This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I won't be dropping this message on all your talk pages, but I thank everyone who gave their input at my recent request for adminship, which was successful. If you need my assistance, or especially if you see me making any mistakes, let me know here on my talk page and I will try to respond promptly. — coelacan — 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is a dangerous place. It's a long way down, and there's nothing but darkness ahead. Please tread gently. — coelacan —
Thanks!
For fixing Kirill's name on my talk page! And being supportive! And hey - nice bridge ya' got there :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. =) I guess it's inevitable that a few people (one?) took it the wrong way and were upset, but the end result will only be improvement. And yeah, I put up the bridge when every other message on my talk page was some permutation of "how dare you...!!" or "why are you attacking...?!" It's supposed to suggest "think twice before flaming" and maybe I'm just nicer these days but it seems to be working. — coelacan — 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I've only gotten one attack from my NPP. I have no clue why. I have a feeling that it's because I do a {{welcome5}} before I put the {{uw-vandalism1}} (or whatever). I think they get lost in the welcome and don't make it down to the warning. But I don't know for sure :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, welcoming the vandals. Tut tut. I had to point out to an editor the other day that welcoming User:Twatfuck was perhaps not the best approach... WjBscribe 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a method that works for me; I go straight from level 1 to level 4 warnings. I'm a patient person, I think, but I've never seen any hint that the middle steps make any difference. If someone's going to keep vandalizing after a level 1 warning, level 2 won't stop them either. Although I have seen level 4, especially {{uw-v4im}}, make them stop quite suddenly. — coelacan — 05:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOW Hits is proving a lot more contentious than I expected. Why on earth do people want to keep that rubbish. Its not as if all mention of the songs and artists will go as well. WjBscribe 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no idea a few ideas, but I'd rather not voice my suspicions. The indignation over there is palpable. I let this one cool for a while lest I be accused of badgering, which has happened when I reply to multiple people in an AFD. I guess it's time to get back in the ring though. Care to join me? — coelacan — 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've slipped a comment in. Don't want to badger the keep voters though. It seems that some Christian editors find the nomination an affront to them and, rather than actually citing sources for why these compilations are notable prefer just to proclaim outrage and say that they sell well. Concensus-based decision making at its worse. WjBscribe 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though several people have said it's fine to nominate Now That's What I Call Music! as well. I guess I should have bundled several compilations instead of one Christian series. Too late now. — coelacan — 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We live and learn. A lot will depend on which admin closes the discussion. But I suspect the tedium of "no concensus" awaits it... WjBscribe 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were closing this right now, between only the two choices of "keep all" or "delete all", I would honestly have to close it no consensus. It does seem, though, that if you count the "delete alls" and the "delete somes", there is a consensus to keep the main article and delete or merge the rest. I suppose that's far preferable to keeping all, and I'll make clear (real soon now) that I'm not opposed to this if full deletion is not possible. — coelacan — 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: edit summary
A little bit from Column A and a little bit from Column B.--E tac 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, it was rather immature of me. I was just a little ticked off as I typed that whole response up a couple of times only to get an edit conflict and have to retype it all over.--E tac 06:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! I have a quote!
I would place a warning per WP:CIV on his page, but he seems to have many friends in decently high places. Should I just write him off as a bully? Should I make an issue of how personally vicious he is? I'm unsure how to proceed. Please advise.Jeffpw 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I would not want to be in your or KSB's shoes right now. Might I suggest a different tactic? Delete any trace of him from your talk page completely. If he posts there again, just delete it completely, without an edit summary. You'll get your point across and he'll quit. It's still not civil, but it's preferable to the situation y'all have now. And maybe wait a couple of weeks before you flaunt that quote ;-) — coelacan — 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
for the heads up! I appreciate your comments over there, too; careful and reasoned. scribblingwoman(talk) 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: newly tagged articles
That's perfectly fine with me. I was concerned about things being bumped off the list too soon, but if this way keeps them on long enough it works for me. Thanks. Koweja 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever sleep? I've been editing for twenty hours now and you seem to have been online the whole time... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
totally not sleepy
I don't get enough, actually. I guess there are breaks in my contributions log somewhere tho... By the way, support my cats? — coelacan — 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Good idea, those other two were very clumsy - got a clumsy cat tucked away? ;D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's cold up here and I can't get a grip
Sort of. Best I can muster today. Gives me chills to look at, actually. Probably a sweetheart though. — coelacan — 06:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeugh. Poor thing needs some fur and fast. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, just rub it in. Tell the kitty why there's a lifetime of itchy and degrading pet sweaters ahead. — coelacan — 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billie Joe
