed the wrong date when I created the subpage, but I moved the page to the correct date. You can see the redirect at the top of the page. I thought it would be best if the page was just deleted so there won't be any problems. Thanks. Psy guy ^(talk) 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congrats. The redirect is gone. -Splash^talk 00:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! Psy guy ^(talk) 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

66.142.142.4

What do you think is up with this user? Garbage like the change you reverted on Golgi apparatus are interspersed with good edits. Very odd. Joyous (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I wasn't asked, but I'll hazard a guess anyway and say it's a school IP. The edit pattern is typical: Good edits mixed with a lot of tests and minor purile vandalism. --fvw * 01:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that would make good sense. ARIN.net doesn't yield anything particularly instructive, and nor does Google. -Splash^talk 02:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{db-copyvio}} to deal with the new CSD A8, deletion of blatant copyvios. Mind to take a look and tell me if there's anything wrong with it? Tito xd 02:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits and it looks much better now. I'm woking on the redirect now. Спасибо!!! (Russian for thanks) Tito xd 02:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I was doing the sandbox check myself, and you beat me to it! Good job. Tito xd 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried playing with it using [1] as the URL and it didn't work very well. It works better the way you put it. Tito xd 03:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello, a page that failed AfD is back; saw your userid on the AfD page, just bringing it to your atttention, there ya go.--CrazyTalk 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The new article was a copyright infringment (though a different one to previously) so I have speedily deleted it per the new rules. -Splash^talk 15:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

undeletion policy

I acted to bring this in line with existing policy so there was no need for consensus (ironic considering what we're dealing with) for this issue since I am not arbitrarily making up policy which I agree would of course require discussion. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I already made clear, I do not agree. There are other changes to policy which are being discussed. There is no reason not to discuss yours too. Wiki is inherently inconsistent. -Splash^talk 17:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be and it shouldn't be inconsistent, and you know as well as I do that these discussions will go on forever and most likely never lead anywhere. Just explain to me this then, why is VFU exempt from wikipedia policy when WP:RFA,WP:AFD, and WP:TFD just to name a few are not, even though I refuse to get into an edit war into this and therefore won't revert it back I urge you to reverse yourself and put back the changes since they are only to make this page follow every other page of it's type. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't around when VfU was invented, you'll have to ask someone else. My guess is that VfU is majoritarian to make it easier to repair deletion mistakes than it is to make them in the first place. That seems eminently sensible to me. These discussions do not last forever, have already completed the most significant phase of their deliberations (insofar as there is wide support for changing to deletion review) and working out the mechanics has proceeded slightly slowly because I have been slow to ping the original participants once I moved the proposal to its own page. I will go and do that this evening. The current proposal for the mechanics is far more 'consensus' based, though is deliberately numerical to avoid 'fuzziness' issues in the process that is intended to help fix that problem in close-run AfDs. -Splash^talk 17:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the discussions regarding moving to deletion review or whatever that is, I agree with the move but I can see that it could be a mess. More work for us I guess :) Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 17:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that, even if we get the precise mechanics wrong at first, a few experiments should show us how to fix them. I'm hopeful it won't cause much more work than VfU currently usually gets (the recent busy-ness not withstanding) since very few AfDs are challenged. I think it better to have a system where admins aren't expected to simply override one another and have to sit down and chat for a few days like everyone else. Did you see the mechanics discussion? What do you think of the numbers proposed there? -Splash^talk 17:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the discussion and I think that they're a good start though they will undoubtedly have to be tweaked depending on what comes up. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD delistings

Splash old buddy. It would be an absolutely frigid day in Hades when you weren't up on the latest goings-on in these parts, but just in case it's unseasonable down there today, please look here for the latest in wanton disregard for WP policy.—enceph alon 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Splash, I noticed that you were a part of this whole debacle, and thought you'd be interested that I asked Snowpinner to freely give up his sysop priviledges here. I will initiate an RfC if he declines, and hope to hear your thoughts. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He declined, and now has an RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2. --Blackcap | talk 06:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bindows AFD listing

Hey, while reverting to previous edits I didn't realize that the AFD listing would go. Thanks for fixing it. Jay 13:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of images

Can you make a decision here please, of which picture you like best and delete any others or whatever, LOL, Thanks

Sorry to waste your time... Very annoying situation for sure.

