User talk:Taxman/Archive2

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

Contents

Block of anon user[edit]

Good 1 week block. Nice to see an admin taking a strong stand against vandals. None of that 24 hour block or "well he needs to be warned fifty time AGAIN" (like they are entitled to some kind of due process or that they forgot that vandalims is wrong...") Good job. You're on my list of good admins now :)Later.Gator (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm all for due process, and warnings first are very good because sometimes they do work. But once warned, when an editor shows obvious intent to cause problems, we don't need them. I do prefer a recent test4 before blocking for a long time though, unless it's really obvious. I agree in general we are way to lenient with people that are not helping the project. It's not that hard to play by the rules. - Taxman Talk 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said. See you around.Gator (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If you remind me after you have about three months of editing experience and do some content creation (maybe I missed it in your vandal fighting work though) I'll nominate you for adminship. If you're willing to fix up our legal articles that would be great, but any topic you have good references for or are willing to research would be good too. Those are my personal preferences for admin candidates, and many share them, but you may get nominated and be successful without that. - Taxman Talk 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Taxman, are you back now? :-) --HappyCamper 15:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Moreso, I figured I'd just be honest that I never managed to completely give up the addiction. :) But yeah, I'll pretty much be here but just avoid getting involved in things that will take major amounts of time. Thanks for noticing - Taxman Talk 13:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay :-) Nice having you around! --HappyCamper 01:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the b'day greetings. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

I think we agree: Citation and trustworthiness

Ok thanks, but I'm confused why you're telling me this. - Taxman Talk 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

US taxation[edit]

Here's what you have to do. You have to read what I post to see the sources cited. Since they're cited, they also stay. Also, I am adding to the article. Your disagreement of the cited sources doesn't make it any less an add. It just becomes your PoV. Don't delete my valuable additions just because they don't agree with yours. If you do so, you will be blocked.--bb69 18:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

The sources you "cited" don't support your position. To proceed, you need to find sources that do. The 1040 instructions are not where the law is and staking your position on what the 1040 forms don't say is laughable. - Taxman Talk
Incorrect. The sources I cited do support my position. They will be posted. You haven't proved anything contrary, which is typical. --bb69 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69 Talk
Apparently you aren't able to or are unwilling to understand basic argumentative structure. Your the main topic of your edits are not supported by any reliable sources, your edits just refer to non definitive sources on related matters. It's classic red herring logical fallacy. Please find reliable references to back your position or you will be blocked from editing. - Taxman Talk 18:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It is you who aren't able to or are willing to understand basic argumentative structure. All of my topics and edits are support by reliable sources and my edits refer to definitive source on related matters. Again, just because you don't agree, doesn't make them wrong. You are about to be blocked from editing if you keep this up.bb69 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69Talk
The sun is made of paper mache. Prove it isn't... go on, prove it! (and no citing to scientists, because they're all part of a conspiracy to convince us otherwise, so they can keep all that paper mache for themselves). Well, since you can't prove to my satisfaction that the sun isn't made of paper, I'm going to go ahead and put that in the Sun article. BD2412 T 18:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never brought one, but I've commented in a few - I believe that it would not be inappropriate in this case, but I fear that it would quickly devolve into the subject trying to "prove" his beliefs. BD2412 T 18:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it's fairly obvious he isn't even trying to actually prove his case, so I believe the process would be pretty successful. His version of "proving" is readily seen to be flawed. It takes some time to start and RfC, so I'll make one last attempt to reason, then we'll go that route. - Taxman Talk 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - I can think of a few other editors who will join us in certifying the dispute. BD2412 T 18:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Is BB69 the only one, or are there more that should be looked at? BB69 just happens to be the one I've run into this time. - Taxman Talk 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There have been others, but they have generally been anons. Of course, BB69 may have been responsible for some of it, but we don't even need to go there for purposes of an RfC. BD2412 T 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already found reliable sources that support my position. I have posted them all over discussion pages and on the articles. Look around a little bit more. I will feel free to edit articles as I see they need when they are incorrect and adding when I see needed. Don't talk about violating commen sense when you're a victim of it. I've already been through this sort of talk with Wikipedia and they agree with me. Your modes of tactic are unacceptable and I will also purse dispute resolution as I have in the past and stopped types like you. I'd rather you just pay attention and discuss things with me first. --bb69 19:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)bb69 Talk

BB69, your "reliable sources" amount to gematria - you take individual words, pick out definitions of those words from cases that have nothing to do with the point at hand, and then cite those definitions as Gospel to demonstrate that the words of the Constitution and the tax code mean something other than the obvious meaning which the courts have discerned. You also misunderstand the role of the courts, which is to interpret the law - where a word is subject to multiple interpretations, it is the function of the courts to determine which interpretation was intended by the lawmakers. This interpretation is presumed correct unless and until the legislature changes the law to express a differing intent. BD2412 T 19:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
BD2412 , if you think my reliable sources amount to gematria you should check out your own. I take words that have been discussed in cases, no matter if the case was about it, it covered the topic that I mentioned. It's not my fault if you don't understand that the Constitution said no direct taxes and that you don't understand what that means. I have tried to spell it out for you to no avail. You misunderstand that the courts can sometimes misinterpret the law and not even allow law in some cases. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and if the courts do not adhere to it, they do not supercede it still. The law has never changed, only the courts sometimes do. bb69 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)BB69
Well BB69, I've taken your response to mean that you're not willing to be reasonable and work with other editors. It's obvious enough that the sources you cite don't back up your position that I have a hard time believing that you believe what you are writing. Your citations are irrelevant to the points you are trying to make with your edits. So I've created an RFC on the matter. Please respond there, and stop disrupting. - Taxman Talk 20:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Taxman, then you've assumed wrong. It means I am willing to be reasonable and work with other editors. It's obvious you don't understand and don't agree with the sources that I cite backing up my position. All my citations are relavant to the points I'm making with my edits, you just don't happen to agree with them and never source anything yourself on your views. This shows me exactly where you're coming from. I have already responded in the RFC on the matter. I have also requested mediation with your disruptions.bb69 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)BB69
Reallize that the RFC is demonstrating a consensus against your actions, so if you continue to add material that is not supported by reliable sources, it will be seen as disruption and you can be blocked from editing for it. To avoid that, make sure your sources actually back your edits, as it seems is possible that you have done in this edit. If you have in fact done that in this case, please continue that. Do reallize however that you haven't established how the material in that edit is relevant or important for the article. I so far have not taken a position on the material in the article and I'm not saying I don't agree with your sources. What I'm saying is that your edits were not backed up by them or any others, and the other parties to the RFC agree. Your response to the RFC simply repeated your earlier demonstrably false statements. - Taxman Talk 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
A consensus against my actions do not make them wrong. It just states that many people disagree. The RFC is there to have someone take another look at all the actions. As always, I will continue to add material that is supported by reliable sources, so, no disruption. I don't see how I have to state the relevancy to that add as it is a direct quote from a court case having to do with income tax. I don't see many adds establishing the relevancy of their adds, so there should not be a double standard. I will continue to say that all my edits are backed up if the other parties think differently they will have to show me. That's what a discussion is for. And if they do that, they will also have to show me where every singl edit also show relevancy. My response to the RFC states accurate statements. Should it come down to the proof of every single edit that everyone has made, it will be a mountain of information and many pages long. Right now, I will let my text on talk pages serve as proof backing up what I have said on the RFC page. bb69 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)BB69
No, but it does indicate the likelihood is that you are wrong. I would also recommend you stop claiming your edits had sources to back your claims as it's easy to demonstrate that is false. That is the central problem here. And because you have disrupted and you are the one making claims contrary to established understanding, you do bear additional burden to back up your edits. Again, bold claims require greater evidence. The RFC does establish a consensus that you have violated Wikipedia policy and does support actions against further policy violations by you. - Taxman Talk 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the BB69 RFC has established that lots of people think BB69's edits don't make sense, and that no one but BB69 himself thinks they do. OK, so now what is the next step? I do hope that procedures like this will simplify our work of writing an encyclopedia... I would certainly like to learn how to deal effectively with such disruptive editing in other areas.... --Macrakis 05:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As I outlined in the RFC, BB69 (and any sockpuppets or anonymous IP's he edits under) carries a greater burden to establish the veracity of his edits. For starters his edits can be reverted if they look fishy, and he must present clearer evidence that the edits are correct and relevant. The RFC has been successful in gathering comments from qualified editors to establish that BB69's edits are not appropriate. It is my understanding of the blocking policy that edits that continue defy the consensus established in the RFC would qualify for blocking under the disruption criteria of the blocking policy. That block should be listed at the Administrator's noticeboard for review. If challenged, the next step would be to proceed to request arbitration. My guess is this case is so obvious that an arbitration case would be rejected instead with the advice to simply block the user if the behavior continues. A same overall approach would be my advice for similar situations: 1) try to resolve the situation on the user's talk page by pointing to relevant policy, 2) establish consensus in an RFC, 3) enforce the RFC, and finally 4) take it to arbcom if need be. So you could definitely help in this case by watching out for suspicious edits by BB69 or anonymous IP's related to this issue and reverting them if need be. Unless I'm missing some edits he seems to have currently gotten the point that his edits aren't acceptable and has resorted instead to arguing incessantly. That's fine as long as articles aren't suffering, though eventually arguing without improving articles is itself a block-able issue. - Taxman Talk 14:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave links[edit]

I was here to read what was going on today with our mutual "friend" User:BB69 and I noticed your link to Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people. User:UninvitedCompany has placed comments at WP:AN/I and at Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people raising the question whether the links to findagrave.com should be deleted from articles. If you have an interest, you may want to participate in the discussion.

And something does need to be done about the stream of tax protester changes; it is very draining. -- DS1953 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just have the template up, I think having the famous people graves bit in there at all is odd. It's not related to the missing encyclopedia articles project. - Taxman Talk 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The relationship to the missing encyclopedia articles is that there are many individuals listed that are missing articles here. IMO it is very pertinent to filling in those gaps. Doc
Yeah, upon looking more closely it's just being used as a list of possibly needed biographies. But then it's name is odd (implying we're trying to find the graves), and I think it would be an improvement to simply include it in the missing biographies. But if having it separate is an advantage, so be it. It's not a big problem, so I won't worry about it. - Taxman Talk 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

205.189.150.1[edit]

Well done. Glad to see an admin who believes that a"final" warning is a final warning and stops cutting so much slack for people who seeks to destroy our hard work. THANK YOU!Gator (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindi vocal samples[edit]

Hi. I might give it a try though I don't have a great voice. deeptrivia (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey that would still be great. It may spur someone that does have a voice actor's quality voice to do them later. But anything is better than me, an American native learner trying to pronounce the syllabary. :) - Taxman Talk 13:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I can make wav files with the software I have. Is that okay? deeptrivia (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually I figured out I can make ogg files too. I'll be doing that. I'll record everything on one file, and send it to you to see. If it's fine, I can split it into files for individual letters. deeptrivia (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The vocal samples (the whole alphabet in one file) is here. Please tell me what to do next. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning[edit]

Hi Taxman, I'm sad at the comments you made on MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning - I don't feel it was necessary for you to accuse me of bad faith. I admit that it's a rather silly thing to get in a fuss about. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should have stepped back and left it alone before you did it. You did edit war on the page with no evidence to back your position. It's better to think before editing and if you're editing emotionally, simply not do it. - Taxman Talk 15:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right. I was just annoyed at some of the incorrect comments made on the talk page (which seemed to persuade you to weigh in on their behalf). My apologies for my conduct. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Taxman in exile[edit]

Hello, Taxman. Are you in fact User:Taxman in exile? I didn't see anything about it on your userpage, and so it made me suspicious. Just making sure, Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 01:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, God, I'm sorry, I didn't check the page history. O.K., I see that it's you. Sorry for the bother, Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for checking. :) I should note it on my userpage, I just didn't yet. - Taxman Talk 08:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Taxman, I just recognized, what a great job my nickname-collegue at en:WP is doing. In German Wikipedia I'm far away from becoming admin, but I'll try not to let your nick down there. Just wanted to say Hi and hope we can get along well. So long de:Benutzer:Taxman --84.57.255.155 23:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hallo, that's pretty funny. If I knew any German at all, I'd ask you what your price for relinquishing your user name would be. I've been using Taxman as a username for years. Wouldn't you just rather have the German equivalent anyway? :) In any case, just spend some time getting familiar with the important policies and do the name proud. - Taxman Talk 01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the German equivalent would be the German word for "steersman", and thats defenately not what I want to express. And as I'm also using this nick on the internet for some eight years now, I wouldn't sell it anyway :D. After all, I wont edit in en:WP with this acc, and your edits in de:WP are probably easy to detect *g*. TheGermanTaxman --160.62.4.10 13:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates[edit]

Thanks for correcting the snafu on the talk page. A silent edit conflict meant that I was completely unaware that I had obliterated others' comments. It was completely unintentional. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I of course figured that, but man it was odd. Silently merging is probably a good software feature. Silently replacing is a problem. - Taxman Talk 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, thank you anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

From fair Italy[edit]

Dear Taxman,

I just translated your Italian User Page... and welcomed in your Italian user talk. If you wish you can read some instructions for non italian speakers/writers. Happy wikiing in it.wiki too. εΔω

WP:V citations[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Yeah, I saw it, but would you just back off and calm down? The general point is good and obvious, but you're obscuring the issue by your methods. Just step back, and it will probably help make it more likely common sense will win out in the end. - Taxman Talk 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Common sense was doing fine until the ArbComm lost theirs. Ignoring those who rule doesn't seem like a good idea. (SEWilco 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
Well no, you can't ignore arbcom, but you can avoid escalating it. I haven't read a lick of the case nor the evidence (and hopefully I never will. I stay as far away from those as I can.), but I do know you can't make it in front of arbcom for always editing politely and with common sense. So while it's always possible they're all off their rocker, it's more likely not. You might as well self assess and see where your actions are contributing to the problem, even if you're not 100% culpable. Being gracious in admitting fault and backing off attack mode can go a long way. - Taxman Talk 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:FARC[edit]

Thanks for the kind words, but I think I have an uphill battle with Roy Orbison. To be honest, it is not great, but is much better than it was. On the other hand, I think Behistun Inscription is entirely fine.

Given the reactions of others, I think my finger must be completely off the pulse here. As for listing Christmas the week before Christmas...-- ALoan (Talk) 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well no, I think we have just gotten a sudden change in what people want for FA's from a bunch of people that showed up at FARC but don't seem to participate much in FAC. It comes and goes I guess. As long as it is in the name of better articles I'll live with it. - Taxman Talk 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I take your point about improving featured articles. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, listing an article on FARC rarely results in it being improved. It is a bit like voters on FAC spending their time objecting due to minor points they have identified rather than just dealing with those points themselves. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In some cases I simply know nothing about the topic and the given issue is something I can't fix, and that is of course true for others. But on anything else that most people could fix, you're right. The only thing we can do there is encourage people to take action instead of just complaining. Try bringing it up on the talk page. Eventually we can shift the culture to improving what can be improved instead of a bare remove vote. - Taxman Talk 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Malwa FA nomination[edit]

Hi Taxman! I've modified the lead a bit to address your concerns, and have also commented on the nomination page. Please check that out. By the way, I'm planning to do the Hindi vocal samples immediately after returning from a short vacation, on the 27th. Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go look and comment at the FAC entry. - Taxman Talk 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review of Cheers[edit]

Just so you know, I tried to address your comments on Cheers peer review! Thanks for a look-over, and any additional comments would be helpful! Thanks. Staxringold 03:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again! Made some more touch-ups, and after a little more Peer Reviewing I think I'll take a shot at FA. I'll post again to request your support when I do. :D Staxringold 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Parsi disambiguation[edit]

I think your suggestion is good, although what of Pakistani Parsis then? Not to mention desis and NRI's around the world of Parsi extraction. Although, I don't have a better suggestion, and think that your suggested title would be a vast improvement on the current situation! In other words, I was just nit picking and the desi/NRI issue can easily be put under the Indian umbrella... and I don't think Parsis in Karachi would be terribly offended - but when it comes to those two countries... Khiradtalk 07:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA[edit]

Thanks for not avoiding giving a me too vote in my RfA, Taxman - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 22:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Taxman and BD2412, some names of possible admins (I have not further investigated) include AlanBarrett, Hike395, and ElfGuy. --Ancheta Wis 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Point was you need to get them to agree, nominate them, and have them be successful :) But that's the easier part sometimes, as you've alread identified them. I don't know any of them, so you'll have to do the nominating. - Taxman Talk 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I sent them talk messages. The probability of success is about 1/3. Who knows? I made them no promises, but promised to work with them on a good-faith effort if they were interested. That appears to be the limit of my responsiveness, as my crystal ball is currently clouded. And the fickleness of human nature makes this somewhat iffy. My strategy would be use the current sequence of actions which were templated by BD2412's nomination of me last 23 Dec. But if each of them required a different set of actions to somehow set the RFA's in motion, then I understand that I would be the one with the responsibility to husband-along the nomination. However, these actions were undertaken with somewhat rapid response; there might well be other more appropriate names for whom the process might better succeed. I am not willing to subject anyone whom I moot for RFA to humiliation. --Ancheta Wis 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Correct name for an individual retirement "account" really is "account"[edit]

Dear Taxman: One hates to nit pick, but in the article on Individual Retirement Accounts, the statement that the "umbrella" term for the concept is legally Individual Retirement Arrangement instead of account is simply incorrect. The individual retirement account was created by amendments to the Internal Revenue Code made by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which enacted (among other things) Internal Revenue Code sections 219 and 408 relating to IRAs. Subsection (a) of section 408 defines the term "individual retirement account" and subsection (b) defines the term "individual retirement annuity." An individual retirement account and an individual retirement annuity are two different but related legal concepts under the Internal Revenue Code, and both terms are directly from the statute itself.

IR "accounts" and IR "annuities" are collectively referred to as "individual retirement plans". See Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(37).

From a technical legal standpoint, it is in my opinion incorrect to say that the use of the word "account" is incorrect, as account is the term actually used in the law itself. (I just don't want to make the change myself, at least not without first explaining it.)

In an unrelated matter, I was very impressed with the way all the editors handled the BB69 controversy. I'm a new kid on the block and although I know I was hard on BB69 at times, I really was doing a lot of "holding back" and just watching everybody else work and trying to learn how Wikipedians handle that sort of thing. It was pretty interesting.

Because of your interest in taxes I am almost surely gonna be asking for your advice from time to time. Yours, Famspear 00:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's quite interesting. The term arrangement is prominently used in publication 590 and I could swear I've seen that in the code too. I checked § 7701. I don't really know how to follow all that, but § 408 is pretty clear. Clearly that is evidence that "account" is acceptable, and looking at p590 they eventually use the term too, so that certainly warrants a change to the article. I don't really claim an expertise in tax matters as I'm not an attorney, but I happen to know what I'm talking about in some areas that I've researched carefully. In any case you cought an error of mine and that's what this is all about. People like you that are willing and able to do proper research are very valuable to Wikipedia, so don't worry about nitpicking. Checking facts like that is the only way Wikipedia can become reliable. So change away, no reason to be hesitant as long as you have solid references to back it up.

As for BB69, it looks like we've been fairly successful, and though it won't work in all cases, the same general method used there should work most of the time. Steadfastly insisting on following our key policies is important, and following dispute resolution if need be should work most of the time. - Taxman Talk 00:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Taxman: I know you're right about the term "arrangement." It's also a "term of art" and it appears in many places in subsections (d), (k), (l), and (p) of section 408 for sure. I know that whole section deals with IRAs of one kind or another, but I just have to tread lightly whenever I get into the area of IRAs or anything to do with retirement plans, employee benefits, etc., as it's such a mine field and not an area in which I practice. I can't "talk" about the area too much; I always have to look everything up. Anyway, I'll make an appropriate change to the article soon. Thanks for your input. Famspear 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Taxman: I just added some more information to the article on IRAs about the term "arrangement," which I found also appears in certain Treasury regs (and, as you pointed out, in IRS Pub. 590). The fact that the term is used in a formal Treasury regulation (not just in an IRS publication) shows you were right about the term being used as an "umbrella" term. Therefore, my statement that "arrangement" is not an umbrella term was wrong. Instead, I should have said that the term is just not used that way in the statute itself (where the term is used in a more limited sense). Oh, I just love to split those legal hairs! Famspear 16:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals[edit]

Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:

  • Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
  • Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
  • For all the rest of the voting procedure both parties are equal. (quoting Francis Schonken from 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I set up what I think is the best way forward. It's ok to have the article where it is at until a consensus can be reached. See the talk page. - Taxman Talk 16:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Taxman! I have put my reasons yet again, on the page you created. However, I'll be surprised if those favoring "Arabic numerals" will do the same, now that they've got what they've wanted by hook or crook. See for example, User_talk:Deeptrivia#Clarifying. I am sure of winning an RfC or an RfAr on this issue, but I don't have the time, energy, or inclination for the same. Thanks a lot for your support, and I hope to collaborate with you on more constructive things in future. deeptrivia (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See it doesn't need to go that far. This is an official, properly structure requested move. The consensus it establishes (if any) will be followed. Just work within it and even people with different views should be able to agree on the outcome or at least how it was reached. - Taxman Talk 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit]

You can count on my support re: dispute at Cold fusion. - FrancisTyers 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming to this fresh. As you say, there are so many edits, can you point to the "old" version that was good? William M. Connolley 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC).
I haven't done the looking for that yet, but I think it may be sometime in August of this year. - Taxman Talk 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Parsi disambig[edit]

I've followed your (and Khirad's) suggestion to resolve the disambig Parsi, but rather than move it to another page (as you asked, what title would it have?), I've simply applied a little wordplay at the top to reference the alternate meanings.

Better now? :) -- Fullstop 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Dear Taxman, Happy New Year to you and thanks for your help with India related articles. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy new year to you too. :) - Taxman Talk 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Wish you and your family a happy New Year!!! [With due apologies as I can't resist this: And collect more taxes] :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Happy new year to you too. - Taxman Talk 13:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:StephenBengHo[edit]

Thanks. You saved me the trouble. It went on far too long. -- Longhair 13:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can find specific justification, the block can be extended. Of course coming back and repeating the same behavior warrants a longer block next time. - Taxman Talk 13:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan[edit]

The article has recently been nominated to appear on the main page. Nevertheless, there are several issues that I am trying to resolve, including the fact that there are not enough "negatives" mentioned concerning U-M. There are some things in the works on the article's talk page, including hazing and "town and gown" issues. You once mentioned something about the university administration's being indifferent to student needs and concerns. Is there a source talking about that? Personally, during my times at U-M I didn't really pay attention to such issues (I could be described as one of the apathetic types on a campus where activists can be seen everywhere). Pentawing 23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the most important of the criticisms, but I have heard it. I can't even begin to think of where to find a source for something like that. Perhaps some of the Princeton Review or US News and World Report discussions would include something on the administration. Or maybe it's really no different that other universities and is just idle complaining. More concrete would be citing complaints about such high tuition and tuition increases while the endowment expanded so much. Though I'm not sure there's a prominent source for that. More important I think would be to not make as many things such an obvious positive comment, like top this and over x that. I actually thought UM didn't do too bad at that now, but maybe we're just so used to it that we just buy the U's propaganda. See my comments at Talk:Michigan State University. That article has been drastically improved along those lines and people there thought UM was biased the same way. The UM article is justified in reporting a high quality because there are objective measures of that. It just shouldn't go farther. - Taxman Talk 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
So the article as is has no further problems? My concern is that someone might complain of NPOV problems once the article gets on the main page (for January 11). Of course, there is an anon who seems to have problems when any such positive information is removed from the article (he left such a message on the talk page which you responded to). Pentawing 17:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Page Edits[edit]

Please stop removing the current "External Links" from the Cold Fusion article. These external links have been in place for months and months without any controversy and are unrelated to the other controversy regarding the editing and content of the page. The external links are provided for information purposes for people looking for more information regarding cold fusion. There is no rational for removing informative links. Thank you. Rock nj 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews link[edit]

I've fixed the link on your Wikinews user page. I hope you don't mind. --Chiacomo talk 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no, that's fine, thanks. - Taxman Talk 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, thank you very much for your answer on currency notation.

Well you're welcome, though I answer a lot of questions and I can't think of one on notation. But glad you got your answer. - Taxman Talk 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenBSD[edit]

I've fiddled a bit with an alternative structure for the article here, trying to split it sort of by subject (openness/licensing/security/etc) and hopefully make it follow a bit better. Do you think this is any better, or a better idea at least? I know it's still a bit thin (or non-existent) in some areas but I do plan to fix them :-). I've also made a few minor changes to fix some of the worst short sentences and prose problems, but I'm not entirely sure I wholly understand what is bad. I know it isn't brilliant, and some parts may be worse than others, but on the whole it doesn't seem any worse to me than other articles, so I'd appreciate any further comments you might have. NicM 16:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Yes that represents some advantages and improvements, but unfortunately it's still too long even without the criticism section. Try to merge and summarize some sections. The history may be a bit too short now, while others have gotten too long. I think the article has got to mention Theo's abrasiveness at least in a sentence or two. That's practically the best known thing about the project after security. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I will mention criticism of Theo in the Criticism section (or what will probably become part of another section, maybe Uses and criticism), but I'm having a hard job working out what else to merge/remove. When you say summarise, do you think summary style would be appropriate, particularly to move the subsections of the security section into an article, say "OpenBSD security features", or would it be better just to find text to drop? I've deleted the Hackathons section, and will merge it into Hackathon after this version of the article is finished, and am wavering on whether to just delete the Ports and packages section. NicM 17:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC).
Generally summary style is better if you have detailed information on a subject that is too long for the main article, especially if it is accurate sourced info. The ports and packages seems a key facet of the OS so don't delete it all, just make it shorter if need be. - Taxman Talk 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've split the security section off summary style, merged some other sections and shortened some of the text, and added some stuff about Theo in the history bit and criticism of OpenBSD under Uses. I wonder if you would care to take another look and let me know what you think. NicM 12:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
Yes, that is much better. It's more logically structured, better writing, and less undue attention to less important topics. Though now you have room for a slightly expanded description of the security features. I think that is justified by the project's focus on security. Maybe on the range of expanding the last paragraph on features to about twice it's length, giving some context on priv sep, etc. And of course now you'll have to get consensus for your version. - Taxman Talk 17:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, great, thanks. I've added a little more on privsep and I'll take another look at that paragraph later. I'm going to post a note on the talk page and if nobody complains in a couple of days I'll change the real article. NicM 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
I've made the changes to the real article now, if you care to take another look sometime. In any case, thanks for your help. NicM 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Risk limitation vs. risk transfer[edit]

Dear Taxman, you deleted my edit on risk limitation in the article on Risk Management, saying that risk limitation is a form of risk transfer. Would you care to comment on the following example? If I never carry around more than 50 bob, my risk of loss when being mugged is not just generally reduced, but limited to 50 bob. Where should the risk have been transferred to in this case? Actuary 12:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's different than what I removed. The above is risk reduction as it is generally classified. The example you put in the article was about insurance which is transfer. I recommend spending some time with a risk management textbook. - Taxman Talk 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Biodiesel citation[edit]

OK, I have cited the recent changes that I had made on the biodiesel discussion page. Is there any other place where I should note these citations for future reference? Thanks for the advice and thanks for asking me before you reverted the edits (Im new to the process).

I left a response on your talk page and the biodiesel talk page which I don't normally do but I thought it would help you. - Taxman Talk 13:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Block User:198.150.36.49[edit]

Taxman,

I appreciate your strong stand against vandals. Please help ban IP address 198.150.36.49 . I noticed that you have delt with this address in the past however its user is back vandalizing important pages such pages as "Andrew Jackson" and "Cheif Justice of the United States". Please help.

Thanks

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That is the best place to list user's or IP addresses that are vandalizing. But blocking is meant to prevent vandalism, not punish. So particularly read and follow #2 before listing there or asking for a block. Not only will that page get a faster response for you, but if you follow the guidelines, it will be more helpful. - Taxman Talk 13:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your vote on my RFA... & your support during the voting. William M. Connolley 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

No problem. The voice of reason has got to be supported. :) And wow, with 129, you must be busy. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

Hi! I don't mean to intrude, but I noticed you have made some edits to the Cheers article in the past! I've given the article a serious reworking and I hope it can garner your support on it's FAC. Thanks again! Staxringold 01:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a bit. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I added a second ref for the Long attempted suicide, and I really have looked for print sources (without success). Any further advice would be appreciated, or of course your support! :) Staxringold 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The article has undergone some nice POV touching up and added some technical information (the lead was also switched to be more useful to a completely uninformed reader), any chance I can get your comment turned into a support? :) Staxringold 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, for whatever reason I can't put a finger on it's still just ok. A good article just not one I'm ready to support. Don't worry about a comment. It won't keep the article from being featured with other's support. - Taxman Talk 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, thanks in any case. I've added a great printed source, Toasting Cheers, to confirm and add data by the way. I'm mostly trying to hedge up support as Monicasdude appears to be taking his usual route with FACs of giant complaints and then never posting if his issues are dealt with. Staxringold 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What you do in that case is simply respond to each in good faith so that anyone looking them over (including Raul654 who makes the final call) can decide for themselves. Also try asking on Monicasdude's talk page. If they don't respond after a couple days you can note that in the nomination to show you've done your best. What I see in the article now is that it feels less well organized. For ex, the section headings don't match ideally with what is in each section. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tried to respond to everyone as much as possible. I would really appreciate (like a copyedit) a short review of where you think the flow breaks apart so I can improve it! Thanks! Staxringold 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BSD[edit]

I'm planning to install BSD on my system. Since there are three versions: Open, Net and Free, which one would be more suited to desktop use? What are there any advt/disadvt of the three? Thanks, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well what they say is true, OpenBSD focuses on security and isn't terribly user friendly, but the docs are so good that if you want to learn you can. I've never used NetBSD much, but those that do, love it. I've run FreeBSD a lot (off and on since 3.4), and my take is that it is the most suited to the desktop, but still not as much as Linux. FreeBSD's handbook is also very good, so you can learn all the basics from it. My best advice though is to try installing them all even if only for a couple days to get a feel for them. I think you'll really like them as it is really nice to have such a cohesive system, but they don't have quite the momentum Linux does, so they are less polished in some ways though more in others. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I guess I'll try FreeBSD and ping you if I have any issues. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I recommend downloading a copy of the handbook in compressed text form (it fits on a floppy if you have one) so you can refer to it as needed. As one whole text file you can search through it really easily in a text editor for any word you want. Here's the link. That should get you most everything you need, but wierd hardware issues can always come up. So yeah, let me know if you need anything and have fun. There's certainly something entertaining on a primal geek level about recompiling and upgrading your operating system while you're using it. - Taxman Talk 17:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Berumen[edit]

There's nothing more to my vote, I don't know this guy from Adam. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but point being your comment was we shouldn't delete just because he asks. I agree, but there are more reasons not to have the article. Not the least of which is there is so little verifiable information about him. - Taxman Talk 23:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

email[edit]

Did you get my email? I sent it via the 'email this user' feature. :) --mav 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I responded. Sorry, I don't always check that email every day. - Taxman Talk 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Mono Edits.[edit]

Not sure if I have to reply on your page or on mine:

Thanks for the comments Taxman. Although I have documented this in other places, the situation basically became problematic because this person removed the comments from the talk page and avoided the discussion while at the same time removing the text that was there.
I agree that I should not write about my personal involvement on the page, but in this case I was just restoring text that was there before but that this person decided should not be there (see the discussion on Talk:Mono development platform)
I do not want to get into personal details, but the guy seems to be genuinely antagonistic to all things related to Mono. See the history of edits that he has done to the Portable.Net page, he seems very upset.

- Miguel.de.Icaza

I've moved my reply to your talk page to keep it consistent. I didn't reallize you did both, which is also fine. - Taxman Talk 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov[edit]

In the talk page of the above article, I have inserted a quotation from the autobiography of Garry Kasparov: Unlimited Challenge, ISBN 0-00-637358-5 regarding how he solved a chess problem before he knew how to play the game. This answers a request for citation in the beginning of the article. Sincerely, Sir48 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's great. More is always helpful if you can verify more facts in the article from that source. Thanks a lot. - Taxman Talk 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PII FAC[edit]

Hi Taxman - I just wanna make clear away from the FAC page that I added the Ceylon, Burma notes as you suggested. Bhutan and Nepal are already there. Thanks for your advice. Rama's Arrow 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look, and I'll follow the fac page. - Taxman Talk 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Requests for rollback poll[edit]

You mentioned the validity of a poll whose threshold for promotion was not stated up front was suspect. However, the page clearly states that it is up to the BCrats discretion if the person requesting it would be given it. Assuming good faith, I assume you weren't questioning the BCrats' decision making abilities, were you? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi you're really stretching it there. I was referring about promoting a proposal where the promotion criteria were not spelled out and nothing more. The proposal being successfully turned into a process is a completely separate thing from the day to day use of the process. - Taxman Talk 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean anything by it. I was just making sure, since the page states, "After four days, a bureaucrat will grant the rollback permission if he/she is satisfied that the user will not misuse rollback." So I was just curious. Thanks again. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Now I understand the confusion. I made my comment more clear I was referring to the promotion of the proposal itself. Sorry bout that. - Taxman Talk 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for all the confusion. It just struck me as when when I read that the first time. I was like, "What? It says how promotions would be handled right on the proposed policy page." Thanks for the explanation. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon IP causing issues[edit]

Hi Taxman, There's someone from 67.174.232.187 that's causing a lot of problems on a few articles (Bharatanatyam, Tamil language, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Kannada language and the like).

I have replied on the talk page to a lot of his queries, but this person seems to have something personal against the Tamil language. Could you please help? Thanks. - Cribananda 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. - Cribananda 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but if I'm not around, follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and someone will take care of it. Generally explicit warnings are needed, but I used my discretion that this one was obvious enough. - Taxman Talk 05:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
chek out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.174.232.187 67.174.232.187 07:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


RFR poll[edit]

Hi Taxman, in response to "Also besides the link to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges that I saw everywhere, nowhere did I see mention that there was an ongoing vote.", I announced the RFR poll on the Village pump policy page, the village pump proposals page, and the admins' noticeboard, as well as adding links to {{cent}} (the centralised discussions template), the top of the recent changes text, and the Community Portal. It was definitely well announced. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Me again. :) Regarding your comments about ease of removing the privilege, the change you suggest is already part of the proposal. From the removal procedure: "In the case that the rollback tool is being misused, a bureaucrat may, at his/her discretion, remove the rollback ability." Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
How's the text "Egregious misusers of rollback may have their privileges immediately revoked by a bureaucrat, at the bureaucrat's discretion. After the privileges have been revoked, the bureaucrat should note the action taken on the bureaucrat's noticeboard."? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes that works well. Also the adjustment to "again misusing" makes it clearer there's no abuse tolerated after the first warning. As I said in the poll, the easier it is to take away, the less risk there is in giving it out. Which of course means the tool is more helpful and hopefully less abuse. - Taxman Talk 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That's great, I'm fine with all your suggestions. Those were my original intent anyway, I guess when writing it down I just forgot to include explicitly that kind of wording. If you like, please go ahead and clarify any section you think is unclear about this. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok I've done that. I think it was a minor change but made clear what you were thinking anyway hopefully. - Taxman Talk 14:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Taxman, that is indeed what I had in mind. Would you consider moving your comments to the appropriate section on the poll to reflect your latest comments? Talrias (t | e | c) 14:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I was in process but had some other things to do. Patience my friend. :) - Taxman Talk 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramacharitamanasa[edit]

Actually the difference between "Hindi" and "Sanskrit" with reference to these proper nouns is rather hazy. Pronounciations are exactly the same anyway, so if there's a convention that more "Hindi"-ish words do not have to end in an 'a', I am not aware of it. I basically followed rules on Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. deeptrivia (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll defer to you of course, but in everything I've learned in Hindi, in almost all cases you don't pronounce the final a, as in you don't say dasa for दस you say das, and that is the way it is normally transliterated, without the final a. Unless of course the word is like देना, but that's a different a and रामचरितमानस doesn't have that. - Taxman Talk 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Hi Taxman, thank you for your vote on my RfA. I am not sure which of the concerns you are going by (or it may be all fof them), but I have posted a comment on my RfA in a bid to clear things up. I hope youwilltake the time to read it,and perhaps to reconsider your vote. If there are still concerns, please let meknow what they are via my talk page and I'll do my best to assuage them. Regards, Proto t c 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thakore[edit]

As it it a rare treat, I'm delighted to see proof that someone appreciates my first go at such an undeservedly impopular Wiki-subject. By the way, Mr. Admin, is there any way (or could it conceivalbly be created) to see -as an various websites- how many readers consulted a page, perhaps a more significant -and at times more uplifting- measure then the contributors (often including a good deal of edit warfare in various degrees of severity)?

There's no viewing stats kept per article because it became clear long ago that would just be way too costly on storage and processing. We're perpetually underfunded for the hardware we need to just keep up with demand. I guess the reward has to be in just getting accurate information out there that will be free. - Taxman Talk 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you don't mind I went ahead to make some use of your fine suggestion to consult Platt (I didn't think of using this site, though I once bookmarked it before I became a Wikipedian, and didn't know it was public domain), even if it's a bit outdated here and there. I marked it as stub (that system doesn't strike me as very effective in practice: the tag apparently attracts almost no serious content contributions, rather useless bickering) because I knew I would return to it, so I made some other additions as well, and structured it. The divinity was unknown to me, the Rajput class I read about but never properly explained. Will you try your hand at the reamining uses mentioned in Platt?

Of course I don't mind you used it, that was what I put it there for. You may want to go format the sources as at WP:CITE though. Platts was actually written in 1888 or something like that so it's long passed into public domain. - Taxman Talk 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the alternative forms of Indian titles, that's rather a lost cause: even within Hindi (and often other languages are also in the mix) there often are non-homophonic variations (e.g. Raja has variations Rana, Raol, Rawal, Rawat), and the spelling used in various sources, even the better ones, simply is NOT standardized, not even for a single princely state's ruler, not even during the colonial era. So I simply followed RoyalArk (often the best-informed site on titles). If you have a taste for it, you could wade trough over 500 pages in the princely states site and mark the forms used (if you do, why not keep notes to add a list of known thakores ?) so as to determine whether most are in the west (probobly mainly Gujarat) but even with a number (far from complete, probably) and proportion this would not take into account the greatly different weight: possibly many tiny Gujarati thikanas would fit into a few geater ones elsewhere Fastifex 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For further fixes to the article I'm going to have to leave that in your capable hands. I've now mentioned everything I know about the topic. Yes the stub marking system probably doesn't in itself solve much but at least it acknowledges we know it's a work in progess and ideally draws some new users in that can help. Anyway thanks for the response and keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol[edit]

Thanks for your input on the above article. I have modified the tree part per your request. Thanks. Jtmichcock 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)



Algal cultivation for the production of biodiesel[edit]

hi Taxman

I posted an article under the discussion section for biodiesel. I'm just writing in reply to your comments.

Well, this is the main article about biodiesel. It's not appropriate to go into a detailed discussion in the article about biodiesel production from algae because there is so much else that needs to be covered.

This is why i didn't post it in the article, but on the discussion page. I think that it's a little bit short to dismiss the most efficient, environmentally-friendly, and economic means of producing biodiesel, as not being appropriate in an article about biodiesel

There's only so much room on the page. Ideally main articles on a topic should be around 30kb of text with further detail in subarticles as per Wikipedia:Summary style. I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out long standing consensus about the best way to write articles. An article has to be balanced based on importance of each subtopic. There are many facets to the biodiesel subject and making the bse oil from just one of the possible sources can't have undue coverage in the main overview article. - Taxman Talk 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Further detail could be covered in an article dedicated to the topic such as Algal biodiesel.

-An article about "algal" biodiesel, or soy-biodiesel, or mustard-biodiesel, wasn't really my point. For the most part, by the time it's biodiesel, it doesn't really matter what it was made from,(obviously you'll have slightly different levels of oxygen content, and variations in gel point), but it's still biodiesel. You could make a seperate article about the different types of biodiesel, but its seems that that would be more to the point on a page about biodiesel. My point is more towards the fact that the majority of biodiesel is based on some type of "vegetable" oil, and that biodiesel produced from algae not only has the highest yields, but, aside from the reclemation of waste products, is the only biodiesel by which you can honestly claim its environmental benefits(most of the positive numbers for CO2, NOX, etc, aren't based on a full life-cycle estimate) as I'm sure you know. It's like the push for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, hydrogen is extremly clean. Where do you get it? Well you produce the hydrogen using a coal or nuclear power plants.


But remember Wikipedia is a place centered around collaboratively building reference material, not to discuss how to's.

I didn't mean is as a discussion of a how-to, but more towards pointing out a hole in the information. Detailed enough information on any subject can amount to a "how-to", and i don't think that trying to prevent an article, or information that gets accumulated from reaching that level is a good thing. Part of the best aspect of an encyclopedia, or learning, is that it exposes you to things you didn't know before, and gives you new directions in which to go. Trying to keep reference matireals, or links to other information too strictly tight just makes your information incomplete and lacking.

Of course we want to include all relevant, important encyclopedic information. So I agree with what you're saying there. But it's long ago been decided there are some things Wikipedia is not and instead should be housed at other Wikimedia projects. Howto's are one such thing and should be at Wikibooks. - Taxman Talk 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. And we need your help. [wikimediafoundation.org]

I'm also not sure why you left a long list of questions and also a long list of links. If you already have the links, why are you posting them for us if they don't have your answers?

I posted the questions, on a discussion page, because they are the questions that need to be answered for the efficient production of biodiesel. In any detailed discussion about biodiesel, and i hope an encylopedic entry is intended to be detailed, I can't see them not coming up. I never said that the links didn't have the answers, a few of the questions i've found some answers to, and as i do i post them so that others have them too, but there are more answers, and more people out there who know the answers.


But to answer your overall question, it is not yet publicly known if there's going to be a cost efficient way to produce oil from algae. The current research into it seems to be being done by private companies that are trying to commericallize the method so they're not releasing details in order to try to gain a competitive advantage. So basically most of your questions are not publicly known.

I did know that, and i've been coming up against that the more people i talk to. The real impression i get is that oil-rich algae is being produced successfully for the production of biodiesel, but as you said, privatly, and that the focus is more on setting up a system,(genetically engineered strains that can be patented, expensive photobioreactor systems, etc) that prevents just anyone from being able to do it once they go public. But i'm hoping that by asking the question, and by gathering enough information and making it available, people will see that the only real hang-up to producing biodiesel from algae seems to be what strain to use, and a system that works with that strain.