Why? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because silly myspacery and inflammatory crap is sure to show up there? I could be wrong, but I'd just like to get the regular editors watching that. — coelacan — 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an archive? What fangirl is going to be able to find that when the main talkpage is so inviting? But OK. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I clean up archive vandalism from time to time. Most often editors' talk archives. But whatever, hopefully I'm wrong. =) The usual "this can't be truuuue I just feeeeel it" will show up on the main talk page, I'm sure. — coelacan — 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: btw
Thanks! I added it when you created it because I have no life lol and refresh my watch list a few times every 10 minutes. Yeah I thought I'd keep them around. I find them amusing. They're like a badge of honour. Thanks for cleaning up!--JUDEtalk 13:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. =) It's one of my pet peeves to come to a talk page and see it full of blather. Take no prisoners there, Jude. Delete them on sight, and without remorse. Teach them about WP:ABF! =P — coelacan — 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coelacan, I love the hydrangeas too and I appreciate your comments, love cats too, cheers HelloMojo 13:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Clarifying
I appreciate the note, but Jeffpw and I are fine now. No worries! :) K. Scott Bailey 05:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatel yes, I have had that "pleasure." As for ANI, I've already removed it from my watchlist (as well as all bureaucratic pages, save the occasional RfA) after that little experience. Getting to know Knowpedia was quite an adventure...K. Scott Bailey 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: adoption offer
Hi Coelacan, Yes, I would like to be adopted by you. Where do conversations between adoptor/adoptee usually take place? Let me know and I'll give you a little background on me and my interests questions on WP.--killing sparrows 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page as you suggested, I like it when all parts of a dialog are on the same page--killing sparrows 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Richard Dawkins in popular culture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dawkins in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Li Hongzhi image
Thanks for the explanation and links. I will check them out just out of curiosity. I have sent clearwisdom another email so I hope they will respond and it will be sorted out.--Asdfg12345 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adoption
OK, I'm happy with that. I have seen you moving through the pages. I had not changed the template, not through ignorance or idleness, but because it has seemed to me that changing to "adoption offered" may discourage other potential adopters, while at the same time giving the potential adoptee, who is by definition a newby, the impression that it is decided over their head. But, as I say, I wil happily change the templates in future if this is thought best.
Thank you for your congratulations.--Anthony.bradbury 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misunderstand me. I am perfectly happy with what you are doing, and had no intention of implying otherwise.--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, leave it as it is. There really is not all that much room on a template, and I think we have to assume that most editors will figure it out.--Anthony.bradbury 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email
Any chance you could specify an email address or email me: Ryanpostlethwaite(at)hotmail.com, would like to talk to you about something. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed :-) Let me know if you get it as I've been having problems recently Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD confusion
Thanks for straightening that out! The (apparently) conflicting pages confused me. Aleta 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confused me too, since I removed it entirely without realizing it had returned already. Deletion sorting pages make it easier but still a pain. — coelacan — 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick disposal! Hopefully I'll be able to bring them back soon under a CC-BY-SA. — coelacan — 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Li Hongzhi Image
I have no idea about the source and the status of this image either. It's currently filed as "fair use". I think it should be close to the situation of the image on the English version. I'll leave a message on the uploader's talk page and hopefully he/she can clarify on this. I've also submitted it to the copyright violation voting page for deletion, since this is in violation with the current “fair use" standard. --munford 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't notice that I was not signed in when leaving the previous message. Anyway, you figured out that was me. For this matter, I guess we can just let the rules run its course. If there is anything you think I can help on Chinese version in the future, just drop me a line. :) -munford 03:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I sincerely appreciate the kind remarks coming from a fellow left wing tree hugging scum rat. ;-) By the way, the photo of the bridge and associated caption on this page are simply fantastic (and the photo of a certain feline effectively tranquilised me). Cheers, -- Black Falcon 06:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. In response to your comments therein, I have so far failed either to delete the Main Page or to block Jimbo, so it looks good.--Anthony.bradbury 16:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is April Fools' Day. Perhaps you ought to make an exception and put those items on your to-do list. =) — coelacan — 19:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
I think it's time, and people, please try persuading Coelacan. 151.202.74.135 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your confidence, New York New York IP. Who are you? =) — coelacan — 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with a 75% nomination success rate (100% if you ignore the nomination done before I really understood the processes). 151.202.74.135 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can co-nominate you, but WILL PEOPLE STOP CALLING ME XINER? Thanks, that feels better. 151.202.74.135 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I surely did not! I merely mentioned Xiner. You are obviously a completely anonymous IP with no suggestive edit history. None. — coelacan — 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and don't you ever forget that. 151.202.74.135 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez :)
I am so embarrassed. Vote corrected, thank you!! - Alison☺ 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter?