[2] [3] Scott 14:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash:

Deletion Link

1)Image:Shawn Mullins Sept, 9, 2005 Knoxville, Tn S. FISHER.JPG

2)Image:P9090124.JPG

I can watch the magic, and at your convenience is fine.

Thanks again for your time Scott 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contested copyvio

Splash, you seem to have been doing a lot of work with copyvios. I have a guy asserting he holds the copyright to his deleted article. He wants it undeleted. I've answered on my talk page (and his) - could you glance at it, in case I've misunderstood policy. Ta --Doc (?) 23:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, someone is interested!

See page 3 and 4 of this to get an idea of what that graph was all about. The horizontal axis is the natural logarithm of time, and the vertical axis is related to the information entropy of the probability density function of the edit history as it evolves through time. --HappyCamper 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on DR

I can help pinging other users, just tell me who to notify on my talk page, to not clutter things at the proposal page. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll go from the bottom up, you go from the top down. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so! That was quicker than I thought. I'm gonna check we didn't skip anyone, but right now I'm feeling like a SpamBot... :P Tito xd^(?!?) 02:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new

hey, i wanted to talk to you about editing, i don't know how to contact you, or if this is a good method. Thanks.

Hello. I replied on your talk page. If you login to your account, you'll see an orange bar at the top of the page alerting you to that fact. Happy reading... -Splash^talk 14:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash,
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I had seen the debate (e.g. "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it really is!") on the Afd. Tony's subpage had only been created three minutes before I made the request. I wasn't trying to make anything flare up, I was trying to get more information.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. -Splash^talk 02:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of Deletion Review

Hi. I'm watching the debate. I haven't seen anything yet to chime in on but I am following it daily. If I miss anything important don't hesitate to ping me. - Tεx τ urε 16:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger and Jim

Ahh. I just got around to reading the final status of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigger and Jim, and I'd like to thank you for going along with the gag to the very end. DS 12:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFU comments

Splash. I want to apologise for starting up one my ridiculous essay-type comments on that VfU.:) I just wanted to make one comment (the one I mde at 18:47); perhaps I should not have responded further when questioned. Anyway, sorry for (contributing to) clogging up the page.enceph alon

Template:VA Highways has been placed in Undeletion topics

Per User:Francs2000 instructions Template:VA Highways was placed in Undeletion topics. Templates are an excellent navigation tool for highways. On click, and your at the next entry. With a list you have to click on the list, then scroll to find. Templates are very simple, and work with uniformity from US Highway and Interstate Templates. If those are considered useful, then how can a state version be considered unuseful, I have trouble with the logic of that. I think we can make the template much better, just need to continue working on it. --71Demon 23:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are advertising the merits of your template on my talk page. -Splash^talk 23:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-spam...

Done, except I haven't deleted the redirect yet. Does that need to stay in some form for the links in the TfD log? I'm not sure?

The main template is now at {{db-nocontent}} and the no-putting-template-in-category code works just fine. DES ^(talk) 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malian Peanut Sheller

If you go to www.peanutsheller.org it clearly states that "Commercial groups can make free use of this information and design." So if commerical groups are able to make use of the info then why the heck would they be concerned if non-commerical groups make use of it. So could you please restore the article? Thanks Roey

Images from UDOT

What was wrong with these images:

Image:ColoradoRiver-SR-95.jpg
Image:DrtyDvlRvrBrdg.jpg
Image:WhtCnynBrdg.jpg

?????????????

WikiDon 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now I get it. If this was truly a public-service endeavor for the betterment of the planet we could use the images, "informational use". But since Jimbo wants to make money and sell the content to other vendors, although he gets us to contribute for free, we can't use the images. It’s all about MONEY isn’t it. His.

WikiDon 01:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

Splash old chap. When you've woken up, do you think you could take a look here please. Just resuming a little testing, and would be glad for someone to introduce an edit to the page containing that text. enceph alon

Hey you no good vandal! Thanks for vandalizing the test page. Guess what, godmode looks good now! The problems it caused really cut down on my widely admired vandal-slaying abilities ;), so I'm glad it seems to work now. Hasn't caused problems in recent rollbacks too. PS. I owe you a contribution to the DR thing; it shall be coming up within 24 hours. Thanks buddy. enceph alon 13:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malian Peanut Sheller

Hey splash. The website http://www.peanutsheller.org has been updated to reflect the fact that everything within it is considered public domain so could you please lift the possible copyright violation off the Malian Peanut Sheller entry.