-Daemon

Well someone that could corner an efficient method of doing it would have quite the gold mine of course. But wikipedia isn't the place to produce primary research. We report only on what is known. I commend your efforts to dig up information about it and anything that is published already and relevant we can include. The rest should be done elsewhere. Keep in touch with the various biodiesel groups and you'll find there are plenty of people that are doing research on it and there is probably enough public research already out that no one group is going to be able to control the production. So please contribute to Wikipedia according to it's project goals and use other outlets for other types of work. But thanks for the links. When I can get around to it I have a ton more that I'm planning to use for a ground up rewrite. - Taxman Talk 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Biodiesel outline[edit]

You had an outline laying around in main article space. I've userfied it for you at User:Taxman/Biodiesel outline in case you need it, because otherwise it was going to end up being deleted. Seeya. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Raney nickel FAC[edit]

I took me some time to get around them, but I think I've addressed the concerns you had about this article. It would be nice if you could comment on them in the nomination page. Thanks a bunch. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve System and the US Dollar[edit]

Dear Taxman:

Recalling the BB69 matter back in December, a somewhat interesting discourse (with, shall we say, some "similarities") has been developing with an editor named "Xode" at the discussion page Talk:United States Dollar at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_dollar#Article_neutrality_and_factuality_dispute

under the heading for Factuality Dispute. I am in no way comparing Xode's conduct to the outrageous behavior of BB69. The similarity lies in part in the way certain editors seem to be on a "mission" to educate everyone on what they perceive as some great injustice and, I argue, want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox as part of that mission. When you see the materials Xode is promoting regarding the Federal Reserve and the banking system and compare them to the tax protester rhetoric, I think you'll know exactly what is going on. Your input on that Talk page would bring a lot to the table! Xode's User Talk page is interesting too. Yours, Famspear 22:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Remarkable similarity, I would agree. It seems like you're doing just fine handling it, so the only thing I thought was needed was to welcome the user and point out the policies. He/she can't follow them if they don't know them. - Taxman Talk 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Taxman - Belated thanks! Yours, Famspear 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding The Wind Waker[edit]

Thanks for your comments at the FAC submission of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. I wanted to reply to this without cluttering up the nomination:

I do wonder why people choose to spend so much time on topics like these when there are so many basic topics we have next to nothing on.

I'll be the first to admit that CVG articles aren't the most important topics to be covered in an encyclopedia. At the risk of making a generalization, quite a few editors interested in video games aren't very good writers. There are many CVG articles that are very poorly written, too detailed, or only of interest to other gamers. Partially due to this, I've found that CVG articles often get the short stick here at Wikipedia when it comes to respect. One reason I spend time on articles like The Wind Waker is to try to show other Wikipedians that CVG articles can be well-written and (hopefully) an interesting read, even for non-gamers. The second reason is simply that I enjoy video games. Wikipedia is a hobby for me, not work, and writing about something that I find fun or interesting makes it the more enjoyable for me.

Anyways, I hope you enjoyed reading the Wind Waker article, and thanks again for your input. --Pagrashtak 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Hi Taxman/Archive2, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1.0 Collaboration of the Week[edit]

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Where?[edit]

Hi, you thanked me for my contribution where? Cygnus_hansa 13:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi. The link was in the section title, thus the subject of my comment. :) - Taxman Talk 13:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi[edit]

Oh, so you were talking about Hindi article! Thanks for appreciating and for the link. I am myself a native Hindi speaker (+ linguistics scholar). I am also planning to put up certain features that I have added here to Sanskrit and devanagari too. Cygnus_hansa 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Most excellent, that article has been needing a linguist very familiar with the language able to fix it up. It's particularly in need of some discussion of the current thinking from experts on the history, development, and dialects. As only a learner I'm hardly qualified to do more than comment on what I see and read. - Taxman Talk 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes[edit]

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Template:User USA Police State now![edit]

the consensus was a "strong keep". This is an abuse of your admin powers. --Revolución (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kindly use some civility, assume good faith, and relax. It clearly met the speedy deletion criteria so it is far from an abuse. I've restored it now, but please consider focusing on building an encyclopedia, not wasting time promoting divisiveness. - Taxman Talk 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi PR[edit]

Hi Taxman - whenever convenient, I hope you can have a look at the Mahatma Gandhi article and visit the Wikipedia:Peer review/Mahatma Gandhi/archive1. We are working to address some serious issues with the article that are threatening its FA status. I value your advice a good deal. Rama's Arrow 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rama's Arrow 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD commentary[edit]

Please spend some time understanding the relevant policies before voting. That comment is out of line. If you don't agree with my comments, then criticize my comments, not me personally. Don't assume bad faith on my part. It's not that hard to be civil. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not assuming bad faith, it's assuming you don't know. It wasn't meant to be incivil, so I apologize if you felt offended. Not knowing isn't fatal, it's just not helpful. Your vote and reasoning was very far out of the well accepted understanding of the policy. So I meant it literally. More people need to spend more time understanding the policies, and if they did, the project would run more smoothly. Again, sorry. - Taxman Talk 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that response. In all likelihood you did not understand my meaning, and I will take partial responsibility for not being clear. I didn't spell out my reasoning fully because others on the page had made the points I would have made.
Your assumption is incorrect; I understand the policy fully and cite sources or references for just about every substantive edit I make these days, but again, two people (or nine) can interpret an official policy differently. WP:NOR focuses on theories and interpretations, not on hard facts (see this section, for example). Is a map with accurate road lengths sufficient to meet the prohibition in the top section on "unpublished data?" I can see arguments both ways on that one. I take the view that it is sufficient, especially in light of the policy's focus on theories rather than data.
As for your comments to me, you might rethink your tone. Your comments to me on the AfD page would have been adequate without the line I quoted above, so there was no reason for you to go that extra mile and deliver a verbal slap. I understand none was intended, but I hope you can see why I saw it as one. If you thought I whiffed on the policy, then either ask me to clarify my reasoning, or cite sections of the policy that refute my points. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes[edit]

Thank you very much for your help with this article. I've nominated it as a FAC and would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lothal[edit]

Hi Taxman - I'm preparing Lothal for FAC - it is almost ready. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could pay a visit and let me know if the article needs improvement on any point. You are a master analyzer of FAs (really). Thanks, Rama's Arrow 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Taxman - thanks for your great analysis! I've made a detailed reply to your points on the page, and I want to add some points later. I will have fully incorporated your suggestions (adding more technical info and evidence), but I have found only one source with such detail regarding Lothal anywhere. Lothal per se is not a centre of any debate today. Rama's Arrow 17:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on political userboxes - I believe there's been a rule change, and I will take my POV userboxes down, but after some time. Thanks for your concern and compliments! Rama's Arrow 17:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi and Indo-Aryan[edit]

Hi, thanks for your audiofile on Hindi--it is 99 % correct. ( /ri/ vowel is missing) I would have made a better file but I have no microphone in my computer. As you are an admin, I request you to please insert some additional characters in the Insertbox in the edit page: r, h, t, d, m, n: each with a dot immediately below it. These are used for IAST transliteration of retroflex vowels & consonants in all Indo-Aryan languages like Sanskrit and Hindi. Its too inconvenient to search for these characters in another page and copy and paste them again. After all, you have a flood of god-knows-what characters in the insert-box, you can easily afford to bring in a few more. All articles related to India require them desparately. I dont know why you people reverted the earlier scheme which classified the inserbox characters as french, german, mathematics, IPA, etc.Cygnus_hansa 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That actually requires developer rights and skills I don't have. Those different pages with several hundred extra characters were really nice and I wanted to have them too, but I guess that caused some unintended problems, and some people complained about the extra kb of dl for every edit. I think enough people liked it that they may bring it back if it is fixable. Sorry I don't know where to point you to to get more info except asking at the technical page of the Village Pump. You should have good results there. And please do encourage those that are able to make it available at least as some sort of user preference. As to the audio file, I didn't record that, User:Deeptrivia did, and he is a native speaker. I meant to have him record a few of the missing sounds like /ri/ and the extra sounds such as those you mention above and even re-record a few that aren't as clear. In fact, I'll go do that now. - Taxman Talk 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userpage "doodling"[edit]

I posted the following bit in the MfD debate on God of War's little subpage, and thought I'd post it here too, in case you'd like to discuss further. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded there, hope you don't mind that I removed the duplication. - Taxman Talk 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Grammar[edit]

Actually you are correct. The verb table I have written is only for a few common tenses and aspects which show concordance with English. There are many more kinds of aspects in Hindi, which I myself cannot name, because in school we are taught only synonyms and antonyms and idioms in the name of Hindi grammar.Cygnus_hansa 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Meta:Babel[edit]

I Have dropped you a reaction on m:Meta:Babel#Terror on Czech part of Wikipedia continues. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Again. -- Vít Zvánovec 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

help requested[edit]

Hi Taxman - if/when you have time, please have a look at Wikipedia:Defense of content - its a bunch of new ideas I'm pushing to protect quality of Wikipedia articles in face of vandalism. Rama's Arrow 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I also drop you a ...[edit]

First, thx for your engagement on the terroristic page [here]. Sure, it is not ease to understand that. For you knowledge: in last approximately three weeks there were three admins who asked to be desysoped on the czech wiki (one of them: me) and there were two members of the arbitrage commission who resigned their function. Other admins are in a vacation or something like this. So, as I wrote to Anthere, there is a very serious situation in the czech wiki. The man with whom you have been corresponding up to now (V9t Zv8novec) is not the only one, there are more, and the problem is, that they are organized and try to monitore all what here happens. Nevertheless, thx for your try to help. 217.83.109.171 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC) - - - sorry, here my sign: -jkb- 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FAC advice[edit]

Taxman, I'd just like to thank you for your article on FAC advice. It's given me some good ideas on what to work on for an article I'm interested in. I feel like I can really take action on your advice, which isn't true of a lot of the guidelines for wiki articles I've seen, so thanks! Makemi 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad it helped. If there was anything particularly unclear, or you thought could be better explained, let me know. It's possible I've been doing the FAC thing long enough that I don't know what's not clear to someone that hasn't. - Taxman Talk 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:AKS74 and other matters[edit]

A new user, AKS74, has recently vandalized the University of Michigan article, which I reverted. Though I sent a harshly worded warning (I don't know if that was appropriate, but with vandals I am not taking chances), the fact that the user's first edits were vandalism doesn't bode well for me. Hence, I was wondering if you, or another administrator, would mind monitoring this user and/or give advice on how to handle a potential problem user (along the lines of "Willy on Wheels").

A second item concerns a message you sent some time ago concerning my interest in adminship. Though I wasn't able to respond immediately (I apologize for that), I have come to the conclusion that I am not ready at this time. Not only do I have other important things outside Wikipedia (which limits the amount of time I can spend here), but I also have several articles (two U.S. city articles, three planet articles) that I want to get to FA. By being an admin, I feel that my abilities to commit to those projects will be greatly diminished. Nevertheless, when the time is appropriate, I will signal my interest in being an admin. Thanks for the suggestion though. PentawingTalk 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You did fine, though we try to make the first warning as pleasant as possible. Generally I try to ask them to make positive contributions instead. Funny enough people making stupid edits at first may be worthwile editors if they want to. But I'm also not against quickly blocking those causing damage. If you warn them and they repeat the vandalism that's clear blocking territory. If you want, the quickest way to get a response is to list it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If they vandalize after a warning they'll get a block pretty quick. As for that specific user, unless I'm missing something they stopped pretty quick after the warning so there's nothing to worry about with that one.
And I commend you for focusing on articles, you certainly don't need to be an admin, but you also don't need to spend much time on admin functions either. Basically it would allow quicker reverting of vandalism and blocking if that's all you wanted. But hey also let me know, and don't sweat it if you don't want it. We need article writers too. - Taxman Talk 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lothal FAC[edit]

Hi Taxman - Lothal is FAC! Please give an up-or-down vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lothal. Thanks for all your help and advice! Rama's Arrow 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased Admin[edit]

I was just informed that there's another ON issue on Wiki. My first reaction was, "oh no, here we go again." But upon further investigation, it is clear to me that you judge content based on a bias, not on the quality of the content. The one that jumped out at me the most was the booting article. A lesser version of that article has been linked on wiki forever (formerly in the bootstap wiki I believe). No one has ever had an issue with it. We (I'm an O-nerd admin) got the author to clean up the article, add to it, and post it on ON. He then updated the wiki link to his new, better article, which you removed ... ok, fine, maybe you didn't like it. But then I look at the other external links that are allowed to remain and it is more than obvious that you care nothing about content, and only about your personal vendetta with Uriah923. It's as good if not better than the other links provided that are allowed to stay. I just think it's sad. I was at least partially on your side before with the old O-nerd issues, but now you're putting personal feelings in the way of good information. If you have to remove the hard work of others to feel good, go ahead. Despite all your suspicions, there is no SEO campaign by ON via wiki. Give it up man, it's just not true. I'm not denying the issues of the past, but that is nowhere near the case now. If you can honestly say that the ON article you deleted from the Booting article is of lesser value than the other external links, then that's fine and I accept that disagreement though I still think you're wrong and should consider deleting the other links as well. If that's not the case though, I'm loosing faith in you man. No hard feelings. I just ask you to judge ON authors by their content, and not by your past issues with Uriah923. I'm sure that's too much to ask though. Your obsession with a past issue seems too much for you to forget. I'm not looking for a debate, conversation, deal or anything like that. Wiki is your land. I'm just stating that I think you're going too far, that's all. Good luck with whatever it is you do. MarkMcB 01:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There were countless polite requests for this issue to have ended in a better manner. The extraordinary amount of time that was and is being wasted on the issue is detrimental to the project. There's no huge gain to a Wikipedia article to have external links. What articles need are the highest quality references such as textbooks, journal articles, highly regarded whitepapers, rfc's etc. Yes we know having links from Wikipedia is very valuable because of our pagerank, but that's not what we're here for, and we're probably going to have to get tighter about it. - Taxman Talk 03:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand what happened in the past and I understand why it was wrong. Now let's discuss today. Today ON has an improved version of an article that was cited on wiki when it was lesser without issue. After the improvement, the only thing on wiki that changes is the link and you remove it. Doesn't that seem odd to you? I feel like you're judging me and the authors on my site because of the actions of one individual. That'd be like you going to jail forever because your brother is a murderer. You're punishing my authors because you don't like Uriah923. I wish you'd just say, "I, Taxman, am willing to judge the entire content of a site and all of its authors because I dislike one person." What if wiki had a rogue admin? Should the world dismiss its content??? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. All I'd like to see from you is some consistency. You target ON articles, not poor external links like you claim. Many of the authors for my site spend a lot of time and effort working on their articles and I know them to be better than the average wiki external link. I just can't understand why you can't allow people (non-ONs) to post links to our site if they deem them useful. If you or wiki is sooooo concerned with SEO and PageRank, then why don't you implement no follow attributes on your links and make them useless for Google credit? I get severely irritated when I read how you dismiss content as SEO with no explanation other than "once upon a time I had this problem with Uriah923." Continue your crusade if you must, but just know that you're only discriminating against the authors of ON who are the same people who enjoy contributing to sites like wiki. And please, give up on the SEO argument. Nearly all of our visibility comes from when our articles are posted on sites like Slashdot or other high traffic/high visibility sites. I personally keep track of our traffic and I've never seen a trend or spike on ON that was related to wiki. We'll do fine with or without wiki links, but that's of no concern to me. My concern is that you are deciding which links should or should not stay simply by a domain name. You owe the wiki community more thought than that as an admin. If you don't like external links, then please get to deleting. I've seen a lot of non "textbooks, journal articles, highly regarded whitepapers, rfc's etc" cited in wiki articles. But we all know that's not what you've been looking for in your recent delete-spree ... you're looking for "ON.com". MarkMcB 06:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't fix everything on this site; I can only work on what I see and promote best practices. Again, what we need are reliable references, and yes in this case I feel it is better to not reward a site where someone has acted so irresponsibly; we don't need external links, they're just a non-critical extra. If the links to your site weren't so important, then why are we even spending time on this issue? - Taxman Talk 13:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh ... my ... gosh!!! I give up man. You win whatever game you're playing. No matter how many times I tell you I don't care about the links, you're going to fall back on your conspiracy theory. While we're at it, I'll just assume that the only reason you ever worked on wiki was to gain admin right for for self-gratification and bragging rights with your peers because apparently there's no way that anything done on wiki is for the good of the group. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: I don't care if you take off our links ... just stop being a biased admin!!! If what you are preaching is true, then you've got a lot of work to do. It just seems funny to me that you've got the time to delete the ON links, but not the others that are in the same article. ---- So, let's drop that one, you win your power-trip game. Please answer this, why do you get to say, "we don't need external links?" If they're not needed/useful, then why are they even allowed on wiki? It would seem that many disagree with you. Also, I'm curious what you're going to do in a year or so when someone throws up a wiki page for ON because it's become a popular site. It's bound to happen as our growth has been steady since day 1. Every other site similar to ours has a wiki page I've noticed. I can only assume you'd delete one entitled ON, regardless of who writes it with a note saying, "this is clearly SEO." What will be your justification then? In more general terms, are you ever going to let go of the past? MarkMcB 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I could respond further, but for the most part I'll just stand on the basis of what I've already said, and let the manner of your comments strengthen my points for me. As to our articles on websites, everyone wants one about theirs so it's not surprising we have too many--it's a significant unfortunate bias in our coverage, among others. If and when ON has a verifiable popularity/importance to warrant inclusion of an article on it, that wouldn't be the end of the world, but it still wouldn't justify having lots of links from our articles to ON. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Manner? If you mean frustrated, then you're right on. I'm frustrated because I don't like you labeling the anything related to ON as "spam." If you had an issue with Uriah923, then please label it as "Uriah923 spam." I get extremely irritated when I watch you go around claiming that ON is on some sort of wiki SEO campaign. It seems very much like slander to me. I guess the root of my frustration is that you blame ON for your problems. At one point in time that may have been at least somewhat true, but it certainly is not anymore. I'd be quite satisfied if you simply stopped citing "ON spam" when you remove a link to ON. All you're doing is building an unwarranted bias against my site. Like I've said before, I don't care how many (if any) links to ON are on wiki. I do, however, care when you toss around the name of my site (or "ON") as if it's some sort of spammer's haven. If nothing else, do me a favor and be more specific in your accusations and actions when you leave your little notes in the edit summaries. I respect your intentions as a wiki admin, but I think you're letting emotions bleed over into just arbitration. If your issue is with Uriah923, then please cite this in your actions and don't discredit my work and the work of the patrons of my site. MarkMcB 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that's fair enough, I can change that, but I'd rather that I'll never have to again. As founder of the site I would again recommend you strongly encourage Uriah923 to drop the issue as it is giving your site a bad name. For what it's worth it wasn't to connect the whole site to it, but simply as the simplest descriptive term of the promotional efforts being done in the name of the site. - Taxman Talk 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Great. If possible, could you contact me via the email address on the bottom of ON. I'm unaware of how Uriah923 ties into the recent deletions and email would probably be a better forum (unless you want to make your talk page even longer). I'm willing to do whatever is necessary, but I'm admittedly ignorant to a certain degree on what exactly the current issues with Uriah923 are and how to recognize them. MarkMcB 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No major need. It's really simple. Just ask him in the strongest words possible to stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote your site. That includes linking to it, asking people to consider links to it, and complaining when the links are removed and the site is put on the blacklist due to his efforts. His activities aren't good for your site or ours. - Taxman Talk 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You're asking me to scold him when I have no proof (which is what I wanted to discuss via email). Needless to say, I'd like to have some proof of the alleged promotions. As far as I can tell (and I'm no wiki expert), he hasn't posted any links to ON. Is there some forum where he's asking others to do his work? Perhaps I'm missing them. I'm sure you understand that all I want is a solid case before I go accusing him of wrongdoing. The initial issue seemed cut and dry, but I don't see the basis against him on this one. And I think the reason he's complaining about the link removals is because he watches you like you watch him. Let's face it, neither of you trust the other, and both of you seem to freak out anytime the other does anything related to ON. Anyway, that's irrelevant. I would simply like any info you can give me on how I should show that he is doing things in a manner that's not acceptable for wiki. Thanks! MarkMcB 17:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Vocal Samples.[edit]

Hey Taxman, sorry for the late response. Yeah, I guess I missed ri, and probably the voice quality isn't all that good either. I'll try doing it again soon. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you don't have to do it if you don't, recruit someone else if you want, but thanks for creating them, they're just fine. You don't have to do it all over too since they just need to be chopped up anyway. The phrases in List of common phrases in various languages would be good to have too if you're willing. - Taxman Talk 04:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And while we're at it, can you tell me what मितूवा might mean? I can't remember the rest of the sentence it was in and I'm not sure if the spelling is right (I can't tell by sound the difference between the t's and d's and long and short vowels all the time yet), but I've heard it in a few film songs and I can't find it in my dictionary. - Taxman Talk 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Split infinitive[edit]

Talk:Split_infinitive

Someone more skillful than I (er.. than me?) please tidy up my thoughts, please.

There was a request for references to be cited. In the above split infinitives debate, the address: http://courses.lib.odu.edu/engl/jbing/544--infinitive.html may help someone very keen to follow up the thread thoroughly..

That is a good start. It's not a highly reliable reference of it's own but it does cite some that appear to be, so it could be very helpful in improving the reliability of our article. Thank you very much. Why not get an account here, and get ahold of some of the source listed at that link and start contributing. It's pretty addictive. - Taxman Talk 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

Hello. I'm trying to get an article up to FA status, and I noticed you were an individual heavily involved in the process. I read through your FA guide, and I would like to ask you a question. What exactly is the problem with fair use images. And if using them, is there some sort of criteria. You mentioned it in the FA advice you wrote, yet I'm still having a problem understanding the problem. Perhaps you could further explain. Pepsidrinka 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a few problems, the biggest one being they're not free. We are the free encyclopedia, with the goal of describing all encyclopedia knowledge. We're not the fair use encyclopedia. The next problem is people rarely properly apply the fair use rules and use correct fair use rationale. In using a fair use image we're publishing someone else's copyrighted work and benefiting from that. But even with 100% correctly applied fair use rationale, the image is not free to use for all purposes. A teacher wishing to use a Wikipedia article in class, or someone wishing to use it in a corporate presentation, or whatever other purpose free information can be put to is probably not covered by the fair use rationale that Wikipedia is claiming, as the rationale only apply to Wikipedia's use of the image. So they must strip out the fair use images and be left with a lesser article and/or face the liability of violating copyright. Now to be fair a lot of people don't respect copyright, but when we hold ourselves out as the promoters of free information, we should follow what we promote. You may also wish to get User:Carnildo's views on it as he is very good at patrolling for fair use problems, and he may have a different view than I. In the end my guideline says free images are preferred, but properly tagged fair use images are allowed, which I believe is the situation. I think in the long run we'd be better off if they weren't allowed, but I don't get the final say. :) - Taxman Talk 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Provided some references.[edit]

I've installed some references in my last two edits in the free will entry.[1][2] Two of the sources are (1) a college philosophy textbook and (2) Tom Morris, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Yale and has published extensively, including haven written the user-friendly Philosophy for Dummies book. I'm glad your stopping by for WP:CITE. Too many times I've seen editors ignore the policy even when it comes to challenged material. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the addition. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the status of Philosophy for dummies as a Wikipedia:Reliable references though. Ideally more and higher quality sources would be used, but again thanks for the efforts. They are a step in the right direction. - Taxman Talk 04:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I'm glad that I managed to put across my thoughts on the "lucky" (as you say, it's all luck) million. It's the project as a whole that I'm interested in. Thanks again! :) Nach0king 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, rock on, and make the most of your 15 minutes! Did you end up with any media appearances yet? - Taxman Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:FARC[edit]

No, I disagree with you (politely). Please read the nomination of Matthew Brettingham's FARC. [3]. While Tony has removed his oppose vote, since I nominated the others, there is a growing clamour on FAC these days for numerous references, and a uniformity of style and prose and certain personal information. Because the subjects I write about are often long dead and/or lesser known I am unable to conform to that. So the pages I have edited will eventually be FARCd, I am just nominating them before some-one else does - a simple solution, then all the FAs can be uniformly full of "compelling prose" and numerous references on well known figures. Giano | talk 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I did read the nomination. But that seems like something more worth discussing with the nominator and the commenter. I know his comments were too harsh, and even innapropriate, but in human interaction that's going to happen. The nominator appears a little inexperienced, so some discussion with her would be warranted. I saw none on her talk page. Even after all that the article that you reacted to the situation on is a clear keep. Nominating all the others is really just clogging up the process and not helpful. Please remove them and just discuss the issue so we can effect positive change.
What is happening at least as far as the referencing issue, is standards are being raised. That should happen in this project as we strive to have more and more reliable material. You wrote the articles and presumably have access to the sources you used. You are in the ideal position to cite any particularly important points in the article to the best available source. If you prioritized the top 5-10 facts in the or each article for importance and/or potential contentiousness, and cited those, that would be all that is needed to fully comply with current standards. Is it easy, no? Does it make the project that much stronger, absolutely. If you're willing to do that, I'll go and point out the points that could use them. - Taxman Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not trouble yourself. I have no intention at all (as I have said) of going back re-reading books I've already listed to comply with constantly changing regulations. If I did that, next month something else would arise, and the month after that, and again - No a clean break is better. Let future FAs be just an assembly of facts already on the internet that can be easily checked by those interested. I never go back. I never look back! Giano | talk 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can understand your bitterness due to the comments made, but not your opposition to improving articles. So the standards are raising--that's a good thing--not a reason to not improve articles. And inline citations don't have to be the cesspool of low quality sources that you seem to be thinking of. Anyway work on contributions you do enjoy and we'll be at a better place in the end anyway. - Taxman Talk 04:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC and WP:FARC[edit]

Hi, Taxman. I'm having trouble understanding why Geogre chooses to post this eloquent argument about Tony1's copyediting FAC objections on my talkpage and there only; I suppose he simply doesn't want to offend. (And yet, in a double impulse, he does post it.) Anyway, I thought you might be interested in reading it. Bishonen | ノート 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, I'll try to read it in a minute, you might notice I'm a little flooded at the moment, but thanks for pointing it out. Haven't run into you in a while :), hope you're well. - Taxman Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Having read it, it is interesting. I agree with some of the points he has and certainly disagree with others (especially the economics, but that's tangential anyway). But that's how the game works, if there were no differences of opinion we'd have a completed project already, and a very boring and factually incorrect one at that. I'd just ask if he's ok moving it to the FAC criteria talk page or somewhere more appropriate for getting some use out of it for having discussions that can improve how we work here instead of a lonely comment on your talk page. - Taxman Talk 22:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Not that lonely! Bish's talk page has the 6th most traffic of any user talk page - official! - and only missed the top 5 by less than 0.1% (one post in over 1000)! -- ALoan (Talk) 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello good sir! What prompted your arrival here? And lonely more referred to not being connected to the pages that it might be more relevant on. And no thank you sir, I'll keep my space here quieter if at all possible. - Taxman Talk 04:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, the comment has such a pointed reference to Tony1, and the horrors that arose when Tony went up for RFA are so well documented, that I felt like posting it anywhere but as commisseration was going to generate another round of hurt feelings and high heat. I don't feel like playing at avoiding the overly sensitive or being diplomatic when such diplomacy would be one-sided only. I also don't think that it would do much more than be a figurehead argument. Enough people object to narrow cossetting of FA's into style sheets and corporate boredom, but few people want to express it in as ... forceful... a way as I did that I'd just be used as a battering ram. If I were going to draft a version of my comments for wider consumption, I would argue that applying any single style sheet to a large document (and Wikipedia is a huge one) is folly, that style sheets are products of corporations that require ease of reading as a top concern, that style sheets invariably fail to achieve ease of reading, that conformity of prose style is boring, and finally that authors attempt a type of music with their writing (whether the music is cacophonous or euphonous), and applying an alien grid onto writing blindly destroys the readability.
As for the Marxist part of my rant, I figured that people wouldn't agree, but if I'm even slightly right, the copy editor who crows about his job is someone co-opted by a capitalist system and mistaking training for thinking. We all want clarity and conciseness, but many of us rely on the reading to find it, not the search and replace Polyphemus grope of a style sheet. Geogre 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still think it would be better said in a more relevant place, but since I more disagree with the thrust of the way you've written it above, do what you like. :) Some consistency is beneficial, and some important composition guidelines should be encouraged. Overdoing it is not the greatest idea, and it does seem some of that is going on too. Other than that, I haven't dug into Tony's comments, nor am do I feel qualified to add a significantly useful point to the debate. - Taxman Talk 04:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Hindi article[edit]

I have created a spoken Hindi article on Hindi wiki. It is about Indo-European language family. Those interested, especially the foreigners learning Hindi, may wish to look at the page and listen to the spoken article here : hi:हिन्द-यूरोपीय भाषा-परिवार. Please tell me if you face any problem. Cygnus_hansa 17:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's very awesome, thanks for making it and letting me know. Maybe I'll start a word for word English translation both as an exercise and as a further learning tool. Wikibooks seems like an ideal place for that. In the same vein, commons really needs Hindi phrase samples. I'll see if I can find the place where that is coordinated again if you're willing, and want to beat Deeptrivia to doing the Hindi phrases in List of common phrases in various languages. - Taxman Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for encouragement. Of course I am willing to help!Cygnus_hansa 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

I have listed a request for arbitration in which you are an involved party here. uriah923(talk) 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I'd rather you wouldn't have since more wasted time on a settled issue is not helpful for the project. We'll see how it goes. - Taxman Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Copperchair[edit]

Hey- you know the fifth ban on Copperchair was 'sposed to be for a year, not a week, right? --maru (talk) contribs 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I covered that in my post on the adminstrators noticeboard about the issue. Nothing required a year. - Taxman Talk 04:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected it (because, to be completely honest, I had forgotten about it... I meant to unprotect it when the March 1 block expired). I've also replied at WP:AN and on the talk page in question. Feel free to delete my comment now. Have a nice day. — Mar. 7, '06 [21:32] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Proposal for compromise[edit]

Ok, let's try to end all of this. I understand you want the blacklisting to stay because it saves you time (i.e, you won't have to check up on me or the two IPs from which I contribute). So, how about we compromise?

My part
  • Swear to a permanent ON gag order: no talking about ON or its content on any talk page or article other than my user page (including making suggestions for links or adding commented-out links, etc.)
  • Concede all links you already removed.
  • Voluntarily remove any remaining ON links (other than my user page).
Your part
  • Concede the blacklisting.

This is a big sacrifice for me because I sincerely believe that the links were valuable and that I have the right to suggest links even to sites with which I am affiliated. It is a sacrifice for you because you run the risk of me breaking my promise. I get what I want, which is the door left open for ON content to be included on WP if it is ever found worthy through the normal, NPOV, non-me means. You get what you want which is the removal of all ON links and a gag order on me.

You may say that this has been tried before, but the key difference is that this time it's permanent, clear and voluntary. Last time, some ambiguous blanket statements were barked out, I dropped the issue (eventually), and then Redwolf24 came along and lifted some restrictions - all of which led to me feeling justified in pursuing link-by-suggestion. This time, I voluntarily submit to a gag order and the removal of all non-user page links (even though I feel both are unjustified) for the sake of the whitelisting. That's about as big of a compromise as you could expect or want. I hope you'll give it some serious thought as it presents a quick end to all of the arguing and a long term solution with which both of us can live. uriah923(talk) 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to offer this now, don't you think, after you've one more time chosen specifically to waste everyone's time on an issue that had already been clearly decided? Interesting timing considering that your arbcom request isn't looking good and there's a stronger consensus to keep the site on the blacklist. Not that I alone could even take the site off the list, as it appears several other people believe it should stay. Lets see, you've shown desire and willingness to break previous agreements, ignore nearly unanimous opposition to your actions, use anonymous IP's to add your links, and you've added some very disingenuous comments to your user page, and completely misrepresented the situation on meta. Don't you think it's funny that nearly without fail everyone that reviews the situation sides against your actions? I fully believe in assuming good faith, but once someone has completely removed all reasons to do so as you have done with this specific topic, it would reckless to keep assuming it. External links, while having some value, simply aren't valuable enough to justify the damage in this case. It would be much better to simply end the issue and it appears that has more or less been done, and this is already ended. - Taxman Talk 15:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Disingenuous? The proposal for compromise is real and sincere. What's disingenuous is refusing to assume good faith or to see the merits/logic of a situation or argument because you seem to have everyone convinced I'm a linkspammer (something that still has no foundation).
I've not misrepresented anything anywhere; my comments on the arbcom request and the whitelisting request are valid, justified and logical. However, as we fail to see eye to eye, I thought a compromise was in order. If you refuse, then I guess it's back to endless arguing... uriah923(talk) 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully this "endless arguing" will be done at meta, since, as was pointed out in the arbcom request, Wikipedia has no power over the blacklist. TheJabberwock 00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for bringing attention to the ON problem; hopefully it's been killed once and for all. I thought I'd give you this invitation:

Hello, Taxman. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia.

Kennedy-Thorndike[edit]

Please read the references, the experiment is covered by reference 5. I cover the mathematical reasoning. Could you please check? Ati3414 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then cite the actual source. Your mathematical reasoning is not suitable as a reference. In fact it should not be considered at all unless it is seriously trivial, and then it shouldn't be cited, just explained on the talk page if need be. You need to cite third party, Wikipedia:Reliable references as you have been asked a number of times. In this case a peer reviewed, respected journal would be what we're looking for. - Taxman Talk 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I did it. So people will have to fork over minimum 30$ to find out what went on. I think wiki is broken (from many points of view). But so be it. Ati3414 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. Thanks for being reasonable and citing other sources. Lots of people have access to those and can check them. If you have insights into how Wikipedia is broken there are lots of people including me that would like to see if there is a way to fix it. I can direct you to the right places to discuss getting changes made. But ignoring multiple requests to adjust your actions is not the way, and will in fact lend much less weight to your position. The way Wikipedia works has been hammered out by adjustments from many people, making it unlikely that you are correct if everyone is opposing you. Of course they could all be wrong, but that would be able to be born out by looking at the situation logically if you can remove the emotions from the issue and state your case clearly. - Taxman Talk 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


OK, here are a few:

1. There is no way of adding extensive calculations to clarify a point. Having a part of the server assigned as a repository would solve this.

2. Editing by committee doesn't work. You need senior editors, knowledgeable in the subject matter.

3. You need editors assigned per subject. The current situation allows any administrator to make decisions on any subject, whether they know it or not.

You mention that there is a body that discusses these improvements, I would be very interested in getting connected.

As an aside, can you explain why you reverted my additions again? Ati3414 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The reason we don't do that is our policy against original research. WP is not the place for refereeing specific claims or verifying calculations. That is why the NOR policy and the verifiablility policy together require citing only third party published research, etc. Have another read through those. For truly trivial things the talk pages work fine.
2) This whole site disproves that point. Editing by committe works remarkably well up to a point. We do however need senior, knowledgeable editors even though we have a lot of them already. If they work within the rules the results are typically very good. There are a number of systems in proposal stage like Wikipedia:Stable versions m:article validation and Wikipedia:Scientific peer review that seem to be good solutions to improving the problems you seem to be referring to.
3) See Wikipedia:Administrators. We just have access to some extra technical tools and generally have experience enforcing Wikipedia policy. We are not empowered to make specific topical decisions. The most we do is listen to and enforce consensus. That's not always perfect, but it is better than the alternative of no enforcement.
4) There's not a body really besides the Foundation board of directors, these things are discussed by all Wikipedians. The way it works is proposals are made and if they gain a lot of support they can be implimented. That can be tedious, but overall it's not doing too bad. Besides policy proposals, these things are discussed on the talk pages of the policies such as those I pointed you to. Overall the issue so far is much more that you haven't looked into how things really work here. You'll have to do much more of that before you can know how it is broken.
5) I didn't revert you, I moved it to a more appropriate place as I explained in the edit summary and on the talk page. Please use the talk page before simply replacing your edit back to the same problem you had added before. It's that type of thing that is making things difficult for you. If you add the page to your watchlist, and checked it, you would have seen my edit to the talk page. You should have then discussed there before reverting back to your position. I reasoned why my edits were justified, you need to do the same. Please use that talk page for more. - Taxman Talk 01:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ati3414 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peer Review/History of Puerto Rico[edit]

Thank you for your comments regarding history of Puerto Rico. I have added a bit of information to the lead paragraphs per your suggestions. Once again thank you very much. Joelito 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I interest you...?[edit]

Hi, Taxman. If you're at leisure, I wonder if you might be interested in taking a look at my S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, that I just listed on FAC, especially the referencing. I don't know if you remember we had a set-to about references earlier—probably not. But this is how I like them. Having a notes and a references section may seem like a heavy or pedantic system (and on Saffron it sure is—they have achieved a frightening combination of the worst features of all possible systems), but IMO it's the best way of leaving the text as clean and light as possible, with not too many superscribed note numbers, and with consecutive note numbers. I live with all sorts of footnote systems in my job and have never seen the weird jumping-about note numbers anywhere but at Wikipedia—I find them very odd and distracting. Another advantage of the way I do it in that article seems to me to be that the list of references gets to be alphabetical. Grubbing about for one particular reference in a non-alphabetical combined "Notes and references" list becomes inconvenient in proportion as the list becomes long, and they do seem to be getting longer and longer lately. Anyway, don't put yourself out or anything, but I'd be very glad to know what you think. (I realize you can't actually check most of the references; I'm trying to persuade somebody/some people from the Swedish Wikipedian's Noticeboard to do that.) Bishonen | ノート 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Are you just asking if I like the way you did the referencing? In fact I do, as the alphabetical references section is nice. But I'm not overly stressed about the format of the citations as long as it is done thoroughly. Clearly that was done there and the article is great of course. Maybe see if your ideas can't get merged into the cite.php system. As far as checking them, you're right, I don't know Swedish—I've got a few languages on my learning list ahead of it. After Hindi I figure I'll polish my Spanish then dabble in Mandarin, but maybe Arabic first :). But do you mean you want some Swedish speakers to check each citation to each source or what? - Taxman Talk 04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. :-) I was thinking of a Swedish speaker doing a spot check, more like. Say getting Lindström's book out of the library and looking up my citations. That would be the ambitious way, and is a lot to ask of people, but anybody who had the language could check out the online Swedish Balloon Association page with Andrée's practice flights, and the Grenna Museum Andrée bio, in a few minutes. User:Uppland is on it — probably the ambitious version, if I know him — but I don't know when he'll have the time. Truthfully, those few English-language sources I've scared up are pretty worthless. Bishonen | ノート 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Hindi[edit]

Hi, recently I have been making a lot of articles in Hindi. In fact, nowadays I am almost the only one on Hindi wiki who is writing anything. The Indo-European languages articles is actually the only spoken article in Hindi. Most of the articles in Hindi are a few lines stubs--hence unsuitable for spoken article. Still I could suggest you some relatively longer articles (all made by me) from which you can suggest :

  1. Harry Potter hi:हैरी पॉटर
  2. Jesus Christ hi:ईसा मसीह
  3. Latin hi:लातिनी
  4. French language hi:फ़्रांसिसी भाषा
  5. Jerusalem hi:येरुशलम
  6. Kashmir hi:कश्मीर
  7. Hinduism hi:हिन्दू धर्म

Please give me your suggestions soon. Cygnus_hansa 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir looks like a great one. Not too much specialized vocab, good basic geography topic, etc. It is unfortunate that Hindi hasn't attracted more contributors, I've been thinking of asking at the Indian Wikipedian's noticeboard for ideas on what can be done to encourage more participation there from new Wikipedians and current ones. I'm not yet able to contribute much there and it may be a while before I can. - Taxman Talk 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on Kashmir. But it might tale me sometime. Cygnus_hansa 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

The three admin tools I use the most are the rollback button, the ability to delete articles, and the ability to see deleted pages. Blocking is not one of the tools I've used very much, and I've agreed not to block anyone for at least a year after I get admin privileges. Could you reconsider your opposition to my RfA? --Carnildo 04:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as I respect your contributions, and obviously many other people do too given that they are willing support you despite your actions, but misusing admin tools is something we can't be lenient about. I appreciate your commitment, but you should have thought about that before you blocked two admins that hadn't done anything. And it's not about just blocking—it's about the other tools too. - Taxman Talk 12:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindi wiki spoken article[edit]

I have made the spoken version of Kashmir article on Hindi wikipedia, after improving it. You may listen it at hi:कश्मीर.Cygnus_hansa 18:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome thanks. I'll listen to it tonight. I've never understood why the spoken template didn't link to the specific oldid of the article that the spoken version was based on. It was the latest one here I take it? - Taxman Talk 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I had copied the template from English wiki, and now I have corrected it.Cygnus_hansa 07:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Grammar[edit]

Could you please invoke or request some bot which can convert the html characters of the devanagari script into the proper devanagari script at the hindi grammar page and the Hindi page?Cygnus_hansa 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything to do with the bots, but User:Curps is the one that runs a bot that does that. I've asked him to do it and hopefully he'll be able to get to it soon. - Taxman Talk 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I agree. My only hesitation is that, for users who mean well, an RfC can be hurtful, and for those who don't mean well (i.e. trolls), it gives them another platform. I've therefore left a note on User talk:-Lumière to see whether we can resolve things between us. If nothing constructive comes of the approach, I'll either look for an uninvolved admin to start issuing blocks or go ahead with the RfC. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta adminship request[edit]

Procedures at meta requests for adminship call for mentioning here that I am applying for adminship with my meta account, m:User:Taxman. So there you go. - Taxman Talk 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi Taxman, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It'll take some more time, at least as much as the original, and probably a specific apology. Basically some way to know it wont be repeated. I know it's frustrating, but edits alone likely won't do it. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review Kolkata[edit]

Hi! A request has been made for peer review of Kolkata. Could you please help improving the article? Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 11:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a bit. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus[edit]

Hello again. I thought I would drop by to let you know that a good number of improvements have been now actioned on the Keratoconus article. Temporary account's comments have been addressed to his satisfaction, and there remain now just a few minor issues on Talk:Keratoconus about other items for inclusion. As regards your comments on the FAC page, I have endeavoured to improve the flow of the text, and combine or expand the shorter paragraphs. The worst remaining offender in this regard is the Contact lenses section, which still has a number of short paragraphs. My difficulty here has been expanding them meaningfully while not upsetting the balance of coverage, or joining sections that are not directly related. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I'm of the view that the readability of this section is not adversely affected. If you feel differently, or you have further comments on how to improve the article, they would be very welcome. Regards, --BillC 11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, I'll adjust my comments there to support. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Grammar[edit]

Please see the Hindi grammar article now. I have made the pronunciation transliterations and a bit more additions. Please tell me what else would you like on this page. As for the links that you sent me earlier, I am unable to download any corpus free of charge.Cygnus_hansa 13:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. My only worry is that to be complete, it is quite long and leans towards some things more suited to a textbook than an encyclopedia. But that's not a huge problem. I'll leave more specific things on the talk page if I see them. Bummer on the corpus, I thought you might be able to get summary statistics through your university, but I'll see if I can't figure out something here. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Taxman Talk 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's here!!![edit]

Dear Taxman:

And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work. File:Wikipedia.pdf

Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!

Long live Wikipedia!!!

Shuo Xiang 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Swadesh list[edit]

Hi Taxman,

You think this list is not "suitable for Wikipedia". I respectfully don't agree with you. Here are some reasons, among others, why I created this page :

  • I first created it in the French Wiki, where there was nothing, neither in Wikipedia nor in Wiktionary
  • The Wiktionary list does not include romanization of the words, which could be useful to non-Hindi speakers (could be fixed by adding a new column including this information, however less readable than a dedicated page)
  • Wiktionary gives a raw list, and does not include any reference to books and websites.
  • More people use Wikipedia than Wiktionary; as an evidence, you fixed Wiktionary list after having fixed Wikipedia's one.