Dev seems to be busy with RL. I'm posting to a couple people to see if anyone wants to contribute anything to the newsletter, since it should go out. Feel like writing anything? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think? Ready to go out tonight? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by that I mean the newsletter... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, probably. I'm tempted to hound everyone about the WP:DSSG board again. What do you think? Is it not getting much use because there aren't many articles coming up for deletion, or are we just overlooking them? — coelacan — 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The former, IMO. I watchlisted it and haven't seen a whole lot come through, though I did !vote on one. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant are there just not many articles coming up on AFD. Which would surprise me. — coelacan — 02:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from articles I've closed recently we are missing some. For example:
Still we don't want the newsletter just to be a series of comments about things people aren't doing well enough :-). WjBscribe 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't resist; I already added a note (without scolding). I hear you though. Maybe we can come up with one more positive thing to begin the newsletter with, to set the tone? — coelacan — 02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woe is me for making a suggestion ;) Gave it a try (oops on the edit sum though). ZueJay (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Were those in our cats? Hmmm... I've just made a change to SatyrBot that may help with that. It should now recognize the AfD tag on any article within our scope and report that on the project cleanup list. I'll check after tonight's run to make sure it works.
As for the newsletter, I'm at a loss as to an upbeat beginning. Maybe move the "Article News" to the first spot? Or ZueJay's idea sounds good.-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two of them were tagged, Denton was not. Then again it appears that article was a hoax anyway [1]. Grrr... WjBscribe 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a lovely sentiment! Anon users make me feel warm inside sometimes :)
If there's nothing else, I'll send out the newsletter in about an hour. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done! =) Do anything else to it, including reverting me, and send it out when you're happy with it. I feel myself slpping into perfectionist mode, and rather than tweaking endlessly, I think it's better that I just have a beer and go sift through CFD. — coelacan — 03:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grr.. Bots are useless sometimes. It decided to put *two* headings on each user's delivery. <sigh> -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, everything else is breaking around here this past week. If anybody complains on your talk page, blame it on Equine Intervention. — coelacan — 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!
Ummm.... Why aren't you on the membership list? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm stubborn. I don't join anything. But if I ever start joining WikiProjects, I'll be sure to join this one. — coelacan — 05:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL! A person after my own heart!! Fight the system :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also keeps bots from borking my talk page... =P — coelacan — 05:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re edit conflict
Not sure what happened. I've unknowingly done this twice in recent days, and as nothing's changed over here, I assume it to be a glitch on WP's side.Proabivouac 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sysop template
Fixed! Thanks for letting me know. I had stolen the template from Illyanep. =Nichalp«Talk»= 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to both changes. I haven't had a chance to use the template much considering the whole my school is eating me with work thing, but I'll get back to it over the summer :) — Ilyanep(Talk) 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up
Thanks for the heads up on the CfD. My vote is to change, as per nom. I'll try to contact others who should be interested, too. Edhubbard 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a minute... you're talking about this, right? — coelacan — 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. The page is sort of my main wiki-project (although it still needs work) as it is also my main real-life project... piece by piece it's getting there. Thanks again. Edhubbard 19:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fascinating subject, and most of my knowledge is sadly limited to an hour long TV special on Daniel Tammet and a Time magazine article on non-autistic synesthesia. =( — coelacan — 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Daniel Tammett is an interesting, but not very representative case. Most people who experience synesthesia just have colors for letters and numbers, grapheme-color synesthesia. Daniel's synethesia involves 3-D shapes for numbers, plus his autism, which both seem to be linked to his memory. I got started researching this about seven years ago as part of my PhD work with Vilayanur S. Ramachandran at UCSD. We started with just trying to show that it's real, but have long since moved onto other questions, like what's going on in the brain and explorations of other forms of synesthesia. Have a look at my "real-life" page here http://psy.ucsd.edu/~edhubbard if you're interested. Edhubbard 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bookmarked! I'll pop over there in a little bit and have a read. — coelacan — 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cub category
Thanks for the message, I'll let you know if anything untoward happens. Well done for unmasking that his pet project isn't an official WikiProject. I had a good look and was thinking it didn't look right. Mallanox 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have permission to use these title overrides do I not? Do not touch my subpages again you have no permission, if you had asked without being rude I would tell you but otherwise I will not. -PatPeter 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno who you are, PatPeter, but may I respectfully remind you of WP:AGF here? Thanks - Alison☺ 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your message on my discussion page, I wholeheartedly agree with a renaming. Mallanox 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages
Alright the reason I use the title overrides is because once I finish my subpages I wish to nominate them as real WikiProjects. Just like you said people don't have to necessarily abide by WikiProjects, they are just there.