Thanks, Roey

I see you've already done that yourself. I've removed the entry from the CP page. -Splash^talk 15:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Splash, thank you for your support on my RfA. Your trust in me is well appreciated. Owen× ☎ 21:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Whobot on duty?

crossposted

I noticed Whobot working on the backlog same time as I am. Is it going to helpfully eat it all up? If it is, I can go and do something more interesting! -Splash^talk 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea sorry, I thought about removing the ones it's doing. But dont worry, there are way to many for it to do. Right now I have

category:Tudor --> Category:House of Tudor
category:Plantagenet --> Category:House of Anjou

on the list. I'll remove the ones from the list when I start on them. Sorry bout that. ∞Who ?¿? 22:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

You may want to use edit summaries while archiving. I know edit summaries are a pain in the ass but still... ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I use edit summaries >99.99% of the time (and I mean that literally). If I missed one it was almost certainly an accident. Which archiving are you referring to, exactly? -Splash^talk 01:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't be alarmed. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion archiving. I am not too teribly buged by it, was just a friendly reminder. --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cogito ergo sum

Anyway, that kind of diatribe will have set the inclusionists fingers ablaze. Please contain your outrage to my talk page.

How do you dare say stuff like that?!? :P

No, actually I believe that's right on, and wanted to ask you if I could quote that in my User page as my deletionist/inclusionist philosophy. It's good stuff! Maybe you should start the Association of Immediato-Eventualist Wikipedians! ;) Tito xd^(?!?) 01:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/String Finger Theatre

This was put on the WP:AfD page on the 30th of September and recieved one vote. Could you please relist it so it gets more attention? I came here because you've done that lots before and I don't know if I'm allowed (not being an admin and all). --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 13:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A beehive?

Hi Splash, how are you these days?

I was doing some copyvivo processing and came across this article Virgin Mary in Islam - is this a case where someone has released an article under the GFDL and then attempting to retract it? It is still listed under September 30th; just wondering if you could get me up to speed on this issue. Thanks! --HappyCamper 20:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove my article because of issues i've had with various editors. i figured i'd rather just get rid of any articles i've written, etc than to have people continue to screw up my contributions. It seems as if there's nothing I can do or that can be done. --JuanMuslim 06:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent comments. I think most of us try to do our best. I also think many of us come from various life experiences, etc which influences our contributions. I'll send you a longer message in the future. --JuanMuslim 13:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Therapist

Yeah, I went ahead and cleared the blocks and reblocked indefinately; I think anybody who is that clear about their intent to vandalize deserves a permablock. I'd cite Jimbo's block of Irate as precedent. Thanks for the note, though! -- Essjay · Talk

Layers upon layers

Thanks! Didn't realize it broke. I threw in a {{clear}} and it seems fine now. - Tεx τ urε 18:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy renames

Please do not speedy rename any more of my nominations. You know perfectly well that I oppose this policy and the categories were not listed for speedy renaming. If this continues I may stop contributing to the improvement of the category system. CalJW 08:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your disagreement with policy does not void the policy. Speedy renames will be closed 2 days after opening if there are no objections to the rename. ∞Who ?¿? 21:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate closure

Hi. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara? The last voter and only non-anon keep vote was the admin who then closed the vote. This is an obvious conflict of interest to close immediately after voting as the only registered keep. Do you have any suggestions? - Tεx τ urε 14:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 3RR Rule

Splash,

Request action be taken against User:Pigsonthewing Alias Andy Mabbett, POTW as continues his abusive behaviour on wikipedia [4]. I really don't want to be bothered with this nuisance, everyday. Currently pending rfc Thank-You Scott 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help, I am so tired of this....Can't Wikipedia Admins do anything? Look at this [5] Goes On on on, and on. Scott 18:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Most reverted admin award