So, the discussion is open ... Croquant 09:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I missed that your response was on the talk page there too. I'll copy mine there and I'd prefer further discussion be there. - Taxman Talk 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary can and probably should include transliterations. Some of the Swadesh lists there do, it's just not well coordinated yet. Wiktionary can and should include references. I'm going to add my references there when I'm done. External links are fine as far as I know also. And yes, Wikipedia gets more traffic than any of our other projects, but that doesn't mean we should include everything that is supposed to be only in those projects. What Wikipedia is not specifically defines things that should not be here including word definitions. That especially applies to vocabulary translation lists. So again, I'm not saying it wasn't good work, this just isn't the place for it. And at first I didn't see the list creatd here, I just saw the link you added in Hindi to it, which I would have seen had you added a link to Wiktionary instead. I've gone through and checked every word against at least one other dictionary, so as I get time I'll put them all in the Wiktionary pages. Once it is fully transwikied there the article here should be deleted. Sorry, just focus on what each project is for. Wiktionary is even better, because there a full definition of the Hindi word can be included in every language's Wiktionary. So the English can have an English definition, the French can have a French definition, etc. - Taxman Talk 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement[edit]

Please opine! Cheers! BD2412 T 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Buy Term and invest the difference[edit]

Taxman thank you for all your updates. I appreciate you NPOV approach and look to your comments for moderation. I've made some significant updates to Buy term and Invest the difference and hope you have the opportunity to review it.

Ken

Enquiry on FA policy[edit]

Hi,

I wanted your suggestion regarding Featured Article Candidate policy since you seem to be quite active in these. I am currently working on Indian Institutes of Technology and am working hard to get an Featured Article status for it. Unfortunately, even before I could start a Peer Review, an anonymous IP nominated it as FAC. Needless to say in the shabby form it was then, the nomination failed miserably. Now I have organized a Peer Review of the article and got some suggestions for improvements that I implemented. I wanted to know how soon can I again put a request as FAC without getting oppositions like "This is too soon".

I would also appreciate if you can give your comments on it at the Peer Review Page of the article.

Thanks,

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As a procedural issue, simply explaining that an anon nominated it when it wasn't ready would cover the issue of re-nominating too soon. But the article has a bit more to go before it is ready, so nominating is not likely to be successful yet. I will try to detail the issues I see on the peer review page. - Taxman Talk 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the wonderful edits at the page. The edits were overall good, but the edit about Illumination festival changes the meaning of the sentence and makes it misleading. Although Diwali is a festival of lights (and Illumination festival is celebrated on that day), the Illumination festival is unique to IIT Kharagpur (celebrated nowhere else). I have rephrased it to make the meaning clear. Waiting for your comments in Peer Review. Hopefully with your help, it will achieve FA status soon. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Do you.....?[edit]

I've just come over here for a private winge and moan. Do you ever get seriously agitated by being told what is wrong by a bunch who never seem to write a proper article? Good, I feel better for saying that - I'll get back to my writing. Giano | talk 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Venting is good—in moderation at least.:) - Taxman Talk 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Verify the phonography cylinder 'plug in' models.[edit]

Moved to Talk:Phonograph cylinder because I don't have any involvement with those topics. - Taxman Talk 12:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Humphrey Bogart references[edit]

Hello, "Taxman" --

This is a message from Andrew Szanton, a freelance writer and editor. I think it's fair to say that I provided the first major draft of the Humphrey Bogart article several years ago, although obviously it's been much edited and supplemented since.

I believe you posted a message saying that featured articles should make their sources clear.

If you want to know what sources I used, several of them were Lauren Bacall's memoir, "By Myself," Stephen Bogart's book about his father, "Bogart: In Search of My Father" and Katharine Hepburn's book "The Making of the African Queen." I also found useful an old profile of Bogart published in Time Magazine, which had some direct quotes from Bogart; I could probably find the date of that piece if you wanted it.

If you get this message and have any reply, could you e-mail me at aszantonATrcn.com ?


Thanks, Andrew Szanton aszantonATrcn.com

That's excellent, thanks for the reply. Yes, ideally I'd like all the information you can gather about those sources, and better yet, an appraisal of how the current status of the article is in terms of those sources. Basically, is the current articlce accurate, and would those sources serve as good references for it? I've munged your email so you don't get a lot of spam, Wikipedia pages get trawled by spambots all the time, but I will try to email you to. - Taxman Talk 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Old Swiss Confederacy[edit]

Could you address my main point - that the article is not comprehensive and baldy structured? Lack of inline citation is just a minor issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I had not responded before (though I did now) because I simply feel the article is good enough. If it was the worst FA out there, I'd be more inclined to drop it, but it is far from it. - Taxman Talk 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SEO[edit]

I don't know if you know about User:GraemeL/Watchlist; I think you might find it useful. A question came up about whether links with "http://" removed - e.g., "spamsite.com" - would help a SEO campaign. If so, what about "spamsite DOT com"? Thanks, TheJabberwock 04:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please respond here. TheJabberwock 04:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you know the answer? TheJabberwʘck 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0[edit]

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Free Images[edit]

Hi,

I recently read that if any image is free, it should be preferably be uploaded to wiki-commons so that other wiki projects can also use it. Since I didn't knew this earlier, I added a lot of free images about Indian Institutes of Technology to English Wikipedia itself. Now I feel that it would have been better if they were uploaded in commons. What is the correct procedure that I should follow so that the images get shifted to commons (obviously without getting duplicated). Thanks, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, you just need to upload them to commons and then delete the ones here. Let me know and I can delete them for you if you need me to. - Taxman Talk 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the reply. Please delete the following Images from English Wikipedia (all of them are uploaded by me).

  1. Image:BSBE IITK.JPG
  2. Image:IIT Bombay Main Building.jpg
  3. Image:IIT KGP Main Building.JPG
  4. Image:IIT Location.PNG
  5. Image:IIT Organization Structure.PNG
  6. Image:IITM Library.JPG
  7. Image:IITM swimming pool.jpg
  8. Image:Illumination festival.JPG
  9. Image:Inter IIT.jpg
  10. Image:Southern Lab IIT Kanpur.JPG
  11. Image:VGSOM_IITKGP.jpg

The files have been copied at Wikimedia Commons so these may now be deleted. I will also appreciate if you can delete Image:IIT Location.JPG. This is in IFD (nominated by me) as it was obsoleted by Image:IIT Location.PNG. Although its still some time before the IFD gets a week old, since its made by me only, I think it can be done in good faith. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They're all deleted. Hope you didn't miss copying any! And that didn't need IFD, it met the speedy criteria. - Taxman Talk 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. I didn't miss any. This was pretty clear as the IIT article still appears with all the images (even after forcing the browser to refresh cache). From now on I will take care that I upload things at proper place the first time itself. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Help for vandalism[edit]

Hi, User:207.63.41.121 (contribs) is continuing to vandalize pages even after repeated warnings. Can you help. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's common with dynamic IP addresses, it's probably not the same person each time, and they've stopped after your last warning, so it's not ready for a block yet. In general if you want the quickest response to vandalism list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as I may not always be active. But the guidelines call for not listing until a user or IP has vandalized after a recent warning unless you can demonstrate it is a static IP. - Taxman Talk 15:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Some advice needed for dealing with another user[edit]

Knowing that you are an admin, I was wondering if you (or any other admin) can help me out on this.

Recently, I have gotten into an argument with Wxyzdan over various content and formatting issues regarding the WXYZ-TV article. Though I believe I have tried to be as accomodating as possible, the user seems to be, in my view, confrontational and at times have accused me of being closed-minded and "possessive". I don't know whether I should respond to his comments for it seems that one false move on my part could drive him away from Wikipedia. At the moment, I am not requesting for mediation or arbitration; instead, I am trying to see if there is a means of diffusing the situation before it gets out of control. The user's comments are on my talk page under DMA (which he removed from his own talk page under an IP address). Also, if you have anything to say on this matter, can you post on my talk page so that I could easily be made aware of it? Thanks. PentawingTalk 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll probably not worry about that article for now. PentawingTalk 05:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Siege of the Alcázar[edit]

You left an interesting comment at Siege of the Alcázar... I think some images would add a lot to that article! To help people get "in touch" with locally available required photos, I've proposed creating categories like Category:Requested photographs in Castile-La Mancha rather than the generic and not especially helpful Category:Requested photographs used at the moment. However, the talk page I posted on has been pretty slow... if you would like to make a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requested pictures#Subcategorizing Category:Wikipedia requested photographs that would be appreciated :-) TheGrappler 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Budget/hardware updates[edit]

Hi Taxman,

Would you be interested in helping me update foundation budget/hardware status, with input from mav? A full report would go on meta and the foundation site; with a BRION section in the signpost after it comes out. (pls reply on my talk page also)

Cheers, +sj + 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Moe is my hero. I just updated that page with the fundraiser results... talked to mav recently. still need to get last Q4/Q1 budget/hardware info. Be well, +sj +

Muhammad Ali Jinnah PR[edit]

Hi Taxman - I request your help. Please review this article, because I need some serious critical evalution which I have not received from anyone. I'm trying to make it an FA. I hope you have some time for this. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary[edit]

Hi Taxman,

You have included this template : Template:Move to Wiktionary in some of the Swadesh list pages.

Could you give me information about how to make these transfers ? Is it automatic, or do I Have to create the pages in Wiktionary by myself ? Thanks for your answer. Croquant 08:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It has to be done manually, but first you need to check there to see if the language is already in a list there. Look at wikt:Appendix:Swadesh list and look at the individual lists for the language families. Since the idea is to compare languages, the idea is to fit it into one of the existing tables, not have separate lists for each language. Does that make sense? - Taxman Talk 12:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so. As I don't want to me prendre la tête, as we say in French, with all this stuff, I'll shift to more interesting topics. Bye. Croquant 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

Hi Taxman - I'm extremely grateful for your excellent feedback. Thank you very much for coming to my aid. I hope you don't mind me soliciting your aid whenever an FA drive is on. I've noticed that you have an eagle eye in the analysis of writing - you amaze me consistently! Thanks again, Rama's Arrow 15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. As long as I know someone is willing and able to implement suggestions, I'll give as many as I can. Anytime you've completed the suggestions and want some more, I'm happy to dig in further too if need be. - Taxman Talk 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi - Jinnah is FAC. I decided to move on FAC becoz I believe that all remaining objective criticism will only be obtained there. I ask for your support and welcome all criticism. Rama's Arrow 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jim Henson[edit]

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but I did add a small bit on Jim Henson's wikipedia page under '1970s' about his project 'Tales From Muppetland'. The only sources I really used were http://imdb.com/title/tt0068613/, my mother (she's the one who brought it to my attention to begin with, it was something I had long forgotten) and http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Tales_from_Muppetland and http://www.pulpanddagger.com/movies/t.html -- I tried to keep it the content I added short and simple. Also, I created a stub on 'tales from muppetlant' which resembles the stub from the muppet wiki, but I haven't figured out how to make it say 'This article is only a stub'... my apologies! I'm trying, anyway. :) Hope this is all allright with you.

Another request[edit]

Hi Taxman - I have another, more personally important request for you. Whenever you have time, please examine Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - I'm anxious to make it an FA, and I need your critical advice becoz there are some underlying issues I've not spotted yet. Thanks for your help in Jinnah's FA drive. Rama's Arrow 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've finally gotten to it. I left my comments in the text and on the article's peer review page. It's another very good article, just needs the final polishing to be a successful FAC. - Taxman Talk 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor[edit]

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

your FA advice[edit]

Hi Taxman. I think your advice should be expanded and bullet-pointed a little. Do you agree? Tony 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just let me know what you have in mind on the talk page and we can have a go at it. Once it's polished up, I was thinking it could be moved out of userspace per the discussions on the WP:WIAFA talk page. - Taxman Talk 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming of districts of India[edit]

Can you have a look at Talk:List_of_Indian_districts#X_District. I would prefer no to make it too personal there and instead prefer NPOV style analysis. Anything that is not an objective fact, should of course be signed. regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Hi Taxman - your points are very helpful. I know that there are many traces of fancruft and pro-independence bias, which I'm working to root out systematically. Thank you very much for answering my request. Rama's Arrow 15:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC comment reply[edit]

Regarding your last sentence here - ...not to mention one particular article I like... Raul654 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason I didn't put two and two together connecting the FARC nomination of that article with the current FARC talk page antics. I should probably stop feeding, no? :) - Taxman Talk 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he's trolling because I don't think he has malicious intent. He just needs some clueing in. Raul654 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but posting those types of aggressive comments completely ignoring that it had already painstakingly been answered for him only days before is not exactly trying to be helpful. - Taxman Talk 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wigwag[edit]

I posted on the second FARC nom for Wigwag (that you removed today) that just two days ago you'd asked for references on the page. I realized in looking at it again that you'd actually asked for references one year and two days ago, without response. While I understand a FARC nom can be delisted without the guidelines being fulfilled, isn't twelve months asking for input on the main concern—a lack of referencing—essentially fulfilling the guideline? You asked rather brusquely "seriously?" of the nominator. Well ya, seriously, this seems as obvious a candidate as any and as dead a talk page as an FA can be.

This is actually my second comment on the topic as I posted similarly on the wigwag talk page. I just thought I'd ask you directly because it seems to be for you "if I can keep this off FARC, good" whereas I think "if a page needs to go to FARC it should, as the FAs as a set are better off for it." Marskell 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But you'll also notice there is a reference. Moreso for that person to renominate it they had to ignore (3 times!) the reasoning that it was removed before. They could have just left a talk message instead of nominating it again. I'm with you on the if it needs to go to FARC it should after some reasonable efforts are expended to marshall the resources that can improve the article first. As mentioned on the FARC talk page, there has been a strong consensus for quite a while that comments should go on the article's talk page first. If that's done in good faith to allow improving the article and nothing happens and it still fails the criteria, then it does need to be removed from being featured. - Taxman Talk 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious what you think of the suggestion I've posted on the WP:FARC talk page. Marskell 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on my watchlist that you're running for 'crat. Presumably, this will take up a lot of your time. But please Mr. Taxman don't give up on our little conversation :). I think I see some movement toward my suggestion (and of course some arguments against it) on the FARC talk page, and your continued input can only be good. Marskell 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I think the idea is self evident enough that it will succeed. Discussion will work. - Taxman Talk 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

IIM PR[edit]

Hi - We need your help, whenever its convenient for you, on making the Indian Independence Movement an FA - I've started the PR. Its a different project than the others I came to you for - we need your advice on how to improve the present large body of info to FA quality. Rama's Arrow 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested RfA[edit]

Well, I am quite flattered. I am going away for the weekend -- in fact should have been off Wikipedia hours ago -- and will review the materials when I return. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. - Taxman Talk 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the RFB[edit]

...or break a leg. Which ever you prefer.
Signed,
brainybassist

Well thanks, I wasn't going to publicize it, but if you insist... :) - Taxman Talk 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I hope I don't start an uncivil outbreak of positive votes.... ;). Have a good day. brainybassist

Detroit, Michigan - On peer review[edit]

Seeing that you critique articles that are in the FA process, I was wondering if you can look at the Detroit article and comment on anything that needs improvement. I am hoping to get the article to FA, but I need some ideas first before doing so (P.S. this is one of the city articles I have mentioned before that I wish to get to FA). Thanks. PentawingTalk 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

heh, nothing like picking the worst (last I checked months ago) and bringing it up. That would be great, and I'll review it tomorrow and offer what I can. - Taxman Talk 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The article has gone through some more modification and I was wondering if you could look at it again (though for now I am not focusing on the Detroit Lions bit as you have suggested. Who knows, they may be better next year :-). PentawingTalk 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I went through the article some more and tried to address the issue of fiscal mismanagement within Detroit. However, the book sources that I am encountering only focus on periods of fiscal crisis in the 1930s-1940s and the 1980s, most of which lay the blame on the city's dependence on a single industry and business flight from the city. Mismanagement is only mentioned with regards to the public school system. If there is any mention of fiscal mismanagement with the government as a whole, the information is only found in Detroit dailies (Detroit News, Free Press, and Metro Times). I am currently not sure how to address this any further, though I am open to any suggestions. In the meantime, is there anything else that the article needs without becoming too long (per suggestion by Nichalp)? PentawingTalk 18:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

RfB Question[edit]

I thought I'd alert you to a new question posted at your RfB. Best wishes, Xoloz 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it and responded. Let me know there if you want more clarification. - Taxman Talk 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at Silsor's RfA[edit]

I hope this comment was just a joke. It would not be good to have a bureaucrat who wants to speedy promote admin candidates. --TantalumTelluride 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a friendly assertion of extra support, implying it will be a landslide. I'm pretty sure it's never been done, so I wouldn't be the first to do it, but for the record, for other cases where admins voluntarily relinquished their adminship it has been asked by another bureaucrat (Raul654 if I recall) whether the process needed to be gone through. I think the response was that it should. I can dig that up if you like. - Taxman Talk 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That's reassuring. Don't bother digging through archives. There's more important work to be done. --TantalumTelluride 20:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In 2004, there was at least one admin who was promoted days early (I think by Tim Starling), leading to a series of "Support candidate, oppose early promotion" votes for the popular candidate. Also, PMA did not have to go through RfA to be resysopped in February 2006. NoSeptember talk 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikicite[edit]

Just wanted to let you know I responded to your comments on the Wikicite project page- sorry for the belated response, but I've been on wikibreak lately and in any case that page doesn't generate much traffic, so check it only occasionally. In any case, your feedback was appreciated. Thanks!

Jleybov 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC reform[edit]

I have a feeling this is just going to die a slow death unless Raul makes a comment. It is 10-2 in favour (not to be over-"pollish") and now that I watch it closely it makes more and more sense. Virtually every nom would benefit from this. Alabama's instrangience is a little disappointing but he's the only person seriously opposed.

I did ask Raul, but he seemed ambivalent. Given that you've been at it about two years and presumably post to Raul once in a while, perhaps you could ask him and eloquently explain the benefits? Marskell 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is there is no short and sweet summary or problems and benefits. It's all spread over the full conversation that is a bit hard to follow, so I can see why Raul didn't get a chance to power through it all. I'll try if I can get to it, but you could also make a clear and concise summary for him. It seems so obvious to me that there is either something that we're missing, or the case hasn't been made clearly enough. - Taxman Talk 19:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I did actually present my user page User:Marskell/Featured Article Review to Raul after posting to you and he noted he is warming to it. Largely I think he's just busy as all get out (as gramma liked to say), on or off Wiki. The page is probably a bit different then when you first read it; I'm trying to be as non-didactic, non-"do this", as possible.
The briefest summary of the benefit, (if you want a poster :): "We want a review period prior to a nom, but this is often unobserved, and always debated when it is observed, occasionally with rancor. The reform brings the review into the process and solves this problem. If you want to start a FARC and get feedback immediately, it's done. If you're concerned there isn't enough time given to save an FA, this is also addressed because we now have a review and then a removal period." If somehow you can impart this wisdom to Alabama, that would be wonderful. But I often think if one's immediate reaction is reactionary ("don't change"!) then one remains that way (I've been guilty of that certainly)...
But I don't think of Raul that way even if naturally one less headache is a good thing. Well explained, I think he'd see the benefit. Anyway, "nudge" here or there in favour of the idea when you can. I'll try to make sure it doesn't get buried in an archive somewhere. Marskell 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrat[edit]

Mazel tov! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now a bureaucrat! It's great to see new bureaucrats eager to get stuck in. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or raise them on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. I look forward to seeing you around, Warofdreams talk 01:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a well-deserved promotion, Taxman. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you. I'm caught between saving everyone an orange banner popping up to interrupt their editing and wanting to thank everyone. Maybe I'll do a happy medium. It was very gratifying to see that type of show of support, both from people I have worked with over time and have a lot of respect for and from people I can't recall ever even seeing their name anywhere, much less having interacted with them. Thanks all, and keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

Congratulations. Sorry I missed your RFB - I suppose I didn't scroll far enough down the page. Guettarda 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but just go do more of what you do well to help this place out, and no worries. :) - Taxman Talk 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats Taxman! Let's celebrate with a year of no new taxes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
My heartiest condolences. I think willingness to be a bureaucrat shows a high sense of duty and self-sacrifice, perhaps even masochism. Bishonen | talk 08:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
At first I thought the condolences were for Nichalp's lame joke :), that's what I really need them for. Being a bureaucrat, despite the name, is not too onerous a task. - Taxman Talk 12:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! You certainly deserve this! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. I don't quite know you, but welcome to the ranks :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. This project being so large, we haven't quite crossed paths on much, but you have a lot of people's respect, and mine from everything I'm aware of about you. :) - Taxman Talk 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! I hope you wont get edit conflicts when closing RfA...you know...with all these new BCrats running around :).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

More congrats! I'm honored by your kind thanks and expect you to be an excellent bureaucrat; your fair and reasoned style is perfectly suited to the role. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, old friend. I was glad to see on my return that you've gotten bureaucrat permissions. Some days we still do things right around here. —Encephalon 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) PS. I hope this doesn't mean less time for you at the FA related pages, though.;-) —Encephalon 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove content?[edit]

I hear your instruction to restore the POV. Note that the anon initially deleted the previous content and replaced it with the content now on the talk page. I understand that you feel that it is unreasonable for the anon to do like it says at the top of the talk page and discusss major moves before making them. Do you also feel that the previous content at NSA warrantless surveillance controversy that was replaced should be deleted - that the anon's action in deleting that content should be restored? Metarhyme 13:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said the anon's action is not vandalism just because you disagree with their POV. Discussing major moves doesn't hurt, but it's not really required. Work with them to follow our content policies and produce a better article. It may be the case that a happy medium is better, but in either case some research will need to be done to cite some reliable sources. In the end those settle nearly all disputes. - Taxman Talk 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The section the anon deleted twice is thoroughly referenced. You did not answer my question. May I request that you respond at Talk:NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#questions of warrantless surveillance? - Metarhyme 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I missed your question, and I've now responded there. I'm not really qualified to dig into the issue further. It appears the anon's replacement had sources too, so those should be taken into account. - Taxman Talk 17:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll alert the guys who did the section to this opportunity. Metarhyme 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations[edit]

Thank you so much for the notice! I'm off to bed but, when I'm back with the Wikimmunity, I'd like to know if I need to do anything with the tools I had already, including godmode-lite and popups, to avoid anything that might resemble a code conflict. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but I never used godmodelight, you'd have to ask there. As for popups, if you put the right switches in it gives you the admin tools in the popup. Pretty convenient. - Taxman Talk 04:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Caught that already, thank you. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Blissus leucopterus[edit]

Thanks! Unschool

Still with me?[edit]

Should I bug people some more? Perhaps we just go about thrashing out a page and present it as fait accompli?

And congrats BTW. I had meant to vote and before you know it a week's passed. Marskell 17:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and no worries. Yes, I'm still for it. I'd say repost the most concise summary you can for at the bottom of the discussion (maybe in a new level 3 section) and note there is so far basically a consensus to go forward and no new objections. Without major new objections we should move forward, as I believe the concerns are as adressed as they can be without trying it out. One minimum risk way might be to start running FAR with the new proposed system to iron the kinks out, then within a week or so, merge FARC in. I wouldn't mind moving my latest four noms there to the removal section to get it going if you're willing to handle the logistics. I think the removal process there should work exactly like it does now at least at first because that allows the least risk change and the greatest benefit. Other changes can happen in the future. Presenting the least change with the greatest benefit in the simplest way can be the best way to get changes made. - Taxman Talk 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, I'm going to putz about Wikipedia:Featured article review/sub. We'll need templates and what not and a few more specifics about how to nominate. Really, it won't take long. Marskell 08:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Review before FAC[edit]

Hi Taxman. Can you please have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chola dynasty/archive1? It'll be entering FAC soon. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Taxman for the initial review. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Taxman for your suggestions. I couldn't make up my mind as to how to phrase it without changing the tone of the lead paragraph. I have move this to FAC. I'm sure that other reviewers will have similar suggestions for us to choose from. Thanks for sparing time to review this amongst your busy schedule. - cheers Parthi (Venu62) 00:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmedabad PR[edit]

Hi Taxman. Can you have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahmedabad/archive1. Your comments would be very helpful. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA![edit]

Thanks for your vote in my RfA, and for the discussion last night. The nom failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted it; it's been a good learning experience! - Amgine 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the congrats. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)



Can you please remove Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gangsta-Easter-Bunny?[edit]

It was removed by reason of IAR (good reasoning, I think), but has yet to be closed properly. That's all. (If you want to discount my moral support, go ahead - 0/21/0 was just awful to see, and I added it after it being removed by the RfA page.) -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It was removed, but I have now closed it. You can also post that kind of thing on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard if ever needed in the future. - Taxman Talk 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

My! I must have missed something - you are a bureaucrat now! My hats off to you :-) How are you doing these days? I have not seen you around for a while. --HappyCamper 03:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Time flies, and yes it seems something happened in the interem. :) I think this place has just gotten so big it's not as likely to cross paths with people as much. And I've been trying to cut back my reference desk time as it seems to be pure entertainment and doesn't help articles all that much. But I'm good, and it seems you've been editing well—I checked up on you a bit back to see if you were around and saw you were still plugging away. And I'll award you the bestest barnstar ever if you want to fix up Orbital hybridisation and/or LCAO to a FA :) - Taxman Talk 04:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact you asked so nicely about orbital hybridization and LCAO makes it a very enticing :-) Yes, I know, I know...last summer I said I would improve it, albeit I only made one edit or so. I have gradually moved off of the reference desk ever since we got Crypticbot running with the archivals. I do pop back occasionally, and I'm quite happy to see that it is still robust. --HappyCamper 04:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries, better to work on what interests you instead of feeling pressure to do one. But that is something I'd enjoy a really good article on, and hopefully we'll eventually have it. Or recruit another qualified soul if you like. - Taxman Talk 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

WikiThanks.png WikiThanks.png WikiThanks.png

Hi Taxman - I'm very sorry to have disappointed your expectation in me, but it had become impossible for me to compromise my principles. I don't covet adminship at all, so it wasn't a difficult decision. However, I cannot tell you how greatly joyous I feel at the enthusiastic, wonderful support you expressed for me. I don't know how hard it will be to understand that your supports means extremely a lot to me. I thank you from my heart, and please let me know if I can ever be assistance or help in anything. Rama's Arrow 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


My RfA[edit]

Thank you very much for the promotion. I'll do my best. —Whouk (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

Hi Taxman! I'm not as well versed about these name changing things, but I wonder if you could take a look at the request from this user which I blocked earler? There is some dialogue on the page which I hope would be helpful for you. Let me know what you think when you get a minute? Thanks very much! --HappyCamper 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Just getting back to you about this - no problem at all. I think User:Jimbo3 is a good user too. Excellent contributions to Automated milking. --HappyCamper 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bands[edit]

Cheers for the pointer. The one you delinked was the one I'd just delinked, which the creator of the article in question seems to have put back again... —Whouk (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits by banned users[edit]

I saw your comment on User talk:Uriah923. I think that really makes sense. I've been working with User:WAS to restore some of these good edits made by banned users. Our discussion started on Jimbo's talk page. WAS did a very good job of avoiding controversy by completely redoing Starfish Galaxy and recreating Battery electric factory flat truck in a different context. I've followed his lead with other articles, but there are literally hundreds of good edits made by banned users and more that get reverted almost every day. It only takes a minute or two to verify or invalidate an edit made by a banned user, but it can take hours to redo the article. In order to avoid any appearance of using the same words, the redo is often not as good as the original version by the person who was banned.

What you said about a good faith editor taking responsibility for these edits with an explanation makes sense. I want to make sure I do it right so that there is no confusion. The first time I did it, I just put rv in the edit summary and was called a sockpuppet by SlimVirgin. After I explained to her what had happened and corresponded with her by email for several days, she unblocked me, but while I was blocked, User:JW1805 reverted all of contributions, including the ones that I had written completely on my own. Since I wasn't a banned editor, I wanted to change my edits back to how they were, but I didn't want to start a revert war with JW1805, so I asked Jimbo in the nicest way I knew how for a clarification. As soon as I did, SlimVirgin banned me again.

I'm not telling you this because I necessarily need to be unblocked. I just want to know the best way to proceed. Should I create a second account? If so, should I avoid editing any of the articles that I did before (the ones that I know the most about)? Are the contributions that I made to Wikipedia before lost? Am I tainted now, so I can no longer help this project? I will do whatever you advise. David (Pole star) 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well no offense, but I've been around here long enough to know how to read between the lines of the above and know there's a little more going on than that. I trust Slimvirgin and she probably has some pretty good evidence. It's really not that hard to get along, follow best practices, and be productive here without getting sanctioned. - Taxman Talk 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense taken. I didn’t mean to infer that SlimVirgin is a bad person in any way. She’s human. She acted on impulse, truly believing that I was this banned editor. When I proved to her that I wasn’t, she unbanned me. I wasn’t angry at her when I brought this up to Jimbo. I just wanted to avoid the same kind of misunderstanding again. That’s why I explained my story to Jimbo and to you. I understand that you are both very busy and don’t have time to look into individual banning cases, and I’m not asking for that, or for you to think less of SlimVirgin. I would just like someone with authority to explain exactly how we restore good edits from people who are suspected of being sockpuppets without making it appear that the restoring person is a sockpuppet.
My idea is that a person should have to do something wrong or be confirmed as a sockpuppet, not just suspected, in order to be blocked forever. It may look suspicious to make the same edit as a suspected sockpuppet, but some of these suspects have made dozens or hundreds of good contributions. It is arguable as to whether something like this should have been reverted in the first place, but if another party can independently verify that these words were actually misspelled, they should be able to make the same changes without getting blocked. As it sits right now, very few people dare to approach these articles unless they go out of their way to avoid saying anything that the suspected sockpuppet said. That’s not healthy for the website. I think you agree that the best words should be in the article, regardless of who originally wrote them. Yet, how do we get them there when Jayjg says, “Edits by banned users are always reverted; we don't waste our time evaluating their worth?” Not very many normal editors would have the guts to do what uriah did. That’s why this revert and hundreds of other reverts of good edits have been avoided like the plague. Would you like to see what happens when I try fix the misspellings in that article? David (Pole star) 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A new user probably can't redo the edits because of the chaotic system we are in. Thems the breaks of accepting open editing. An experienced user could redo them and take credit for them, and for them it's not a risk. If they don't get redone it's not a huge loss, because if they are good edits they (or the same spirit) will eventually be done anyway. It's not rewording edits that are valuable, it's researched contributions from very good sources. - Taxman Talk 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Username[edit]

Hello Taxman,
I picked you from Special:Listusers/bureaucrat and so I ask you to change my Username to User:Tolanor. I hope you can help me, greets, --Tolanor 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, but for future reference to anyone reading this, that should go on Wikipedia:Changing Username. Would you like me to block your old username to prevent an impersonator? You'll have to recreate it then let me know. - Taxman Talk 21:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy editing requirements[edit]

I've edited the NPOV page three or four times in the last two weeks (usefully I think). I'm 15+ months, non-admin. Should I really be forced to run for adminship (which I may or may not want to do) to be able to contribute on the policy pages? Marskell 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably better on that talk page, but your edits were probably good ones. Protecting the page would not prevent the edits, they'd just get made by someone else until/unless you became an admin. Sure that's a bit more work, but it's probably a net savings not having to revert vandalism and other non improvements. And you'd be a shoe in for adminship for all I know, so there's not really a problem there. But finally I don't expect that to gain consensus, but I added my agreement there too because I don't think it would be a bad idea. - Taxman Talk 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It's "net savings" that makes me uneasy. "Anyone can edit" is a net loss for committed contributors yet essential to the encylcopedia's popularity. It would be a "net savings" in lost vandal reversion time to simply lock every article to contributors of a certain level. This would also, of course, destroy the Wiki. The occasional newbie shows up and posts something stupid on WP:V or OR. Is this actually a huge problem? It's a huge problem on GWB and thus I supported semi-protection, but it's not a problem on the policy pages in my watching a few. The only things close to edit wars I've seen on policy pages have been caused by admins themselves, which this doesn't solve. Marskell 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't destroy the wiki, it would just be different. The vast majority of productive edits are from logged in users. If people had to prove their abilities before getting the ability to edit articles (or better, a subset of them or a stable version for ex) then we would eliminate vandalism (on that subset or stable version) and actually have an attraction for more skilled people. A few thousand people do a huge proportion of edits. All we need to do is increase that pool. I believe the vandalism and troll problem keeps out the type of skilled people we really want editing the project. This is not a social experiment, and open editing shouldn't be the primary goal. High quality free content should be. - Taxman Talk 11:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well we obviously have fundamentally different opinions of what Wikipedia is, so no need debating further here. I would only add: you cannot expand the committed pool further if you close the door from the beginning.
The FARC subpage is I think ready to go BTW. Marskell 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't propose shutting out open editing completely, really I think it would be better to have an approved editor only stable version at least as a test. I think everyone would be surprised at how much nicer it would be to edit there. And that way you get both. The open wiki to attract people that like that part of it and the stable wiki that has no vandalism and trolls. That way you certainly can expand the pool. You're not shutting the door, it's just a different attractant: desire to share expertise instead of "can anyone really edit this?". Wikipedia is so well known now that we would have plenty of talented people wanting to edit if they didn't have to deal with the vandalism and trolls. People in favor of open editing consistently discount the number of talented people turned away by the crap we all have to deal with here. And yes, FAR looks good. Nice work on that. - Taxman Talk 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

Thanks for closing it, my friend shouldn't have nominated me anyway. --Sunfazer | Talk 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley peer review[edit]

Thanks for your peer review comments on Chew Valley. I've made some changes based on your coments & would be grateful if you'd take another look. Rod 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and advice with this - you guidance has made it a lot better. As you suggested I've now put it up for FA (grateful for your comments there), but I'm unsure and unable to find the instructions for archiving the peer review. Rod 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk vandalism[edit]

[4] Gahzzz12345's modifications to your talk page. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. :) - Taxman Talk 22:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell[edit]

Should this have been deleted?

A a notable West Virginian.
Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print
International Credit Card Fraud Expert

That is just the highlights--71Demon 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Howell it looks like it should have been. - Taxman Talk 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Static version[edit]

Hi Taxman - on the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates you sounded very much in favour of some kind of static version of Wikipedia. I just put together a very rough draft of an idea - your input would be much appreciated.

As for my two ideas about referencing - I did suggest at DYK that they only list articles with references, but they weren't too keen. In the end, I added a suggestion that articles with references should be preferred to the guidelines, and thought perhaps I'd revisit the issue later. Having seen how Bunchofgrapes's proposal for deleting unreferenced articles failed, I'll have a think about how to tackle that one. I really think that would have a huge knock-on effect and would love to see it implimented. I think you have a certain reputation as a referencing advocate, so if you were to propose it, the idea might carry more weight. Worldtraveller 18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment and we can follow up on that there. As for DYK, they um need to be shown the light. Highlighting non referenced facts is like highlighting violations of WP:V on the main page. Wait, it's not like that, it is that. I think the way to approach these referencing issues is make sure the people that know how important they are are all on hand to explain and answer questions. Create a discussion on WP:V and point to it from the fact and reference check project and WP:NOR, and anywhere else that could be influential. And link from DYK for that specific issue, and the deltion policy for that one, but likely only after the base proposal has been discussed on WP:V. That way we can organize the work and get these very important changes made. If you set it up, I know many people (including Raul654 for the DYK at least) will be on board. Just focus on conciseness. - Taxman Talk 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Request again[edit]

Hi Taxman,

Can you please have a look again at Indian Institutes of Technology article and tell if its ready for FAC. Thanks, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The structure seems to be in place now. Still needs some improvements in phrasing before FAC. I'll see if I can't get a chance to go to work on it, then let you fix up anything where I change the meaning unintentionally. Might take me a couple days to get to it. - Taxman Talk 14:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your congrats. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit/!? 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Request regarding problem user[edit]

Hi Taxman - I request you (in your capacity as an admin) for help in resolving some issues user:Anwar saadat has been causing. You may be aware that on WP:RFA, this user has caused issues by objecting to nominations for very generalized, unfounded reasons that have provoked serious responses from other people. On my RfA, he said that my username was "Islamophobic" and that my reversion of POV edits on Jinnah was vandalism. He has also been objecting in a generalized, unfounded manner on WP:FAC. In an FAC especially, people are supposed to object by reasons that can be fixed. Anwar does not. It appears that his objective in doing this is to wreck the nominations. Additionally, it seems that he operates with an anti-India, anti-Hindu bias (most of this behavior has been on Indian FACs and RfAs) - others may disagree, but it just seems that way. Additionally, other folks have found him to be trolling and stalking. When users have attempted to talk to him, try to work out the problems or try to understand his thinking, he has not responded to him, and instead he refactors his talkpage and brands the comments in a depreciating, mocking way. Already two administrators - user:Gurubrahma and user:Sundar have attempted to talk to him.

Please see user talk:Gurubrahma#Need your advice, where the full jist of the issues and diffs are available. I request you to please try to explain to him that his behavior is disruptive and rude. I've tried to explain to him that we want to work positively with him, but he has only mocked such comments. Rama's Arrow 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like your opinion on pursuing an WP:RFC on this - is it the appropriate next step? Rama's Arrow 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
RFC is not a bad idea. It can be anything you want it to, but it's most useful way is as a demonstration of consensus that a user's actions are disruptive. With a strong consensus the user can be blocked under the disruption clause for the problem behaviors. But it can also just focus on what the problem behaviors are to point them out in a clear fashion for everyone and hopefully get them to stop. So it could be very successfull if treated that way. I've had success with at least two different difficult users using RFC. In the meantime accumulating diffs and evidence on a subpage is a very good idea. I've not seen much of the editors behavior, but labeling good faith comments on his talk page as trolling is not only a personal attack, but evidence of a user that isn't working well with the community. - Taxman Talk 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 0.5[edit]

Hello, Taxman. As you expressed interest in a stable version at FAC's talk, would you be interested in helping out reviewing articles for Version 0.5? We started the nomination process yesterday, so any comments and help would be much appreciated. Thanks! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A little request....[edit]

If you get a chance, I wonder if you could take a look at Psittacosaurus and offer your advice regarding its possibility as a FA? Thanks a million! --HappyCamper 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. If there's anything wrong with it it's in the factual content which I'm not qualified to judge. But great research and structure. I'm sure youll be fine handling anything that comes up in FAC, so send it up as soon as you're ready. - Taxman Talk 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

IIT for FAC[edit]

Hi Taxman,

The IIT article is up for FAC. It seems to be doing good, but some editors have raised concerns over its language structure and suggestion has come that it be copyedited by a non-Indian editor. Will you please care to do it. I will be grateful. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India[edit]

Hi Taxman - I request you to please examine this article. Its a good, substantial article that is being prepared for FAC, but I'm afraid that the prose, writing in is horrendous shape. Apart from spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and repititions, the writing is not smooth, "rich, even brilliant prose" and the subject matter is not comprehensive, even though the author has done substantial research. I don't know if I should advise a complete re-write or what exactly to do on improvement - your assistance is sorely needed. Rama's Arrow 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to respond. That sounds like more of the type of thing you're much better at than me to work on. If you put it up for peer review send me a link, or if you want me to put PR type comments on the talk page, I can do that too if you still want. - Taxman Talk 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA Poll[edit]

I see you ended my RFA poll due to too much negative feedback, I hope to try again later with better results. Axiomm 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Water fluoridation[edit]

Hi, Taxman. I saw that you have commented in the past at [[Talk:Water fluoridation controversy]]. Well, if you take a look at Talk:Water fluoridation, you'll see that there is a content dispute going on. I'd love to hear your comments if you have any. Sorry to solicit your comments on an article with which you have had no prior contact, but I'm somewhat desperate for third party comments at this point. Thanks! - Jersyko·talk 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I usually don't mind being patient and waiting for consensus to develop via Rfc and such, but they started talking about arbitration already . . . anyway, I sincerely appreciate it that you were willing to respond, let me know if I can return the favor someday. - Jersyko·talk 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Torchic FAC[edit]

I commented on your comment. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And again. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll follow the conversation there if you don't mind. - Taxman Talk 15:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The merge (again)[edit]

Well, we got all the way there in finding consensus for the merge and then haven't taken the decisive step in actually doing it. I posted to Raul without comment. Would it be too bold to simply edit the WP:FAR to look like the sub-page? Marskell 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It may rouse some sleeping objections, but you did everything you could (got general consensus and waited, and mav posted it at all the relevant places, so I'd say no. Go for it. - Taxman Talk 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing first[edit]

I'll try and push the FAR thing forward over the next couple of days. In the meantime I've been sucked into the astrology vortex. Please see this RfC I have initiated: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. You'll recall this is the fellow who clogged the NPOV talk last week. I cite your edits twice, so you may certify if you're up for it. Cheers, Marskell 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks! Yes, I have been active, just to notice that I am less harsh than another admin who did exactly the same at the same time. And yes, I am conservative. If I am not sure, I am not doing it (left a lot of speedies and blocks to others). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Wiki[edit]

I, one of the new sysops, have given a throughly new look to the main page of Hindi Wikipedia. Please see the Main page, and give me comments on my English user page en:User:Magicalsaumy.

Thanks![edit]

Though the subject title is pretty self explanitory, thanks! Your words of wisdom will certainly be heeded. -- Natalya 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindi wiki[edit]

English link added. And the page is well visible on Mozilla, only formatting is a bit painful. On my Mozilla Firefox, sometimes the characters get squeezed on each other, and span out of the boxes in which they are kept. You can suggest a rewording of the message. As for the alignment of the boxes, the "floating style" has deliberately been made as such. The inspiration has been taken from French and Italian wikis.Cygnus_hansa 14:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what I think. There shouldn't be any IE only message, and I think the misaligned (to me) boxes distracts the eye too much. Especially the little green box on the right at the top and the featured picture vs the लेख लिखना. Those are the most jarring. The rest aren't as bad. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxing[edit]

Hi Taxman,

Loading you talk page is very "Taxing" on my net speed. Time to archive, I guess. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Archived per request. Did you really come just to read my talk page? :) - Taxman Talk 17:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I read the talk pages of all the people I have contacted whenever they show up on my watchlist (this goes for the articles and other pages too). This way I get to know many more things going on that would take a lot of time before reaching me through usual channels (like word of mouth, etc). No wonder with around 2000 pages in my watchlist and following up the developments, speed is a major issue and hence the request. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Wiki Insert tookbox[edit]

Hi, The Hindi wikipedia's Insert toolbox has been edited to include many new characters. Please edit and common page at Hindi wiki, jus to view the new insertbox. About the स and श with dot below, I shall give a detailed explaination later. And I know that the comments within this toolbox are very nervejarring, but to encourage foreigners, etc, I think the phonetic symbols should be there. Please bear with me for that. Thanks, Cygnus_hansa 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at that today. I've never seen the justification for using the स with a dot as /z/ before. I had thought the Indian government panel is the one that standardized on ज़. Having the explanation in there isn't too bad, but it's probably better to move the explanation into it's own page and just link to it though. Then you can have more detailed explanation but not clutter the edit tools and have space for English and Hindi explanations. - Taxman Talk 19:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly I'll give the explaination at the appropriately created Help and guideline page, not write an epic inside the toolbox. The government panel is stupid, and further, the govt of India prefers only "pure Hindi", prged off all loanwords, and hence /z/. My argument is that /s/ and /z/ are allophones in most languages, such as English. Both are alveolar consonants, the former voiceless and the latter voiced. ज is a plosive, not even a fricative (that s and z are), and it is a palatal (-like) consonant, not even alveolar. Believe me, Indian govt is not like the Western countries, it proudly makes stupid and blatant mistakes. Increasing caste-based reservation quotas is a proof of this.Cygnus_hansa 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the logic, but even if it's well justified, we can't use something that's not standard, which as I understand it ज़ is and स़ isn't. - Taxman Talk 02:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
We'll continue to prefer ज़ over .स for standard Hindi words borrowed from Persian and Arabic, whose spellings have become a standard and integral part of the Hindi lexicon.Cygnus_hansa 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell[edit]

Pentawing said that you helped with copyediting the UMich article and helped it earn FA. My current project is to bring Cornell University up to FA status, and was wondering if you could offer some advice on its most recent Peer Review. Thanks. -mercuryboardtalk 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left comments there. I don't mean to be harsh, just as accurate as I can be to help improve the article. I'll follow the PR, but if you do a ton of work and I haven't had a chance to respond, give me a reminder here and I'll dig in for some more that can be improved. - Taxman Talk 02:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I just spent about an hour copyediting the entire page, and I did find tons of pov and bad prose, which I fixed. Please see my changes here. It's improving dramatically but could always use more input. -mercuryboardtalk 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Taxman, the Cornell alumni section is finally fixed, thus, I was wondering if you could critique the page again? Thanks!--Cornell010 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we included the Willard Straight Hall takerover (not positive) and we have several other negative points we have added in. I am sorry to say that negative elements got put on the backburner.--Cornell010 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding that Cornell gives out meger amounts of financial aid, and that many complain about Cornell's fall in the rankings.--134.67.6.11 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner[edit]

Sorry for being impolite and not replying sooner about your RfA suggestion. I have not had time to Wikipedia much in the past five weeks, which is probably a good illustration of why I should not be an admin. Nevertheless, I thank you for the kind compliment. Perhaps in a few months I can reconsider. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Just do what you want to do to help out. Let me know if I can do anything in the future. - Taxman Talk 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Invitation and Recommendations for writing articles on Hindi Wikipedia[edit]

Hindi wikipedia invites and welcomes Wikipedians to contribute for the cause of spreading knowledge and the Hindi language. This page contains guidelines for writing a wiki-article on any topic at the Hindi Wikipedia, with special recommendations for writing in Hindi (Note: The script/font-family for Hindi is Devanāgari; the script/font-system for English is Roman script, also, the Hindi spelling system is not completely standardized). This article is yet in English language (mostly), in order to encourage even non-native/foreign people who have learnt/are learning Hindi to contribute to the Hindi wikipedia, and native Hindi speakers who normally write in English. The examples given below are only for explanation.