The ultimate goal of both these is to keep categories organized. Have you looked at some user template categories? They are ridiculous with whole userpages in them and subpages strewn about, here look at my work, I have finished sorting Category:Language user templates and Category:User templates I have not checked them in a week or two so there may be a couple lone pages. If you need me to go into more detail tell me.
And damn I walk away from my computer for 30 min and you are ready to delete my pages? You are one rude guy. -PatPeter 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said right there that you weren't going to answer me, I asked again at 01:01 for some clarification; you started editing again at 02:09 and didn't answer. I figured it was reasonable to believe that you weren't going to answer, since that's what you said. I asked again and just said if there wasn't any answer I wouldn't know any other route except deletion, and I waited further for your response, which you gave now. At no point did I actually nominate them for deletion, but rather I gave you notice of my intention. I don't think this was rude. — coelacan — 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the actual matter of the title overrides, you are going around telling people that "per WP:StS" they need to do something, when in fact that redirect goes to your userspace which looks like a Wikiproject. I believe this is extremely misleading, and I believe you need to take down the title overrides so that it is not so misleading, as well as stop telling people to do things per some proposal you have made in your userspace. — coelacan — 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that he was doing this. Is he using Wikipedia shortcuts (WP:xxx) to redirect to his userspace and claim it as policy or something? - Alison☺ 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right here is one example. He has made WP:StS, which he was referencing there, and his wording to Mallanox seems to me to say that you need to do this sort of thing per WP:StS. The specific suggestion is not harmful, but I think the execution is bad form. — coelacan — 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. "Should" is not as directive as "must", so it's more of a strong suggestion. However, the "thus" is a problem because the previous part gives justification for his subsequent actions. And using WP-space shortcuts appear to be used to add weight to this argument. That aspect is not nice at all. I'm going to ask on the admin board for direction on the shortcut as I find it worrying. Will get back to ya - Alison☺ 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. And I appreciate your timely call for good faith assumption. — coelacan — 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete any of my pages or take away any of my nominations, proposals for deletion, etc. It is 10:30 at night here, I have had a 5|-|1+\/ day and I want to go to sleep. -PatPeter 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Okay, since you haven't answered: no, I do not believe you can use category overrides to make your user subspace appear to be a Wikiproject, and it seems to me that if I cannot convince you otherwise, the simplest route would be to nominate these pages for deletion if there is no further response from you. — coelacan — 02:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said right there that you weren't going to answer me, I asked again at 01:01 for some clarification; you started editing again at 02:09 and didn't answer. I figured it was reasonable to believe that you weren't going to answer, since that's what you said. I asked again and just said if there wasn't any answer I wouldn't know any other route except deletion, and I waited further for your response, which you gave now. At no point did I actually nominate them for deletion, but rather I gave you notice of my intention. I don't think this was rude. "
Quoting this does Wikipedia save edits according to the time the edit is started or finished? -PatPeter 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it finishes, when you click "save page" - Alison☺ 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The time is recorded when you press save, and it doesn't appear in your edit history before then, so if you're working on an edit, no one can know that until you press save. — coelacan — 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats what I thought. -PatPeter 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Faith
Why the hell does everyone accuse me of not assuming good faith? -PatPeter 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When everyone seems to be against you, it's time to consider whether it was something you did. I remind myself of that always. Xiner (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suspect it has to do with you asserting that people have "accused you of trying to harm wikipedia" when they have said no such thing.[2][3]— coelacan — 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was what everyone was getting at with repeatitively repeatitively repeatitively saying AGF. -PatPeter 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you accused both myself and User:Blast_sanin error because that's what it sounds like. - Alison☺ 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you appear to be taking things as a personal affront, betimes, and this is not the case. We're all here to benefit the project, yourself included. - Alison☺ 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this Wikiproject is to keep Users from copying the source of their userpages and thus putting their userpages in miscategorizations. Also, it keeps users from unnessessarily coping userboxes and wasting space on the Wikipedia servers. -PatPeter 21:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Coelacan, thanks for the message, am I alone in finding this little brouhaha slightly hilarious and at the same time a touch sinister? The Boy that time forgot 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of support! Joie de Vivre 23:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure. Your proposal made sense. =) — coelacan — 23:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atabek-Artaxiad
Suggesting dispute resolution may not be a very good idea in this case, as their content/conduct dispute is already under arbitration. It would be akin to them undergoing a failed process once again. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan for more details. —210physicq (c) 07:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, I looked at that section and didn't see anything particularly incivil. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, or maybe my incivility sensors have been numbed. — coelacan — 07:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that asking them to pursue WP:DR might be pointless. I don't have an opinion on the remarks themselves. —210physicq (c) 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One-on-One
No one other than Coelcan can post in this part of the talk page, I will not respond to any inquires made that way.