Wow, I barely missed getting the lowest "medal" on this, pretty sad. Especially since I don't get near the vandalism of other admins, luckily ;) ∞Who ?¿? 21:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congratulations! -Splash^talk 21:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, excellent work!! --Kbdank71 01:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blocks

Heya, I'm sure you know this but just a reminder: Don't put User: in the block field on special:blockip. --fvw * 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most reverted admin award

Ha, beat you! --Doc (?) 12:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I'm going to have to get myself a vandalpuppet or 6! -Splash^talk 14:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance, take a look at my request on Meta. Note, this is an invitation to look, not a solicitation :) Figured I would hide it here, so it doesnt get vandalized as bad. ∞Who ?¿? 08:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acoustic guitarists

Since you said you were feeling "persuadable", perhaps I can convince you to revisit the topic and at least comment before it's too late (see October 6th CfD)? siafu 23:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Favor

152.163.101.8. is a AOL ip that is blocked and now I cant edit some pages .Could u unblock it Ty --JAranda | watz sup 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators

Thanks for looking into the request for deletion on totalitarian dictators. Before moving on though, I'd like to double check to see if you are aware of the ardent objections of User:Silverback, the author of the article who was also among the small minority against deleting Category:Totalitarian dictators. Earlier today I came under Silverback's crossfire, and it was not for the faint of heart. Silverback emphatically attacked me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators for my "immoral, irregular and abusive use of powers... to get your [my] own selfish way" in prolonging the discussion on CfD and later in posting his article on VfD... While I'm confident that reasonable editors will dismiss his accusations (for reasons stated on the VfD page), I feel compelled to warn that, regardless of the consensus, Silverback will vehemently oppose the deletion... In short, if you were unaware of the opposition and are now having second thoughts, I'd understand if you reversed your decision and left the task for another admin. Regards, 172 | Talk 03:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. You seemed to have done a good job handling a difficult situation. 172 | Talk 12:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Reiersøl

Why did you delete Olav Reiersøl without further notice? Espenrh 05:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cvio

Splash,

What's the procedure when

there's a suspicion that something is a cvio but no online source can be found?
the uploader claims he (or his website) hold C? From reading GFDL it seems to me that for us to be able to accept it, the original website must place a notice on the particular page from which the content was taken stating that the content is available under a GNU license. Is that how it's done? If the uploader claims on the Talk page that he holds copy, and emails an admin saying so, where is that comminication stored? If the admin leaves WP, wouldn't the "evidence" leave too, unless it was stored somewhere? enceph alon 08:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC) PS. Did my first page move on Willits. Can you check I didn't mess up? Thanks.[reply]

Hey buddy,

After studying the cvio pages, it seem to me the best contrib I can make would be to focus on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Poster_claims_permission. The page was kindasorta hard to read for me at first, so I've gone ahead and reorganized it by month of first posting. Hope this is ok. Furthermore, is there a way I can tell whether email communication has been initiated with the external website for a given article? Thanks as always enceph alon 17:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Le

Give a guy a chance! I was trying to close it, when you edit conflicted me. :) --Doc (?) 23:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No.

No. love, 'the vandal'

does it make you feel powerful? love, 'the vandal'

Oh, yes. Very. -Splash^talk 02:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denelson83's RfA

This user thanks you from his core for your support.

I will keep my new dustbuster in working shape, and I will not let you down. Denelson 83 22:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletions

Splash, I'm away from tonight for a week - and I wondered if you'd take a look at something for me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters - I deleted this article per afd - a clear delete consensus - process followed. The creator, who missed the debate, has (very nicely) asked me what he can do to appeal the decision (see my talk). I think the answer is 'nothing much' - VFU will almost certainly reply 'valid process - keep delelted'. But on reviewing the article, it is a crazy deletion decison. Whilst the bio is of little interest, this guy has a fairly impressive publication record with notable publishers (this ain't vanity stuff). Indeed I've even read one of his books. If I'd seen the debate I'd have voted 'stong keep'. I've posted some advice to the creator's talk page, but he could perhaps do with someone assisting him with process if he decides the challange this. --Doc (?) 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doc will probably miss this, but I can't resist commenting. It may not be a "crazy" deletion decision. The test of verifiability is that one finds independent, reputable works on the subject of the article. If the subject of the article is a person, those sources must be on that person. If that person happens to have written a book on something, that's all well and good, but it will not satisfy WP:V if no one has written a work on him. This may be any type of independent, reputable work: a book, a journal article, a newspaper story, a magazine interview, a thesis. The extent and quality of the article that we will be able to write is a function of the extent and quality of the sources: if the only thing ever written on the person was a small news clipping, then the WP article on him will be similarly limited. If the sources for a subject are extremely limited, that is a good indication of probable unencyclopediability.