Recommendations:

  1. Firstly for proper viewing, it is recommended to keep all links NOT-UNDERLINED. Otherwise the मात्रा below the Hindi alphabets might get partly hidden behind the underlines. For this, please go to My Preferences (मेरी पसंद) at the top of the page, then click Misc., and then choose "underline links -> Never". Save your settings. Also, do not click yes for "justify paragraphs", otherwise on some browsers, the devanagari script will appear highly distorted.
  2. All users are requested and encouraged to contribute articles here, especially, to create new articles on general topics. They are also encouraged to expand the existing articles, and improve upon them. A non-user can also do the same; it is recommended but not required to register yourself as a wikipedian user at the Hindi wikipedia. As far as possible, each article should be written with a Neutral Point of View (NPOV)—no nationalistic or partiality or hatred based articles are welcome. The articles should be based on facts—and appropriate references should be provided as and where needed. See the English wiki's help page for editing in general. Almost all the general wiki-features are available for editing on Hindi wiki too. Guidelines for the content matter is mostly the same as given in English wiki.
  3. Since the Hindi wiki is at its initial stages, users are welcome to take introduction and basic points from the English (or another) wikipedia's corresponding article and translate them for small articles. An in-page link to the English wiki's article will be deemed sufficient for references (a template might be created stating this). For longer articles, it is recommended to mention the references separately.
  4. Since most computer users in India and elsewhere have the standard Western-type keyboard, it is best recommended (but not necessarily required) to use the virtual (software) keyboard like the one of Hindimozhi or of ISIS (Tavultesoft Keyman)—which are freewares. These are advantageous because the contemporary Hindi-speakers in India often write messages/chat using Hindi words but written in Roman (English) script, and the layout of these keyboards is quite the same that such people use. For example, using the "normal" keyboard with this software, typing ga would give ग and ghaa would give घा.
  5. Create the article with its name written in Hindi (devanagari script). Always take care to include the nukta (dot below) for foreign / Urdu loanwords wherever it occurs in the standard spelling. For non-Indian names, use that spelling (for article name and other words) which is commonly encountered in Hindi newspapers, G.K.-books, Hindi-dubbed TV documentaries and Hollywood films and magazines. e.g., America-अमरीका (या अमेरिका), China-चीन, French-फ़्रांसिसी. For English acronyms/short-forms, use the initials in Roman script, and again create a full form in Hindi and redirect it to the short form. e.g. IPA (अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय ध्वनि वर्णाक्षर); UNO (संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ). Doing the opposite is also fine. But creating the article with the Hindi short form, as सं०रा०सं०, is not recommended. Also, the article proper must be written with the proper nukta, as फ़ारसी, and then, a non-nukta (mis-)spelt version फारसी should preferably be created to redirect to the correct spelling.
  6. Hindi wikipedia strongly recommends the users to write articles in everyday common Hindi in the खड़ीबोली dialect (Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu, i.e., बोलचाल वाली हिन्दी, which may include many loanwords from Persian and Arabic). The use of शुद्ध संस्कृतनिष्ठ हिन्दी is in general neither required nor recommended. E.g., use: वजह instead of कारण, ख़ास instead of विशेष, वगैरह instead of इत्यादि, लेकिन instead of परन्तु etc. However, for technical and specialized vocabulary, the use of शुद्ध संस्कृतनिष्ठ हिन्दी is recommended and usually mandatory. Thus: upper House of Parliament—संसद का उच्च सदन, but not Urdu—मजिलिस का ऐवान-ए-बाला ; Foreign Minister—विदेशमन्त्री, but not Urdu—वज़ीर-ए-ख़ारिजा ; knowledge/science—ज्ञान/विज्ञान, but not इल्म. Use spoken Hindi's ये and वो instead of यह and वह / वे. Do not use the title of respect जी after names, it is unencyclopedic. Thus: कृष्ण / श्री कृष्ण but not कृष्ण जी. Use the आप form and its corresponding 3rd person verbal conjugation for writing about respectable persons. Thus: श्री वाजपेयी मध्य प्रदेश में जन्मे थे. But not: वाजपेयी मध्य प्रदेश में जन्मा था. But do not use the pronoun "आप" itself in-text in biographies.
  7. English should be used sparingly, only when required; i.e., if the corresponding शुद्ध हिन्दी word is too "difficult and not generally encountered", or if it is a proper name of non-Indian person/place/terminology/title, or if the user is highly unsure of the proper translation. It is recommended (but not required) for English-to-Hindi translation while writing articles, the Shabdkosh online dictionary should be used. For each English word, that alternative should be used which is generally encountered in everyday spoken Hindi, and also fits well into the context. Use of intelligent guesses for newly encountered words is also allowed, and so are translations encountered in Hindi-dubbed TV documentaries, Hollywood films, Hindi-translated books, etc. e.g., दमपिशाच for en:Dementor (used in dubbed HP films).
  8. If used, it is recommended to use the English words within the articles using the English (Roman) alphabets rather than devanagari (or better, the devanagari transliteration should be used in the sentence, followed by the English word in Roman alphabet in parentheses). Such words should be italicized and not put in quotation marks. Preferably, there should be an in-page interwiki link (like :en:) on the word to the English wikipedia. If the word comes as an integral part of a sentence, so as not to break the continuity, the en: prefix should be hidden by writing the word again after the pipe sign (piped link). Thus, recommended: हैरी पॉटर ने ''[[:en:Pensieve|Pensieve]]'' के अन्दर ''[[:en:Little Hangleton|Little Hangleton]]'' गाँव में लॉर्ड वोल्डेमॉर्ट की माँ ''[[:en:Merope Gaunt|Merope Gaunt]]'' को देखा. ''[[:en:Resplendent Quetzal|Resplendent Quetzal]]'' पक्षी के ऊपर एक मेक्सिकन पादरी डा० ''[[:en:Pablo de la Llave|Pablo de la Llave]]'' ने काफ़ी शोध किया था. Whence,
    • हैरी पॉटर ने Pensieve के अन्दर Little Hangleton गाँव में लॉर्ड वोल्डेमॉर्ट की माँ Merope Gaunt को देखा
    • Resplendent Quetzal पक्षी के ऊपर एक मेक्सिकन पादरी डा० Pablo de la Llave ने काफ़ी शोध किया था
  9. Always start the first 1 or 2 lines of the article giving its definition (from any standard dictionary/other wiki) or suitable introduction. Thus, recommended: ललिता सहस्रनामन हिन्दू धर्मसुधारक आदि शंकराचार्य द्वारा रचित देवी दुर्गा को समर्पित एक पूजा-मन्त्र है, जिसे कई हिन्दू रोज़ श्रद्धा से जपते हैं । But not: ललिता सहस्रनामन मन्त्र जपने के लिये लड्डू-पेड़ा, ताम्बुल, सिन्दूर, लाल चुनरी के साथ नित्य इस मन्त्र का पाठ करें, तो जल्द ही गड़ा हुआ ख़जाना मिलेगा । Recommended: वैमानिक अभियान्त्रिकी (en:Aeronautical engineering) विमानों (en:Aircrafts) की अभिकल्पना, निर्माण और प्रचालन करने का विज्ञान, कला और कार्य है । (translated from Eng. Webster's New World Dictionary). But not: आजकल वैमानिक अभियान्त्रिकी के लिये देशभर में कई कॉलेज खुल गये हैं, जिनमें अग्रणी स्थान यूटोपिया स्थित लालू-यादव टेक्लिनक कॉलेज का है ।
  10. For names of countries, cities, places, languages, people, books, films, technical vocabulary, mythology, etc, start the article like this:
    • 1. The name in bold ('''अपोलो''')
    • 2. starting parenthesis, then English name in Roman script, in-page interwiki-linked to English wiki ff. by semicolon ((अंग्रेज़ी : [[:en:Apollo]];)
    • 3. The native name(s) if applicable in the italicized native script, preferably followed either by its italicized approximate Hindi pronunciation or non-italicized phonological transcription within / /, ff. by closed parenthesis (यूनानी : ''Aπollων अपोल्लोन''))
    • 4. the rest of the definition or introduction (प्राचीन [[यूनानी धर्म]] (ग्रीक धर्म) और प्राचीन [[रोमन धर्म]] के सर्वोच्च देवता थे ।) For country names, only the standard short form of the name is needed in the first line. If there is a common name for a difficult word in Hindustani, also mention it. Whence: अपोलो (अंग्रेज़ी : en:Apollo; यूनानी : Aπollων अपोल्लोन) प्राचीन यूनानी धर्म (ग्रीक धर्म) और प्राचीन रोमन धर्म के सर्वोच्च देवता थे । If you don't give the interwiki English/another language link (which would be deemed to be the default reference), then you MUST provide an appropriate reference.
  11. Please leave no article without an appropriate category. See the list of created categories here; you can also make a new category (pref. in Hindi). Please leave no article without at least ONE off page (like en:) interwiki link. E.g., the user can check the article name (say Apollo) on the finally redirected English page and append to the Hindi article ([[en:Appolo]])). These interlanguage links will help a bot to update all interwiki links for that article in all wikipedias. The category and the aforementioned link should be typed at the end of the article. If the article is very small, mention it as a stub/substub.
  12. Use of templates is welcome. See the list of templates here. If creating a template, name it pref. in Hindi.
  13. Use पूर्णविराम ( । ) instead of a period (.) for ending statements. The पूर्णविराम, semicolon, colon and dash (but not comma) must come after one space after the word to prevent ambiguity. Use the international form of the Hindu-Arabic numerals (1,2,3 instead of १,२,३), as used by the Constitution and the Government of India (even for Hindi). There is no need to use the हलन्त at the end of Sanskrit words wherever it occurs. Hence, prefer: संसद over संसद्; अथर्वन over अथर्वन्. Use the proper quotation marks “” from the Insert toolbox, not "". Write dates as 2 मई 2006 (ईसवी or ईसापूर्व). Write time as 3:45 pm. Separate common suffix-words like शास्त्र, विज्ञान, ज्ञान with a hyphen. Thus: रसायन-शास्त्र. For most others, leave both the words of the noun-cluster free. Combine them into one word only if it is very common to do so. Thus: सामवेद.
  14. The use of ज़ for the en:voiced alveolar fricative (/z/, as in zoo, rose) is fundamentally wrong. Its nearest counterpart is the en:voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ (as in sea), and not Hindi ज (en:voiced palatal plosive). Hence, it is suggested and recommended that for the sound /z/, whether it comes in English (etc.) spellings (z) for while pronunciation otherwise, should be transcribed as स़ (स with a dot below, available in the Insert toolbox). Hence: Reason रीस़न, not रीज़न ; Roses रोस़ेस़, not रोज़ेज़. But common Hindi words borrowed from Persian/Arabic (so-called Urdu words) are allowed to continue with ज़ spelling. Thus: ज़रा, नज़र, तर्ज़. The en:voiced postalveolar fricative (/ʒ/ as in treasure), inexistent in Hindi, can similarly be transcribed with श़. Thus: treasure ट्रॅश़र. The nukta (dot) available in the Insert toolbox can be combined with various consonants to suggest a more exact phonetic devanagari rendering of foreign sounds. E.g., since phonetically, English Think and this are not equal to थिंक and दिस, a better transcription could be थ़िंक and द़िस. Please take care of the dot below in so-called Urdu words, otherwise the Hindi spelling is deemed incorrect.
  15. For the following English vowels met, mate, mat, transcribe as मॅट (short vowel), मेट (not मेइट), मैट (not मॅट, as popular in Marathi). However in contemporary Hindi and here, it is acceptable to use ए instead of ऍ. Thus: अमेरिका is more popular than अमॅरिका. For cot, coat, caught, transcribe as कॉट, कोट, कॉट (not कौट). Transcribe English /t/ and /d/ as ट and ड.
  16. Use half-न before त, थ, द, ध, न, instead of anuswaar अं. Use half-म before प, फ, ब, भ, म. Use the anuswaar before all the rest of the consonants (not half-ङ, ञ, ण). If the मात्रा is not above the alphabet, use chandra-bindu, but only for nasalization. Thus: अन्दर, not अंदर ; अन्त, not अंत ; हिन्दी, not हिंदी ; सम्भव, not संभव ; पंचमी, not पञ्चमी ; अंडा, not अण्डा ; कंठ, not कण्ठ ; लैंड, not लैण्ड ; आँख, not आंख. However, both forms are acceptable in contemporary Hindi as well as here; the prec. are just recommendations.
  17. When proceded by another vowel, use the pure vowels instead of य (unless the य is clearly articulated while pronouncing). Thus : जाएँ, not जायें (not जावें) ; आएगा, not आयेगा . However, both forms are acceptable in contemporary Hindi as well as here.
  18. Please pay careful attention to the masculine/feminine gender (and singular/plural) in adjectives and verbs, else the sentence becomes ungrammatical.

For more information/suggestions/criticisms, please contact any one of the administrators of Hindi wiki here, preferably en:User:Magicalsaumy.

This page can also be found here.

Thank you,

Cygnus_hansa 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Hi Taxman,

One small enquiry. If an article has a "Trivia" section, is a valid to oppose its FAC because of it. I hope you understood what I meant, otherwise I will clarify my statement. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's because of a combination of the criteria, mostly 2a, but also 5. Information in a trivia section is either important enough to cover in well written integrated prose in the appropriate section of the rest of the article, or not important enough and should be removed from the article. That has been very long standing practice on FAC. - Taxman Talk 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Austrralian Catholic University- a request[edit]

G'day Taxman, Pentawing recommended that I contact you for some advie on this article that I have been working on. Any chance you could take a look-see and pass on some sage advice. Cheers mate. Soundabuser 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you, Taxman. We should be seeing each other around a lot from now on. I look forward to it :). Thanks again, Redux 15:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Figuring out[edit]

Hi Taxman. Since I found you online, I can take the opportunity to verify this: I was trying to carry out the requests for username change, but apparently Special:Renameuser is not working. Could you try to perform a change (there are two open requests at WP:CHU) and let me know if you managed to get through, if it's not too much trouble? Thanks a lot. Redux 14:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems not to be working for me either. But it could be the server load at this time of day, as we're near the peak. Username changes when they have a good number of edits are brutal on the servers so it's better to do it in the middle of the night UTC time when the server load is typically lower. Of course, it could be something else, but that's a good idea anyway. - Taxman Talk 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I was thinking of something like this as well, but wanted to make sure. All is well then :) Cheers, Redux 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfAs[edit]

Hi Taxman. The two RfAs that you closed today (15 June) were supposed to close only tomorrow (16 June). Did something happen? Redux 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shh, no one noticed. [Looks around sheepishly.] It seems I've had a practical joke played on me and the clock on my phone and on my computer have been changed. Lovely mess we have now though. Off to the noticeboard to work out a solution. - Taxman Talk 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Growing Old[edit]

Sorry for the RFA mistakes I made. My memory is getting worse lately. I will be 51 in a few months. :-( Anonymous__Anonymous 12:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could review the Cornell Page[edit]

I know that you have previously reviewed the Cornell University page, therefore, I was wondering if you could do it again. Thanks! User: Cornell010 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindi question[edit]

You to me on 17.06.2006: Hi, I hope you don't mind my snooping but in a talk page message you left were the words "sadhiwaad" and "subhekachha". I was intruiged because I could make out the rest of the message, but upon searching for those words in my dictionaries I could not find them. I gather they are both of Sanskritic construction, but my understanding of Sanskrit roots is too weak to be of much use. Would you mind explaining their meaning? Thanks - Taxman

Me to you: Hello. I would surely explain the words. Subhekccha is made up of two words: Subha and Ekchha. Subha generally means good or fine, and Ekchha indicated ones desire – subhekaccha denonte “All the Best””. Sadhuvad is an expression used to bless some efforts. So It is a sort of a word of encouragement, which an elder person gives to a younger ones. BTW, I like the snooping! All the best! --Bhadani 14:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Even with 70,000 some entries in my Hindi-English dictionary, it still misses a lot of words. What I probably need to do is order a more comprehensive all Hindi dictionary from India, even though I'd then have to look up many of the words in the definitions in my other dictionary. Any recommendations? The ideal dictionary would be one targeted towards students with simpler definitions, but with a large number of entry words. The most authoritative dictionary with the most entries would be the higher priority though I suppose. - Taxman Talk 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Profit sharing[edit]

Ref. done. BTW, where was this "reverting first" are you talking about?. I wrote just a little bit, since I am not an expert, but there does exist much more to write about.

P.S. Since you seem to be expert in taxes ("Taxman") please check my recent Fringe Benefits Tax series. I aint no expert, but there were red links.

`'mikka (t) 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I didn't save the edit or it didn't take, so no worries, and thanks for the reference and the additional info. And I'm no expert, but I'll see what I can do. - Taxman Talk 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Duplicate RfA votes[edit]

Thank You for pointing this error to me. The main cause of this is that I was using a different PC and in that particular PC, the colours of my signature could not be distinguished. However, this may not be an acceptable explanation and I am disappointed with my self for this utter carelessness by my part. I assure you that this would NOT repeat again. Because of this major errors (I voted twice in a total of 4 recent RfAs), I feel that it may be some time before I am even fit to consider the possibility of running for adminship. I have striked out those RfAs in question and currently, I am very, very furious with myself for these errors. Once again I wish to assure you that you would not worry about this in the future. However, I am currently unable to correct the number pattern for these votes and hope that you would fix this. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

iva1979 Do not worry so much about this error. It happens all the time. Surely nobody thought it was anything other than an honest mistake. FloNight talk 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't stress that much about it. Notice I'm not mistake free, and neither is anyone else. My only worry was that it represented a lack of care in looking into the candidates, which is the only important thing. Mistakes are correctable, so not a major problem. - Taxman Talk 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My (Mtz206) RfA[edit]

Lutherbibel.jpg Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary[edit]

It's fairly good, but from long experience on FAC, I can tell you it won't pass without some substantial changes. I'd recommend replacing it on PR and soliciting some wider opinion. Specifically it has POV problems in claiming actuaries are the most important, qualified, etc. It also doesn't even mention risk management which actuaries could be said to be an important part of, with risk management as the broad umbrella area of knowledge. Also there's the perception that actuaries are typically the number crunchers only, and others actually make the decisions, whereas this article paints it as actuaries running the show. Finally actuarial science is something that has a wealth of books and other reliable sources published on it, but the article currently doesn't cite many/enough. I could look for more if you'd like more suggestions of things to polish up, but I wanted to let you know there were issues to fix before FAC was a good idea. - Taxman Talk 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you input. I'll comb through the article again for those waesel word issues; I guess I missed a bunch. Also, it does mention risk management, bith in the lead and in "non-traditional" My fear is that going into to much detail threatens to overwhelm the article. Also, most books are about Actuarial science, not the Actuary themselves. There are plenty of books on lifecon/cas prob/freq sev issues etc. Gosh knows I had to read a bunch getting my letters, but that deals with the WORK, which is properly contained in Actuarial science, IMO, and not Actuary. However, I do defer to your expertise, and will try to get some more sources in. Do you really think is best to put it back on PR? -- Avi 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do to be honest, it didn't seem like it was there long, but if you just want to work on a couple rounds of my suggestions instead, that's fine too. I also didn't dig into it in depth yet, I just wanted to notify you of problems I saw right away to minimize the difficulty. Yes, you don't want to go into too much detail that should be in actuarial science, but those resources would improve the verifiablity of the relevant section, and where appropriate, the rest of the article. I'll try to dig in for more suggestions, but I've got a lot of other things to do. If you need me to I can look for more tonight, if you're ok being patient, I'll do it on Saturday. Let me know - Taxman Talk 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Hi there:

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page about my RfA, and thank you for being prompt in closing the thing when it was done.

DLJessup (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

need citation guidance[edit]

Hi, we're having an argument at Talk:programming language over the level of citation needed for FA status. I'd appreciate it if you could give your input as to what should be cited and what should not. I am also confused because my recent FAC Forth failed for not enough citations even though I can't think of anything in it left to cite. Thanks. Ideogram 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Signing[edit]

Taxman, I've notice that many users (you included) have formatted their signatures with little graphics or coloured the text. Could you point me to instructions on how to do this please? --Mr Minchin 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signature actually redirects to where you need to go to find out the basics. After that it's just about using wiki and the allowable html markup to have it the way you like it. Keep in mind consensus is really swinging against overly long signatures because they can drown out comments etc, so keep it short and sweet. I'm even considering shortening mine back down. - Taxman Talk 23:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations[edit]

Thanks! I just hope I don't accidentally break anything :). Extraordinary Machine 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems there's almost nothing left you really can break, so you should be fine. You can even undelete images now. I won't tell you what the one thing you can still mess up is because it's obscure and you have to read through all the warnings to even find out how to do it. And even that a developer can fix. - Taxman Talk 23:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
History merge! [Evil cackle.] The truth will out! Bishonen | talk 23:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
Who invited you? :P :) - Taxman Talk 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India[edit]

This article is on FAC. However, Nichalp has requested that the article be copyedited by someone who has not been involved in the article. If you could please help out, I'd be most grateful! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 08:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush[edit]

Hi Taxman - I request your help in making this article an FA. I just re-wrote large segments of the article, and I need your critical analysis to determine what to do next. Help! This Fire Burns.....Always 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit request[edit]

Hey! I was wondering if you'd be willing to copyedit Duke University which is a current FAC, but has been opposed by Mercuryboard who wishes for the text to go through a "thorough copyedit" by someone unfamiliar with the text. I looked at your previous work and it seems great to me, so I thought I'd ask you. I'll understand if you don't have the desire/time to copyedit it, though, since university articles can be sometimes boring if you don't have a personal connection to the particular university (I think this one is interesting though). Thanks! -Bluedog423 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Howdy[edit]

Wow! Looks like some important people do remember me. /me grins broadly --Nearly Headless Nick 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say important, but thanks :) - Taxman Talk 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the congratulations and promoting me to admin. I'm looking forward to further helping out. --liquidGhoul 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, just don't make me look bad :) - Taxman Talk 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitch Modeleski[edit]

Dear Taxman: Please watch the above-referenced article which is about a well-known tax protester. An anon user is repeatedly blanking the article and replacing it with a resume. Yours, Famspear 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya[edit]

Hi Taxman,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

At the same time..Almost[edit]

Hi Taxman. We almost closed Centrx's RfA at the same time. I removed the transclusion to the main RfA page, but got an edit conflict when closing the RfA itself -- I thought it was someone trying to get a late participation in, but as it turns out, it was you closing the RfA. I'll leave the "honors" to you, then (you've probably already taken care of it as I'm writing this). Cheers, Redux 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll call jinx now because I just got the yellow banner from this message as I left a message for you about the same thing. Yes, I promoted just after I closed the nom. - Taxman Talk 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Next thing you know, we'll be closing RfAs only at sunset; to see who "draws first". The Lonely Shepherd will be playing in the background... ;). Indeed, some coincidence(s)! Redux 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To see the latest in the race between these two bureaucrats for most promotions, check here ;). NoSeptember 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

RyanGerbil10ThanksYou.PNG
Thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA. It passed on the relatively narrow vote of 38/8/8. It was also one of the least-participated-in RFA nominations in several months, so pat yourself on the back, and join the party on your left, but first, take your cookie!

NOTE: I can't code HTML to save my life. I copied this from Misza13. I guess I should write him a thank you note as well. Cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons. May contain peanuts or chicken. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3. Do not take with alcohol. This notice has a dark background and therefore may be eaten by a grue at any time. The receiver of this message, hereafter referred to as "Pudding Head" relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit or any other litigious activities. RyanGerbil10, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Georgia, North Dakota and Wisconsin are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts.

Choco chip cookie.jpg

Thank you so much! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindustani grammar[edit]

Even I am not comfortable with the Hindustani grammar article, but only because of its redundancy, not because its my copied one. Btw, look the entirely new look given to the morphology section of Hindi grammar.Cygnus_hansa 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that on the talk page. I didn't want to be rude and just send it to AFD, and perhaps they can justify a need for some distinct information to occupy that page. Hindustani language has the same problem, except it does have a legitmate need to exist and just cover the uses of the term. - Taxman Talk 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I cannot think of anything in Grammar which is different from Hindi in Hindustani.Cygnus_hansa 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The only one I know of is Urdu more strongly preserves the femenine agreement in some postpositions, whereas not as many Hindi speakers do. I don't know of others either, but most grammar expositions I've read refer to the grammar being almost identical. That means there are at least some differences, but nowhere are they stated. Finding those might be useful. Finally I do think your voice is needed in the discussion on where the grammar articles should exist. If the consensus is to have one, we should merge the articles, so please don't edit Hindi grammar anymore until we have some resolution or else the merge won't work. I'm very concerned about having so much redundant duplicated material across the various Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani articles, and I'm baffled others don't see the problem in that. - Taxman Talk 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I have already made huge changes to the Hindi grammar article. It is the primary article, and it should have the freedom to be edited as and when required. And Hindi also preserves all gender agreement in postpositions, else they are deemed non-standard and non-prescriptive.Cygnus_hansa 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it appears you are going to be over ruled if you don't join in the conversation. I will make sure the history preserves the edits you have put into the article, but as the article is open for editing, if there is a consensus to merge it with another, then that is what must be done. It does appear the consensus is growing for there being one grammar article and having it named Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar. I'm not a fan of that name, but none of us can single handedly violate consensus. - Taxman Talk 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about the closing[edit]

Well it was about as close as they come, but I didn't feel I could call it a consensus to promote. See what you can do to address the concerns raised, especially demonstrating you have knowledge of the important policies admins deal with. With that and some more experience it appears most people would support you in the future, so I wasn't concerned that if I didn't promote now you'd never get it. Good luck, don't take it too hard, and above all, have fun editing. - Taxman Talk 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving me a note about it—towards the end, I realized my chances were slim, as it dipped below 75%. I trust your judgement though...I can see that you are one of the most active bureaucrats in promotions. It appears that the four points of opposition were:
  1. More encyclopedia edits—logical, this is an enyclopedia
  2. More participation in AfDs
  3. Badly written self-nom
  4. Staying out of situations I don't know enough about
So basically, I probably won't apply again till I have at least 1500 mainspace edits, and I have some experience with deletions, merges, and when I have a really good nom with well-written answers. But I do appreciate your time in communication with me, as I appreciate everyone who took the time to discuss/vote/opine in my RFA. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've already got all three that I've got a clue about, so you're on your way it seems. - Taxman Talk 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

oversight[edit]

Congratulations, you get to be oversight as well, now we can make you do more work ;). NoSeptember 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then shhh, don't announce it. :) - Taxman Talk 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fourth International[edit]

Just over a year ago, you provided several useful suggestions in a peer review of this article. Since then, I believe that all your suggestions have been implemented, while the article has undergone considerable changes. I've now submitted it for a new peer review, and hoped you might be able to have another look and comment. thanks, Warofdreams talk 19:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindustani grammar[edit]

Plz see my new suggestions in the talk page of the same.Cygnus_hansa 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Computer-assited reviewing page[edit]

Please, set my page back. And, please (!), stop your expeditive censor job, and start discussing a bit, few seconds before deleting my job. Thanks. EMLM 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

+sysop?[edit]

Hey Taxman. Forgive my misplaced diligence/nosiness/ignorance, but I was looking at the user rights log and didn't see the same +sysop for Phaedriel as there usually is for most newly appointed sysops. Is this a bug, feature, or otherwise? Just figured I'd give you the heads up, in case you just forgot to hit a checkbox or something. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Using another tool, it appears she has sysop rights, so I imagine it's just an edit summary type thing that you didn't put. No worries, just making sure she got her tools. ;o) Sorry for the bother. Take care, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, there's no summary to put in. The +sysop is automatic as the interface is very simple. Good catch, I'll have to ask if there is a reason why, though I'm sure it will amount to a small glitch in the code. Just curious though, what tool did show that she had them? - Taxman Talk 03:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a variety of tools from User:Voice of All in my monobook.js, one of which is a simple "rights" tab which shows you which rights a user has. For example, I can go to Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales, click the rights tab at the top, and it tells me he has Sysop and Steward, with Oversight and Developer. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, lest we forget the simple tools, there's always Special:Listusers/sysop as well. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If I could offer my crazy opinion, the SVN logs show that in rev 15928 (30 hours ago as of this post), Brion committed a fix for bugzilla:5585, bringing the log entries generated by Special:Makesysop (for our 'crats) in line with the ones generated by Special:Userrights (for stewards, see the Meta user rights log). en.wikipedia is now running off MediaWiki 1.8alpha r15928 (Special:Version), so the change went live between the last admin's promotion and Phaedriel's. :) --james(talk) 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to discount what appears to be your perfectly correct analysis, but we did figure that out before I went to sleep. :) The old view of the log was actually a kludge. - Taxman Talk 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Pfffff, I was at school! :) --james(talk) 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Small favour[edit]

Hi,

I was just wondering if I could ask you for a small favour? A user had moved 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots to 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms using the 'move' feature. Another user broke the redirect and copy and pasted 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms back to 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. Is there a possibility of fixing this break in the history? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, but you'll need to help guide the discussion on the talk page towards deciding what the best name is. After that there are a lot of problem redirects to cleanup. After there is evidence and consensus for the best name, make sure every page links directly to the correct name. - Taxman Talk 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, will try. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambuj's RfA[edit]

Hi Taxman - I am puzzled. A couple of weeks ago, Sean Black was promoted to adminship, even though his support stood at 71%. So why wasn't Ambuj promoted at 74%? Rama's arrow 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning was that Sean was already an admin, and past discussion had held that there should be a consensus to de-admin, not necessarily one to re-admin. Also considering he was an admin in good standing and voluntarily gave it up. Not sure I would have done that but I understand the reasoning. - Taxman Talk 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well, no use pissing about this any longer... Its WP's loss. Rama's arrow 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding external link in Vegetarian Cuisine[edit]

Hello Taxman, I just found that you've removed the link modification I made for HappyCow's vegetarian guide in the external links section. Another user, Mig asked me to expand on the description and link that was posted there. I believed that linking to different sections made it easier for someone to find those articles. I'm somewhat new to this, and sorry if did so incorrectly. I posted a message in "Vegetarian" section for him to review it and improve it if necessary. I'm going to put it back and remove the other two links. Your assistance is appreciated in formating this a useful and correct way. Thank you. Trueveg 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu grammar[edit]

Hello again Taxman. Thanks for all your help thus far. I have a question for you that you might be able to answer. Currently I am adding the Nastaliq to the Hindi-Urdu grammar article and have gotten some others that might assist me. However, I realized that there was another option that we could do. Would it be possible to merge the histories of the two articles so that the Nastaliq script on Hindustani grammar would be kept but Magicalsaumy's edits would stay? If this is not possible, I will continue to do it manually but as I said on the Talk page, it might take a week or two. I would really appreciate if you could help me out here. Thanks for your time. Jdas07 04:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the fact that they have been edited too much concurrently, a history merge is not feasible. Thanks for your work in merging the new material in, I'm glad you have some help. - Taxman Talk 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Taxman. From looking at Talk:Hindi-Urdu grammar, it seems like you have knowledge of IPA. I have added some Nasta'liq to the article while my friend, Kitabparast is adding the majority of it. Neither of us know IPA. Would you be able (or could you find someone) to add IPA where it is missing after Nasta'liq has been fully added to the article. Could you please let me know if you could do this for me? If not, I will have to find someone myself. Please let me know. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks in advance. Jdas07 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies.[edit]

Taxman, I have finally realised that my link has been removed for genuine reasons. I did think that it was being removed by somebody not wanting my site to be found as has happened in the past. I've finally stumbled across the history pages etcetera. Having read the guidelines eventually, I fully understand your reasoning behind the removal of the link to www.yeclaserve.com and will not be replacing the link again, "hooray!" I hear you saying. Although the site does have some advertising, I strongly feel that for those researching about Yecla, yeclaserve.com has some excellent resources with the forum, etc. Would you possibly take the time to tell me in which way I could make the forum comply with your guidelines in order to have the link included. Once again, sorry for the hassle caused. dean (at) yeclaserve.com

You have to understand everyone wants links from Wikipedia to their site. The only ones that are really valuable are official sites or those that add significant content that could serve as a reliable references and aren't too commercial. The only way I see that site complying would be to reduce the prominence and number of ads. There are over 10 on each page and the site appears set up purely for the advertising. But if you go to Talk:Yecla you can discuss it if you feel you can justify why it meets WP:EL. Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lions Clubs International[edit]

Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Salvador Dalí[edit]

Last year when I completed Diego Velázquez you suggested I polish some of the other articles on Spanish artists. My FAC on Salvador Dalí, which I think is an exceptional article, has been faced with objections that I have as of now completely addressed; currently, only one of the editors has changed their vote, and few new editors are offering opinions. Mind having a look and weighing in on the article in its present state? Thanks : ) --DanielNuyu 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will have a look, thanks for the heads up. I'm glad you had a chance to get to it, I had looked at it earlier and it looked very good. I'm confident any issues can be dealt with to make it a successful FAC. - Taxman Talk 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shotgun House[edit]

Hi Taxman, I added a missing 'of' in one of the first few paras [5]. Since this is going to be the FA soon, I was wondering if the change can be made on the summary [6] as well. Thanks! - Cribananda 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but actually I think it's perfectly correct and reads better without the of. "and the pellets would fly cleanly through the house and out the back door." flows better than "and the pellets would fly cleanly through the house and out of the back door." - Taxman Talk 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, may be... - Cribananda 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

your edit[edit]

I think it may now be too strong. Substantial research always necessary? Surely not at the hands of a practitioner in the topic. That's why I softened it with "often". Tony 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Even an expert needs to cite their sources. For the few people in that category, I think they'll know the extent of their research will be to find the citation information and review the information. Even that probably qualifies as research though. There are areas I would consider myself nearly an expert in, but I still check my sources. Practitioners aren't necessarily experts and aren't exempt from research and citing sources. - Taxman Talk 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

Please check out my experimental reorganization of your advice page, revert freely. Rationale on Talk. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

your note[edit]

Taxman

Thanks for your message. Very relieved to realise halfway through that the "FU" in the title didn't refer to something else, but means "follow up". I couldn't care less about categorising my and other pages as "personal"—no problem; what I do object to is the campaign being waged by SV et al, which mixes the personal and the political into a poisonous concoction. I was very irritated by your comments on the FA talk page, and thought that you of all people might have avoided writing negative statements about fellow FA-advice writers. There are critics and proponents of your page, as of mine.

And in case there's any doubt: moving my page out of my personal space is the last thing that I want. There have been calls for this to happen, so I've set out my reasons on the talk page for my main 2a page.

I do wish that you would back up the advice on the page that you initiated by spending a little time reviewing FACs. Just the occasional appearance would be good: there are not enough reviewers to resist the pressure for a lowering of standards, and the traffic is now huge.

And on a related matter, why, I wonder, are the Perfect Article and the other one still cited within the criteria? Shouldn't they be moved down? Now there's a tripartite division (within, beneath WP-space, beneath personal space). The first category, IMV, should be moved down to the second. Don't you agree?

Tony 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But see, as I tried to point out to you I did not write any negative comments about you. You seem to be taking your displeasure with the way others are acting out on me. Yes, I enjoy reviewing FAC's but to do it right takes a lot of time that I just don't have much of right now. My own article contributions are way too low lately. I try to stay out of the rest as much as I can, but clearly I'm not being very successful at it. I just hope I'm able to influence the project positively enough in the time I have. And yeah, those have just almost always been linked to. We really do have too many style guides. Perhaps I should merge the one I started with how to write a great article and help consolidate others. Less better ones would be more useful I think. - Taxman Talk 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Not that it would have made any difference, but today is August 11, not August 12. Cowman109's RfA would have ended in about 16 hours. Again, it probably wouldn't have made a difference, but I don't want you to get confused for future closings. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people here think this is funny to change my clocks, because I never know what the date is without them, and for whatever reason I never check a calendar. So not checking Wikitime often enough resulted in that. Really must check wikitime consistently. - Taxman Talk 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer[edit]

Thanks for response. Once you read the above, you will understand how the community might feel queezy about alternate user abuse.  :) Dlohcierekim 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an innocent question.[edit]

I know this may sound like I'm attacking you, but really I'm trying hard to phrase this Wikipedia-Correctly.

Regarding Disambiguation links on the tops of pages: I understand that Benzin the song is relatively unknown song in North America (Heck, it's German!), and so I don't at all disagree with you removing it. Heck, it didn't even look that good: The chemical userbox squished it pretty badly. You probably did the right thing (And I was probably being a bit dumb, at the time). So what's the common Admin or Wiki stance on Disambig links?

I ask this mainly because of a user's dispute with Euthanasia, a certain ROHA (operating from a variable IP address) disagreed with it and removed it (Several times). At the time I thought it was Policy to attempt to guide users with respect to relationships between titles.

So, I'll sum it up here, I guess: What's the policy regarding Album or Musical disambig links on pages? Some of those albums (that are disambiguated) are infamilar to me, (And as such if I didn't know what was going on on Wiki (IE: I was a newbie), I'd remove them) but that's my personal bias. I'd like to know how people determine if such disambigs are appropriate or not. (And hopefully avoid embarrassing, potential, Test Template usage)

I just kind of think that as an Admin (And veteran wikipedian), you might be able to help. Thanks in advance!!!

Logical2u 21:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: I don't really care where you reply at the moment: I've watched your page for the moment.

As far as I know there's not highly defined policy on it. If a significant portion of the readers of an article would be confused by the main name, then a disambig message should be at the top, but it's better to simply use something like Template:otheruses which links to a general disambig page. But when there's not likely to be many people at all confused by the name, then it doesn't warrant a top of article disambig. Basically discussion on the talk page can work out if one is warranted. If a lot of people thought it was, then it should go back, I wouldn't mind. - Taxman Talk 02:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

You're now an admin. I recommend being conservative with the new tools, especially at first as you get used to them. Re-read the policy before acting, but dig in and help with the backlogs as soon as you can. Have fun, and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As enticing as those new buttons look, I'll make sure to be very careful and conservative with the new tools. :-) —Mets501 (If responding, please do so on my talk page) 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Household income in the United States[edit]

Hi, I saw your comment of the FA canidate discussion of my article, Household income in the United States. You pointed out that there are several sentences with structural, missing words and the like in my article. Since then I (as well as other users who help with occasional correction of syntax and typos) have conducted several copyedits and re-wording of certain section. I was wondering if you could take another look at the article and perhaps state whether or not things have improved. Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuel[edit]

I'm not sure I can face it. I know nothing about it, so I'd be starting from scratch. I did try to clean up the intro a little, and I may look in from time to time, but I don't think I can commit myself. But thank you for asking. I think! ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maru[edit]

Can you please have a look at WP:ANI#User:Marudubshinki? Snottygobble 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu grammar[edit]

Sir, it seems like there is a war about to occur on the talk page. It might be beneficial if you take a look at this. Ahmed27 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fundamental Rights... of India[edit]

Hey there! That's no problem, just as long as you get to it. And if you can't, I'll understand. There's no obligation. :D --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

I just noticed your comment on my page from days ago.[7] (I was distracted by a subsequent message posted shortly after your own.) Anyway, I do trust you to stay committed to preventing this editor from abusing our trust again. Don't hesitate to let us know if the task grows tiresome. We all help each other out around here, except for those who hinder instead. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

Hello. I was thinking about submitting a name change request and was hoping to ask you a question first. If I have AWB and VP access, will I lose it if I have a name change, or would that be part of what is reattributed from the old account to the new account? Thanks --Brian G (Talk) 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That would probably not happen automatically, since those are independent pieces of software. I doubt they check the username change log, but it's possible so you'd have to ask them to be sure. At worst, I'm sure it would just be a matter of asking them to reassign to the new name and show them the change request/log. - Taxman Talk 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I am thinking of changing my name to After Midnight which is less "informative". Is there any sort of stigma associated with this change or any other reason that I should consider before I make the formal request. (i.e. I know you don't know me, but is there anything that should dissuade me from making this change?) Thanks for your time and consideration. --Brian G (Talk) 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well there is the school of thought that editing under your own name is more accountable and more impressive to the real world. You can't put something like Taxman on a resume or list of accomplishments for example. There are a number of published opinion piecies criticizing that Wikipedia can never be accountable until people edit under their real name. Obviously the other side of the coin is privacy, and I think is a strong enough argument to explain to anyone that you don't want stalkers, which has happened to admins that have blocked vandals. That's basically the arguments as I know them. Obviously you see which choice I made, though on WP I've always had this username. :) - Taxman Talk 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother, but I didn't know if we hadn't gotten to an "off-peak" time yet or if my name change request got archived before you had a chance to get to it. Thanks --Brian G (Talk) 16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I really hope that I didn't seem impatient; I just got worried when I saw it move to the archive. Thanks again. --After Midnight 0001 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-Birthday![edit]

Birthday candles.jpg [8] Happy wiki-birthday! and yes, your userpage is still on my watchlist :) --Durin 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. :) - Taxman Talk 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Happy Wiki Birthday too! (Just read your userpage, and I agree particularly with the stable branch stuff. Let's hope we do it some day soon.) — Matt Crypto 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Surprising it's been that long, and for the life of me I can't recall why I didn't edit between August and that next March. I certainly was following Wikipedia closely. But according to the Signpost the stable versions are going to be tested on the German Wikipedia first then hopefully rolled out here by the end of the year. I'm fairly confident the benefits will be obvious enough, but you can't please everyone. Now if I could just sell people on following through on Jimbo's comments that we should focus on the quality of current articles over adding so many new ones then we'd really be somewhere. All it would take is just for a while raising the bar for inclusion of new topics so we could focus on quality. - Taxman Talk 13:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement by Jimbo is fine, but lacks any implementation vision. In business planning terms, it's a long range goal with no objectives, no tasks, no metrics to measure. It's unlikely we'll attain the goal without these things in place. --Durin 12:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then it's our job to come up with those right? If we want to be leaders to move the project forward, we can help fill that gap. So where best to start? We already have too many pages on article assessment and other useless pages in Wikipedia space, so I'm loathe to start another. It would be better to be integrated in somewhere — the Wikipedia 1.0 project is probably the best place, but the talk pages there are a little quiet. Ideas? - Taxman Talk 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm short on ideas right now. I've been puzzling over the serious lack of coherent goals on this project for a while. I feel as though Wikipedia is an amorphous blob right now. We've no strategic plan, no assesment matrix, no achievement metrics, etc. I need to do some more work to be abolutely certain, but outside of the foundation bylaws (which don't really address this), we've nothing codified in any form regarding the projects objectives other than being an encyclopedia and the project's policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines are several rungs down the pyramid in an organizational structure, and devolve from goals, objectives, and tasks...not the other way around. I haven't devoted enough time to this though process to come up with solutions. It'll take some time to develop something in that direction, and I need to spend considerably time on research before I can get to square one. --Durin 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Part of that comes from your inherently analytical personality style. I'm largely the same way, but I've been working for a long time to be flexible to other styles. Analytics inherently want concrete steps and take comfort in numbers, but that's not always the best solution. Metrics miss a lot of information and concrete rules don't always help. We do have an overall objective of creating the most complete and high quality encyclopedia ever and most importantly we have the major core content policies that dictate how the content should evolve. Together those offer the needed guidance to move forward. Now that's not to say that some concrete goals, plans, etc couldn't add some value especially in the case when there is a specific goal like improving current quality vs focusing on adding greater numbers of articles. Any ideas you are able to come up with I'm all ears. - Taxman Talk 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As a passer-by that's hijacking this thread, you're always welcome to help out at the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Right now, we have a few points to do listed on the talk page, so you can help us by giving us some tips, or better yet, with some elbow grease... :) Titoxd(?!?) 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim[edit]

I've done some work on this to rephrase the Portuguese expressions that Pedro had put in when translating it, but I'm now too close to the article to do it justice. Your reviews at PR are always spot on, so I wondered if your talents extended to copyediting, and if so whether you could spare some time to look over part (or all) of this article? Apart from the prose I think it is a solid FA candidate, and it would be a shame for it to fail on that one factor. Yomanganitalk 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I missed it while it was on FAC. No my copyediting skills aren't superb, but I'll see if I can help. What I'm better at is telling you if it's ready and what it needs to be ready. Once it's fixed up I can tell you when the article is at a point that it is virtually guaranteed to pass FAC. I'll leave some comments on the talk page. - Taxman Talk 13:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

T on the Fringe[edit]

Firstly, thank you for all the help and advice you gave me, and for the articles you pointed me towards. I am sure that I am now able to make a significant contribution to Wikipedia, thanks to your guidance.