Coelacan DO NOT reply but putting your posts under mine using : or * just put them straight below the last post like we are having a discussion in real life.
"I think you're using up more space on the servers by leaving those notes everywhere than you're "saving" by putting their userboxes in their subpages"
The user probably copied the userbox onto his/her userpage.
After I finished sorting categories I would try to find out where the user got the userbox from, transclude the userbox onto his/her userpage, and delete the subpage I created, thus saving space on the servers. -PatPeter 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to do this. The developers have told us time and time again, do not do things for the sake of the servers unless someone specifically tells you to do so. Read Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. It's truly not an issue. You are very likely not helping the servers in any statistically significant way. But what you are doing is causing many users a lot of stress with your instruction creep. It is sufficient for you to remove the categories you find misplaced on talk pages. — coelacan — 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And don't you dare try to issue orders to replying editors on another's talkpage, that's their perogative alone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of the WP:CREEP problem , but I'm trying to handle these many issues slowly, one at a time. — coelacan — 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PatPeter, to the point, since you do not need to do this, you should not do it. You are BITE-ing a lot of newbies with your strongly-worded messages about what people should and should not be doing with their talk pages, for very little arbitrary gain and potentially much loss. People do not like bureaucracy and unnecessary rules. You may well be chasing potentially good editors away entirely. Think about how many people have complained to you about this on your talk page. Think about the stress you are causing. I do not believe there is any benefit for the servers, but if there is, it is certainly not worth the stress and instruction creep. Please stop this "source-to-short" thing. — coelacan — 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight
Just out of curiosity, my past interactions with who? -Mask? 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brandt can eat it. I GAVE hime my name and birthdate. Im not scared, nor has anything happened to me. -Mask? 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
=) Okay. I didn't read to the part where you gave him your name. — coelacan — 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship?
From my interactions and observations, you seem to be of high-quality admin material. Would you like to be an admin? —210physicq (c) 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Physicq210 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Physicq210 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coelacan. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I haven't created your candidacy page yet, pending your acceptance or rejection. —210physicq (c) 22:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already told Ryanpostlethwaite I would accept his nom! Which he was waiting a few days on so he wasn't sending nomination after nomination. So, umm, I'm torn. Let me go ask him if he's ready to make the nom. Can you co-nom? — coelacan — 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, did I make the offer too obvious and public? Looking back through your talk page, I see some implicit offers. :) —210physicq (c) 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just shows that you're a good admin, but not cabal material yet. =P — coelacan — 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will soon realize who will be sabotaging your cabalist activities in the future, hm? ;) —210physicq (c) 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wouldn't even know where to sign up for the cabal. I heard they just leave a dead gnome in your dishwasher, and that's how you know you've been chosen. — coelacan — 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you can't go wrong with free appliances. Just be sure to check the yellow pages for dead gnome removal. — coelacan — 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I go out for a few hours and Physicq tries to get in before me :-)!! But seriously, can I write you a nom in the morning? I'm more than happy to go for it now an I think ready for the mop. Physicq, I'll have a chat on your talk page about it Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk 02:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I will be out for a good chunk of hours, possibly until 15 or 16:00 UTC. Later, — coelacan — 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan, you've caught me at a really bad time. I'm out of town this weekend and will not be on the computer as much as I am usually. I just looked at the nomination statement I wrote for you, and, well, it sucks. I'll try to improve it, but I don't think it'd be fair to ask anyone to wait for my imcompetence. I'll write a glowing statement for you regardless, one that you'll want to be a co-nom, but if I can't get it done before the others, please do go ahead without me. It'd be my fault; sorry in advance. Xiner (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At 19:52, 3 January 2007 in the Czechoslovak Hussite Church article you requested sources concerning the controversy around the election of a female bishop. I have rewritten that section. Let me know if you think that it needs more work. --Bejnar 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The effect is white spaces between sections. If you have a small screen or a very large font, you might not see this. Try different font sizes with Ctrl down and the scroll wheel on your mouse. (or use the menu) -- Petri Krohn 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since you've been by, and it's all I can do right now to keep people from just filling the whole thing with WP:SOAP external links. I'm fearing for my WP:3RR with all the 'stop that!' I seem to have to do, and could use someone else just helping a little with the undo button.
