User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 July

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



the which organ does console you are sitting at on the picture belong to?

-- 09:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (Who is also Benutzer:-RF- )

It is an early 20th century Johnson with the original slider chests. I believe the console dates from a 1960s-era rebuild. It's essentially a romantic-era instrument, with a wide range of tonal possibilities. Nonetheless, it's responsive enough for baroque material. Most of the facade pipes are speaking, but not all. It is among my favorite practice instruments although I have not played for the congregation at the church where it is presently installed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman Commission[edit]

I have tried to email you a few times in relation to ombudsman commission matters but either my emails have been misplaced or I havent received a reply, please contact me at - Cartman02au 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Book_cover_-_Shibari,_the_Art_of_Japanese_Bondage.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Book_cover_-_Shibari,_the_Art_of_Japanese_Bondage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the image as the result of dealing with an OTRS ticket. As I recall, the OTRS ticket was opened by the copyright holder who was dismayed that the image had been deleted and offered to license it under GFDL. I have no opinion on the merits of deletion or inclusion of the image. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My sympathies[edit]

If it comes as any comfort given that by now I'm sure my name is a memory all but faded, you had my vote. :-) I'm glad to see you're still here fighting the good fight (on the AC again? you're made of sterner stuff than I), and I hope that, in small ways in the months ahead, I can do my part to contribute and help lighten other loads (though I feel strangely certain that my work would be primarily that of a WikiGnome...I don't know how I feel about that). Best of luck in the work ahead of you here. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!   j    talk   20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom activity[edit]

Hi. It's been a few weeks since you've had edits on the arbitration pages. Please advise if the clerks should temporarily move you to the inactive category per the two-week rule at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, or if we shouldn't bother since you'll be participating again soon. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess this was either completely unnecessary, extremely ill-timed, or highly motivational. In any case, never mind. :) Newyorkbrad 07:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It was well timed and motivational. I'd been semi-deliberately disengaging from non-urgent matters at arbcom during the board election and have just recently managed to get re-engaged. The election consumed more mind space than I anticipated, and more than I would have liked. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- regarding this vote: I wonder if there's any chance you would reconsider. As you yourself agreed in the related finding of fact, Davkal "is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors," so a civility parole seems only appropriate. You say in your comment that "I believe that establishing the principles is the first step." With regard to this particular item, the only "principle" involved is that rampant personal attacks, etc. are not allowed on Wikipedia and that's a well-established principle. The irrelevance of your comment makes me wonder if perhaps you made this vote in error, without being entirely clear on what it was you were voting on. RedSpruce 10:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the proposed decision establishes some ground rules which at present are not universally accepted. If there is an ongoing problem with Davkal independent of the larger problem of the paranormal topic area, I suggest you work through the dispute resolution mechanism to address that alone. It is my preference to address one matter per case. I generally do not support addressing individual civility problems in the context of a case that is topical in nature. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for responding and clarifying your position. RedSpruce 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)