I am just a little confused as to why T on the Fringe is not worthy of an article, when sister event T in the Park, is.

Thanks once again. Graemecairns 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear that event is much more important, though I'm not convinced we need an article on it either. And no worries, if you just focus on things that aren't marginal for inclusion I think you'll have a lot more fun here. - Taxman Talk 13:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Username[edit]

What an interesting hiccup straight off the bat! I blocked the account (Tangotango walked me through just to be sure!). Thought best to address this with you on this page rather than WP:CHU in case the culprit sees my alternative choice and does it again. You mentioned the possibility of enforcing a change on their part, which obviously would be perfect - but I get the idea this may be somewhat of a hassle for you, and I rather not have you go to even more trouble! As I've never had a screen name, I'd like to keep it as close to Glen as possible, so of all alternatives I guess Glen-S GlenS is the closest. Shall I go and list this on WP:CHU so as to follow procedure? Thanks in advance for all your help! - GIen 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, if that's the one you want you can have that. You had the request up on CHU before they took the account and their intent was obviously bad faith. Just let me know which one you want. Heh, your first admin action was to block yourself. :) - Taxman Talk 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Glen_S it is then, appreciated, thank you once again :) - GIen 17:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Done, but hah, that block still does show in the block log as you blocking yourself. I unblocked you just in case. - Taxman Talk 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo, dawg[edit]

I blocked a coworker screwing around. So I knew who it was. Take a look at my usual blocks and you'll see... Bastiqueparler voir 18:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case it's fine. Just trying to spread the word that insulting and inciting is not a good way to solve the problem. Carry on. :) - Taxman Talk 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for your suggestion[edit]

Hey Taxman, I've been making edits to several articles related to private schools, and one thing that keeps coming up is opinions in The Bullis School's article. I can't seem to find any precedent for this on other schools pages and I'm not sure what should be done about it. Your suggestion would be appreciated. W Ed 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The perception, prestige, and quality of a school should be mentioned if there is evidence for it, which there should be in most cases. But what is in that section is purely original research because there are no sources. Newspaper articles, facts on school ratings, etc could be used to source similar material. Is that what you were asking? Another simple point is the article never mentions how many students are in the school, teachers, etc. The education level of the teachers if known could be a marker of quality too. - Taxman Talk 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll see if I can find any articles on the school in the local news papers. The number of students and faculty are listed in the InfoBox on the side - should they be mentioned in the article as well? Thanks again, W Ed 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deville RfA[edit]

Hi there Taxman. Can you unclose this please? I wrote the nom at 2.30 but Deville didn't accept until 8. Also, Srikeit said he was going to support, so maybe give him the extra few hours if he still wants to? Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as unclosing. :) Only a steward or developer can de-admin so there's no reason to open up the nom page. If Srikeit wants to he can leave a message on Deville's talk page or on the RfA talk page. The nom was a runaway success so the 5 some hours difference was immaterial as the accountants say. :) And yes I reallize we don't have that meaning in an article here. :) - Taxman Talk 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have supported too, if I had seen the RFA and not been away. Anyway, I think you are looking for materiality (not to be confused with materialism). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Great catch. I never would have thought of looking at that term for the article. So I created a disambig and linked to it at the top of material. Materiality happens to need some work too. Off to see what I can do. - Taxman Talk 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Cosmetics Ingredients' Pages[edit]

Greetings, and thank you for your attention to the cosmetics ingredients section. I would like your opinion to resolve a conflict: You edited "Jojoba Esters" to "Jojoba Ester" citing that wikipedia favours singular names. However, the titles to this and other cosmetic chemicals were written as the INCI (official nomenclature) names, i.e. as they would appear on an ingredient declaration printed on, say, a bottle of lotion - in this way a consumer may easily find information based on the name as it appears, without having to reconcile the plural/singular question. many official names (e.g. Jojoba Esters) are listed officialy (INCI nomenclature) in plural form and this is why they would appear as such in the Wikipedia. Istvan 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The naming conventions are pretty clear on this and have been very consistent about that for as long as I've been here. Basically unless something is only referred to in the plural, the article should be at the singular. Some sources in all manners of subjects will refer to things in the plural, but redirects will cover any of those needs for people typing in the article title that way. So by all means create all the redirects (which moving does automatically). Jojoba Ester and Jojoba ester are also different articles, so if you wish, you can create the redirect from the capitalized version to the non capitalized. - Taxman Talk 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fourth International peer review[edit]

Hi - I've worked through the article and hope that I've now addressed your points. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the changes and check whether they cover all your points and are sufficiently clear and detailed. Warofdreams talk 23:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Linky, linky, I need the link :) But sure I'll go have another look. - Taxman Talk 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Just popped you through one :) - GIen 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. - Taxman Talk 10:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Any luck? - GIen 14:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, you didn't get my response? As mentiined there it looks like a failed rename which I can't fix. You'll have to try to catch a developer on IRC - #wikimedia-tech on Freenode or on the tech mailing list. Wikipedia:Mailing lists has it as Wikitech-l. - Taxman Talk 14:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Thanks for closing my RfA. The instructions on the bottom seem to imply that discussion can continue on the talk page. Is this correct? Stephen B Streater 09:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, if need be. - Taxman Talk 10:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, did you read the discussion, or do you only do this if it is close? Stephen B Streater 10:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I did read it, but primarily from the perspective of gauging the consensus, which did happen to be fairly clear. Whether or not I agree with people's reasoning does not get taken into account. I do happen to agree free content is critical, so continue discussions in the appropriate place(s) and keep up your good contributions, which many people have commented on. - Taxman Talk 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. Normally I'd have all this debate fixed up in advance, which would make things a lot simpler at RfA. One problem with the subject of video access is that is seems to be Too Big for any forum. We have reached consensus in many places, but everywhere I have discussed this turns out to be the wrong place. Do you have any suggestions on an appropriate forum (obviously excluding Meta Video Policy talk pages, Village Pump (Technical), Village Pump (Policy), and the talk pages of related articles)? I've also tried WikiEN-l, but have had no response at all. Stephen B Streater 11:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not really my area. The VP seems like the best place to me, so ask the people who told you those weren't the right place where they think would be better. If they can't think of one, then the VP defaults to the right place in my eyes. Sometimes when you don't get a response it's because people think the issue is fairly settled. - Taxman Talk 11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've found Danny now, and he's told me what I needed to know. Stephen B Streater 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message[edit]

RfA rose.png My RfA video message

Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

I will start reading up on how to use the tools. Thanks for the notice! NawlinWiki 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for your congratulations. I am really determined to justify the trust in me you all showed promoting me to the admin status. This seems really odd that I haven't stood for the promotion earlier. My devotion to the Wikipedia project and helping it grow are my main reasons to become an admin at last.
Kpjas 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Recent page move[edit]

....copied from Sukh's talk page.... Hi! user:Zafarnamah has moved page Anti Sikh Riots to Anti Sikh Pogroms without consensus again. See diff:

[9]

I see that you have already warned him on his talk page. This is for your information please. BhagatSingh 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your intervention. 192.206.28.62 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What's needed now is evidence to support the right naming choice. So help with that would be most appreciated. I don't really know anything about the topic. - Taxman Talk 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo[edit]

The discussion with him was private. I believe that the community is overfocused on apologies, which carry little weight in the real world. I think that it is unfortunate that the RFA is proceeding poorly, and am particularly dismayed that people who dislike the excellent and necessary work he has done on fair use image cleanup have chosen to oppose his nomination for that reason. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't owe anyone an apology, but he is asking to again have tools he once abused. Admitting he was wrong in abusing them would go a long way. To my mind and apparently a lot of others, if he wants extra priviledges he should at the minimum own up to what he did being wrong. As for the oppose votes due to his good work on images, those are easy to ignore. Heck, they'll probably earn him some support votes to conteract their ludicrousness. Carnildo is just implementing policy, so in that arena he's clearly doing nothing wrong. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you so much. It must have been a difficult one to call. I will try not to let down the community or your judgement in my actions as an admin. --Guinnog 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse Me[edit]

Excuse me, but I thought we were done with this. I had the same problem with you people last week, and I assume this has to do with that karmafist person, who I live in the same town as. If i've broken some rule somehow, let me know, and we'll work it out else where, i'm not looking to make trouble. Until then,please desist with the defammation. I'm assuming that Coffee Shop is in the same shoes as I am, and I'd hope that the Assume Good Faith page is not meaningless, so i'll help him even if nobody else does. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


  1. Ok, 1. You're the one disrupting this "consensus gathering exercise" by accusing me of things just for me sharing my opinion. 2. Bureaucrat or not, you've also voted in this "consensus gathering exercise". You're a biased party and cannot ethically assess a fellow voters opinion while having your own vote stand. 3. I will not yield to intimidation or bullying(regarding your comment to blocking me), regardless of whoever you think you are. This just makes me think even more that the consternation that must revolve around Carnildo makes him not worthy of this position. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 22:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    If there's a rule against new users voting somewhere, please just show me it and I can respect that. Otherwise, please remove your comments about me about me being some other person on the voting or i'll follow the advice of Ryulong on how to move on from here with your comments about me. I have no issue with you personally, but I will stand up for my right to be heard the same as anyone else without being accused of some thing I have not done. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One More Thing[edit]

On what you said about "charity". I don't want your charity. I want to be treated the way I try to treat others -- with as much respect for the opinions of others as possible, and it bothers me when that doesn't happen, so I apologize if I have offended you somehow, but I would rather have you do whatever it is you want to do than try to treat me as a second class citizen. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Guy[edit]

Interesting spelling, "defammation". --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I mispell a word, so I must be that other guy? Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 22:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's kinda tipping that way, on balance of probabilities. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruption warning[edit]

I have issued VP of OS a disruption warning for his actions in Carnildo's RfA. I'll be happy to hand out the block if the disruption continues. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti Sikh Riots[edit]

Copied from Talk:Anti Sikh Riots.

"...To me NPOV would say you couldn't refer to them as pogroms in the title and lead unless you could show prevailing opinion is that they were in fact pogroms...". I agree with that user:Taxman. I am copying here the definition of pogrom here, "...officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority...". There is little doubt that some Congress leaders were involved but there is no evidence of any "official encouragement". Please also note that there has been a heated debate on this on the Khalistan and most users have always reverted references to "Pogroms". Hope that clarifies. Syiem 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions about Guinnog's RfA[edit]

If you have a moment, I'd be very interested to hear a bit about the process of deciding Guinnog's RfA. I am trying to get familiar with the ins and outs of RfA, and one of the things I spotted was a discussion in Redux's recent RfB where he talks about (a) the need for transparency, and (b) the need for extraordinary circumstances to justify a promotion in the 75-80% support range. I understand that bureaucrats must use their best judgement; WP:BUR doesn't say much more than that, except for a reference to "traditional rules of thumb".

So I have two questions. First, can you tell me if there is a policy or guideline document that provides more detail about the process of deciding a promotion? Redux's comments made it seem to me as if such things as the need for transparency were settled policy, but I've been unable to find any reference to this. Is this just a consensus emerging from historical discussions of bureaucrat actions? Second, would you be able to shed any light on how you went about deciding Guinnog's promotion? (I voted to support Guinnog, by the way.) It was clearly borderline, and I'd like to know what considerations you applied and how you applied them.

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Those comments don't exactly follow the longstanding promotion guidelines. It's not that there needs to be something extraordinary, but the judgement of the bureaucrat that the consensus is to promote. There's not 100% agreement among bcrats about what to use for judging that and there never will be. It's a human process that you can't perfectly boil down to numbers. But what I do for any likely promotions and any that are possibly close is first to read through all the comments. Then I look through for possible bad faith/sockpuppet/other irregular votes and see what the results would be with just those tossed out. From the raw numbers I consider a number of factors such as the weight given by the candidate to their opinion and the strength of the argument and evidence. I give more weight to those with a lot of solid reasoning. Then I'll take a look at just the very well known long standing highly trusted Wikipedians and those known for very conscientious comments in RfA and see where they stand as far as supporting and opposing. On the balance of those factors I'll judge if I think there is community support for promoting. In the specific case you asked about many of the objections came from editing in a particular article. I gave particular attention to people that gave evidence and opinions whether Guinnog had learned from his mistakes or not, giving weight to the fact that his "adversary" in that article supported and gave evidence as to why he believed Guinnog had learned from his mistakes. Hope that helps. - Taxman Talk 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It does; thanks very much for the details. Mike Christie (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tromsogirl[edit]

Tromsogirl submitted a request for adminship earlier this morning. After a brief conversation with me (see User talk:Srose and User talk:Tromsogirl), she chose to withdraw her request. She has also posted this desire on the RFA itself. I just thought I'd let you know, as the RFA isn't listed on the main page RFA page (and I'd like to keep it that way to avoid an unnecessary pile-on even after withdrawal; sometimes the 'acceptance' line is skipped). As I'm not an administrator (yet) or a bureaucrat, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to close the RFA. Thanks in advance! Srose (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Taxman, Yes if you want to delete the RFA you can do as it wont be needed, whichever is easiest with you :-) Thankyou :-) (Tromsogirl 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Since it was never listed, I've deleted it to make way for your hopefully successful bid in a few months or so. - Taxman Talk 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikicite[edit]

Just wanted to update you on the status of the Wikicite project- parts of the software are already functional, and I have modified the Cite extension to pull bilbiographic data from open catalog servers (e.g. Library of Congress) based upon unique keys like ISBN number. Technically this component is the data import function of the bibliographic catalog sub-project Wikicat. Here is a live screenshot of the software. There is actually not too much to be done, software-wise, before this can be rolled-out on Wikipedia. The real effort is making sure that the bibliographic catalog is designed correctly, which requires researching the professional cataloging standards out there.

I announced the first phase of the project- the bibliographic catalog- on the foundation list about a week ago and though the response was fairly positive, I would appreciate it if you could help drum up support to help push this through (it seems like there's an official non-offical policy of rejecting any new project proposals at this point). The endoresement of a Wikiproject group would be especially valuable. BTW- an essential component of Wikipedia 1.0- stable version designation- is ready to be rolled-out so there's something else to lobby for.

Jleybov 23:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, it's great to hear the code is ready. I'm a little confused why it would need a separate foundation level project. I didn't have a chance to check yet, but did you post to the Wikipedia:Wikiproject fact and reference check, and the WP:V talk page? Those would be the places to gather like minded people. - Taxman Talk 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I posted a while ago to Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check, both the main page and the talk page; I also posted to Wikiproject Forum for Encyclopedic Standards- again, both main page and talk page. Very little response from either. I am not really an active member of either project, though, so perhaps if someone who was drew attention to Wikicite again there would be more interest expressed.
The reason for having a stand-alone project is that one component of Wikicite- the bibliographic catalog, Wikicat- is logically a separate resource that should be cultivated in its own right. For example, in the long-run I envision the ability to follow an in-article citation from Wikipedia to Wikicat, and then use Wikicat to see which sources that source itself cites. This could be used for the purposes of strengthening an article, or a user could come to Wikicat directly when in the process of performing independent research. In addition, the technical changes to support all this are major enough that a separate project is pretty much required anyway- we are adding a bibliographic catalog database that is much more complex in its structure than Wikipedia, and which will eventually require its own UIs to enter and change data, plus cataloging rules documentation to ensure the data users enter is consistent, etc. ....
So anyway, if you could help raise awareness of the project and build support for it that would be very very useful. Even adding names to the "People interested in joining" list on the project proposals page would be a big help.
Jleybov 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to publicize Wikicite. I think it's a clearly good solution to our reliability problem, and I think once more people are aware of it it will pick up momentum. If you're confident that Wikicat is the way to go to support wikicite, then that should also be eventually evident. But as a pragmatical solution partial steps are often much easier to implement. Try to figure out a way to decouple Wikicite from anything that needs a separate project, at least enough to get it lanched and working. Then once that change has been sent through, if Wikicat is truly needed then the need for it will become obvious to everyone. But trying to change to much can be a problem and stall the whole process. Have you talked to some of the mediawiki developers to see if your code for Wikicite can be smoothly merged in? Most patches supplied are rejected because they don't fit in with the current codebase in a smooth way. - Taxman Talk 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Luckily all of my changes should fit within the existing Mediawiki architecture and in fact are being implemented as extensions. Wikicat and Wikicite are separate but very inter-related, with Wikicite in fact being dependent on the former (though not vise-versa)- to cite you need someplace to store bibliographic data, after all. I have tried to roll things out in stages, though, such that useful functionality becomes available as soon as possible. For example, Wikicat would be rolled-out as initially "import-only": no UIs would be provided to manually enter data, but data would still come in from open catalog servers in response to users citing particular works. In fact, I think most of the features of Wikicite could be enabled on top of this initial release of Wikicat.
In any case, please let me know what additional features you would like to see in Wikicat. I have already followed, for example, your suggestion to extend the Cite.php extension citation mark-up rather than introduce a new one.
And again, just let me reiterate the importance of having community support for rolling out new features. The stable version feature has been code-complete since last year, but no move seems to have been made to take it live on Wikipedia yet- this despite the fact that its author, Magnus Manske, is one of the main developers of Mediawiki!
Jleybov 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco, California Article[edit]

Hi, another editor and I have put in some mega-hours over the last two weeks trying to knock the SF article into shape for a Feature Article nomination. Since you have been active in other Geographic articles nomiated for FA, I was hoping you might be intersted in looking at the SF article? Also, the current editors are a bit cross-eyed and could use some recommendations for other Wikisouls who might be willing to proofread or copyedit the article. Thanks for any help!--Paul 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. - Taxman Talk 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I appreciate any help.--Paul 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We have completed all of the suggested changes and have re-submitted the article as a FAC. Thanks for your help.--Paul 05:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My adminship[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, and I'll be sure to watch where I step! Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo[edit]

Hi Taxman. You wrote "We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom" [10] Have the arbcom agreed to that? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, enough of them. :) - Taxman Talk 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA[edit]

Thanks, Taxman, for giving me the sysop rights and the good advice! JPD (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Wondering if you could...[edit]

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All revisions with personal information have been removed. The rest are simply deleted. Just FYI and FOI, in the future these types of requests may be denied since you chose to put your personal info out there. - Taxman Talk 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Politely registering protest[edit]

Hi Taxman,

I support Carnildo, and am very happy he got his adminship back, something I just became aware of after reading the Signpost. However, I write to you to express my shock at the closing of his RfA.

I appreciate the arguments have all been aired, and that being a bureaucrat is a very hard thing to do. I respect you, and don't wish to belabor my point, so I'm going to put this very simply. Objectively, Carnildo's RfA closed as "consensus not reached." To say anything else is sophistry of a very low order, equivalent to saying that the sky of the planet Earth is "Pink with Purple polka-dots." Despite his RfA, he was promoted. I understand why, I even agree with the reason why (forgiveness), but I am nevertheless distressed at the apparent effort of the b'crats to make "2+2" equal "5".

B'crats have the authority to promote, you did so, and it was the right thing to do. B'crats do not have the authority at assert that the "sky is polka-dotted," and they shouldn't embarass themselves by trying to do so. Twisting plain facts only harms the integrity of the bureaucratship.

I hope you see my point, and I hope the bureaucrat corps in general is wise enough not to repeat this error. Re-promotion of Carnildo should ideally have happened through ArbCom or Jimbo; absent that, if the bureaucrats agreed promotion was right, they should done have so, clearly and plainly despite the RfA.

As I say, I supported Carnildo, and yet even my "common sense" is a little bit offended by the notion that 61% is an RfA consensus. Such a suggestion is so far from reasonable that I feel justified in applying analogies from the schoolyard to it.

In short, good job in promoting; not so good in explaining the promotion. If (Jimbo forbid) there ever is a "next time" like this, I'm sure you b'crats will do better. Good luck :) and best wishes, Xoloz 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the polite effort to register your disagreement, and your points are duly noted. - Taxman Talk 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Script[edit]

Per your IRC request, I wrote it up today. Clear your browser's cache, then go to the history page of any RFA candidate page. There should be a "data" tab.Voice-of-All 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's to Looking![edit]

Abbie is looking at you. Teke (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RfB[edit]

I "closed" it because the ending date had long passed, notice ram-man's comment "is anyone going to close this?" in an edit summary. I did not finalize the tally, make the promotion decision, or archive anything, I left that for a bcrat. Voice-of-All 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that's what you did it's just that people's comments are valid as part of the consensus gathering up until the point a bureaucrat closes it. He apparently didn't reallize that either and should be patient too. Like I said it was one of the few grey area RfBs in years, so it shouldn't be surprising it would take more time to decide on. - Taxman Talk 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I always though of the closing date as a hard number. People could added something just a few minutes after the time is up maybe but not hours after, which is why I closed it. If the ending date doesn't really matter (so its not really an "ending date" but more of a "ending around this time most likely" date), then I am fine with that, as long bcrats pass it only when they deem it necessary. I just wan't aware that that was current policy. There seems to be a lot of confusion and lack of clarity about how RfA really works, perhaps this could be clarified.Voice-of-All 20:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why we have bureaucrats for it, it's fairly clear for us. :) And when you say tally, I'm assuming you mean closing date. But it's never been a hard time limit and especially not in close cases. We've mentioned a few times on WT:RFA that comments up until a bcrat closes the nom are valid even if after the listed closing time. - Taxman Talk 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Roni Lynn Deutch[edit]

Dear Taxman: Your input could be valuable regarding the article Roni Lynn Deutch at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_Lynn_Deutch

My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours, Famspear 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

template cite book[edit]

Hi. May I ask you: what was your intention of this edit on template:cite book? (which you reverted afterwards). We normally discuss changes on the talk page. Also, experiments should be conducted in a sandbox (especially for such high use templates, as these two edits invalidated the cache of 19,207 pages twice). Cite book applies the template doc page pattern. --Ligulem 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I reverted it. It was an accidental edit that I reverted as soon as I could, so I'm confused why you are asking. I was copying that template over to the Hindi Wikipedia and initially didn't see that I was about to hit save on the wrong project first. If your intent was just to say be more careful, that is surely noted and perfectly reasonable. - Taxman Talk 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This is in no way meant as bold critique. But sometimes someone is trying to achieve something and it might help to understand what that was. I also didn't find a notice on the talk about your accidental edit. The doc page pattern is relatively new (I wrote it). So I am interested in any problems this might cause. Also for me as a poor (or should I say lucky? :-) soul who can no longer edit cite book since its protection (which was a bit a frustration for me first), I'm a bit sensitive to admins dropping by without a notice on the talk. But no harm done. Everything is fine and thanks for your explanation. Cheers, --Ligulem 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jharkhand[edit]

Hi Taxman. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jharkhand&diff=prev&oldid=75345964 Thanks. --Bhadani 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxwoman. Thanks for the information. You have good knowledge of Hindi, as also of suitable wikipedians for making matches. All the best! --Bhadani 16:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary request[edit]

नमस्ते Taxman, कैसे हो आप? Sorry for the delay in replying, was caught up with my college stuff. Anyway I reviewed the list you gave me & have found that a majority of the listings are correct. I have found a few errors in the list but instead of plunging in & correcting them, I'd prefer a second opinion from some other editor who is a bit familiar with the language. Despite being able to speak Hindi fluently, my knowledge of pure Hindi is rather limited. So I'll discuss some of the stuff with people like Aksi_great on IRC before I make any concrete changes. Anyway this list seems a good place to start with the pronunciations. What d'you think? Hope to see you on IRC sometime. Cheers --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

कोई बात नहीं, that sounds like a good plan. I forgot you may or may not read and write in Devanagari so much either. But thanks for looking into it, and yes those would be a perfect place to start with the pronunciations. Though some on that list are certainly not the most common words. Start with the ones that are the most common I guess. Thanks again - Taxman Talk 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Carnildo's RFA[edit]

Hi Taxman

I have not been here before, in fact I have deliberately waited a while as I did not want to leave a message here in anger I would later regret. I have always respected you, especially your work on the FAC page, in fact I always thought a support from you was worth three supports from some other people. However, following your advocacy and support of Carnildo's promotion to admin status, I feel I can no longer trust or have confidence in the arbcom to do what is right and best for Wikipedia. In my opinion you and your colleagues have seriously let down the factory floor of the encyclopedia and made a huge error of judgement. It no longer seems worthwhile expressing an opinion towards consensus on any Wikipedia matter because ultimately one knows the result will be decided behind closed doors regardless of (what one of your colleagues calls) the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [11]. Well I am not fickle or ill-informed, I am very consistent and very well informed. I don't call for your resignation, but in all honesty I can no longer respect your judgement. Sorry. Giano | talk 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry what I did made you feel that way. I did what I did because I felt it was the right thing to do, and I would like to think that even though you disagree with me, you could at least respect that I did what I did because I felt it was good for the project. Not that I agree with what Carnildo did, which was certainly wrong. Funny thing is if I had gone with what people referred to as a chummy decision I would have sided with you and Bishonen and ALoan, three people I have a lot of respect for, but doing that would actually have been the real thing that would have let people down because it would have meant compromising what I thought was right for the sake of people I like. - Taxman Talk 22:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxman -

Sorry for the screed below (not my first in recent weeks) but I wanted to reply to the above.

You may have noted, by the way, that I did not vote on this RFA - I can remember supporting an RFA on only a handful of times, and as far as I am aware I have never opposed anyone; neither was I involved in the pedo-userbox debacle as far as I remember - so you would not have been "chummy" with me by deciding the other way. I respect that you made a decision that you thought was right, but I am also very disappointed by it.

I deeply respect your contributions too; indeed, I have great respect for all of our bureaucrats (look, I still think you are "our" bureaucrats). While the position "only" denotes the ability to do a few extra administrative actions, any person who get the job has to have demonstrated a whole range of virtues to which I can only aspire, and understandably the entire community looks to you as a group for a lead.

I think you are agreeing above that there was no "consensus" for the promotion (I just fail to see how 39% of people objecting to any proposition can amount to consensus in favour of it - if you think it does, please let me know how) but that you wanted promote User:Carnildo anyway because he would make good use of admin powers for the benefit of the project. Well, I have no doubt that the majority of people who fail RFA would make good use of the admin functions (limited as they are), and I would support making many more people admins, but I don't get to make the decisions: the community does, through the agency of the bureaucrats. The community appointed bureaucrats to decide whether someone should be an admin, on the basis of community consensus. If the position has changed, and bureaucrats have now taken the discretion to appoint anyone they please as an admin (without, as far as I am aware, the community having any say in the matter) then we should just wipe RFA and its noxious fumes away and have a system where editors can ask bureaucrats for adminship on an ad hoc basis, and either get it or not.

What worries me more is that this whole debacle has exploded over a slew of Wikipedia:... pages, with collateral damage in all sorts of places, with hardly a peep from the bureaucrats. You have replied a few times to explain the position ("unfortunate argument ... temporary measure ... special consideration ... extenuating circumstances ... forgiveness and reconcilliation", "sometimes you just have to do the right thing", "Give us some credit that we didn't throw consensus out the window...", "there are not likely to be many if any future RfA's with such extraordinary circumstances") and User:Nichalp has added a few comments, but nothing strictly on point, and a stony slience from User:Angela, User:Essjay, User:Linuxbeak, User:Pakaran, User:Raul654 and the others - ignoring User:UninvitedCompany, who was the nominator - but a lot of comment from User:Tony Sidaway, User:Kelly Martin and others). Perhaps a tactical bureaucratic silence is intended to let the flames die out, although the fires are still smouldering as I write; perhaps the bureaucrats have no intention of displaying public disagreement with each other; but it would be very helpful to have an authoritative statement from the bureaucrats on their support of this decision, its basis (in terms of consensus or discretion), and if / how it affects future decisions. Is this just an exceptional case? What does RFA mean now?

But the worse thing is that you appear to be saying that an editor can make the most gross and unfounded allegationsm, indulge in heinous abuse of admin powers, display no remose, not apologise, and then expect everything to be all right and become an admin again. Well, there is a very strong component of opinion that it is not all right (more than enough, I would say, to prove that there is no consensus). I have great respect for the work that User:Carnildo does in straightening out our images, but he does not seem to know right from wrong. As the same time, I find that other people who I admire just as much are not given anywhere near as much slack in situations where their "crimes" are not nearly so culpable.

The general atmosphere here has gone to hell in a handbasket, and I have no idea how to stop it. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the more I focus on the problems the more I think the place is imploding. When I let go of that and focus on the good things and how to move articles forward faster, it's still all pretty amazing. I'm particularly excited about the stable versioning experiments on the German wiki as I think that really has the potential to take the project to the next level if done right. Another of my favourite (spelled just for you) things to look at is the graphs from here, which in the end shows that after all the problems, we're still doing a lot right.
It's not hard to see why other bureaucrats are not commenting based on the degree of twisting words around, unfounded accusations, personal attacks, etc that have been going on. And I doubt you could find a case were someone made a non-repeated mistake (beyond all that happened in the incident that led to the rfarb) and then went on to produce such good work with no other serious mistakes that over a 100 people were willing to support them after making such a big mistake (or set of). You say you could, but I'd be surprised. - Taxman Talk 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What disturbs me most about this whole affair now is that were I advising an arbcommer how to survive this on a personal basis my advice would be to sit tight and say nothing, if the common herd don't like it they can leave, they will be replaced by some other short term editor who will write a few pages and then move on when disillusioned. The individual power of each individual arbcom member can only be maintained if the common herd is constantly turning over and changing, divide and rule and the "mob" will never become strong enough to drag the arbcom in a tumbril to explain their actions. Giano | talk 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond. As I have said a couple of times, this is not a witchhunt, at least as far as I am concerned, and I also regret any personal attacks. I just want to understand what happpened, and why, and its implications.
I am sorry that words have been twisted and unfounded allegations made, but the rampant speculation is surely only a result of decisions being taken behind closed doors, with little or no transparency and so little subsequent comment from the people making the decisions. One of the most informative comments on WP:BN came from User:Kelly Martin, for goodness sake, who has no position, as far as I am aware, as a bureaucrat or on ArbCom: I have no idea why she should be involved in the discussion.
If you had simply said, "the level of support in this case is significantly below the level typically taken as a rough consensus for passing an RFA, but in this case we are using our discretion to make a one-off exception because there are so many exceptional circumstances, and we won't be doing it again unless equally exceptional cirucmstances arise" (which is what I think you are saying above) then so be it. But I really don't see how you claim that there was consensus in this case. By all means be bold and ignore all rules in the effort to improve the encyclopedia, but at least be open that that what you are doing.
On the wider question: I see an awful lot of pettiness and pettifogging bureaucracy emerging recently which is really depressing, not to mention agressiveness little short of edit warring from some quarters to have the last word or to get one's own way. Quite how someone who blocks others for incivility and personal attacks can give the impression of having so little self-knowledge (indeed, rank hypocrisy; not to mention a bullet-proof arrogance and flatly dismissive attitide to any criticism) frankly amazes me. WP:BULL all over . I will not name names, but you may be able to guess who I am talking about (and if I am blocked for a personal attack, well, gnothi seauton, as they say).
But, yes, there are lots of good things, and the WP:100K project is exactly the sort of thing to get people thinking about positive contributions. I can't help thinking that this massive eruption of discontentment will end in tears, one way or the other. But I suppose I am here for the duration. End of sermon. [please feel free to have a right of reply; otherwise, this correspondence is closed] -- ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the e-mail, which I have only just read. Did you speak to Giano about the matters that you mentioned? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ALoan, dear boy, friend, I love you, but please wake up. "words have been twisted and unfounded allegations made" They knew all this was going to happen, a first year law student could have told them that, and probably did. The decision was not made lightly, all options were carefully considered (weren't they Taxman?). The arbcom, (all of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here) calculated and estimated the response from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [12] . (note: no one has censored Kelly Martin for such a stupid error) How far dare they go? They have now taken a vow of silence, so must be judged or damned together. They will survive because as I have said they divide and rule, poor old Sidaway though they use him as their barometer. Even I am never that cruel - but he is getting away with blue murder (check his recent contributions) - so they assess and calculate. Sinister isn't it? Doubtless the next comment will be Giano is paranoid! Well I am not, I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit. Giano | talk 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And of course we have the usual re-action to common sense here [13] Giano | talk 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Rationale location[edit]

Hi, Taxman I was pleasantly surprised at Carnildo's promotion. I have my own ideas about why that was the right decision. With all the words flying around, I imagine your rationale must be here somewhere. I just haven't found it yet. Could you show me the dif so I can read it? Thanks, cheers, and happy editing. :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all on WT:RFA though you have to pick through the volumes of discussion to find the comments from myself, Dan and Danny. - Taxman Talk 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I agree. On the RfA, I went so far as to suggest that some of us allowed anger and bitterness to cloud our judgment in opposing. A sad situation, but I think, once the furor dies, good will come of this. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot flags[edit]

I see that you just flagged[14] another bot. Thanks for watching the page and giving quick responses :).Voice-of-All 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't really close it properly because the new tags suggested at the bottom of the talk page leave <noinclude>'s at the top and bottom of the page. I'm not exactly a template wizard, but I'm sure you could fix it in no time. - Taxman Talk 01:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Email[edit]

FYI I've sent you an email (I was lazy so I sent it from my meta account (just saying so in case you use different accounts)). JoshuaZ 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I may not have a chance to check it today, so I apologize if it is timely. I'm actually flabbergasted at the response some people have had there. - Taxman Talk 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't too time senstive. Also note that in the deletion discussion Pathos is claiming that Naconkantari is the only Metan favoring deletion. If (as I gather from your remarks in the discussion) you favor deletion you may want to clarify that point. JoshuaZ 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your early closure of User:BobbyLee's RFA[edit]

First of all, let me say that I agree completely with your early closure. I was only wondering how long it would take for a 'crat to do it.

What I want to understand is who should SNOW an RFA and when. Almost as soon as BobbyLee's RFA went up, User:Naconkantari deleted it without explanation. I thought the lack of explanation was rather rude but I agreed that BobbyLee's RFA had no chance of passing so, when BobbyLee reinstated the RFA, I redeleted it. While I was writing up my explanation of the deletion to BobbyLee, I had a quick message exchange with User:Chacor who indicated that he thought the RFA should run a while so I reinstated the RFA.

In retrospect, I see that the RFA resulted in a fair amount of support for BobbyLee as an editor and future admin even though the RFA itself was SNOWed.

My question is: Should a non 'crat ever SNOW an RFA? How about a non-admin like myself? Do you agree with Chacor that the RFA should have been allowed to run for 24 hours to allow people to vote even though the result was obvious to anybody who had any acquaintance with the RFA process?

Thanks.

--Richard 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You say you deleted it, and I just assumed you had. Usually when we say deleted we mean actually deleting a page, not removing a link to it from another, but now I see that's what you meant. As for delisting and closing an RfA early, for good faith nominations such as this one I tend to prefer it be done by a bcrat because we have experience deciding when they have no chance of succeeding and because that's our official position there's less chance for discord. The general guideline we have discussed is when it's gone long enough to pick up a substantial number of comments and the margin of support is less than 25% or so it's a good candidate to close early. Closing before there is a substantial number of comments is not a good idea unless it is obvious it is a bad faith nomination. If it is really obvious it is a bad faith nom, it's ok if a non bcrat does it. So for nominations of or by vandals or people on their second edit or something like that anyone can close and they commonly are closed by non bcrats in that case. There's also been more discussion on this a few times on WT:RFA if you want to look in the archives, and I think it got duplicated once or so on WP:BN. - Taxman Talk 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari Spell Checker Bot[edit]

    • नमस्ते |

Dear Taxman, thanks for your valuble suggestion about spellchecker Bot.We at Marathi Wikipedia will study your valuable advice. At Marathi Wikipedia we reffer a Bot as सांगकाम्या(saan'gkaamyaa).We will keep in touch with you in this respect.

I am a user from Marathi Wikipedia presently mainly working on linguistic and grammatical aspects of Marathi Language.

Mahitgar 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Aphaia's block[edit]

Actually, I think you misunderstood Aphaia's comment due to her poor English. She didn't mean in a week a but for a week. (Yes that means I'm blocked on Meta for week). Her comment was presumably per this conversation http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aphaia&diff=prev&oldid=436576 . However, she then replied to a comment by Arbusto on the matter so I naively thought that if she was willing to discuss the matter it would be acceptable for me to comment (also because she hadn't blocked me for my involvement in the deletion discussion and the deletion discussion had multiple Metans involved arguing for deletion). Aphaia hadn't mentioned that this was taking time up from her Election Duties (obviously I wouldn't have discussed the matter with her if she had made that clear) but as you can see from the above see simply claimed I was "bothering" her. I must also express some slight skepticism with the election justification seeing as she apparently had time to respond to Arbusto. At this point, I'm finding the entire situation on Meta in regard to Jason to be absurd. JoshuaZ 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Charizard FAC[edit]

Could you please stop harassing supporters? Highway Daytrippers 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to repress discussion, I am not harassing anyone. Last time I checked we are free to discuss and disagree. I have not been impolite nor told anyone they can't have their opinion, but when someone has made statements based on what I believe are a weak position and not helpful to the project I have every right to disagree as long as I am polite. I've come to reallize that articles with low quality sources being passed off as if they have high quality ones is a serious problem for our credibility and what we are trying to accomplish. - Taxman Talk 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment for you[edit]

over on the Meta RfD page... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion#.5B.5BUser:Jason_Gastrich.5D.5D - Amgine 04:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Email[edit]

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 14:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not get that for some time. Possibly not until Monday, sorry. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Then I'll just state the contents roughly here although you may be aware of it already. Since there were claims that the user claiming to be Davey on Meta was not Davey I sent email to the real Davey through his Wikipedia email. I got a reply confirming that that was not Davey and the real Davey has since shown up on Meta under the username Theox. I can't offer my analysis or comments on this on Meta since I'm still blocked there however it would seem to me like a checkuser of the Davey impersonator would be in order, possibly across projects(either through cooperation between checkusers or by a Steward) to determine who was doing it. I suspect given your long time on the project you will have more success getting this to happen. JoshuaZ 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, on a related note, this may be of interest to you. Forgive me if this looks like an excuse. (If you want, I may be able to provide a translation for you to post) JoshuaZ 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Worst case scheduling didn't happen so I responded to your email, and check your meta talk. She really is stressed out about counting the votes. Doesn't make the block right, but really please do avoid contacting her at all until the election is over. As for the rest, I'll let you handle it, you have more info than I. - Taxman Talk 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA Peer Review[edit]

Hi again Taxman! You added some helpful stuff to the peer review of International Phonetic Alphabet, especially about the article's introduction. Well, I added another paragraph to the article's intro, but I was wondering what we should specifically aim for in the introduction (what needs to be mentioned?). If you could give some advice, that would be great. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly and offering advice! I've done some work on the article today. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For your work[edit]

I award Taxman the Defender of the Wiki barnstar because of his actions to protect the quality of this project! Well done, Highway Daytrippers 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

review[edit]

Hi - Please do me the kindness of visiting and sharing your views at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2. I need your advice and criticism, and I would be immensely grateful if you could spare a little time on this. Thank you, Rama's arrow 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Charizard problems[edit]

I was only saying that you weren't exactly taking in both sides of the argument, you weren't trying to the point from our point of view, which we were for you. Are you planning to block me over something like that? Highway Daytrippers 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wasn't being deadly serious, I wouldn't have given you an award if I truly thought you were just rabbiting. Highway Daytrippers 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I think you should be able to see how giving me an award and insulting me somewhere else at the same time looks rather disingenuous. I also don't believe you can support your first statement above, but that's neither here nor there I guess. And no, that's not something worth blocking over, but it's not exactly helpful either. - Taxman Talk 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...[edit]

I know this doesnt matter one iota (and maybe I'm anal) but may I please fix the tally to 111/0/0? :) Glen 17:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not since that gives the impression the tally is more important than it is, but someone will do it, so it might as well be you. :) - Taxman Talk 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I learned quite a bit about myself from my RfA, and I will use that knowlege to help my judgment in the future.