(of course, I'm totally down with you if that's actually why you walked away there.)
Not a problem. so far I've just been undoing a lot; someone who you've had problems with who is pissy with me over a deleted external link (actually, maybe I SHOULD just declare myself King of Wiki, gender aside), and two anons who kept spamming. You can see the fun argument one of them had with Kafziel over on K's talk page. He was arguing that removing his self-promotional link to the website where you can buy his anti-porn addiction therapist book was 'unfair', and if we were going to remove his link, we ought to remove all of the links to therapists. Despite the fact the others were added by other editors, for bad of for good, and didn't personally spend 5 days edit warring from an IP to get their link on the page. -- Thespian 04:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barring a meltdown from you, it seems certain your nomination will pass, so I'd like to congratulate you, and hope you won't forget WP:LGBT among all your new duties. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Dev, for your glowing endorsement of my rfa, early on when I was still holding my breath. I surely won't be drifting away from the project. =) I enjoyed reading your article in the ALA newsletter, by the way. I'll bet it surprised some readers, and we'll probably see some signing up after reading that. Maybe there should be a small request on the member page, "optionally, let us know how you found out about this wikiproject"? That'd be helpful to know. — coelacan — 07:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like someone is going to be an admin soon. ;-) And, you were right, a user name is definitely better than an IP. People beat you up when you use an IP. ;-) As I've gotten a little wiser, I understand that now. Thanks. Bbagot 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, unless someone leaks the news that I am a robot from the future sent to destroy all knowledge..."
Well, don't tell them "I'll be back" or, worse yet, "Resistance is futile." ;-) Congratulations again my friend. Bbagot 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
I hate infoboxes. That is I hate having to edit them. One false step and you are stuffed. Thanks for the help. Stroika 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject endorsements
I think it is a really, really bad idea, not just because of the politicking, but because it obliges people to join WikiProjects, to "align with a faction", and I think if there's one thing Wikipedia could do with less of it's faction fighting. Additionally, I know plenty of people who don't like being members of projects - you come to mind. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your desire to keep the talk page on point. However, my question was genuine, without any hidden aims. To me (and much of the English-speaking world) "nappy" is an article of baby attire. It is not immediately obvious what it has to do with anybody's head. If we don't know what Imus was actually saying about the girls' basketball team, the whole contraversy becomes opaque. Avalon 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WarCry
Cool, I'll see what I can do this time around. Hopefully, the changes in WP:V will be more forgiving with the article than WP:N and WP:RS previously. I'll get rid of the page image thingy. :) Shrumster 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just saw what you did with the article! It's looking great! Shrumster 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don and Kurt
Busy day today - on Imus and Kurt Vonnegut - talk about polar opposites! Interesting issues over there on KV talk, by the way. Anyway, thanks for your note that I didn't have a chance to respond to until now. I've done what I could to keep the vandalism out, but the level of juvenile idiocy is, unsurprisingly, pretty high. FWIW, I'm not really happy with the way the article has been edited, but there's just too much going on there to keep on top of. I'll keep it on my watchlist, and will come back and see what it looks like after it settles down a little, but I don't really think it's our finest effort. On the other hand, I'm not sure Don Imus deserves our finest effort. But that would be an NPOV comment.... Love your user page - and just saw that you're up for admin - good luck with it. I'm sure I'll be knocking on your door for help one of these days. Tvoz|talk 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worse. But a fairly intereesting debate over what wikipedia should be, nestled in there among a lot of posturing. And no one is picking up on my brilliant analogy - would we allow "George Harrison died of lung cancer. All things must pass." Same point as "So it goes", also touching and unexpected - and therefore completely unencyclopedic and ain't gonna happen. I am suggesting, though, that some benign neglect is not a bad thing in a case like this - let the words stand for a little while, then go for the slow revert - and let people mourn in their own way. A short amnesty period, like a day. Mixed response to that brilliance too. Oh well, I tried. Good to meet you! Tvoz|talk 05:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye out for comments on the picture. I actually like it more than the one they had there already - more distinguished. I'm definitely not the one to answer questions about free pictures though - it's one thing on Wikipedia that I truly don't get. Will let you know if anyone's grousing. Tvoz|talk 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
too concise
For the same reason as we re-instated the actual words - it's now too concise and a person not familiar with the story, or later on, needs more info from the lead. i think we need to reinstate "following a public outcry over racial and gender slurs he made on air, referring to.." which is well supported byu the references and explains what we're talking about to the uninitiated. Don't let the attempts by a few to insert POV get in here - you put nappy headed hos back in for a good reason, I reinstated the refs, but we need the context. Tvoz|talk 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we should have the "referring to..." , but at least got the most egregious nonsense out of the lead. I'll support the reinstatement if you want it in as I said on talk - but maybe it's best to let things settle for a bit? One sockpuppet gone anyway, a particularly insidious one, who I am very sure has other socks working away (I have my suspicions, but too soon to say). Time will tell. One other thing - this page was just created a few minutes ago so that a link to it could be added to it from Barack Obama - the Obama graf is not going to stick anyway, and this page seems out of whack - do you know the easiest way to handle it? After all, you're an admin! thanksTvoz|talk 07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no - I don't understand it: history shows the page was created tonight, but there are a load of links to it that predate today. Doesn't make sense - maybe you can make sense out of it. Tvoz|talk 07:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just the kind of mindless thing I don't mind doing from time to time....it's done. Now the article can go without fear of redlinks. Tvoz|talk 09:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“#”