Now, if the guy wrote a good book, and others in turn wrote stuff on the book (ie. in the form of professional critiques, etc), all that material will be suitable for a WP article on the guy's book; they cannot form (the sole) basis for an article on him. Best enceph alon 17:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Wolters

Splash thanks for the advice regarding the Wolters deleted article. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the article - is it possible to obtain a copy of it? Cheers, SteveBish 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it my sandbox - I've now abbreviated it. It looks like someone has now put it back up! (It wasn't me - honest!) Cheers SteveBish 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? This whole issue is a f*c*ing disaster happening live, and looks like becoming another unilateral crusade by 'you know who'. We badly need a means to appeal bad AfD's and not just process errors, but it sure ain't infalible royal pardons from one user! (Due to a delay, I'm still here tonight - I'll be on IRC if you're here in the next hour or so. But it looks like I'm going to miss the inevitable fireworks). --Doc (?) 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that was a little harsh. Tony has given me an explanation of his reasoning on his talk page, and whilst I'm not entirely convinced, there is some logic in it. --Doc (?) 22:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Hi, with regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail gauges and power supply of Hong Kong rails, I believe an admin's help will be needed such that the edit history in Rail gauges and power supply of Hong Kong rails can be merged with that in Rail transport in Hong Kong? I had the content moved, but I do hope you may assist in also merging the edit history. Thanks!--Huaiwei 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the clarification!--Huaiwei 09:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion comment

Hi,

I share this with you here because it is only tangential to an active discussion, and also because you appear to be the senior active admin in the area of deletion review. Like you, I am a firm advocate in due and deliberate process, and have voted to uphold the recent Wolters deletion because there was not an obvious defect therein. I do, however, want to ask whether you agree that in rare and extreme cases, content review in VfU is appropriate.

Common law systems incorporate wise avenues for the redress of "manifest injustice" when a strict reading of process would prevent the possibility of re-examining a complaint of obvious merit. Courts of equity, in former times, and writs of habeas corpus, today, exist so that, in rare instances, an exception to process may be taken. I think Tony Sidaway is wrong to say that VfU is "about content", but I also believe that, in the worst of cases, a devotion to process cannot outweigh a fundamental sense of fairness.

If, for example, the Wolters article, as deleted, had included explication of every one of his major works, and if his bibliography had contained a larger number of references, so that it could rightly be called exhaustive, and it could be said to have reached a point beyond which reasonable expansion was not possible, then I do feel it might be appropriate to examine the content of the article (because, if the AfD'ed article was truly exhaustive, any future attempt at recreation might legitimately be speedied on sight -- there would then be no other avenue of appeal.)

Or, pehaps the Wolters example is simply not capable of making the compelling case. My concern is only that, in your respected and reasonably authoritive comments on the subject, you leave a tiny window for the redress of the obvious failure of the original trier of fact, the AfD. Every process is fallible, and it does WP no service if one cannot allow the rare admission that an AfD was simply flawed on its merits.

The only reason I broach this is because I think you might be more successful in rebuffing the "anti-process" people if you said, "There is an extremely rare case for content review of AfD's. This isn't it, because...."

Again, I only bother you with this as it is my impression that you are the leading guru on the matter :), and because I wish to do all possible to combat the strange people who seem to think that any idea of a deletion system is in error. Xoloz 23:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed the anti-process people ~~going totally insane~~ making a fuss over this issue. Mr. Sidaway, in particular, seems to have abused the deletion process in a disgusting way. You know, in the spirit of his lust for WP:IAR, I was ever so slightly tempted to use some variable IP addresses to blank every edit of his. Anarchists need to realize the vicious circle that true anarchy can inspire. Anyway, keep up the good fight for sanity. Xoloz 11:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