Thanks for your comments. I will definitely follow them.

--Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Geni RFB[edit]

Hello, I've commented on Geni's request for bureaucratship (is that the phrase) to the effect that it might be an idea to postpone it until the ongoing ArbCom process regarding Giano, Tony, Kelly etc. has been resolved - there seems to be some workshopping of ideas there that relate to bureaucrats that might be better to be resolved, rather than stoke and inflame this and future RfB's - This isn't a request for action, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm that case was requested to examine the behavior that came out after the Carnildo promotion so I didn't even look into it. I generally try to minimally participate in Arbcom stuff only when absolutely needed because I find it stressful and it doesn't involve improving articles. I find it conceivable that Geni never looked at that workshop just as I didn't before now. I suppose it's possible it would have been better to wait to start an RfB until that RfArb is closed, but I see no value in not finishing out one already started. - Taxman Talk 05:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano arbitration[edit]

Please consider this edit Fred Bauder 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should give notice of this arbitration to all Bureaucrats. Fred Bauder 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speakers per article[edit]

You may be interested in this new page showing the number of speakers of a language worldwide per article. NoSeptember 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, had you read comments I'd made in the past on the discrepancy between number of speakers and number of articles? I did a similar analysis using numbers from List of languages by number of native speakers, which even if the latter isn't highly accurate, its a decent first order approximation. Maybe I'll run the comparison on the whole m:List of Wikipedias to get the updated status if Gdarin doesn't do it. - Taxman Talk 18:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, look here: m:List of Wikipedias by speakers per article, if you wish you can add smaller Wikipedias. I've changed some numbers of speakres according to newer data. Greetings, Gdarin | talk 11:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Doremifasolatido User Name[edit]

I picked your name randomly from the list. I see that some requests for name changes get addressed immediately and others not at all, as in never. What gives? My request is legitimate, though I grasp that it is quite recent and may be difficult to understand. The selection process whereby Wikipedian administrators determine which squeaky wheel gets the grease is difficult to understand as well. Wikipedia, at times, is not really a democracy so much as a bureaucratic chaos. Anyway, I wish to disassociate this screen name from my previous contributions for the reasons stated on the page for changing names. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Doremifasolatido 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy action. The user and talk page are still there (I hate to be a complainer) and they probably should have disappeared. Nodoremi 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

By convention user talk pages are not deleted. If you want, I can delete your new talk page and move the old one to it. Otherwise it can be moved to a subpage of your new user talk page. Let me know what you want to do. I'll delete your old userpage. - Taxman Talk 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The first option you give seems to make the most sense, if it means renaming it. Otherwise, whichever you prefer, since it's difficult for me to understand how it would turn out. Thank you very much for your help. Despite my wry remarks above I actually think very highly of Wikipedia and, like many, believe history will prove it to be a world-changing institution of major proportions. Maybe it already is. Nodoremi 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jake[edit]

Now you see, I'd like to believe that, if it weren't for the fact that half the stuff I took out of the article because people opposed the FAC because of it, DaveOinSF just put back in the name of "improving" the article: as no-one can even agree on what should and shouldn't be in an FA article, it is a waste of my time, quite frankly, and I'm fed up with it. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because people are trying to be helpful does not mean they are going to be perfectly consistent. And just because people aren't consistent, does not mean they are not trying to help the project. But you can also ask if a given suggestion on FAC is consensus about how FA's should be or just someone's opinion. Others can weigh in and see if they agree. In any case now you have the things to go work on if you want to improve the article. Otherwise have fun working on whatever you want to. - Taxman Talk 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions for Demosthenes[edit]

I remember your suggestions in Demosthenes. The peer-review is not yet closed and I tried to initiate improvements based on your remarks. Further comments have also been made. Therefore, I'd like to have your opinion in Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes/archive2. Thanks! Regards!--Yannismarou 16:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Spongo[edit]

Hi Taxman

I have an account on de-wikipedia, commons and meta, all with the same name: Spongo. Unfortunely the en-WP has allready an User:Spongo-account, but this user has got no contributions since his creation in April. Is it possible to delete (or rename) this user in order to create a "new" account? --134.130.78.41 (de:User:Spongo) 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently no. If you read WP:CHU you'll see that usurping other user's accounts is not allowed, for a number of reasons including someone might just want to have customized user preferences, but not edit. With the single logon that is hopefully coming soon that shouldn't be a problem. Best advice is to choose a new name or create a similar one that's not too similar. Sorry. - Taxman Talk 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindi wikipedia adminship and main page[edit]

Thanks for supportting me for hindi wikipedia adminship. It is been pending for a while.

Your help is need for Hindi wikipedia main page update too. I noticed hindi wikipedia is missing additional formatting buttons. Can you provide any help in that direction too?

Thanks,

--Mitul0520 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what formatting buttons you're referring to. And I can't edit the Hindi main page, you'd have to have someone act on your promotion or ask a hi.wiki admin to do it. Let me know more about what you're asking and I'll see what I can do to help. - Taxman Talk 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to the buttons helpful in formatting above the text box, when you edit texts. Making it easy to make texts Bold, insert internal links to picture gallery and quoted text. Though all these formatting can be achieved by wiki style insertion like text enclosed in ''', these buttons are helpful for new contributors. In hi wikipedia there are 11 from bold to horizontal line. In English there are additional 11, from Redirect to block of quoted text.
Most of hi.wiki admins are not very active. Though the active ones support me, I guess they are unaware of the process to make me admin. Never mind, I just thought that you being bureaucrat could expedite the process.
--Mitul0520 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Your best bet for those buttons is either to ask on the village pump's technical page or if you want it quicker log onto #wikipedia or #wikipedia-in (tell them I sent you and User:BernardM, a Hindi admin often hangs out in the latter channel.) and they can tell you what pages need to be edited to add those buttons and translate the text description bubbles. You may have to be an admin to edit them, and if so, I'll see what I can do to get someone to act on your promotion. - Taxman Talk 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help and promoting me to hindi wikipedia admin. It really will help me to contribute more on hindi wikipedia.
--Mitul0520 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You're very welcome, but all I did was ask a steward to make the promotion. Now you can go to work though :) - Taxman Talk 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter[edit]

I've hit all sorts of pages with the above idea, and thought, if you haven't seen it already, you might be curious. It's not exceptionally creative, but if enough people sign-up it could have some effect. Marskell 23:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you change my name?[edit]

Can you please change my name to Jagermeister, I already moved my user page, thanks. --Bluelist 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please choose something that's not a trademarked name and meets the other guidelines in Wikipedia:Username. Also the best place to list your request is WP:CHU that way it can be changed as soon as the first bcrat sees it. - Taxman Talk 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kipling references[edit]

Hi, I only just noticed the rest of the talk page in Rudyard Kipling. We seemed to have had similar feeling about the citations (or the lack thereof) in the original article. I've been adding citations, rewriting, and copy-editing the article for over a week now. More than half of it is sourced, and I imagine, most of it should be done by the end of this coming week. (The legacy section will, of course, be a problem. We'll see ...) Sanjay Tiwari 22:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, keep up the good work! - Taxman Talk 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the congratulations, Taxman. My first edit was to include the news of the North Korean nuclear test on the main page, so I am enjoying my capabilities. My only question for you is, how do you close an XfD debate? is there a template? AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's templates for just about everything these days. I can point you to the page that shows how to use them, but the path to finding them will be enlightening. Start with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and you'll soon find what you're looking for. :) - Taxman Talk 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Thiruvananthapuram[edit]

Taxman, Thanks for reviewing the article. I am trying to incorporate the points suggested by you. Can you list the points by numbering it in my talk page ? I will surely try my best to solve the issues.

Thanks in advance, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article : Talk:Thiruvananthapuram
-- Rajith Mohan (Talk) 01:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

You probably get a lot of these, but it would be rude not to thank you for pressing the button (especially as I was just in the yellow). Cheers Yomanganitalk 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't be rude, I like a clean talk page :) But the thanks is certainly not unappreciated either. :) - Taxman Talk 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:RfA[edit]

It has now been over a week since I suggested the wording should change from "Ending" to "Due to end". Concensus of those who discussed was that it be changed, here and here. May I change it now, or will it create a problem? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 23:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, the biggest problem is with the bots and scripts that process it. It amounts to too much work for the importance of the change, sorry. I don't mean to sound rude, but anything article related is more important than the accuracy of RfA wording. But if you really want to, wait until you've gotten the ok from the people that operate the two bots that process RfA noms and User:Voice_of_All who wrote the bureaucrat helper script. Once they've all made their changes, then go ahead if you like. - Taxman Talk 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not that important, but it sounds too complicated to bother with. Thanks anyway. --Alex (Talk) 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATT[edit]

In case you haven't seen it yet, you might want to pass by Wikipedia:Attribution. It's a good idea; merge several existing policies that all have roughly similar goals. However, people are trying to add a clause that weakens the standards of reliable sources for popular culture topics to allow self-published fansites and whatnot. See what you think. — BrianSmithson 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That's about as damaging as it gets. - Taxman Talk 12:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference standards[edit]

I was actually going to buzz you today, as I knew what your feelings would be... Bad, bad idea to make this allowance on a content policy page. Marskell 13:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Username question[edit]

Hi Taxman - Do you think my username "Rama's Arrow" is offensive to non-Hindu editors? Reading WP:USERNAME tells me that the names of religious figures should not be included, but I think that is subject to a username on the whole sounding offensive. The "Arrow" part doesn't help, but I'm a bit confused as I've never attacked anybody or any content based on religion. Would you recommend a username change for me, not simply out of prudence but to do your duty? Rama's arrow 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I know that a bunch of editors tread as closely as me to the line, but are good contributors. Rama's arrow 14:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, but I guess I can see how some people would. I think the policy is geared to discourage creation of new names that could conceivably be offensive, and that's probably a good thing, but my personal feeling is it shouldn't be interpreted too strongly against longtime good contributors unless it causes a real problem. I don't think that's happened yet, unless I'm missing something. So I don't see an immediate need for a change just on reading of the policy, but if there's a consensus for it, I would recommend it. - Taxman Talk 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! (Phew!) The only person who had objected on this ground was Anwar saadat, which I considered a bad faith objection. Rama's arrow 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Consider the source, I guess, right? - Taxman Talk 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for you sysopping, congratulations, warning, and advice all in one! --210physicq (c) 04:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to keep your eye on this ball[edit]

Wikipedia:Attribution and a "Pop Culture exception". Here is my latest revert of it; I'm finding it a little frightening that such an innovation can be introduced so easily and hope that people keep this on their radar. Marskell 09:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the sysopping and advice! :) --Coredesat 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about a hindi translation[edit]

Was very useful. I didn't notice that I did this kind of mistake. I'll keep this in mind in future. good to know that you are learning Hindi. Can you understand this? - धन्यवाद, कोई जरूरत नही है ।

Glad I could help, sorry if I was a little abrasive about it. And thank you very much for your contributions to the Hindi wiki too. You've really done a lot of good work there. I can understand literally what the above means, something like 'thank you, there isn't any need/necessity', but I can only guess if there is more of a real meaning. - Taxman Talk 12:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA promotion[edit]

thx - and I'll be careful - wow I see the protect tab on your talk page ;) --Trödel 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's a fun one. I like hitting edit on protected mediawiki space pages for a real sense of the tools. Of course, I've not had much need to do it, but it's fun to be able to. :) But that's why we focus on whether people are trusted to use the tools, so keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions (and the ensuing opposes when they aren't answered)[edit]

Hi Taxman. In the optional questions thread on Wikipedia talk:requests for adminship, you indicated that you disliked people being opposed purely because they didn't answer optional questions. So, as a bureaucrat, what weight do you put on opposes that read as "Oppose Didn't answer question 5. Example 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)," and the like, when evaluating rfas you're closing? A small amount, or maybe even none at all? Picaroon9288 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the quality of the question, that can be a very bad faith reason for opposing, or with a high quality, very relevant question it could be a reasonable reason, especially when combined with other reasoning, so it depends. That doesn't give you a direct answer, but without a specific case there isn't a direct answer. More of what I was getting at is the quality of the optional questions matters and they shouldn't just be thrown up there without thinking through their benefits. - Taxman Talk 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I should've realized you couldn't just give a blanket answer. So in your eyes, is a question that asks "Could you explain this diff, [1], where you reverted Jimbo" more likely to lead to a valid oppose due to not answering than "What is you opinion on (insert obscure essay here)?" if the oppose reads solely as the example I made up above? Picaroon9288 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but RfA is a consensus gathering exercise so more reasoning is always better in helping to develop the consensus. A bare answer of oppose, didn't answer question X is borderline as to whether it is good faith if it doesn't offer other reasons as well. - Taxman Talk 03:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For helping me out on Gedong Bagus Oka on all the lang pages.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I can't contribute much there but I do what I can. - Taxman Talk 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu grammar[edit]

Hello Taxman. I hope you are doing very well. Hindi-Urdu grammar is almost completed. I would say it is safe to delete the forked article, Hindustānī (Hindī-Urdū) grammar and its talk page. Thank you very much kind sir. AnupamTalk 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I forgot about the duplicate page. I though it was best to just redirect it though, so that the page history is preserved. There's no loss having an extra redirect to preserve the record of who did what work. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Strike sock vote on RFA/Elonka[edit]

I suppose you must have good info on Gene Poole/Centauri to do that? Did you do a checkuser? Centauri is IMO an abusive account anyway, and if it's an unacknowledged votestacking sock to boot, it should surely be indefblocked. And Gene Poole given a block, too? Centauri has been trying to run DreamGuy off the wiki for months with his harassment, and has a flamethrower routinely trained on me for trying to stop it, so it's not ideal for me to be the one to impose any blocks. But this is very bad behavior altogether, isn't it? Bishonen | talk 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

I've seen enough that I'm very confident it is a sockpuppet. But I'm also not interested in taking the time to pursue it beyond making sure he doesn't disrupt RfA. As you know checkuser is easy enough to evade if you're trying. I'm of the opinion that at times we all focus way too much on things that don't matter as much here as they seem to – articles are the only thing that really matters. The rest is just fluff in the end. But as far as friends go that part's worth it, so I'm glad to see someone's still talking to me. :) But also if you think his behavior is disruptive enough that it's damaging articles or your efforts to work on them, start up another RfC or add an adendum to what I recall was an old arbcom case. - Taxman Talk 03:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You people amaze me. I've been quietly and uneventfully contributing to dozens of articles for years, and somehow I'm a problem. Yet DreamGuy can go around swearing, blanking content, abusing others, harrasing people and making all sorts of bizarre accusations and according to you, that's just fine. You need to take a good long look at the damage you're doing to Wikipedia by endorsing that sort of behaviour. --Centauri 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A complete red herring. I don't endorse that behavior and I'd prefer you don't claim that I do. I can't fix everything on Wikipedia, but I can work on some of the things I see. It becomes a problem when you try to violate WP:SOCK and distort consensus gathering or votes. As far as I was aware of before this you had avoided doing that. - Taxman Talk 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The only red herring here is DreamGuy and his handful of suspiciously supportive admin friends accusing me of being a sock every time I draw their attention to how disuptive he is. It isn't me who calls people "psychotic", or describes blanked text as "fucked up spam", accuses everyone he disagrees with of "harrassing" him or "impersonating" him etc etc. If you wish to give validity through your actions to snide rumours about me that have been promoted almost entirely by a handful of editors who might charitably be described as slightly unbalanced (and most of whom have either been permanently blocked, or who have left the project after pissing off so many people that their continued participation became impossible) then that's entirely up to you - but I simply don't care because I know I haven't done anything wrong. On the other hand, by failing to address editors who openly abuse Wikipedia standards over a period of many months, you implicitly endorse their behaviour, and that is completely unacceptable. --Centauri 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Pretty entertaining (sorry, easily entertained I guess) that you follow the claim that you're not using a red herring with furthering the red herring. Dreamguy's actions don't have anything to do with your violating WP:SOCK. And no that's not just been mentioned by people who fit your personal attacks, it's pretty obvious in fact. I'm not sure why you persist in thinking anyone doesn't notice. It must get tiring carrying on the charade with two different accounts for so long. - Taxman Talk 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I "persist" is that there's nothing to "notice". You can continue spinning this as long you like, but nothing's going to change. As for accusing me of making personal attacks - that's just silly. There isn't one example of my ever doing that. --Centauri 05:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Tamil Nadu peer review[edit]

Hi Taxman, In the past you had helped me with the review of Chola dynasty. I have nominated another article for peer review. Can you please take a look at History of Tamil Nadu and comment? Thanks - Parthi talk/contribs 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Seems pretty solid on first glance. I'll see if I can't give it a good review soon. - Taxman Talk 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka sockpuppetry[edit]

I noticed that you removed User:Centauri's vote in the Elonka RfA. Centauri has just re-voted, and some other strange votes are appearing there. Wryspy 06:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka[edit]

Thank you very much for your efforts, and for your advice. I will indeed do my best to take encouragement from those who supported my nomination, listen carefully to learn from those who had good faith opposition, and ignore the rest.  ;) And yes, I still firmly believe in the Wikipedia project, and plan to continue contributing in as positive a manner as I am able. --Elonka 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I could actually use some advice, if you have a moment. I've been trying to figure out if there's any way that I can "bury the hatchet" with a few of the people that were opposing my RfA. I did post thank you notes to everyone, and have gotten some positive responses. In the case of DreamGuy though, I made (what I felt was) a good faith offer, but his reply has me scratching my head as to how I can continue the conversation in a good faith way (as it seems to violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF). Do you agree? And do you have any suggestions on whether or not I should pursue communication? Thanks, Elonka 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You can disagree with what he says, but I have a hard time finding anything in there that violates NPA against you. Maybe that's not what you were referring to and in the allusions he makes to other users there is certainly some there that isn't terribly helpfully worded, particularly without evidence to back the assertions. But the truth is you don't need to bury the hatchet with anyone, just let your contributions do the talking. That's probably more important than anything else. I haven't dug into the situation, but it seems there is a grain of truth in at least some of his comments. The same seems true for those that point out the problems DG causes (or adds to) of course. How disputes flare up and get out of control is people failing to find common ground and only harping on the worst that others do and exaggerating it. But just to answer your question, it is possible to continue that in a good faith way if you so desired, by being unfailingly polite, and asking for clarification on statements he doesn't provide evidence for to your satisfaction. That doesn't mean it will be a productive conversation because you can't always change people, but I'm just stating that it is possible to not lower yourself to someone else's level. You have to maintain a higher level of civility, and that's not always easy, but it is possible. If you believe he may have valuable insight that will help you, pursue it. Otherwise, just make great contributions that undeniably help build an encyclopedia. Working on Wikipedia:Vital articles is a bulletproof option :). - Taxman Talk 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

I don't know who made you king of Wikipedia, but randomly deleting people's votes is pretty damned sad. --Centauri 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You and I both know it wasn't random. As part of my role as bureaucrat I am charged with preventing disruption of RfA. Please don't use this account to vote on anything and you'll otherwise be free to edit. - Taxman Talk 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From Trödel[edit]

Thx - I'll let you know - see my thank you project here: User:Trödel/RFA --Trödel 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

WikiThanks.png

When I started my second editor review, I had no idea how greatly helpful it would be to me. Here are people from across the world who I've never met or laid eyes upon, taking their personal time to think about me and offer me valuable criticism and advice. And the stuff I've learnt is more helpful in real life than just on Wikipedia. This is an experiment I will never forget. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, for helping me be a better person. I am very much in your debt. Rama's arrow 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiThanks.png

Glad I was able to add in helping. - Taxman Talk 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Resquest for changing my pseudo name[edit]

Can you rename my pseudo Bigorneau to Grondin. Thank's.--Bertrand GRONDIN 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That name's taken, sorry. Please see WP:CHU and search for an open name using Special:Listusers. Also, it would be great if you would add links to your other language and project userpages on your userpage here. - Taxman Talk 13:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll do that :-)--Bertrand GRONDIN 20:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1 and your promoting me. In response to your recent message to me, yes, I know that different Wiki sites may have different policies. For example, I know that fair use is permitted here and at Chinese Wikipedia, but formally or de facto prohibited at Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource while their roles to host full (not partial) works cannot practically claim "fair" use on others' copyrighted works. In case of doubts, I will check the policies before actions as I do elsewhere.--Jusjih 09:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

Sir, I have been recommended to request you for a thorough copy edit of my article Hoysala architecture before I submit for peer review. Please find time to go thru this article (and the sister article Hoysala Empire that is linked to it). I have worked on these two articles for over 3 months to bring it here.Please respond on my talk page. ThanksDineshkannambadi 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala empire/architecture[edit]

Thanks a lot for your advice. I shall look into your tips carefully and try to write more on the imbalanced sections among other things.You are right. Not only have I researched the matter from my sources, I have also travelled to all the locations mentioned (as a hobby). Most of the photos are mine.Dineshkannambadi 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ganeshbot[edit]

Taxman, Thank you so much for helping out in merging the Indian town articles. Could you please tl the state-wise stub template too? Like for example, {{Goa-geo-stub}} to {{tl|Goa-geo-stub}}. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't think about that template too, I'll have to clean up after myself. :) - Taxman Talk 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Heloo Taxman sir. I would really appreciate if you could please check your email and reply to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much sir. Sincerely, AnupamTalk 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your vendetta[edit]

This can be summarized as "I think its a sock, so therefor I'm blocking it". Most of your assertions are not even close to being true. Identical articles? Total fantasy. I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but your vendetta against me is just ridiculous and sad. --Centauri 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical response of cranking up the emotional rhetoric. I'm actually 100% confident, it's not based on nothing. How did you even know about it except that I let Gene Poole know? Oh yes, it's because you're the same person. - Taxman Talk 23:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Cranking up the emotional rhetoric? Couldn't have done it better if I tried. Has it occured to you that I actually agree with him on some issues? Far-fetched that 2 people might possibly agree, I know. Better to just go out on a limb and call them socks. Particularly when most of the time they edit dozens of different articles that aren't even slightly related. Hell, they don't even vote on the same articles the vast majority of the time - but no, you know best - they're socks. Oh and I'm here because several people were kind enough to email me the link to your rant. --Centauri 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, can you name even one poll, such as on AfD, where the Gene Poole and Centauri accounts voted in opposite directions? There were many where both voted. Jonathunder 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So I guess that makes everyone else who also voted the same way socks too - and there are lots and lots of them. --Centauri 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So there has been a previous inconclusive checkuser request on me, has there? Please provide a link to the archived request you're referring to. And then maybe you should go run one one me today. Or are you too scared your accusations won't stand up to scientific scrutiny? Go on. I dare you. And I look forward to the apology you'll be posting on my talk page afterwards. --Centauri 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I recall a previous claim of an inconclusive CU. Perhaps before they were filed, I don't know. And again, CU is not to be used for obvious cases and can only confirm, not deny. Scientific scrutiny, nor pixie dust is CU. - Taxman Talk 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So, translating that into English: there was no previous checkuser request, and you know if you do one today you'll be proved a fool, and are trying to cover your ass. How lame. --Centauri 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vivian[edit]

Well, if you have a diff for that admission, I'd endorse a block. But simply having 2 accounts doesn't automatically violate WP:SOCK, so far all I've seen from is an admission to having 2 accounts. --W.marsh 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But if they are unwilling to tell us what other accounts they edit under we cannot confirm they are not violating it every time they vote. Their option as I see it is to not vote in anything with the account, or confirm what other accounts they edit with. - Taxman Talk 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Bureaucrats[edit]

I think the active/inactive list needs to be updated at WP:BCRAT. I was going to do it myself, but I figure you'd be better off taking a look at it. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like, just run through all the logs. What did you see that needs updating? - Taxman Talk 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It was mainly UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · rights · renames) who has no bureaucrat activity since April 18, 2006 – I don't know how y'all divy up the duties, but it looks like you and a few others bear the load. --Jay(Reply) 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I tend to feel that unless they are particularly important, all the meta, organizational edits we do around here are just overhead and a distraction from improving articles. The information is already in the logs anyway. I'm not sure why we maintain an active vs inactive separation anyway. But you've already noticed it and looked it up, so there's no harm in going ahead if you want to. - Taxman Talk 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stream[edit]

Hi Taxman - could you please take a look at this essay of mine - particular reference to the "ACG" idea. I thought it was a good, fluid method to improve admin work efficiency, teamwork and promote some accountability. I'd like your advice on how to make it practical. Rama's arrow 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have time to read it all, but my general feeling is that more Wikipedia space pages just take the focus off what we should be here for which is writing articles. That seems kind of what you're getting at, but I think the solution is just working on articles, not creating more overhead. I believe all we need to do is get out of the way of people creating content along with enforcing and teaching the content policies and removing editors that detract from our efforts. If we focus on the content being of the highest quality possible, with reliable references we'll do just fine. Higher quality content will draw more participation which will improve content quality. But I applaud your efforts, keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

I've told you not to post further comments to my talk page. I won't repeat myself a third time. If you don't understand how I might find your posting of a direct personal attack like this to be offensive, you're either attempting to be duplicitous, or else a fool. --Gene_poole 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well for starters as long as I'm posting politely and responding to comments you've made in error about me, I am free to leave messages on your talk page. That's how the project works, but for the sake of politeness that you yourself are not willing to observe, I'll not for now.
  • Also, the discussion on AN/I you link above is not what you claimed was an attack when you removed my response here. I'd still like to know how you justify that as an attack while claiming "gang of admins and bureaucrats here with serious power issues" and "Taxman, your actions are a disgrace for someone in your position." is not. In fact my duty as a bureaucrat requires that I deal with RfA disruption.
  • On AN/I I have posted strong evidence of disruption and a history of people noticing said disruption. If you define that as a personal attack, just how would you deal with a situation with said strong evidence of disruption?
  • Finally, you have multiple times made claims about other people being problem editors and sockpuppets. How do you claim those are not personal attacks if this and this are? - Taxman Talk 06:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ganeshbot suggestions[edit]

Replied here. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Centauri reincarnated as 125.253.33.180[edit]

Can you block this IP address? Harvardy 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Wik here? --125.253.35.155 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think that I'm Wiki, other than your attempt to make Lucky think so? Are you allowed to edit while you are blocked? Looks like a lack of respect for the our policy here. "I'll be editing anonymously until the block on me is reversed, so I won't be keeping as close an eye on things as before. --125.253.33.180 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Centauri)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert" Harvardy 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wik. In case you've forgotten, you're permanently hard-banned and are not allowed to edit. Ever. I'm going to be making it my business to see the ban enforced on every single one of your socks from here on in. --125.253.33.65 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with that as there couldn't be a shred of evidence to indicate so, but you surely deserve to be hard-banned from the little I have observed of your behavior. Looks like this entire range needs to be blocked and thanks: 125.253.33.65 Harvardy 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a shred of evidence. Quite. That didn't stop your cheersquad blocking me - so shouldn't prove too much of an issue with you. Again. How many times is it now? Have you broken the century yet? --125.253.33.65 03:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another IP address being used by Centauri to vandalize or push George's POV agenda needs to be blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=125.253.32.222 Can you block George now? Harvardy 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification keep them coming, but I'm not going to support you by making a one sided edit war. You need to start substantiating and discussing your edits instead of just reverting or else you'll be facing editing restrictions too. Use the tools of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. - Taxman Talk 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, but the only edit that is at issue at this moment involves adding two words, the first cinderalla from which I made a link to a Wikipedia article and the other the word "purportedly" to George's coins as he provided nothting to support the existence of things that could just be pictures on his computer and not actual coins or bills. Can you revert back to my last edition, because I really don't want to fight with him. Harvardy 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I won't, but I gave you the content policies that you can use to substantiate your position. If he can't substantiate his and you can, then you have something.Discuss on the talk page, don't revert. - Taxman Talk 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem, please take a look and see if I did it correctly at Atlantium talk and then please let me know how long do I need to wait to include those changes? Harvardy 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about right. But you probably need to tone down the POV in your edits too, it detracts from the strength of your position. You need to back your position with references and can ask that he does also. Give it a couple days and try to avoid bickering as much as possible so others will be willing to participate. In other words, don't take the bait. Then when you get consensus that can be enforced. - Taxman Talk 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganeshbot[edit]

I have added templates to all articles list on the Not created page per your suggestion. It is getting quite a response. :) Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Admin mop.PNG
Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!


Excuse me?[edit]

What on earth makes you think I "wasn't willing to look into the case more carefully" on the Centauri/Gene Poole sockpuppet allegations?

I've been working with both of them (singular him? I don't know) on various stuff, and had my own suspicious that it's merely a harmless sock pair, for a year. I am as aware of the details of the case as anyone else.

  1. There's nothing wrong with asking that longtime contributors get a fair shake.
  2. A CU was done, which showed ambiguous results (different ISP, both in Sydney), but at least it was done. It could have convicted, or potentially cleared (two different geographical locations) them unambiguously, though it was not unlikely that all it would do is produce an ambiguous result as it did.
  3. There's no defense if they are socks and were voting together on stuff, or 3RRing stuff together.
  4. Centauri needs to stop editing "anonymously" while he's blocked, and I've told him so.

I suggested to both Gene and Centauri that if they are in fact two people, they should send copies of their drivers licenses or the equivalent to someone at the foundation to verify that they're not the same person. I haven't heard anything since (not a good sign for their possible innocence).

I think they got the nominal fair shake, and I haven't been protesting the block anywhere or complaining about the people who did it. IF they can prove to someone at WMF that they're distinct people (or via some other acceptable alternate method), THEN I would argue for an unblock review, but that has not happened and shows no sign of it.

The admins who brought the sock case up were right to do so. I have tried to be careful on that point in the discussion.

You're free to vote on the RfA however you want, but this particular situation was not that simple. I advocated for treating him (them?) fairly, because they (he?) are people I've been working with on the project. It was not out of ignorance that I chose to ask for fair treatment; as I said, I had my own suspicions, which is part of why I have not objected to the result. But he (they?) deserved the consideration of a fair discussion on it.

I invite you to look at the case more carefully 8-) and reconsider. Even with this, there are clearly plenty of people who have other objections, but I ask that you give the specific points you appear to have mis-stated here a fair review.

Thank you.

Georgewilliamherbert 03:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I improperly focused my comments on that case. The bigger issue pointed out is the problem, and that there are so many examples. It isn't needed to spend a ton of time helping the underdog if the reason they are the underdog is they are causing the problem. Instead focus the efforts on helping the people that are building the project without causing harm. - Taxman Talk 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your help with Medical assistant. -THB 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Hello Taxman. You seem to have a talent for reviewing material. If you can spare some time, can you take a look at my investment wiki (www.ValueWiki.com)? We've customized mediawiki and added features (like voting, and greater categorization), but we're still in Beta. Would love to have an experienced Wikipedian who knows finance come and take a look at the site. You would be the first Wikipedian to check us out - your opinions and expertise would be very helpful. We're trying to build a wiki where investors can write NPOV coverage for all stocks, funds, and other investments. Thank you, Taxman! Jonathan Stokes 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion thanks[edit]

Thanks Taxman to promote me and your words on my talk page. I would try to handle new tools in best possible way I can. Thanks for congratulations, Shyam (T/C) 05:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to thank you for promoting/congratulating me as well. I shall use these shiny new tools wisely. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible new CSD[edit]

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking Thijs!bot as bot at Hindi Wikipedia[edit]

Were you able to contact any steward to flag user Thijs!bot as bot, at hindi wikipedia?

--Mitul0520 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the bot's owner requested it, but maybe a steward didn't act on it because there weren't enough people agreeing with the need for it. Can you ask a few people to comment in support, in English ideally at least for the word "support". - Taxman Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks[edit]

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations[edit]

Thank you very much. I will do my best to improve Wikipedia, will use these tools in the most reasonable way, and will ask before acting, at least during the first months. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 17:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Availability[edit]

Hi. Yes, I'll be around. I can close them both, no problem :) Cheers, Redux 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN content removal[edit]

I will gladly consent to this. However, the problem here is that User:Husnock continues to ratchet up the assault. I was thoroughly alarmed that today he has ratcheted it up to include accusations that I slandered him. This isn't just flirting with WP:NLT. If he continues the ratcheting, the next step from a legal threat is legal action. I now stand on the verge of being personally, off-wiki, threatened if he continues his onslaught. This is intolerable. Somebody needs to reign him in and get him to back off on the rhetoric and the constant, continual ratcheting up of the situation. I tried to remain calm and cool under fire while an agreement was hammered out. It was. But, subsequent to that he has continued his relentless attacks. How much am I supposed to put up with? Will I have to be in a court of law as defense from him before someone here says enough is enough? Where's the line? Hmm? Where? I've had it. My patience is shot and I refuse to consider the possibility of having to legally defend myself against him. He's now accusing me of revealing personal information about him in the real world (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Where does it stop? There's no sign of it ending. If I can't be permitted to defend myself here, then somebody else had better see to it. If nobody does, what choice do I have? I am quite happy to let this drop at the agreement of having Zscout370 mediate. He obviously isn't. This needs to stop. now. Now. NOW. --Durin 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Thorpe[edit]

Hello Taxman. I've finished a round of prose revamping. Please do have another look. Thanks for all your help so far, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have Phelps' biography. That would be helpful for the early years. Also, is a formal support required? I guess when Raul feels the article is OK, he will pull them off the list, correct? Blnguyen' (bananabucket) 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well it's more when he determines there's no particularly actionable and important objections. If one person objects and no one agrees that generally covers it. But Sandy has agreed, so see if you can't recruit some skilled copyeditors. With that it's a shoe in, and besides, I almost have Mark in my back pocket. ;) - Taxman Talk 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Satellite Instructional Television Experiment[edit]

Namaste. Can you take a look at Satellite Instructional Television Experiment and comment at its PR? Thanks a lot. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the wishes Taxman! :) PS a spelling correction: जन्मदिन मुबारक हो! Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How embarrassing, I can say it right, but made a typo on the spelling. :) - Taxman Talk 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Indic scripts[edit]

The Problem: Limited Illustrated Edition

Hi! I asked this question in #wikipedia-in yesterday, and they referred me to you. I have a problem with Indic scripts on WinXP; I have enabled complex supoprt like WP:INDIC says, but I still have problems. The diacritic signs in Indic scripts show up beside the signs, having their own space, making the text wider than in should be and overlapping other text. Aww, I suck at explaining. I'm adding a screenshot so you can see the problem yourself, instead of my bad explanations. Jon Harald Søby 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that always the case, for example, when I type संस्कृत do you see it the same way as in your screenshot or no? Also check hi.wikipedia.org, does it happen there? What I've come to think is that it is a problem with Template:Unicode, because sometimes even though I can see unicode indic fonts fine, the output of things like {{Unicode|संस्कृत}} (i.e. breaks the diacritics and the vowel positioning for me also. However, I've never gotten the same problem you have. If you can see it correctly outside of the Unicode template like संस्कृत then that's the problem for you. It seems at least to be mine too. - Taxman Talk 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In your examples, the Indic text doesn't overlap the following text, but the diacritic marks are still wrong (e.g. they have their own "space" instead of being above/under the letter it should be over/under). However, on hi: it is okay, and also in edit mode; might it be a font problem? (I do also have the problem in Nichalp's correction above – and no template is used there.) Jon Harald Søby 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a browser/font issue then, especially since it renders correctly in edit mode. Unfortunately that's beyond where I really know what I'm doing, but what browser do you use? Have you tried MSIE and Firefox? In Firefox 1.5, try playing with the settings in Tools->Options->Content (tab/icon at the top)->then the Font's and Colors section at the bottom hit the advanced button. Write down what settings you have there. Mine are the defaults and it works fine, but maybe that's because of the indic fonts I've downloaded. In MSIE the issue may be similar, you have to look at what the default font rendering is, try to have it be something like Arial Unicode MS, which is supposed to have most unicode fonts. It doesn't work for everything for me but my indic unicode fonts showed fine with just adding complex text support. Firefox should not need Arial Unicode as the default, but it may work. - Taxman Talk 09:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That worked! Thank you very much! Face-smile.svg Jon Harald Søby 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Which bit worked? I can't help the next guy if I don't know what did the trick. :) - Taxman Talk 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, true. I downloaded Arial Unicode MS, and it worked. It wasn't really freely available, though, so I had to take some shortcuts… I think it's weird that it wasn't shipped with my WinXP to begin with… Stupid Micro$oft. Jon Harald Søby 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom vote disruption[edit]

I banned this moron YBeayf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and reverted all of his non-sensical ArbCom votes. It's a really old account that looks like it only returns periodically for vandalism and disruption, so I figured I'd just indef-block it. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. I was just feeling charitable. - Taxman Talk 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

misunderstanding[edit]

Hi.I think there's been a misunderstanding.I understand wikipedia's neutral policy or NPOV and no Im not here to promote my views.Im trying to do just the opposite.Im trying to put refference to the Indus Civilization in the right place.I realise it led to some conflict and edit warring. Im trying to help keep wikipedia factual and not POV,but the problem is that some people are using it for hegemony(a direct violation of wikipedia's no propaganda policy).

I do realise that edit wars are frequent during diputes,but I have advised Unre4L to abide by the rules and be careful of not commiting any violations.

And you're right about the "us vs them" thing.I'm trying to aviod that as much as possible and no it's not always been that way.

I think Unre4L is mistaken about the sources there are plenty of sources available which are factual and not POV.I think Unre4L happens to stumble across the wrong sources that are based too much on POV and not fact.

But no,we're trying to keep wikipedia factual.That's the frustrating part of it that people are misusing it to promote hegemony and propaganda and yes misinforming people about Pakistan's history is a great example.

I hope Im making myself sound more understandable.

Best regards.Nadirali 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Well that's certainly more in the right direction and keep working on conforming to NPOV. But what concerns me is your statements above don't line up fully with other rather recent statements of yours. Also, the fact is there aren't that many people that are "misusing [Wikipedia] to promote hegemony and propaganda", but if you're willing to think that they are, everyone who disagrees with you seems like they are doing that. That's the problem. Instead, work with people to implement the spirit of the NPOV policy. Do good research, consider you and I might not be right about things all the time, and consider the other side's points. And encourage others that disagree with you to do the same. That's the only way we'll end up with the best articles and you or I may not agree exactly with what's in them. That's ok as long as the best research has been done and best efforts have been made. - Taxman Talk 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

Hello, my english is not the best, so I didn't find the correct place for this (but I'm sure, somwhere it will be to finde...). So I ask here, maybe you can do it (as bureaucrat you can do it, I know) or will leading me to the correct point. I would like to change my Username from User:Kenwilliams to User:Marcus Cyron (my correct Name, I use him also at my "Homewikipedia", the german Version and in some other language-Version. I already had created the Account some time ago and it's now an redirect. But it's better if it woult be in the other way - Kenwilliams should be the redirect to Marcus Cyron. Bevore the single loggin comes (yes, I know - is could be days or years ;)) I would like to have all my Accounts on one Name. Thanks. Kenwilliams 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're all set, now just login as User:Marcus Cyron. Luckily, you hadn't created User:Marcus Cyron here yet, so I was able to rename User:Kenwilliams to that. - Taxman Talk 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :) Marcus Cyron 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Article priority[edit]

I replied back to you about the FairTax priority on my talk page. Morphh (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) The reason it has no support in Congress is because it is unpopular and very regressive.Jance 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.. I just had to comment that it being regressive is a matter of opinion - studies show it as more progressive then the current system. As far as popularity or support, it is being considered as one of the main platforms for the 2008 Republican party. It is also in the platform of many Libertarian parties (such as Florida Libertarian party and the Libertarian reform caucus). When informed, citizens choose the FairTax over the current system 80% of the time. So I'm not sure where you get that it is unpopular - it is the largest tax movement in the country. Since it has not been voted on in Congress, its support can not be determined - however, it is the most popular tax reform proposal via sponsorship. I apologize for such a debate point on your talk page.. I just thought I should offer the other view. Morphh (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for FAC review?[edit]

Hmm, I am not sure if its even allowed to invite someone specifically to give their opinion on a FAC but I guess you will tell me if I am breaking rules. Anyways, I stumbled into a very impressive article, atleast in my opinion, that is up for FA - Hoysala Empire. The FAC is bit of a mess, partly because the main author is not very good at organizing responses and so comments are all over the place. I think this is discouraging more people from giving their critique. I have always found your opinion to be the one that best balances all the aspects of an article - so was wondering if you would have the time to review it? I really want to make sure this one gets to FA because I think the author is very dedicated and don't want him to lose heart. I understand if you do not have the time right now with the holidays and all. Just figured I would give it a shot. Thank you, --Blacksun 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I get a fair number of similar requests. I'll see if I can have a look at it tomorrow. - Taxman Talk 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire[edit]

Thanks for your support.Dineshkannambadi 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Juletræet.jpg
Lorenzo Lotto 017.jpg
In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. John 1:4 KJV


Dear Taxman,
Love came to a stable on that very special night to bring us out of darkness into His glorious light. May Jesus touch your life with gladness and warm your heart with love as we celebrate His birth. I hope you have a Blessed Christmas, AnupamTalk 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Your'e very welcome! I hope you had a good Christmas and are looking forward to the new year! AnupamTalk 06:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas!!![edit]

Hello Taxman. Wish you and your family a merry christmas. Have a nice time. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Namaste[edit]

Hi, thanks for correcting my mistakes at the reference desk, but I would have liked it better if you had left my original comments intact. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 00:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I really rarely do that, in case someone might mind. For whatever reason I figured it was minor enough I didn't need to point out the mistake. - Taxman Talk 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Malber's continuing disruption[edit]

Can you please review this and possibly remove it? User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington appears to be confusing WT:RFA with WP:RFC. This discussion has woefully gone from a discussion on the nature of my question to an attack on me. I've even been blocked by this administrator in order to prevent me from asking this question. Thanks! —Malber (talk contribs) 13:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

Taxman wrote at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GurchBot 2:

I've granted the flag, let me know when you're done with it please.