Haha! Yes! They were driving me crazy too! —SlamDiego 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who thought they were a good idea, but man, they are such a pain in long discussions. — coelacan — 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I too once accidentally messed-up a page with a global replace. —SlamDiego 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was glad to be discussing the issue with someone who I felt would have taken the same position regardless of from which POV that user page had proceeded. And had we been discussing whether policy should preclude user pages like the one in question, then I think that you and I would have been on the same side. —SlamDiego 18:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someones asked you a question in your RfA that you might like to go and answer (Soz, it's just been there a while!). Congrats on WP:100 by the way! Ryan Postlethwaitetalk/contribs 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll go answer this one shortly. It's a good question, and one I feel strongly about. — coelacan — 20:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links to luvnpeas.org
The conflict of interest policy doesn't forbid linking to your own pages; it says "you should avoid or exercise great caution" in doing so. The implication is that relevant pages, likely to be useful to a reader of the topic, are linkable by their authors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Deletion
Hi Coelacan,
the page you marked for speedy deletion is not promoting anything other than free data on the locations of the peak district aircraft wrecks. Have a look. I'm going to add some refs and expand it, but the data is better than that on the aircraft wreck sites on the bleaklow an dpeak disctirct apges
In fact most "Jewish" Ms seem to have been illustrated by Christian artists (but probably using Jewish scribes, if in Hebrew), as there wasn't enough demand for Jewish ones for specialists to develop in most places. There are only 4 items in the category. regarding & pertaining actually widen the scope considerably - Christian Old Testaments & Psalters could reasonably be regarded as being included. In the highly unlikely event of the category becoming full of - well I don't quite know what - the description can be changed. Johnbod 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that might be a problem if any of them were, but I can't think of a single (surviving) example. You are mostly talking about Haggadahs, of which we currently only have one, but there are potentially many, plus the odd Torah etc with limited decoration. Johnbod 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever, nobody reads these descriptions anyway, except people looking for things to delete. I'm more concerned about your remarks re the Judeo-Christian IM category, which will put all the most famous named MS like the Book of Kells etc two layers away from the main Illuminated Ms category, which will itself often not be the first category people have looked at. All the other categories will be visible from the main IM category page, except these, which are actually by far the most populated, and contain virtually all the best-known Ms. I don't see how this can do anything but irritate users, many of whom will surely give up hunting through a forest of layers. Johnbod 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i'd said the same at IM talk already, but i suppose you're right Johnbod 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sexy_Losers_200_-_Sys64738.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sexy_Losers_200_-_Sys64738.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rubbing my hands together like a cartoon villain... =D — coelacan — 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be an accurate characterisation? ;) ... Congratulations! Black Falcon 06:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Thank you, Black Falcon, for your support, even while recognizing how frequently wrong I am. =P Now when are you going to apply for adminship? — coelacan — 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There've been a couple of cases where I think I've been wrong. I guess my several attempts to tackle portions of Category:Stubs, Category:All articles with unsourced statements, and Category:All articles lacking sources have made me a wee bit more deletionist. :) I've only been actively editing Wikipedia for a few months now (5 or so), so I'm flattered that you'd consider me potential admin material. I'm currently working on improving a number of articles which I suppose I've "adopted", so I'd like to wait about another month before considering adminship. Naturally, I could still work on the articles as an admin (assuming I'm approved, of course), but I don't want to apply for the tools now when I won't be using them for at least a month. Cheers, Black Falcon 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you'll find that there's at least a handful of RFA voters who will oppose for less than six months experience, so it'll help to wait that extra month, I think. And there are others who will oppose even for six months (although the attitude about these quantitative measures seems to have relaxed lately). I would trust you with the tools, and I expect many others will. Do let me know when you're planning to run. =) — coelacan — 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your vote of confidence. Best, Black Falcon 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
Beat-the-crat congratulations from me! WP:100 with a unanimous (basically, the only oppose was retaliatory and baseless) RfA is something to be quite proud of. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I am glad to see I have that kind of support from other users. — coelacan — 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a sysop!