...playing Devil's advocate every time I vote "keep" on an article. I am not trying to get into debate, I am only trying to address my opinion - which I think should be plausible without comments under what I am saying to tell me that I am wrong. I respect your opinions, but somethings are a little too serious. I vote delete on most articles, and I think I have enough decision making capacity to vote yes or no. Again, thanks...but sometimes, no thanks. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry my comments have annoyed you. I would certainly agree that you have enough decision making capacity to say yes or no. On the other hand, AfD is a debate rather than a vote. So it's ok to try to persuade other editors to change their minds — and I would hope that most editors are open to at least considering such persuasion where it is offered. You'll find me changing my position when I am persuaded, and editors regularly strike their own initial comments in favour of a later one. In part also, the discussion is to influence the closing admin: if they can clearly see that the debate has changed direction, they would be expected to take that into account. I wasn't doing it to wind you up or anything. I simply thought that the conclusions you had reached might be amended in light of a different examination of the evidence. This was particularly true in the Google-count case where a fairly critical pair of speech-marks were missing. I'm not sure what you mean by playing Devil's Advocate, though. I hope that clarifies things a little. -Splash^talk 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not it, I actually changed my vote...but I did sort of find it annoying that I was all of the sudden debated when I finally decided to vote "keep." I like you Splash, keep up the good work. Also note that the first few Google hits dealt with the article in question. I also like your username, perhaps I can call you "Wave." May I ask a question? Do you ever vote 'keep' If you do, I've never seen it : ). Take care, File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but my cap and gown was really ugly...I hate the color green (yellow is pretty ugly too). I win most of my debates on the AfD's - and I mostly hit delete too. I may try to get in law, so I guess I take debates personally. I am sorry if this upset you. Thanks for everything. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dale W. Meyerrose

What do you think of this one? Speedy or not? Author claims it's in the the public domain, but a cursory search on Google seems that it's found on all sorts of sites besides public domain sites. --HappyCamper 01:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something you can find in the P.D.... Tito xd^(?!?) 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review + rant

DR

Bah, I've been slack. I keep doing all the "no brain" stuff and hoping to get the gumption to do something actually useful. I hereby officially approve of whatever gets done (by you, at VfU) for the next fortnight. I don't want to slow things up anymore than they already have been. Sorry.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rant

I'm just getting really shitty with attitudes. Sick of factionalisation, of crappy admins just doing what they think is right and stuff everyone else. Sick of there being no consequences for actions, sick "keep" votes being golden but "delete" getting chucked out.

Maybe I just need a break, but I can't see things changing much. Guys like you and Encephalon give me some hope, but as long as normal editors like me are second class it will still be a "big deal". Look at bloody Steve's flagrant abuse of his powers, and what's happening?

To be depressingly vulgar and terribly unimaginative, "Bugger bugger bugger". Thanks for listening.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation expanding for country names

I believe you supported the following proposal for a speedy criterion, and I believe I followed the rules and after a week in which no objections were raised I listed it as a criterion. After one day, it has been removed as one user has issues with it. If you still support it I would appreciate your comments at CFD talk

Abbreviation expanding for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country (e.g. US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States)

I appreciate your time, Steve block talk 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Dear friend,

I need to post this message where many people can read it. Can you please tell me how to do this.

Best regards Nirupma Kapoor

neeray 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear folks,

Please, if you know of any one who has fought against “Poorly differentiated embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma“, or has a child suffering from this disease, request them to mail me at nirupama.kapoor@gmail.com

I know this young teenager who is fighting very bravely against this disease. The original malignant tumors have disappeared. Now there is a follow up every 3 months.

Is there any thing that can be done to prevent recurrence?

I have gone through the material on the net. It is mostly technical, meant for doctors. I need to get in touch with people who have won against this or are fighting against this. We need practical advice.

I hope and pray that no child ever suffers from this disease. If you have children or teenagers around, please ask them to inform you of any unusual growth or lumps. Early detection increases the chance of cure. Growing children may be painfully sensitive and shy. Please encourage them to communicate.

Please pass this message to as many people as possible.

Thanking you, Nirupma Kapoor

Dear Splash and HollyAm,

Thank you, I do understand. I think I have found two very good and compassionate people on Wikipedia.