I am. I guess that means you want to remove the flag? – Gurch 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong?[edit]

Strong? :) I think that you are glossing over one of the key elements of Wikipedia: concensus. I didn't create the article, most of the ideological guidelines were hammered out in the talk pages. We have ten archives, and most of the contributors to the talk pages have been non-Turks, and we have had many heated discussions. Please keep that in mind and ask yourself if you are not looking at this from your own point of view of the country. I know what you are trying to say, but Turkey is not a conflict ridden country either :) Trust me, the concensus was reached by people who know the country from back to front, with many Greek, Turkish, Kurdish and European editors arguing for weeks on end sometimes. The facts are mentioned; the conflict, the casualties, the situation in northern Iraq, the Kurdish minority, its status, the situation of the language etc. As for the foreign relations.. Turkey doesn't have much relations with Africa, and hasn't had too much relations with Asia, and in the Middle East its main relations are with Israel. The balance of that section is carefully chosen to reflect the actual balance of the country's foreign relations. All the references are there, and the article has been proofread many times. In any case, improvements are always possible, and the actual phrases in certain sections can easily be modified as long as a concensus is reached in the talk pages. I do not share the view that the conflicts are being glossed over: the article has been extremely stable every since the rewrite has started one month ago, and if any major controversials had not been addressed, there would be edit wars all over the article. In fact, since one month, there haven't been even minor revert wars, let alone full-blown edit-wars. I just think that any modifications or reformulations of sentences should be raised in the talk page, if you have any suggestions, feel free to raise them in the talk page. I already tried to address Yannismarou's concerns on two points (and he is not Turkish btw :)). The article as it is reflects a great concensus, along with many efforts at comprehensiveness and conciseness. Every single info in the article is cited, nearly all of them by sources accessible on the Internet, even for books. Baristarim 15:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I spent tens of hours rewriting that article, and I just cannot understand the point of your "strong" object. That article is better than every single country article. When people look from a disconnected view point to a subject matter, their ideas do tend to be based on the superficial or sensational information. Please consider what I said about the article being proofread many times by admins and users of all sorts of nationalities... "Conscensus" I mentioned is not a deadlock. Yannismorou, a Greek editor, made two suggestions that I incorporated into the article, and he changed his vote to full support from conditional support. But I cannot simply rewrite the article based on one user's objections. As I said, please share your opinions in the article's talk page. The FA won't mean that the article will be static. Only one two support votes out of 19 have come from Turks. There is an Armenian that voted, User:Nareklm, and his vote summary is "Support Very well written alot of effort put into also". Does that look like nationalist glossing over to you? I am deeply offended by your suggestions that editors who contributed tens of hours to this article, from all types of nationalities, were somehow whitewashing the disputes about the country. Please try to understand that this article is not the product of an overnight's work, but of a very long process, involving many editors and very strong references.. I cannot change your vote, but please know that I, or other regular contributors to the article, cannot rewrite sections of the article simply because of the objections of someone who is a complete stranger to the subject matter. As I said, please take a look at the ethnic repartition of the supporters, and tell me that there is some sort of whitewashing going on. Regards... Baristarim 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Now unfortunately we have two parralel threads on the same topic with similar, but not exactly the same material. It would be better to keep it together. The fact that the first thing you say is "I spent tens of hours... " reinforces that you are too involved to see the problem. It is a problem with a small portion of the text, but it amounts to a very important NPOV imbalance. I'm not saying you're all whitewashing on purpose or out of ill intent, and being offended further reinforces the impression you are too involved to have proper academic detachment. I don't expect you to rewrite based on only my opinion, but I do expect the problem, now that it has been pointed out, to be noticed by others. - Taxman Talk 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am also writing here because I don't want to include discussion not neccessarily about the FAC in the FAC page, if it's ok, we can continue here... Look, not quite: Have a look at other suggestions please, where was I offended? I took care of all of them. What I find awkward is your "strong object" with vague and disconnected suggestion. And comments much harsher than yours was made by User:Reyus (who still gave conditional support), and ten users, among them the GA reviewer from ten days ago, showed their support after his post. Only two of the voters are from Turks, one of them is from an Armenian, one from a Greek who gave full support, so I really cannot contextualize your "strong object". Other votes were from admins and users of many nationalities. An outsider's views can be misplaced: the article is not at a stub level and the rewrites were done with extreme care and based on very solid sources. I have very solid academic detachment, otherwise it wouldn't be such a rich article. When I said I spent so many hours, I was trying to imply that your "strong object" was unfair. This article doesn't deserve it, that's all. Please see the GA reviewer's comments in the talk page about NPOV [15]. However, let's let the comments stand as they are. I will, however, note your objections for any future improvements that can be made to that article, no worries. I am also starting work on other articles, so gotta run! Cheers! Baristarim 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey[edit]

I added a paragraph on the Armenian deaths to the Ottoman history section. I hope that is acceptable to all involved. Regards, --Jayzel 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if the question was about the armenian genocide, you could have simply said so instead of wasting my time about Turkey-Africa relations et al. In fact, since Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and we all can contribute, you could have proposed a specific edit, just like Sandy and Yannisamarou had done with their suggestions. Simply asking "So is Turkey down with Africa and the Middle East?" is not constructive criticism, I am afraid. It would have been nice if you had particularly explained why you were saying "strong object" after 20 users supported, instead of saying "my outside perspective tells me that tis' ain't cool"... You know, eg "is it possible to mention the AG in the OE or FR sections?", with notes either in the FAC page or the article's talk page. This article is the best country article out there, and that thanks to people who actually try to find solutions like Jayzel... "strong" ciao... Baristarim 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, that was just a clear example. The issue is general and all my comments were meant as best efforts to improve the article as much as possible. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is nothing in the article that needs a "strong object". But again, it's all about a question of undue weight: one strong object among so many other voters. You still haven't provided any specifics or anything. All other editors asked you what was going on etc, only thing that you are saying is "my out perspective ain't down with this, dawg!" Every single "conflict" is covered. Again, the article is as is, and there is nothing in there that merits a strong object, if you think that there is, I can only assume that's because of your lack of education about the subject matter and/or boredom with closing RfAs all the time. "One of my best talents is reviewing articles"? really? I think that is simply a sign of laziness to do actual work: any educated person can review something. I have the impression that you are convinced that your "reviewing skills" are somehow superiors to other peoples' and that you can spot things that 25 other much more informed users cannot see, and when you do, this somehow overrides their beliefs because you have superior "reviewing" capabilities. Aha. Fedayee raised his objections in a direct manner, and they were addressed, just like Yannis's and Sandy's. They were all adressed however your comments only reflect a desire to be "different" after so many stellar reviews.
There is nothing with the quality of the research, this is the best country article out there, no matter what your superior talented reviewing ability might think. All are accessible, if you wish you can look at the books or ask someone who actually knows about the country if the article is good. Fedayee's objections were addressed. Nobody is fighting foot and nail, maybe you check the archives before jumping in. Nevertheless, you better bring something specific to the table instead of saying "my superior outside talent me thinks tis' not good": that's not valid criticism. I very quickly addressed even the slightest of suggestions that was raised by Sandy and Yannis - there is nothing I can do about the reviews of someone who admittedly claims that he has superior reviewing talents, and who do not reflect anything specific about the article even though that person also admitted that he knows nothing about the subject matter.
However, I have no time to waste anymore with this. The FAC is clear, and if, for some reason, your superior reviewing talent is not in sync, well, there is nothing much I can do, me thinking talent thinks :)) Baristarim 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Your points are easy enough to refute, but since you've decided to be nasty about it, I won't bother. Please refrain from posting any more to my talk page until you can be constructive and civil. Please take a deep breath and calm down. Your response is not an appropriate way to handle FAC. - Taxman Talk 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am sorry if I was a bit aggressive, however I must also note for the record that I still do not understand the "strong" object part of your post. As for the moment, I am looking into the AG bit, and perusing the FR relations section. Most probably I will revert back to Jeyzel's version since the current version was added later by another user. I will see. All I am saying is I have tried to quickly and efficiently address the concerns of Sandy, Yannismarou, and Fedayee, so I am really trying to make the article better. But please also understand that at such a level for an article, blanket general criticisms are not constructive either. That's why I still don't understand your "strong object" comment right off the bat. You could have simply put a object or comment and listed your specific points and I would have answered your concerns, that's all. I hope that you understand me as well. For example, please see the post left by KBotany at Talk:Turkey about how article flows. The current layout of the article was not written in a day, so any point raised should be specific and precise. I really cannot do anything about "What about the Middle East?" That's not possible. Every point about the Kurds is talked about in relevant sections in an extremely academic and encyclopedic way. Armenian genocide is included in the article, and I will look into the FR section right away. I cannot see anything else here... cheers Baristarim 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that you changed your opinion to object. As I have said, I will look into it as soon as I can. I will let you know about the armenian genocide bit when it will be done (should be in a couple of hours). About the other bits, honestly the only thing that I can say is that I will seriously note them down for future improvements since the article seems to be in good shape even as it is. Unfortunately, I am also busy because of the holidays :) Baristarim 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Thanks for the congratulations : )

Is there a further step I need to take (besides adding myself to the List and/or the Category)? - jc37 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There aren't really any other specific steps. Neither the list nor category are required, in fact, the category is certainly not, that usually only comes in if people use the userbox and certainly not all admins do. Special:Listusers is enough for either. So really the best thing to do is go back through the admin reading list. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What I meant is that I don't show up on Special:Listusers as an admin : ) - jc37 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, I apparently do now : ) - jc37 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That's because I pushed the button. Taxman, looks like you forgot the good old Special:Makesysop ;-). Cheers, Redux 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I just simultaneously left you a message saying you stole the fun part! Got tied up, sorry. - Taxman Talk 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you would like to remove, and re-add, Taxman, I don't mind (Just please remember to re-add : ) - jc37 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no need for that. I've had enough chances to push the promote button, I was just kidding. - Taxman Talk 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(grrr @ edit conflicts) I know, but I had to offer : ) - Besides, as much as I do respect Redux, I was actually looking forward to being promoted by you. I've felt that you've had a bit of a "bad rap" lately, and I've been rather impressed both by your actions during, and after. (I know it sounds dumb, and I know we're all Wikipedians here, but you'd have laughed if you would have seen me cheer when I saw it was you that closed my RfA : ) - Anyway, my great thanks to you both, and I do hope that you're both having an awesomely great day : ) - jc37 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hah, well thanks, now I feel better than if I had gotten to press the button! But seriously I don't feel downtrodden about it. Some people will always complain out of proportion to the importance of an issue. That's a given, but the articles are most important. Everything else should just be here to support that as directly as possible. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, if we did that, the logs would still show two "+sysop" actions. Hey Taxman, sorry about that :-). I didn't realize you were online right now, or else I'd have just "poked you" to push the button. We should drop NoSeptember a note about this (because of his "Crat stats" page), since this promotion is actually yours — and he might add a note to the fact that I just stole your thunder ;-) . Cheers, Redux 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's even farther, so per above, no need. Thanks for catching it. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Taxing Turkey[edit]

Thanks for taking care of this, so I don't have to pay any attention to it. It's nice to be able to support a FAC for once, even if conditioned upon other editors making sure the FAC gets it together. KP Botany 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

re:disruption[edit]

I did not remove any tags from the talk page.I simply addded a tag and made a change to the refference to the article.They keep vandalizing the article.I provided the correct link.

Disruption is if I vandlized the article.I complained about the editors who kept removing the tags,but it seems no actions was taken.Please note:I did not violate the 3RR.If this has to be made an issue,I'd gladly like to discuss it with the WP:ANI.Nadirali 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) , 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the talk page tag, I don't really care about that, I care about the article. You are violating consensus, and yes, that is disruption. - Taxman Talk 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you should care about the tag being removed as it's vandalism.Why not tell them to leave it there?Anyways I have to go now.I've finished writing an article and I won't have time to discuss this right now.Nadirali 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really looked into the tag issue, but that's probably a good idea. - Taxman Talk 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick note:seeing older dicussions between you and Unre4L it seems no one has been willing to listen.How can we then speak of "building consenus" if no one is willing to listen?I tried to make the article neutral by placing "South Asian" instead of "Indian" or "Pakistani".But it seems that's not enough for them either.Please see [wikipedia's neutral policy].And you as a non-South sian don't seem to have a knowledge in the backgorund of the issue. I may bring this dispute up on WP:ANI.But not now I don't have time. However,in the meantime I think you should do some research on the issue rather than believing the other side simply because they happen to be in majority.Please note that [wikipedia is not a democracy].Articles must be based on facts,not majority belifs.The fact is there was no country known as "India" prior to Augest 15th,1947.So calling it "South Asian" as neutral as I can get even though Panani is part of Pakistani history.Nadirali 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is not on your side, and you haven't tried to present the appropriate level of evidence to support your position. Continuing to revert in spite of that is disruption on your part. That's not something appropriate to post on AN/I unless it would be to curtail your editing. As an outsider with no emotions invested in the issue it's really pretty obvious. And you're not just trying to change it to a neutral link, you're trying to change it to your preferred one. - Taxman Talk 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How much more neutral can I get beyond "South Asian"?You clearly know that reverting it to "anceint Indian" from "ancient Pakistani" or the most neutral "south asian" is based on a preffered one.If it must belong to a certain country other than "South Asian",then I don't see a problem in leaving it as Pakistani.There's absoloutly no evidence that he was born in "India" or that the people of Pakistan today called themselves "Indian" during his times(let alone even heard of the word "Indian").Your comments such as "I don't care about that"(tag) or simply being silent to their reverts from South Asian to "ancient Indian" while complaining to me along with being silent to Unre4L's arguements does not give me any evidence to support your claim that you have "no emotions" in the issue. It would defenately be appropriate to post on the WP:ANI if I saw favoritism in an administrator particularly with no knowledge to the issue. However,I may have to discuss it with other users before doing so and doing it when I have the time.Right now I must work on my history assignment on Genghis Khan.Nadirali 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem you are facing is the vast majority of sources refer to it as Ancient India. Sorry, but that's what the English language sources use. Without evidence that the majority of scholars use something else, then using anything else would be incorrect. Again, unless you are willing to provide that evidence you are just wasting everyone's time. And you keep acting like you're reverting to a neutral title, but you're not reverting to "South Asian" now. Even if you were that wouldn't be proper without building consensus either. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again be reminded wikipedia is not a democracy.Again please be reminded that by ignoring Unre4L's arguements,you are not building consensus. I would like to please see your evidence. I am not reverting it to South Asian now,because of their consistant reverts that shows they want to specify the country. In the meantime you can go through [this].It's written by a non-South Asian. Having no knowledge on the issue along with ignoring their consistant vandlism of the tag by "not caring" about it makes it clear you're taking sides. Please abide to wikipedia's neutral policies.Taking sides is not helping. And please assume good faith. If you want to convice me that I'm wrong,then you can start by telling them to leave the tag alone,listen to Unre4L's arguements. Why do you "not care" about the tag?If this is about what you care about,then you are clearly taking sides and it's a clear violation not only the neutral policies but an abuse of administrtive powers. Taking sides is strictly pohibited.Please look [here] to learn more. If you're willing to discuss this with me instead of accusing me of "disruption",refusing to listen to Unre4L(therefor refusal for any concesnus),refusing to learn about the issue,ignoring their reverts,their consistent vandlism,I'm ready to discuss this.But not if you keep a closed mind to it. I think we can talk about this later.I have already recieved three messages that demand my attention.In the meantime,if you're willing to discuss it,please drop me a message. If this is too difficult to dicuss,then I don't see why WP:ANI is not the quickest solution.RegardsNadirali 05:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this has to wait.I am needed elsewhere.If you want to talk about it,then it must wait.Sorry about the delay.Regards.Nadirali 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nadir theres NO DISPUTE here at all. We are not required to argue your fringe revisionist views no matter how many meat-puppets you bring out of the woodwork [16]. It is not wikipedia's problem if Islamic Republic of Pakistan has identity crisis. BTW Its bit rich of you to ask Taxman to assume good faith given that you have been plastering ANI with your innocuous Indian Imperialist conspiracy paranoia... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 08:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute in case you havent noticed, and only arguing can solve it. Maybe if you stopped putting wrong information down, it would stop offending people, and then there wont be a dispute. Unre4L 13:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. Arguing doesn't help, evidence does. You clearly have made no efforts to provide evidence that your position is what is accepted by the consensus of scholars. Until you do that you're wasting everyone's time. - Taxman Talk 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Skimming through your discussion page,it seems that other users seem to have problems with you as well.I also can't help but noticing your interest in Indian articles along with your conversations with Indian nationalists.And seeing you being able to understand words such as "namastie",being able to read the Hindi script along with participating in SA Asian discussion by blindly supporting their statements along with assiting Gashk unleash his nationalistic bots(which has outraged dozens of editors both Iranian and Pakistani)puts me to the question if you really are non-South Asian(Indian origin??) as you claim to be. In case you didn't know User:Szhaider is an administrator on the Urdu wikipedia and he agrees with me that the sources of the articles are all POV based.So now you have another administrator who disagrees with you.So please do not think that being an administrator makes you always right as there are other users and admins who disagree with you.He fully agrees with my reverts and is a frequent target of these Indian nationalists. Please refrain from your consistant display of authoritarianism.Mr Wales despises such kind of attitudes from administrators and like,me despises favoritism. Articles are not there to suit your personal taste,they are based on technical facts not wheather you "care" about them being left the way they are right now. I don't appriciate your bad faith accusations against me.DO not accuse me of "not building consensus" when that's exactly what you're by ignoring Unre4L's arguements.. I have not violated any rules and you're consistant threats against other users along with your silence to the disruptive behaviour of these nationalists is what bothers me.To respond to your calls for "positive contributions",that's exactly what I've done.I've written a whole aricle along with making hundreds of improvements to other articles.I am now in the process of writing another long article. You playing favorites is a clear violation wikipedia's neutral policies. Please do not interfier unless you can take a neutral stand on the issue rather than taking sides and justifying disruptive behaviour(such as vandalizing that tag I keep placing there or their consistitant reverts).Please do not feel insulted by this post,but I am reminding people here to abide to wikipedia's policies,not going the wrong way.Nadirali 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And you wonder why we just remove it without discussing now.Bakaman 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Nadirali, there is a difference in the priority placed on wording in an article and the existence of a talk page tag. It has nothing to do with neutrality to treat them differently. Articles are what need to be neutral. But it's clear you're not even going to try to bring an appropriate level of evidence to support your position, but instead just make large volumes of insulting claims. I'm not sure why I thought you'd try to be reasonable, other than it's a good idea to assume good faith until that assumption no longer makes sense. - Taxman Talk 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting you.I was simply critical of you taking sides with them.I repeatdidly told you I'm trying to make the article neutral.I also told you I question there sources.I also asked you to provide your evidence but you obviously won't. But I now know that you won't change your stance by seeing your closely tied to them(aka Ganashk,who has has had disputes with us before and Anapum,whom we disagree with) either because you simply choose to belive them or that you are one of them.Regrdless of whichever one it is,you are taking their side for either or both reasons.Nadirali 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I side with the sources. Even a cursory check shows that your position is in the minority in the relevant sources, therefore you bear the burden of proof. That's very simple and you're not doing it and aren't even trying. That is the crux of this and nothing else matters. There is no need to keep talking about this if you're not going to try to find evidence for your position. - Taxman Talk 06:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny, because when I use facts and proper sources, they are usually ignored, and threats from certain people kick in. I provided official sources for Ancient Pakistan being a valid term, but certain people still refuse this fact. And other facts like RoI didnt exist in 1910 also go unnoticed. So please dont pretend people here care about sources and logic being provided. Unre4LITY 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with that. For one, the sources that you are using, such as geocities pages do not meet the standards for Wikipedia:Reliable references. But more than that, for the type of claim you are making you'd have to show the predominant opinion among scholars supports your position. One or a couple sources that happen to match your view is not enough. - Taxman Talk 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to argue with him.He'll just continue to ignor it.He doesn't care either way no matter how much evidence you or any other user provides as long as the article stays their way is what matters to them.look at the top of this page and it'll not only show that he's indian but also that he's part of this ultra-imperialist lobby.Let it go.Nadirali 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

None of that is correct. - Taxman Talk 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish[edit]

Hello do you think that you could remove everything from my previous username so that it just appears as a generic "Former user-#".

The old talk page can already be found on my current talk page. I guess I really don't want my real name to appear anywhere on wikipedia, especially since I often edit controversial articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is rename the username, so that it would show a new username in the page histories and contributions. All the posts on talk pages you signed would stay the same. See WP:CHU for more, but what I'd need is for you to sign into your old account and make an edit confirming that you are that user and want the username change. - Taxman Talk 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindi/Sanskrit Wikis[edit]

Hi Taxman, I recall that you were able to make Mitul on Hindi wiki an admin even though the bureaucrats weren't active at the time. I similarly request to become an admin on Sanskrit mainly due to maintenance. There is active user or someone who keeps an eye at Sanskrit Wiki as well as having some solid knowledge of how Wikipedia functions. There are many pages that will be speedied on enwiki in less than 10 minutes but stay on sawiki with a delete tag for over 3 months. Thanks GizzaChat © 10:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All I did was ask a steward on Meta to take care of it after I saw there was enough support for him. For a small wiki it does really have to be on a dedicated RFA page, just something that shows community support for the promotion. So the Village pump or Main page talk page would work. I didn't see anything relating to that when I looked around. - Taxman Talk 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA congratulations[edit]

Thanks for those words. Yep, I do appreciate you closing it exactly on time, though if I had exactly 99 sups I might feel differently ;) As for my experience on Commons, I am aware of the most fundamental difference (fair use), and have been working in that area here for a little; and in the other admin fields I don't have any bad habits to unlearn, as Commons is a working anarchy.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well great, dig in and get to work, and have fun with the tools. Welcome aboard. - Taxman Talk 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS (writing about fiction)[edit]

In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Grammar fix[edit]

No problem! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho FAC[edit]

The Filmfare Awards that incorporate Lage Raho Munna Bhai have not been released yet, GIFA are also increasing in importance these days though and LRMB did well there. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thought that might be the case. I adjusted my comment in light of that info, thanks. - Taxman Talk 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed most of your points. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved the conversation thread to the FAC subpage to keep it consistent. I'll follow that if you don't mind. - Taxman Talk 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha[edit]

I know it's generally bad practice to edit a closed discussion, but that particular user was recently discovered to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, so it seemed worth noting since he was asking a question about how to deal with allegations of sockpuppetry. If this user is ever RfA'd again, people will probably refer to the previous RfA, and it would be good to know one the opponents was acting dishonestly. —Dgiest c 09:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could exempt sock notices, but then we'd probably only do that for confirmed cases. Either way, the RfA's talk page would be sufficient for that type of info. Thanks for trying to help though. - Taxman Talk 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for adminship[edit]

I was on wikipedia for a around two years, but I was not 18 yet, so that is why I just asked for adminship, even though I was only on wikipedia for a couple of weeks.Zach111493 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But you only have a 20 day track record as an editor, so there isn't anything to go on. Don't worry though, some people can have successful RfA's after 3-4 months of outstanding contributions, so just go out and make great edits, and try again after that timeframe. If you'd like some opinions from other's if you're ready, feel free to ask here or at WP:ER. In the meantime spend some time following RfA to get an idea of what is expected and read up on the various policies. Thanks. - Taxman Talk 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words[edit]

This week has been very humbling for me. The tremendous outpouring of support far exceded my wildest expectations. I took another look at the comments by those who did not support and I noticed multiple long-time editors, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, who suggest the same thing - I need to be focused more on writing than I have been. I have started doing that and I'm going to continue to do so. Thank you again and I hope to be worthy of the trust that the community has put in me. --BigDT 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I am grateful for the support I did get and for some of the warranted critics. But I also have to say that I found the whole process quite depressing as it does seem clear that a group of friends and at least one single purpose account opposed in block. I will not let it get me down too much. I could have used the tools but I've been helpful without them and will continue to do so. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it helps any, but even if I ignored that single purpose account, I arrived at the same conclusion. And you know, the best cure for on wiki depression is writing articles. :) Guaranteed. - Taxman Talk 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, I'm handling my wiki depression fairly well. I did not mean to sound as though I was criticizing you for not discounting the vote, which indeed does not make much of a difference. I just found it sad that someone would feel so passionately about my adminship that they would go through all this trouble! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


thank you[edit]

Taxman,

Thanks for the message and decision. I cannot promise to use the tools wisely, but I can promise to do so carefully

--BozMo talk 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, at first reading what you wrote above didn't sound very good, but if you think about how much 'wise' may entail, it's pretty insightful. In any case if you do your best, I'm sure you'll do well. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


question[edit]

Hello, I have an inquiry on how one would go about changing their username. Thanks, --Osbus 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU has all the instructions, just follow them carefully. Though I would encourage continuing to contribute under your current username to avoid tying up resources. In any case, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - Taxman Talk 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


wikipedia-en-admins[edit]

Hello! Just checked your post on the admins noticeboard. I can confirm from my logs that some people have definately been misbehaving on the channel. I have requested and obtained ops in that channel to help with monitoring. Of course, when I'm there, the channel is relatively civilised. But do note how Bishonen points out that the channel is often more civilised when someone who is monitoring is present?

When the channel was set up, I pointed out how it was flawed-by-design at that time. I haven't really been pushing for a replacement before, mostly because I had not heard any bad news (and therefore thought I was probably wrong and that it was working ok).

So while it is true that there are people working on shoring up the channel. I'd just like to confirm that it is also true that Bishonen and Gianos claims aren't entirely off-base either, at least as far as past performance is concerned. --Kim Bruning 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for bureaucrats[edit]

Taxman, I have to say I'm a bit surprised at this comment. I think I understand your intent, but there are people out there who might view such a comment by a bureaucrat as creating an exclusive club where entry is only permitted if it is blatantly obvious there are backlogs. Further, a number of people (myself included) find opposition based on a lack of need of bureaucrats non-compelling. It is quite possible that Nihonjoe was well aware of there being opposition to new candidates based on perceived lack of need and also felt those considerations lacked merit. I haven't done a thorough review, but from what I recollect, opposition based on perceived lack of need is a common, frequent concern. In fact, one of the three opposes on your RfB raised the same point. Regardless of when Deskana or Nihonjoe decided to run, that would most likely be a factor. Lastly, there certainly isn't any policy forbidding bureaucrats from commenting on an RfB as you have. I don't see a conflict of interest here if you are not the one who closes the RfB. That said, the chances of Nihonjoe passing now are zero following an oppose from a bureaucrat. Just something to consider. Obviously you felt strongly enough about this to comment. I doubt you'd make a rash decision to post something that has such implications. --Durin 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I thought about it for quite a while. I had similar thoughts for Deskana's nom, but held back from saying it because I didn't want the appearance of a conflict of interest, even though I believed there wasn't one. As part of the potential conflict of interest that people might see, I'm considering your view that some might think it's trying to create an exclusive club. I don't believe it is, and that's part of what I'm saying I was conscious to make sure I wasn't doing. Some may think there is anyway, and I noted I do understand that, and if people wanted to not consider my comments, it could be ignored. Being another nomination while Deskana's was open and receiving relatively low total response, was what lead to feeling I should comment. But as I said, I believe it demonstrated a lack of reading the community's sentiments, and that is what makes it different from an opposition based on lack of need. When I nominated myself, Cecropia, the person with the most promotions ever, had recently resigned. Only with that potential need combined with me being among the most consistent contributors to RfA over a sustained period of time, did I decide it was valuable enough to offer my help in the role. Even then the need wasn't huge, even with recently expanded tasks. If there had been three very active bcrats at the time, I certainly would not have gone that route, I would have looked elsewhere to where the need was. All that said I don't want my comments to be given too much weight. But if people do take them into account (agreeing or not), then the process is working. - Taxman Talk 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FairTax[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the article - I'll get to work on it right away. I quickly replied to your thoughts - #3 was one I explained a bit. I did want to get clarification on the other note in regard to the sentence "Apart from funding, the legislation would not change government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid." I replied back to that entry. Thanks again Morphh (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption[edit]

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at this point. I'll try to leave more comments on the talk page for specific things to improve. The biggest thing that strikes me is the article name doesn't follow the normal naming scheme. World energy resources and consumption would be better. You should just be able to move it to that name. Also make sure you have done research among the best available sources. You could probably use more on that front. - Taxman Talk 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rob110178bot[edit]

Hi Taxman: would you mind giving a bot flag to Rob110178bot? All the edits are manually approved, but he wants to increase the edit rate more than 3 times per minute, so I think a bot flag would be the best way. Thanks! —Mets501 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can you note that on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rob110178bot and archive the page as a flagged bot? - Taxman Talk 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and no problem, will do. —Mets501 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RCA[edit]

May I ask why you are deleting the older RfAs instead of moving them to the Links to earlier successful nominations section? NoSeptember 07:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, certainly nothing intentional. I generally check all my diffs when using VoA's script, but I'm not quite as vigilant on the archive pages. Perhaps VoA is messing with me/us? :) - Taxman Talk 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. This was the third time it happened, your edits of the 24th and the 25th did the same thing. The automatic archiving is a good idea to keep the page from getting transclusion heavy... if it works :). NoSeptember 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JFBurton[edit]

I'm not sure if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JFBurton was a serious request - JF is hard to fathom from my very limited interactions with him - but it's clearly not going to be a successful one, having racked up a score of 0/14/0 so far. An early close, to put it out of its misery, may be the decent thing under the circumstances. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I was looking into it when the yellow bar from your message popped up. :) - Taxman Talk 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Tax[edit]

Hi there I see you are part of the tax project here on wiki. well I have gotten new information that might help out. I orignally created the article however with you alls help it has become better then ever so thanks alot on that =) now down to the info. Game memberships are said or at least speculated to include taxes in the membership fee. im sorry i have no sources for this but i will look for some. Paypal Usally charges a 1 dollar tax for each transaction. seeing as paypal is on the internet means that the taxes it charges falls under Virtual tax since they are charged online (or virtually) I hope you can do good with this information take care Maverick423 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Transactions on the internet aren't virtual in the same sense, the internet is just the medium in that case. Virtual tax seems to apply to purely virtual transactions such as with in-game imaginary currency. I don't know anything about it, so the only advice I can give it to go to a research library and look for the best available sources on the topic. - Taxman Talk 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Finance[edit]

I'd like to invite you to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance and weigh in on its formation, principles, etc. --Leifern 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have to decline for now, and wish you luck. It would be better if I don't bite off more than I can chew. But I'll keep an eye on it. - Taxman Talk 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Supply and Demand[edit]

Would you, when you have time, revisit the talk page of supply and demand Talk:Supply and demand and review the progression of the dicussion. Given that this was a FA at one point it would be nice to maintain this at some level of quality so that it can be eventually brought to GA status and improve from there. I'm moving away from there for the moment. It seems there lots of discussion but little dialouge. Cheers Joel Kincaid 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I added my two cents for what it's worth. - Taxman Talk 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on adding more text to India[edit]

It would be great if you could weigh in (howsoever briefly and at your convenience) on Talk:India#Request_for_Comment:_Adding_new_material_to_the_India_page_history_section. The RfC invites comments on how to deal with new additions (some extensive and by new users) to the India page, an FA. Here is also a description (albeit from my perspective) of the events that led to the RfC: Talk:India#What_exactly_I_.28Fowler.26fowler.29_did. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I am honored to become an admin and appreciate the community's support. I will continue to perform the tasks which I promised to do. - Gilliam 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you make of this?[edit]

Contingent Workforce Outsourcing#History Have Gun, Will Travel 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did my edit provide answer enough? :) The article itself seems plausible, but without some references I can't be sure. The external links make it seem like it was an article created just to link to those. - Taxman Talk 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. My guess is it's self promotion. See what links here [17], and what appears to be a non-notable vanity page [18]; both articles are created by the same user [19]. While Contingent Workforce Outsourcing returns some Google hits, I've never heard of it, and don't see what the difference between it and a Professional employer organization or a payroll service is. Any comments or time for an AfD or two? Have Gun, Will Travel 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to research them, but the term seems rather fluffed up for basic payroll efforts, yes. And tat bio also has lots of fluffed up language that needs to be culled, but if that entrepreneur magazine is legit, then that justifies an article perhaps, though really only if there are additional sources. Ask on the talk page for better references. If they aren't forthcoming, then an afd (or two) would be in order. - Taxman Talk 04:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin at Hi wikipedia[edit]

Can you please promote user hi:सदस्य:Wolf to administrator at Hindi Wikipedia. He has done wonderful job at Hindi Wikipedia, he has very good knowledge on how wiki works. Also, it seems that I am the only active administrator there. Hindi Wikipedia has experienced increase in popularity in last couple of months. Promoting Wolf to administrator will definitely help to sustain Hindi Wikipedia's growth.
Thanks,
--Mitul0520 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't make the promotion as I'm not a bureaucrat on the Hindi wikipedia, but I've asked Yann to take a look. Hopefully he can get to it soon. - Taxman Talk 20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA Question[edit]

Hi, Taxman. I currently running an RfA, but it appears I obviously will not have enough consensus to pass. But I was wondering, exactly why was Carnildo promoted in this RfA when he/she only had about 61% support? How was this promotion possible? Just curious. -- P.B. Pilhet 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain as long as you know the background. Have you read the previous explanations of why the promotion was made?. I'd just request you refer to those points specifically and let me know what I could clarify. The short version is there were extraordinary circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated, and those made judging strictly on numbers not the best course of action. - Taxman Talk 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I skimmed through the discussion on the RfA's talk page, and I think I got it now. He was desysopped after a wheel-warring incident, and reinstated on a temporary basis. He was then put through the RfA process again, and since there were more supports than oppose, he was allowed to continue being an admin. Did I get that all right? Like I said, I only skimmed throught the talk page, as there appears to be a lot of reading there. -- P.B. Pilhet 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- Please don't think I'm asking for special consideration on my own RfA; I was simply curious about how Carnildo was passed (it said in the history that there was a discussion among several bureaucrats). I don't want any special consideration on my own RfA; if I'm going to pass (or fail), I want it to be the fair way. -- P.B. Pilhet 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, Carnildo's promotion was very much the fair way. - Taxman Talk 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I wasn't implying that Carnildo's RfA wasn't fair. I simply meant that it would be unfair for me to ask for special consideration in my RfA. I trust all the bureaucrats were correct in what they did. -- P.B. Pilhet 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks[edit]

Okay, Thanks, (sorry to be so redundant). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TylerJarHead (talkcontribs) 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the advice[edit]

Thanks for the advice. I'm probably not going to wait as long as you suggest, since that would mean about another year (the sanctions expire in November—except for one very pointless "probation" that the ArbCom says will remain in place for the rest of my life—so November + a few months puts us around February 2008). I'm thinking around six months, maybe sooner on the off chance I can get the sanctions lifted before then. I waited five months between the last nom (which was immediately after the desysopping) and this one, and the result improved quite substantially (from around 20% support to around 45%). Everyking 05:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, don't say I didn't warn you. :) Patience would go a long way towards demonstrating maturity. I don't see any likelihood of the restrictions being lifted, nor of a successful RfA with them in place. Just my take for what it's worth. - Taxman Talk 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Re-added my link roth-401k-forum.com to Roth 401k. Can you please explain why you keep deleting it? You keep in the link to roth401k.com but take mine out? My site has more information, more visitors and more original content. I added that link way back in December 2005 well before anyone even knew what a Roth 401k was and certainly before the link to roth401k.com was put in there. It was reviewed back then by several people and they all agreed it was ok. Now you come along all delete happy and take it out. How can you justify taking my link out and leaving roth401k.com link? Even some of the content written on the Roth 410k page was taken from my site. My site is useful to anyone who has questions about Roth 401k. Please explain.

Responded on Talk:Roth 401(k). That's probably the better place to discuss it. - Taxman Talk 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail[edit]

Hi Taxman, I sent you an email earlier today and I was wondering if you received it. I sent a copy to myself, but it has not arrived yet, so I'm wondering if that is the case with you. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I got it no problem. Just didn't have a chance to respond. Thanks for the info. - Taxman Talk 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

Can you elaborate (here or on the RFA) as to what your specific concerns are from my prior RFA? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Indian Mathematics[edit]

I thought you might be interested (at your convenience): Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Marskell's RfA[edit]

I don't suppose you realise, but you supported this... number 80 support. I don't suppose it matters greatly, but just letting you know. Majorly (o rly?) 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I knew that, but it wasn't even in the range where I could have failed it if I wanted to. I was essentially doing paperwork. - Taxman Talk 16:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No need for the sharp response, I was just reminding you. I'll steer clear next time. Majorly (o rly?) 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, the difficulties of written communication. My response was certainly not meant to be the least bit sharp. Sorry about that, I was just in the middle of a few things. Perhaps I should have included an emoticon. :) - Taxman Talk 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't think you'd do that intentionally. Btw a candidate I nominated will be ready to close at 22:33 (UTC). Will you be online then to close that? Majorly (o rly?) 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Thanks Tax. I'm glad you were the one who promoted me. Marskell 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on WT:RFA[edit]

You have probably have more experience with RfAs, you being a bureaucrat and everything, but I respectfully disagree with you. I'm finding I'm disagreeing with you (and vice versa) over a lot of things, particularly regarding RfAs and since I don't want us to "distract ourselves" from the project (which is the whole lot, including bureaucracy, not just building articles) I think we should try and avoid any further conflict. What do you think? Majorly (o rly?) 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you didn't say what you disagreed with and I believe based on the body of discussions around RfA over the years that you'd eventually agree with what I was getting at there. But as you astutely point out, the articles are more important, and the cost vs benefit of the discussion probably wouldn't end up as a net benefit. In general though differences of opinion aren't a problem as long as they're handled reasonably well. But it would probably be better if you simply stated your difference of opinion and left it at that rather than making comments such as the first part of [20]. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree and moving on to work on more important things, but that type of comment doesn't contribute positively. - Taxman Talk 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, please ignore my ranty email. I've been a bit fed up lately and I was probably over-harsh, and I apologise if I annoyed or offended you - or wasted your time. You obviously do a good job here, and you have a good positive outlook about Wikipedia, which is only a good thing. See you around. Majorly (o rly?) 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. - Taxman Talk 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Selketbot[edit]

Hi, I noticed the bot didn't correctly check for the template already being substituted onto a talk page. Is that something it's coded to do or does it just check for {{? Great bot by the way. - Taxman Talk 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The template should not be substituted. See: Template_talk:SharedIP#Prefered_method_of_usage. The bot does check if the template is transcluded, but cannot check if it has been substituted because the template can change. Every now and then someone substitutes the template and the bot makes this mistake. I'll go ahead and delete the duplicate. --Selket Talk 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You could run checks based on old revisions of the template, no? I wouldn't think it changes that much. It's not a big deal of course unless there are a lot of them substituted. Do you have a way to check that or would it be easier to check old versions of the template? - Taxman Talk 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The bot keeps a local cache of IPs so it will never hit the same page again. It happened several times the first two days I ran the bot. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that it has happened since, so I'm inclined not to worry about it unless it becomes more of a problem. If it does it again, please let me know and I'll look into adding some old versions of the template to the step where it checks before adding the template. --Selket Talk 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RCA[edit]

Looks like your script is still acting up [21] [22] [23], though not every time. I fixed the page, I guess we'll just have to check every once in a while to see what hidden deletions there have been ;). NoSeptember 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Darnit, I keep forgetting to check the diffs on those pages. I'll have to talk to VoA about fixing it up too. Thanks for fixing it up. - 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations[edit]

Thanks for your note and your inputs over the two RFAs. I definitely want to keep the comments and criticisms in mind - I have no illusions that I am any less flawed than anyone else, and I believe that everyone may benefit from listening to input from others less personally involved in things. Among other things, I have a strong desire to keep admin actions separate from anything that I may choose to advocate which becomes controversial. Feel free to drop me a talk page note or email at any time if you have additional discussion or suggestions. Georgewilliamherbert 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's clear you're doing a good job, so keep it up. That added to self reflection is a good combination. - Taxman Talk 18:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for celebrating[edit]

Thanks for celebrating together with me after my RfA. A big blessing to you! --Deryck C. 03:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just found out that you were the nice crat who made me sysop. Though the RfA is closed bit late, you still deserve a big thanks. --Deryck C. 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Help to be an administrator[edit]

I want to be an administrator because I get the rights to do something. I need your help to be an administrator please. Can you help me please? Jet123 15:51, 3 march 2007 (UTC)

Please close RfA nomination[edit]

Please close Bubba hotep's RfA nomination. Nomination is now overdue. — Meteoroid »  00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing my comments[24][edit]

It's not my fault that the nom closed his own candidacy while I was writing my comment and that my comment was auto-conflict merged by mediawiki so I was totally unaware of the self-closure. It really stinks to spend many minutes researching and writing only to later return and find your comments wiped off the page. I'm frustrated and upset by your action, and I hope that you consider a little more carefully in the future. --Gmaxwell 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're upset, but what I did is very standard. We don't allow comments after closing and I had no way to know whether you did or didn't get an edit conflict and make the edit anyway. I assumed good faith that you didn't, but I chose to simply be consistent in order to not play favorites. I'd say it's not something worth getting upset about or accusing me of not considering carefully, but I guess that's not up to me. Your comments are still in the history and Wikipedia is no worse off having them there instead of on the page. - Taxman Talk 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the practice. Removing comments in such a matter is easily taking as an insulting act and doing so does nothing to foster teamwork and co-operation. I do not believe that your claim that "Wikipedia is no worse off" is supported by the facts. My comment was in a minority in that it pointed a novel pattern of concerns which we not addressed in the other opposition. I do not believe that it's unlikely that Ryan will apply again after the Essjay noise dies down, and at that time my concerns should be addressed. They will not, however, be if they are concealed in the history. An argument that my view is equally preserved through its presence in the history would be effectively equal to an argument to blank the page entirely. If you blanked the page entirely post closure you would not have heard an objection from me. It would be far more respectful to participants if you simply moved their comments to the talk page or otherwise noted them as being made post closure rather than effectively deleting them entirely.
I understand that you intended no harm, and as a matter of respect I will refrain from combing through your contributions for things which I could construe as inequitable treatment on this matter. I did not ask you to revert your removal since my point was largely mooted by the withdraw, my intention in primarily to make you aware of the harmful aspect of your action. --Gmaxwell 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a practice that's been in place for all RfA's since I can recall. You're the first to not know of it that I've seen. If you'd like to change the practice, bring it up on WT:RFA, but again it is standard practice, not just by me. If I had not removed your comment, someone else would have. - Taxman Talk 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue de table[edit]

Well, the feast is over for this time, and off we go into a period of intellectual fast. But mayhaps will we meet again some day to make more medieval merry! My regards to you for your comments at the nomination.

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 07:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

I respond to you here. Quadzilla99 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Truce alright? I still think the Britannica/Encarta point I made is a good one. Maybe if you get time you can look through the article and see that it's very tame now, or at least change your vote back to neutral if you're not going to read it. Quadzilla99 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Vividly is removed. Quadzilla99 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Really as I said please read through the article, I'm fairly sure it's fine now the strongest adjective in the article now is impressive which is used just once, the next strongest is good which is used once or twice in the player profile section (to put his statistics into context which is used when describing his rebounding numbers, so non-basketball fans can understand they were good for a guard). I just looked at in comparison to Wayne Gretzky (another FA) and it's extremely generic when compard to Gretzky in terms of adjectives. Whatever your objections were I don't see how they could possibly still exist. At this point opposing on previous grounds is in my opinion getting a little ridiculous. Quadzilla99 12:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Thanks for the note - I'm happy to close it; am just spending a little more time checking it out as its majority is smaller. Warofdreams talk 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just didn't want to close it out from under you or something. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chacor 2[edit]

Hi. I saw in my watchlist that you unprotected this page, citing the WP:BN discussion. Am I missing something? Five different admins + Amarkov removed the user's comments, protected the page, or expressed support for the same at WP:BN. Only you and the user himself expressed displeasure with the decision. I wouldn't see a problem with an auto-expiring protection that would go away after some arbitrary period of time (like a month), but I'm not seeing any consensus that the page should be unprotected. I have nothing but respect for you, for your position, and for your viewpoint, but I believe that this unprotection was in error and that if any further unproductive comments are left on the page, it should be re-protected for some arbitrary period of time. Thank you. --BigDT 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no discussion supporting the protection. By default pages should not be protected and I indicated my intent to unprotect it. There is nothing in the protection policy supporting that protection. - Taxman Talk 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

WikiThanks.png Thank you so much for your congrats re. my recent successful RFA. I'm delighted to have the mop and bucket now & will endeavour to wield it fairly in support of the wiki. Thanks again :) - Alison 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome indeed. :) - Taxman Talk 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Email[edit]

You have mail. Please also take a look at User talk:CrystalizedAngels to see the extent of the problem. The user now states it is his/her goal to have every IP in Zurich blocked from editing: "No one using the public resources of this city will be contributing to english wikipedia. Thats the way I want it." link - auburnpilot talk 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not likely that I'll be able to get to it, but in general don't worry too much. Even if the whole city is blocked from editing, Wikipedia will move on. Try tracking the edits, running checkuser, and contacting the ISPs/organizations calmly and see if they are willing to do anything about it. Better place to try to get some help is AN/I though. - Taxman Talk 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I've posted on WP:AN/I before and it was ignored. I've also emailed multiple admins with no response. The problem I'm having is with the range block for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd)‎; I guess I'll just wing it. auburnpilot talk 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC: Cholangiocarcinoma[edit]

Hello - thanks for your comments and suggestions here, regarding improving the cholangiocarcinoma article. I've made some changes to incorporate your suggestions; please take a look and see what you think. MastCell Talk 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi Taxman. Just saw you at Sasaram which is under my watchlist, and stopped by to say a hello. I think you are almost regular in Hindi Wikipedia? I am not able to contribute there actively as my Hindi typing is rather slow though I know Hindi very well. --Bhadani 02:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help out there as much as possible. I'm not fluent, so it's harder, but it's nice to help the small project grow. We could use your help. An awful lot of things just need the very basic information. Other things don't even need devanagari at all, just input. As far as typing, after a little while I've gotten used to touch typing the devanagari characters without needing to see them. I refer to an image of the devanagari incript layout if I need uncommon characters, but that's about it. It wasn't really too hard to learn, you'd be a wiz at it soon. Other people use software keyboards I think, but that's much slower for me. I do have a hindi question if you don't mind my asking. I've been trying to figure out how to do a comparison with more complex ideas. For example I can understand hindi a little better than I can speak it. The only thing I could come up with to say that in one sentence is मैं समझ सकता हूँ और से मैं बोल सकता हूँ, but I can't tell if that's right. - Taxman Talk 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Site Notice[edit]

नमस्कार टैक्सवाला, listening to your advice, I made a पृष्ठ देवनागरी सहायता के लिए image here for the Site Notice. Now I just need it to link directly to hi:विकिपीडिया:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts. I was wondering if you could help me out. I tried the click template, but it didn't work. Thank you.--Wolf talk | हिन्दी 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work, that's really nice. After experimenting the syntax has to be something like {{क्लिक|image=Dev-Sitenotice.PNG|largeur=160px|hauteur=20px|lien=विकिपीडिया:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts}}. The template's parameters are in French, and the largeur and hauteur seem to be required. - Taxman Talk 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Removal of link on roth ira & others[edit]

Hi Taxman I appreciate your efforts to keep wikipedia clean and remove spam.

First time I posted link and links were removed by you with reason better links available. Then I read about WP:EL and I totaly agree with you. I learnt that and then tried to post the comparisons of retirement accounts which is clearly not available on wiki. In fact link I provided gives nice direct comparison. If you think it is already available in better way, please point me to exact location. Thanks.

There are quite a number of reasons listed in Wikipedia:External links that indicate those links are not appropriate. There are much better and more reliable sources that contain comparisons. In fact all the needed information for the comparison can be drawn from IRS sources. - Taxman Talk 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot[edit]

I've updated betacommand's bot request pages with clearer notes. Basically all of his old approvals were withdrawn permanently, but future requests may supersede the old requests, including the exact same task. The old approvals are kept for historical reason and for other reference purposes, but are no longer valid. The new approvals process, since it supersededs the old one, is designed to force him to go through the community oversight process once more in order to gain back the trust of the community and to clarify what he can and can't do. As a result, the bot flag has been requested. -- RM 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done and I changed the link on the approved requests to the task that has been re-approved. - Taxman Talk 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Hi Bhadaniji, I had a question for you in response to your comments on my talk page if you have a minute. - Taxman Talk 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi nice to find you on my page. Yes. I am here only. --Bhadani (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be: मैं समझ सकता हूँ और मैं बोल सकता हूँ. This is better. But, you are really great! --Bhadani (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please withdraw my RFA[edit]

It looks like my RFA is not going to succeed, so I don't want to waste people's time. Please close it as a withdrawal by the candidate, and thank you. Best regards. YechielMan 14:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. --Durin 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Durin. - Taxman Talk 15:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you de:Benutzer:Taxman?[edit]

Hi, Taxman. JzG and I posted something at the German Wikipedia Amin Noticeboard. See here. A German user with the name Taxman translated Guy's post there, and then posted something at the English Admin Noticeboard. See here. The beginning of his signature links to your userpage, but the rest of it links to his German userpages. Based on your Babel boxes, I think you can't be the same person. If you're not, perhaps you should change the link on his signature at WP:AN. Otherwise it's a bit confusing. ElinorD (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not. :) If you check the page history, it links to his userpage here. I'd rather not change his signature myself, but I'll ask him to change the pages already signed and to change it going forward. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I was about to ask the same thing. Voice-of-All 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I thought we were a case of well known same name, different people. Maybe I'll need to update my userpage to make sure people aren't confused. - Taxman Talk 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Taxman, Thanks for the mop and the encouragement. I look forward to getting stuck in (but will be very careful with it to begin with!). Cheers, Waggers 07:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG Incivility[edit]

So I was feeling tired, and I'll probably regret it in the morning, but... [25].

Feel free to yell at me ;-)

--Kim Bruning 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn[edit]

Please withdraw my nomination at RevRagnarok 2 when you get a chance. I've removed it from the main list, but assume there is a template wrapper that will need to go on it. Thanx. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly (talk · contribs) got it. Thanx anyway. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

re:bot[edit]

thanks a lot for the status, --dario vet (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. - Taxman Talk 13:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you, sir. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Meno25 08:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome indeed. And please do that. :) - Taxman Talk 13:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you, I'll do my best with the tools. Darthgriz98 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail sent[edit]

I sent you an e-mail. Also, if you can let me know how long it'll take, that'd be great- if it won't be past, say, 01:00 or 02:00 UTC, I'll hold the Signpost for a story on the RFA. Ral315 » 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

With most unfortunate timing I had to take care of a few things. Sorry, I'll read your email in a minute. - Taxman Talk 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heat versus light[edit]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think my comments have helped to defuse what could have been somewhat delicate situation if the claims about Dan hadn't been challenged. And these things do need to be challenged, you know, or else they fester hang around and cause problems later. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again I think it's fairly clear that you're not diffusing at all, but making it worse and making people angry. If you don't believe me, try to self assess or ask a few people. - Taxman Talk 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'll take your word for it. It appears to me that the discussion after I entered was very amicable and civil, much better than those very nasty accusations against Dan which I defused. I don't see any anger here at all. As I said, I'll take your word for it. I've stopped. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi[edit]

Hey Taxman, I just came here to ask you to Pliz close my admin request Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cometstyles because of a certain rude Admin my chances of having a fair-go has failed and it was just because of an edit I made yesterday after I returned from a break of about a month. My unblemished record was destroyed by an Admin which has forced me to ask for your help...Thanks..--Cometstyles 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Devdas (soundtrack)[edit]

I have reverted you. While it is a stub, I don't think it's proper to have too much information on the page of the film. Having an article (even a stub) allows for easier expansion of the article... and I think one of the most popular Bollywood film soundtracks counts as notable. I understand your point but I think having the article only adds to the possibility of future expansion and is notable enough to deserve a page. gren グレン 02:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it is notable, it's whether there's enough information to justify an article. If there's nothing more in the article than the subsection, then it doesn't need one. Please don't revert without discussing. - Taxman Talk 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. If you want to change that then you can put it up for AfD. Sorry if you think I'm being difficult. gren グレン 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I do have a question. For Lethal Weapon (soundtrack) and Lethal Weapon is it better not to do a complete track listing on the film page? It is a little different in an Indian film where each song has its own prominent place in the film. Is there a standard for that? I am not sure that there should even be an album box on the film page (even though I added it because I saw it on another article). Especially the composer's next and former albums.
I also reverted while mentioning it to you... I think the onus is on you when removing an article. I am not sure why I care enough about this to (try to) make you go to AfD, but, I suppose I do? I understand that much of it is repeated but 1) I think the subjects should be handled in a different manner on the two pages. 2) I think the infobox if it remains on the film page should not have "Ismail Darbar chronology" or genre for that matter. gren グレン 03:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference is 100% of Devdas (soundtrack) is duplication. That never justifies an article. You'd have to have a reliable source that justifies the album being important in it's own right. For Devdas (soundtrack), you may get that, but again, the source and substantial additional ones are needed first. It doesn't matter where the onus is, WP:V and WP:NOR are clear. - Taxman Talk 06:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You never answered about proper inclusion of soundtrack information on film articles. The soundtrack article was created before any of that information on film and then some of it was imported by me and other users to the film article. Knowing what should be on the film article changes whether a soundtrack article is a duplicate or not. gren グレン 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. WP:SUMMARY along with other guidelines and best practices calls for subsections of articles to cover material in relation to the importance of the subtopic to the overall one. I think a little more description of the soudtrack, it's production and sales, reception, impact etc would be better than the primarily listings that are there currently. Then the listings and further details could justify the creation of a daughter article if additional information was also available. If there's no additional information ready to be added imminently to the article I feel it would be best not to have the daughter article be 100% duplicative. Oh, and I actually am the Taxman, so if I'm sharper than normal for the next few days it's because I'm gorging on tax returns. - Taxman Talk 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did slave away for so long to create that stub so seeing my work removed was oh so painful. :) I don't think I particularly care about the issue anymore so I may expand it in the future but for now I'll let it rest in peace. Good luck with taxes (and making money from them). gren グレン 02:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen statement[edit]

Hello!

For the record, could you please state your precise reasoning (step by step) wrt the closing of the Mackensen Request for Bureaucratship, and the decision not to give Mackensen a bureaucrat flag?

I'd like to have an "official" statement, to help me examine the system design.

Thank you for your time!

--Kim Bruning 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement for the record is that there was too much substantive opposition to judge it to be a consensus to promote considering the generally expressed feeling that RfB's should have a higher standard of consensus to pass. I can try to expand if you really think it would help but I would ask you to justify the effort involved. :) - Taxman Talk 17:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The Mackensen RFB had a particular platform, where the candidate promised to actually judge requests for adminship/bureaucratship by consensus, as opposed to by majority. So he was in fact promising to use the (original) actual RFA/RFB procedure. Hence this particular RFB was very interesting to a large number of people.
I'm basically trying to figure out exactly what procedure you yourself followed on this day, because there will likely be (wiki)political consequences down the line, one way or the other, that I'd like to be prepared for. :-/
So please do take the time to expand. :-)
--Kim Bruning 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess there's not too much I can say. He chose to run with a specific platform, substantial opposition was raised to his becoming a bcrat based on that platform. In addition to judging it myself to not be a consensus after reading through the nomination, I don't see a reasonable argument how it could be judged as one under a higher standard for consensus. - Taxman Talk 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Without being pushy (I won't follow this edit up and you'll probably never hear anything more from me on the subject of this close) I'd appreciate a more complete explanation of this close. Because the community gave a very complex and nuanced opinion, I think the close should be summarised in a manner that reflects that. I know you have a lot of work to do, but if you could spare the time for this I'd be very grateful. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I too would appreciate a closing message which consisted of more than "it just is, right?". Cheers —Phil | Talk 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Due to popular demand, I'll write up something expansive, but it may require some patience in waiting for. :) I thought the above would suffice, but I have been presented with evidence that I was not omniscient. - Taxman Talk 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikicite and Wikicat[edit]

Hi Taxman, I remember that you were the one who mentioned m:Wikicite and w:Wikicat. We are now preparing to test this system on a password-entry wiki I have at the college - we expect to have things uploaded in the coming weeks. If you would be interested in helping in "piloting" this project please let me know here. Cheers, Walkerma 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar

Thank you for your essential contributions to wikipedia! Samillia 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Corporation Tax[edit]

Hi. I've been working on this article for FAR, but I've got to the point where I can't see the wood for the trees. As you expressed an interest earlier, any time you have to take a look at the article and see where work is still required would be appreciated. Winklethorpe (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Having an experienced eye say it's nearly rescued makes me feel much better. I'm going to try to cast a sterner eye on the lead than I have done - I don't really think I "get" leads at the moment, so I've not looked at it properly. Thanks again, Winklethorpe (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the ideal lead summarizes the most important points of the rest of the article, balancing each topic by it's importance. That way someone can get an overview just by reading it. Every article should also be balanced in it's importance as well, it's just challenging to do for the lead sometimes. If you feel you are confident with the prose in most of the article, let me know and I can have a go at the lead if it needs anything. - Taxman Talk 05:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the lead is frustrating me at the moment. Anything you can do with it would be a help. You took out "Previously, companies and associations had paid income tax with the current tax borrowing its basic structure and many of its rules from the income tax system.". I entirely agree with your comment when you removed it. Corporation tax is just income tax split off by a distinction between individuals and corporations, which has increasingly diverged with time. In fact, the way CT is worded, it follows the income tax rules for charging unless specificly stated otherwise. I'd like to get that into the lead in some way, without being over-technical about it. Winklethorpe (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, when I think about it that means the second half of that sentence at least should go back. Of course the distinction should be made if there are elements that are not income based such as wealth tax, but I didn't see that so far. - Taxman Talk 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
On the "need for greater revenues" section you've commented on: I've gone back over it, and I've not been able to work out what that sentence is talking about. I first thought there'd been an accidental change of meaning in an edit, but it seems to have been "from" since it was first added. From what I can make out from the sources, I think there have been two changes in approach, one in 96, and another in 2002, but I can't work the details out. Given that it's a rather technical detail that affects only a minority of companies, I'm going to remove it unless I can verify it soon. Winklethorpe (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I've twigged - on the "Previously, companies and associations had paid income tax with the current tax borrowing its basic structure and many of its rules from the income tax system.", you feel the first half implies that CT is not an income tax? I'd not noticed before :) Winklethorpe (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai is in FAC[edit]

The FAC of Lage Raho... has started. You commented in theprevious FAC. Please do visit this time, too. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to this list, LRMB is third top grossing movie of 2000-2009. I may have missed something. Is it written somewhere that the film is tenth? 10th in the list is Kaho Na Pyar Hai.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA stuff[edit]

Hi,

My reply to your comments at Eukesh's RfA:

"If I really believed that competence was irrelevant to adminship, I'd support giving every registered user adminship -- very few of our registered users are vandals; but, a great many of our newer editors would make legions of little errors, wasting loads of time correcting them. I understand that small errors can be corrected, but an uninformed admin can make loads of those small errors in a short time, creating a big problem. I'm glad the editor knows bots and coding well, but that is hardly synonymous with adminship. I'm sorry to be harsh, Taxman, but I believe your view is short-sighted; if it were generally accepted, we'd have lots of very nice newbies making thousands of tiny admin mistakes each day, and Wikipedia would be become even less reliable than it already is."

I'm not at all surprised to see your comments, considering that critizing RfA's standards is all the rage these days. Still, I think it's silly to say that competence is irrelevant to an RfA. It is much better to have someone spend an extra month or two learning the in-and-outs, rather than having them fumble with the mop in their first few months. Adminship is testy enough when one is well-prepared for it. To grant it too early risks burning-out a well-meaning but underqualified mopper, as well the problem of "many tiny errors make big chaos" that I mentioned above.

On the other hand, maybe we just mean different things by the word "trust". I use it in the broad sense of "good-faith contributor, not out to kill us." This is subtly different from the idea of "trusting someone to mind the store" -- the latter defintion implies a level of competence. In that sense, I don't trust Eukesh yet: in my opinion, he isn't ready to mind the store. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

महादेवी वर्मा[edit]

हिंदी विकिपीडिया पर क़रीब ज़्यादा एक निर्वाचित लेख है! अभी चर्चा चल रहा है। सिर्फ़ एक बाक़ी काम है: वह लेख की सब तस्वीरें की कॉपीराइट लाइसंस टैग दे ज़रूरत है। मैं बहूत कॉपीराइट और लाइसंसिंग के बारे में जानता नहीं हूँ। I was wondering if you could join the conversation and advise us on what to do with the images at hi:विकिपीडिया:निर्वाचित लेख उम्मीदवार#महादेवी वर्मा. Thank you! --Wolf talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you're a much more experienced Wikipedian than me, I would like to ask you a question: is महादेवी वर्मा ready to be promoted to featured status?--Wolf talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 09:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Everything is set except the images. Not many of them are properly licensed, but I can't explain such technical issues in Hindi. Only picture's one takes oneself can be licensed under the GFDL, etc or if the original creator chooses licenses it, they can do so. I'm not sure I was successful trying to say that in Hindi. Otherwise works have to be older than 1923 or so or otherwise be ineligible for copyright. Basically all the scanned pictures currently in the article need to be taken out, leaving only the book covers. That's not great, because they are fair use, but they are properly tagged and the article only needs a few images. It would be better though to get a truly free image. Perhaps someone can be contacted to donate one. - Taxman Talk 13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TwinsMetsFan[edit]

I believe the RfA has ended in time, being past 00:27 May 1, 2007.--U.S.A. cubed 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right. That RfA is not at the bottom of the main page of RfAs, so I may have miscalculated.--U.S.A. cubed 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The end time just wasn't corrected after the nomination was accepted and listed on WP:RFA. Not a huge problem, but it was a big enough discrepancy that I fixed it. Thanks for noticing and letting me know. - 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket RfA[edit]

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I hope to live up to everyone's expectations. I'm sure I will be taking you up on your offer for help before too long. --Selket Talk 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, who said I was offering? :) I just said don't hesitate to ask. Just kidding, feel free. - Taxman Talk 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Software Question[edit]

I don't know who else to ask but, where would I go to find documentation on how to add log features like user creation log, etc to another wiki that only uses standard MediaWiki software. If you would be so kind, please respond on my talk page. Thanks for your time. --Charitwo 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not your best software source, but Wikipedia:MediaWiki or Help:Contents/Technical information should be able to help you or give you enough links to find what you need. - Taxman Talk 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Social Chair[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Social Chair, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Acidskater 06:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine all I did was try to clean up someone else's mess. Let me know if someone de-prods it and if it goes to AfD. - Taxman Talk 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

You closed my RfA, but I am awaiting admin status. Sr13 (T|C) 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that, that's because I actually have to press the button for you. :) Now you can go to town. - Taxman Talk 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Sr13 (T|C) 07:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA/Slumgum[edit]

moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Slumgum. If any further discussion is necessary, please do so there. - Taxman Talk 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll certainly bear it in mind as I get to grips with the tasks and tools.  Sʟυмgυм • т  c  19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Corporation Tax FAR[edit]

Hi, there's a been a comment made by User:Outriggr on the FAR about the first para of the History section. I agree it needs changing as it's not really clear to a lay reader, but I've been struggling to rewrite it. Do you have any suggestions? Winklethorpe (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple small changes that hopefully helped, and left comments on the PR page. - Taxman Talk 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance - I've replied about "revenue" on the FAR page. Winklethorpe (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the Runcorn article. I've re-written the lead to get rid of the confusion and had a go at reducing the number of sub-sections and short paragraphs. I've also taken note of the automated peer review suggestions and have in particular removed a lot of 'redundant' words and phrases. How's it looking now? Any more advice or suggestions? Is it getting anywhere near FA quality? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I left some further comments at the peer review page. I generally find it works better if the comments are all kept together, but keep at it and you'll have a FAC soon. - Taxman Talk 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had another go following your suggestions and my response is on the peer review page. If there is a delay in my future responses, it's because I shall be away - on holiday! Peter I. Vardy 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg[edit]

Hello Taxman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Taxman/Archive1. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PaxEquilibrium[edit]

If you've been looking over this one, I'd be very happy for you to close it. As it looks like quite a complex RfA, I've left it until last, and haven't really begun checking it over yet. Warofdreams talk 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

United States Taxation template[edit]

I'd like to get your thoughts on the U.S. taxation template under discussion at WikiProject Taxation. Thanks Morphh (talk) 1:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Tournesol.png

A quick note to say thanks for your hard work and good attitude. We hardly ever interact, but your hard work really gets noticed -- Samir 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you very much it is good to be noticed. :) Glad to see you're still plugging away too. - Taxman Talk 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new U.S. Corp. tax article. :-) Morphh (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't reallize we needed it, so thanks for pointing it out. Obviously I didn't plan it for very long so it's not super high quality, but it's a start. - Taxman Talk 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of semi-protection from Economics[edit]

Dear Taxman: I see from your recent add to the above Talk page that you are interested in improving Economics. But your removal of semi-protection after only 2 weeks of semi-protection (which was due to expire oin June 21) seems inconsistent with that objective. On this see Talk:Economics#Vandalism and reverts in this article. Moreover, this is not the first occasion semi-protection following vandalism. An earlier request was as follows:

Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request semi-protection. Of the last 100 Edits, I count 45 by unregistered users or new, 38 or which were reverted (80%+) with 20 reverts. No registered user Edits were reverted. Mostly vandalous edits by unregistered or new users place an undue burden on maintaining or improving article quality. Please note the "Core Topic" status for this article as to need for improvement at the top of the Talk page. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected ~ Arjun 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of this persistent problem with vandalism, would you consider restoring semi-protection at least to the Jun. 21 expiration? I believe that absence of semi-protection will slow or reverse improvement of the article, just as it has on the 2 earlier instances preceding semi-protection. --Thomasmeeks 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping it semi protected, but longstanding policy calls for it being used as minimally as possible. It wasn't currently under an attack, so the policy calls for it not being semi protected. You can of course discuss it at the semi protection policy talk page. The policy is pretty clear though so it would require a change. - Taxman Talk 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thx for responding. Your answer is inconsistent with the evidence referred to above. Here is a chronology: Semi-protect for Feb. 16-March 29, then for May 10-24.
Preceding Feb. 16 the above details (and you can affirrm for yourself) vandaliism was frequent. It virtually stopped for a month and a half with semiprotect. Semiprotect was lifted after March 29. Talk:Economics#Vandalism and reverts in this article describes in further detail the high frequency of vandalism (and other reverted Edits) following that. Vandalism again virtually stopped with semiprotect after May 10. There has indeed been a low level of vandalism in the past 2 weeks. That coincides with the reinstatement of semiprotection. We now have a persistent recent record of frequent vandalism (and bad Edits) for that article before semiprotect and low after removal of semiprotect. There is certainly ground for semiprotect through June 21, which is "temporary" as given by Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. I believe that in line with the evidence, June 21 is already minimal. Won't you reconsider? Thx. --Thomasmeeks 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If it gets deluged again someone will take care of it. Otherwise, it's just not worth all this. The energy would be much better spent working on improving the article or any other you care to work on. Don't mean to be trite, it's just the way it be. - Taxman Talk 02:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is discouraging in the article being disrupted by unproductive Edits. And I could wrong. Maybe vandals will find things to irritate other people out of doors (with warmer weather). --Thomasmeeks 03:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

River Question[edit]

I thought of your question just now, and realized that you should contact the state parks of Colorado for an explanation, since that's your best bet. Real96 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Great thought. I guess I'll try the article's talk page and if no response there, then I'll try the parks department. - Taxman Talk 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Service award[edit]

It doesn't appear that your one for a fancy user page but I thought I would mention that you are entitled to display marks of a Veteran Editor II or Grand Tutnum. Many thanks for your great work and contributions to Wikipedia. Morphh (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, those are great, I'd never seen them before. If I get my edit count up by August I can go straight to the Grand and Glorious Tutnum of the Encyclopedia level. But no, I prefer to have people judge me by the quality of my reasoning and edits so I don't store barnstars and such on my userpage. And besides I wouldn't want to promote editcountitis. :) Thanks for noticing, and keep up the good work yourself. - Taxman Talk 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you. I'll take my time learning how to use the mop right (oh, the head goes on the floor? oh yeah, that makes sense!). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment on proceeding on Gracenotes, RfA[edit]

Hi Taxman,

As one of the Bureaucrats recently active on RfA, I would like your opinion on how to handle Gracenotes' rather difficult RfA.

There are a huge number of opinions (over 200 supporting and over 70 opposing) and a great deal of argumentation. I would like to reserve a "Bureaucrat Chat" for the really, really difficult and unique situations, like Danny. My concerns here are that:

  • The bureaucrats should not be put in the position of being "supervoters," evaluating everything the community already hashed over, but at a "higher" level;
  • I would like to see this RfA separated from some very strong and quite valid (to the individuals most involved) emotion, as much as this is possible; and
  • Almost all the detailed opposition revolves around a single issue that I believe has acquired a life of its own separate from the candidate's qualifications, and I think Gracenotes at least deserves a chance to make a coherent presentation on the issue and allow the community to express their opinions anew in that light.

I had earlier posted a way forward that can be found (with some comments) at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#One_Bureaucrat.27s_Impression. I would like to proceed according to the six steps I suggested, which has the assent of both the Candidate, and the first opposer on the BADSITES issues, SlimVirgin.

I would be most grateful if you would contact me at my talk page with your assent, different solution and/or comment and discussion. Thanks! -- Cecropia 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I left my comments at the noticeboard. I agree bureacrats shouldn't end up as supervoters, but bcrat discussion doesn't have to be that. As I said there, I should probably abstain from further discussion about the closing due to my biases involved. - Taxman Talk 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)[edit]

Bahut shukriya! I didn't understand what you were talking about at the start, and then went to my hi page and understood :) Thanks a bunch - I never even go there, so I'm rather surprised people are vandalising the page. Anyway, thanks :) Riana 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I should have linked the page. How often does one come accross the words sadasya pannaa in everyday Hindi. :) - Taxman Talk 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes[edit]

Yes, I agree it's time to proceed. I left a note some hours ago on Gracenotes's talk. If he is willing to go that route, I will set it up, if not, I will set up the chat. -- Cecropia 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Taxman, I see Gracenotes' expressed a preference (albeit on his talk, not mine) to either let the bureaucrats decide, or else reopen it according to my suggestion in a few weeks. I will open a Bureaucrat Chat on this shortly. Thanks for your patience. -- Cecropia 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

I'm involved in a discussion on the Flat tax article regarding the lead and the proper definition of a flat tax. My knowledge on flat taxes is limited so if you have a chance perhaps you could review the discussion and the lead and comment. Thanks Morphh (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxman, I need your help. The FA article FairTax has charged as being POV for not having a criticism section, although this is against Wikipedia policy if it can be woven into the article like we have done. Little details as to what is POV has been discussed for correction but they have applied a POV tag and have nominated it for FAR (claiming the FAC was BS). Please take some time to assist in keeping this article under control. Like our tax protester articles, we tend to get a lot of visitors to this controversal topic and I'm the only main tax editor that watches it. My wikistress level is at max and I'm about to give up on Wikipedia altogether. If I don't get some help, I'm going to crack. Thanks Morphh (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I left some comments there. I can see a little merit in their position, so try to address those as they can show they are reasonable suggestions. Otherwise I'd really suggest taking a step back from the article and to try to approach it unemotionally. It's the only way I know to reduce wikistress and still get work done. - Taxman Talk 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm certainly open to working out issues when presented with some specifics to work with. I think I put too much effort into this article and I'm certainly emotionally attached to it. I guess we probably all have one article (in this case my first article) that we have worked to improve more then any other. I'm going to have to pull back. It is starting to effect my marrige and work and I'm having problems sleeping. Is there such a thing as a wikibreakdown - well... if there is.. that's what I'm going through. Thank you for your involvement. Morphh (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Morphh, take a week or two off and "go fishing". Take the wife to dinner and a movie or something. I think the last comments you made were very good, and should give detractors something to chew on for awhile. Unfortunately, my comments may have been a bit tainted by my own emotional attachment. I have a sense of urgency about getting the thing passed. Brian Pearson 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Need your advice[edit]

I had added an external link at hastings_entertainment [28]. After reading some of your archived messages, it occurred to me that link may be inappropriate. If so, I'll remove it immediately. Brian Pearson 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused. Are you affiliated with the company or website you linked to? I see that you didn't add lots of links to that site, which is one possible red flag so that's good. I didn't look at the site, so I'm not sure what would make it innapropriate. In general, if it doesn't add significant value to the article, it shouldn't be there. I hope the archives were helpful. :) - Taxman Talk 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a lowly employee of said company, if that counts. BTW, I've just barely made a dent in the archives, so I have a ways to go, yet. :) But I intend to read all of them. Brian Pearson 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ask on the talk page I guess and disclose your relationship. Then people can decide what to do. As long as you just ask on one page, it shouldn't be a big deal. - Taxman Talk 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy[edit]

Howdy, Taxman. I'm still around, watching the tax-related articles, concentrating mainly on keeping the sanity in tax protester-related texts. I hope things are well with you. Yours, Famspear 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, have fun with those guys. I saw your improvements to the corporate tax article, thanks for that. I notice I made the AMT bit redundant, but I didn't see an immediate way to fix that and I wanted to provide context upfront that the system isn't just marginal tax rates. We should also say earlier that the marginal rates are for all corps but personal service. But again, can't think of how to do that without being overly redundant. - Taxman Talk 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Golden Age of Arcade Games article[edit]

Hi, I added some sources to that article, first section. You requested notification of such actions in that article's discussion page. Xif866 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: India page[edit]

Hi, Since you are one of the people who made substantial comments in the last RfC we had on the Talk:India page concerning addition of new material (see here), I thought I would get your opinion about a new development. Yesterday, out of the blue, Blnguyen, who has no history of editing on the India page, made a post on the page suggesting that the India page be expanded to twice its size, which needless to say, has created a lot of confusion. Please see this section of the talk page there. As a result, User:Sarvagnya, for example, has returned to his scheme for de-constructing the India page. (By way of background: Nichalp, who usually watched over the article is busy this summer; Ragib, who was subbing for Nichalp is busy too. Blnguyen seems to think that the page is in bad shape and is about to be de-FA'd. He feels that it needs many more citations (and their lack) is reason enough for it to fail an FAR. Nichalp, when he was active, discouraged over-crowding the text with too many citations (especially when the text was composed in the summary-style, as India is). I think Blnguyen has some valid points: the page needs more (and certainly better) citations and the prose (especially of some new sections that were created by other people) needs revamping, but I think you might be in a better position to assess Blnguyen's idea of expanding the article to twice its size.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request[edit]

Hi Taxman, I've been working on the article Economy of ancient Tamil country for a while now. The article recently had a peer-review, where one of the comments was to make the prose flow tighter and fix possible copyedit problems. I tried to fix some of it myself, but an expert hand is really needed now. I request you to help with the prose and other issues in the article, when you get a chance. It would also be great if you could leave your comments about what else is needed to make it an FA. Thanks. Lotlil 11:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I left some comments on the peer review page for you since that's where the talk page requested they be put. I'm certainly not the greatest copyeditor, but I tried to improve the lead a bit. I'll see what I can do on the rest. - Taxman Talk 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I just read through your comments. I will start working on them right away and post a reply at the peer review page. Thanks a lot for helping with this article. Lotlil 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Stock Market[edit]

I came across the Stock Market article and noticed in the talk page a comment about it lacking sources. I was wondering who I should get it noticed, if you think there's a problem. Brian Pearson 04:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It does need some work. What are you waiting for? :) Asking people to reference individual articles isn't easy, but it can work if you want to. You may try asking at Portal:Business and economics, but that doesn't seem highly active. - Taxman Talk 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"What are you waiting for? :)" Funny guy.:-). I've added created some more links, but the sourcing is a lot more work, isn't it? I'd be more comfortable if somebody more inclined to that subject would do it, but I have posted a couple of notes. Maybe somebody will pick up the ball. Brian Pearson 02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Hi Taxman. Thanks for your message of congratulations regarding my RfA. I shall certainly spend some time getting more familiar with the regs before I do anything with my new "powers". Number 57 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chennai[edit]

Hi Taxman, Chennai has been under FAR for a while now. It's currently under FARC here. Could you please look through the article and leave your comments at the review page? Thanks. Lotlil 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

Hey, Taxman. Instead of the now-standard greeting card message, I'm thanking people straight up. I was nominated by two great wiki-friends, and was supported by a list of great and established editors, including you! It certainly sets the bar very high on expectations, so I'll be diligent in fulfilling them. So, a truly thank you for your comments in my request, and hope to work with you in the future. If I have any doubts or questions, I hope I can count on you for counsel and support. Thanks again!! - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. - Taxman Talk 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Transwiki" of "Common phrases in various languages" to English Wikibooks[edit]

I noticed this copy+paste "transwiki" of contents to English Wikibooks. First I want to say that in order to comply with the GFDL requirements that you should of made a Request For Import, before the page was deleted from here. Secondly this may end up being deleted from English Wikibooks because English Wikibooks is not a dictionary, unless its intentions changes greatly. The top of the page suggests consulting Wiktionary for more translations of phrases and words, which suggests that this may be better suited for Wiktionary then English Wikibooks, or even perhaps English Wikiversity.

Its my hope by informing the Wikipedia administrator or bureaucrat who moved a page to English Wikibooks that may be out of scope or having been done so without having asked for the article to be imported, that I can help improve Wikipedia administrators and bureaucrats understanding of English Wikibooks and create a better relationship between the two projects.

I think it would also be nice if someone could inform some English Wikibooks administrator or bureaucrats whenever an article is being proposed to be moved to English Wikibooks before the decision has been closed, in order to get some feedback from English Wikibookians, but I can understand if that might be unrealistic. --darklama 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time looking for such guidelines, didn't find them, and eventually decided that it was better to get it moving, and then we could clean it up. In a lot of cases being bold moves things faster and farther, especially if no harm is done first, as in this case. Thanks for your prompt attention to the page. It was a page that I recently noticed had been deleted a while ago, and I wanted to make sure to save the content. In this case there wasn't a broad decision on it, just me looking to save some content. - Taxman Talk 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary does accept comprehensive lists like this as appendixes for example wikt:Appendix:Afrikaans_and_Dutch_Swadesh_lists or wikt:Appendix:Egyptian_Arabic_Swadesh_list. In its current form it looks more suitable as an wiktionary appendix to me. I'm only suggested that if all that the contributors are interested in is having a list like this then its probably more at home as a wiktionary appendix and probably won't last long on Wikibooks. Much as it was deleted here instead of simply being cleaned up to be an encyclopedia article. Alternatively it may have a place on English Wikiversity.
I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases in various languages in this case, which suggested moving to Wikibooks or Wikitravel. I tend to check to see if there was discussion about it on articles for deletion, just to try to figure out why something was moved to Wikibooks. However this is only seeing why after the fact, rather then being involved in the process. If this gets deleted from Wikibooks, this would be by no means the first time somethings been moved to Wikibooks because it was out of scope at Wikipedia and was considered out of scope of Wikibooks as well. I'm hoping that by creating a better relationship between the two projects that the frustration that this sometimes may cause to both administrators and contributors can be reduced.
I can go ahead and import it myself, if you will undelete it temporarily, even though it may not last long at Wikibooks either, or you could try Wiktionary or Wikiversity. What sort of guidelines were you looking for? --darklama 13:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I was basically just looking for exactly what you've explained here. I'm sure there are links to requests for import, but I didn't see them, partly because I had limited time to search and I just wanted to get something positive done. I have restored the page to allow importing. If you're not able to do the import soon, I'll see if I can't rustle up another Wikibooks admin. I'm confident the book can be improved to meet Wikibooks guidelines. Thanks for your help. Oh, and the actual content was most recently at List of common phrases in various languages so that's the page to import, not the simpler name that you linked above and that I used for the Wikibooks page; most recently the simpler title at en.wikipedia was a redirect. I made slight improvements to the text when I entered it into Wikibooks (category, delinking a little bit) so if you can save those, great, but don't worry too much about it. They can be redone. - Taxman Talk 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University[edit]

I saw that you did a nice peer review for Indian Institutes of Technology and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. It is currently undergoing peer review here. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next.

Thanks, KnightLago 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I left some comments for you on the peer review page. Have fun :) - Taxman Talk 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I will look over and incorporate them. About this: "the first university in the nation to offer only upper-division and graduate level courses". I do understand what you are saying, but it is a fact that goes to show why enrollment was so low in the beginning. I also think it is a good lead into the enrollment numbers. I will think about it a little. Thanks, KnightLago 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

es:Xiutetelco[edit]

Saludos. Disculparás que escriba en español, pero no me siento capaz de escribir en inglés (lo leo bastante bien, pero a la hora de escribir me cuesta un poco). El artículo sobre Xiutetelco está basado en la Enciclopedia de los municipios de México, en http://www.e-local.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/puebla/Mpios/municipios.htm. Más información sobre demografía encontrarás en el Archivo Histórico de Localidades (INEGI): http://mapserver.inegi.gob.mx/dsist/ahl2003/AHL_consulta.cfm?c=424, o en Puebla. Anuario Estadístico. Saludos, compa. Yavidaxiu.

Muchas gracias. Esa información es de calidad muy buena. - Taxman Talk 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA[edit]

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed, several hours after it was supposed to end having seen it on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. You also expressed concerns about my article writing experience, while it is true that I haven't written much, I don't see why article writing is a prerequisite to being an administrator. The administrator tools are more for cleaning up (thus the term "mop") rather than writing other articles. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 08:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I've explained my reasoning based on my experience here, so I'm not sure what else needs to be said. But based on doing a fair bit of article writing I can definitely tell you you will learn a lot if you dive into it and you'll be a better admin for it. Besides, like I said it's the only thing we're here for; the rest is just support. But I like others think your bot has done great things on the support side and we're very grateful for that. - Taxman Talk 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

East Carolina University[edit]

I saw that you did a great peer review for Indian Institutes of Technology and Florida Atlantic University and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. Here is the peer review. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next. Thank you PGPirate 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, but first, pretty much all the things mentioned for FAU need to be worked on here. Let me know when you feel all those are done and the other suggestions from PR and I can give you some more things to improve. At this point I'd just be repeating the rest of the advice. - Taxman Talk 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I am going to start working on it. Once I get going, I'll let you know to ensure I'm doing everything correct. PGPirate 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The mad Swedes[edit]

Long time no argue, Taxman! :-D Since I know you've been fighting for verifiability here on en.wiki, I wonder if you might be able to help out with a unfortunate misunderstanding that's currently under discussion over at Swedish Wikipedia. There's a good deal of users, even otherwise pretty sane ones, that are convinced that articles other language editions of Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as sources. I know you can't actually participate in a Swedish discussion, but I was wondering if you could out by providing, say, good policy quotes or perhaps even a past statement from Jimbo that would be appropriate to convince those who believe that citing oneself is an acceptable method for achieving verifiability.

Peter Isotalo 09:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hallo good sir! I can't think of anything particularly more convincing than what is already in the verifiability policy. That would be one of the worst possible uses of self-citation that I can think of. The only possible way that would be a good idea is if a particular article version had gone through a type of formal review process that included subject experts revieing the material and someone checking each citation the version makes. I believe Jimbo has said things along the lines that citing other language versions should be a self evidently bad idea, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to look for his comments. If you think it will help at all, feel free to quote me and translate if needed. Have you asked Bishonen to join in? She's pretty good with this type of thing. - Taxman Talk 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the people who are arguing for the use of especially en.wiki as a source (under the heading "references/sources") are doing so from a frighteningly naive relativist perspective, i.e. that since there is no objectivity, we might as well give the source we've used (as if transfer from one part of Wikipedia to another is somehow reinterpreting information) and let the readers decide for themselves. The most eager supporters even think we have to do it out of intellectual honesty to the original authors even when the original is referenced and those references are translated into Swedisyh. There's also the frustrating tendency for users to interpret the term "source" not just as "reliable, useful source", but simply "information regardless of reliability". I have thought about getting Bishonen involved, but I don't know if the Swedes are all that willing to listen to anyone they deem to be an outsider (and she still has the flu). That's why I was looking for a quote from Jimbo to try sobering people up.
I'm almost tempted to contact Jimbo himself on this matter, since I doubt he'd approve of any part of Wikipedia deeming another part of Wikipedia as a valid source. We'll see if they come to their senses, though. Thanks for the reply.
Peter Isotalo 12:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well keep up the good fight, and yeah, perhaps wait until she has recuperated. Hopefully some more good reasoning added into the discussion will help no matter who is saying it. As to the bit about intellectual honesty, that can be followed by making sure there's a note where the material is from, but that should certainly never be confused with that being a real reference. If people can't see the light through reasoning, wait a while and then bring in Jimbo. Hopefully someone can find his comments on that in the meantime. - Taxman Talk 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I am very happy to see you commenting on India page. I have great respect for you and would like to get your opinion on the matter regarding user/admin Morschi's post if you have time. I have some serious issues over this:
1) His approach makes it feel like India article is under martial law. I do not think that is the best way to go about things.
2) His approach makes it seem like he does not respect other editors and finds us as nuisance.
3) He is deleting legitimate comments from the talk page that he apparently does not agree with.
Maybe I am over reacting? I understand that there is need to control things but I hate this. It feels like I am being talked down to because I am just a normal editor. If you have time, It would be great if you can steer the boat. I have complete faith in you. --Blacksun 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I think you're over-reacting. Particularly things like "Oh goodie, a Wiki-Musharraf." Whether it's accurate or not, that type of thing is unhelpful at best and inflamatory at worst. Everyone needs to relax a bit and avoid commenting on other people. And really what you refer to as martial law is really not too much more than fairly common sense restatement of article policies if you think about it. The most important thing by far is to focus on article improvement and remove tensions, possibly by ignoring things not related directly to improving the article. It's hard to do, but more people need to set the example. I didn't see what comments were removed, but unless they were highly inflammatory, it usually causes more escalated tension to remove them than it does to leave them. That said unless they are highly relevant to improving the article it's also not worth arguing about replacing them either. If you take this type of hands off from both sides approach, you can reduce the tension a bit. That's about all I've got besides my other comments that were recently quoted. I still stand by that as good sense. - Taxman Talk 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Namaste[edit]

Namaste taxmanji. Kaise ho? I was on a wiki break since a long time. Hope all is well with you. Catch you on IRC one of these days. I'm sure your Hindi must be much better than mine now :) - Aksi_great (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Namste bhai. Aap kaise hain? Bilkul thiik hoon, just very busy. Hope you had a productive wikibreak, I noticed you were a little quieter. Hopefully you'll find working on articles to be much more fun and fulfilling when you do have the time. I've actually been practicing more Spanish lately, so I need some Hindi practice again. - Taxman Talk 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oversight[edit]

Could you please have a look here and explain what happened (if anything)? Thanks! — xDanielx T/C\R 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored[edit]

Hi Taxman, removing that comment was not a decision I took lightly, I did attempt to have the editor remove it: [29]. The editor was not addressing the serious issue: misquoting someone in an RfA. His actions and attitude to the discussion were highly disruptive. I think that refactoring the misrepresentation of myself was appropriate in a delicate discussion, the user was proposing that I escalate or retire. I read your edit comment, in many instances you would be correct, but now I am specifically requesting that you review the matter. cygnis insignis 08:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have and I stand by my comments, you should not edit someone else's comment's you do not like, particularly in an RfA. You can comment that it is in error, and you can ask them for a correction. That's really all that's necessary anyway—if someone can't back up their statement you're in a stronger position and everyone will be able to see that. In this case, the editor did respond and struck the comment anyway. For the record your comments on that user's talk page were highly combative. You started out without being specific about what you wanted fixed and why. ""Stupid". Fix it." is much more combative than anything the other editor said, so it's interesting you would write that, but yet still say the other user was being combative. If you had simply been polite and specific, your request would most likely have been better received. - Taxman Talk 14:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. That is an interesting spin on the situation, bu