He is under proper medical care at one of the best hospitals in India. He has had chemo and radiotherapy for a year. He is fine now and has to go for follow ups every 3 months.

The disease is not very common and the real danger is recurrence. That is why we are trying to get in touch with people who have been through this. I am going to try the group that you have suggested.

He is 16 now, very creative, very brave. He paints and writes very well. He is now preparing for his class 10 National Level examinations.

Please rest assured that we will not take any step without consulting the doctors.

Thanking you, Nirupma Kapoor

61.0.120.166 14:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screw up

Hi. I visited Aaron's talk page because I was contemplating thanking him for so assiduously reverting some minor vandalism, when I noticed that you wrote this:

If admins here screw up, they just find a friend to cheer for them and it's all ok. Even when they do their research so carefully and act with so much thought as to summarily undelete copyright infringing text. Bah. -Splash^talk 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Do you have anything that you want to address, personally, to me? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those arn't even tea leaves Tony!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFU / DRV

Hi there! I'm not full-time back, but sometimes read a bit. I happened to hit RC and find a Willy sock, so I logged in to block it, and couldn't help looking at some pertinent issues :) Anyway, good job on the debate. I think the proposal you mention has merit, but the rename VFU -> DRV makes sense regardless of whether that proposal has consensus, per 1) the current whitebox on VFU, and 2) the RM discussion on its talk page. So I hope I haven't disrupted anything, but I think the name should be ok and consensual like this. Yours, R adiant _>|< 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, H e rmione1980 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prof copyvio

Good job on the recent resume copyvio. I was JUST about to get that one. 02:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Block

Hi, I noticed that you blocked Zephram Stark (at 03:58, 19 October 2005) for 24 hrs. However, he still seems to be able to make edits (see User Contributions). --JW1805 04:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matlab code

I just wanted to know how you made the picture Image:QPSK timing diagram.png more in detail. In the description page you said you used Matlab: can you post the code you used?? if you do, I might consider making a SVG version of it. Moreover, how did you get other images such as Image:BPSK Gray Coded.png?? Thanx, Alessio Damato 17:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

I noticed your comment on RfA talk and added Wikipedia:Be nice to the vandals if you're curious. Marskell 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stats of afd

I was curious about what's wrong putting how many afds are ropen in the backlog? don't you think it's marginally helpful (if not unhelpful at all) for admins passing by and giving them a little encourage to close a few more and thus reducing the backlog? I didn't like th "a few open.. and the others are such and such", but I'm talking about "still x afds open". -- (drini's page|☎) 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Turnbull

Hi Splash! I know that you have sometimes restarted AFD debates with 2-0 due to lack of votes. In this case at 2-1 you closed it as a delete. I can understand that, our standards change now and then over time, but I was just wanting it confirmed that it is not a systematic 2d-0k -> relist while 2d-1k -> delete. The 2d-1k situation is quite awkward, and I have at times decided to just cast a late vote and let another admin close it. (When I close them I tend to use a lot of words, Rossami style.) Regarding the Turnbull article itself, I have not voted in the DR debate, and will probably postpone it for a while, but after reading it, I think her notability is dubious at best. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam

Will you please help us reach an agreement regarding whether or not the Criticism of Islam article should be found on the Islam template Template:Islam. Maybe you could help moderate the discussion, or offer your ideas. I think for now it should not be on there. --JuanMuslim 18:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, R adiant _>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and The Whirlpool

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this last night, but I was shattered by that time. The reason I didn't see your editing tag was because I used the section editing link from the AfD page - hence bypassing the whole of the AfD subpage, and thus bypassing the section with your tag in it. No harm done, I hope; and if there was, just revert me. Thanks for letting me know. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 13:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page

Is too fat and would like to be archived. --Splash's talk page 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is not. It's Rubenesque. But it wouldn't mind a lift here and a tuck there. :) --Splash's real talk page 16:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If we keep this picnic up, send it to WP:-)! Chime in, chime in! :)

Bella Merge

My dear Splash, I believe that it was awful of you to merge the page of Bella Goth. When I went to the page that it was merged with, I saw no previous information from when the Bella page was stand alone. Tell me what happened to all that information, I think the Bella page stand alone was very relevant. Grrrr Rhetoricalwater 01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]