Hi, Coelacan/Archive 4, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!
Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.
Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp«Talk»= PS Please add you name to WP:LA!
As your nominator (or co-nominator?), I congratulate you on the foretold conclusion, that you are now a sysop! But I apologize that I forgot where the cabal application forms are. —210physicq (c) 05:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, well, thanks for prodding me toward the tools I need to complete my nefarious mission... — coelacan — 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Best wishes Tvoz|talk 07:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what teeth? — coelacan — 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another friend, another mop. The gay cabal's gaining teeth. ;D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev, honestly, you sound like you should have been opposing my rfa... — coelacan — 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! -- Avi 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Avi! — coelacan — 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!! Only just come on the internet now! Really well deserved and best of luck in the future, any problems - you know where I am Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ryan! I really appreciate you encouraging me to run. I probably will have some questions. And stop me when you see me breaking things... =D Nice new sig, by the way. — coelacan — 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on adminship, coelacan. I have left you an email. :) Onefourtyone 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you feel the information is "weak" or is it just too complex? Onefourtyone 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a list of editing times. Can I email them to you? Onefourtyone 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like an opinion. That's all. Onefourtyone 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually things get more responses with personal attention. This is why I wished to show you it. Plus I wanted advice as to what to include, what to not include, what might be needed, but if you're not willing to help then ok. Onefourtyone 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But thanks for the read anyway. If you can "db-userreq" by talk page, that would be nice. I want to keep it for content editing purposes. Thanks again. Onefourtyone 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You realize, I hope, that any admin can read what was there even after it is deleted? — coelacan — 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't see what your point of it is. But I will delete it for you. — coelacan — 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say something wrong? Onefourtyone 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) No, it was just a very odd request. — coelacan — 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, userpages get mirrored all over the internet and such and I'm really not a frequent editor, plus I already explained. Anyway, thanks for the responses, but I guess I'll ask someone else about formatting and such before putting anything up. Onefourtyone 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to offer congratulations. A landslide of support and you deserved it. Well done, Mallanox 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you live and learn. Is there somewhere I can read up on this as it's part of wikilore that I was previously unaware of and as you rightfully say I've seen happen before. Mallanox 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few words of encouragement
Well, now that you have the bit, figured I'd give you a few words to encourage you on your way.
Don't worry about anything you do. No matter what it is, it will be stupid, wrong, an abuse of administrative authority, and the worst thing ever done in the history of Wikipedia.
You must always follow the rules, except when it is necessary to ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do.
If you choose to block someone, you are abusive. If you choose not to, you are enabling disruptive users and trolls.
When you make a decision, you obviously didn't really look at everything involved. Just taking another look at everything you already looked at will convince you to change your mind.
And last but not least, have fun!
This entirely smartassed and unnecessary message brought to you by SeraphimbladeTalk to me 08:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the sad part is that I've said all of those things before. And there will be times they're said to me and they'll be absolutely right. But I'll do the best I can. Thank you, Seraphimblade. Stay generous with the tips. =) — coelacan — 08:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know...
What SatyrBot looks like
you were up for RfA! Can I add my support anyway? I guess it won't change the numbers... But congratulations!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good! It was supposed to be a surprise when I indef block SatyrBot. — coelacan — 15:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the semi. I'll just wait till it expires, it's not like there should be any rush for anons to edit my userpage anyway. --Wildnox(talk) 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bofgokfhvvhbfggggjguhvkhghfg
On User Bofgokfhvvhbfggggjguhvkhghfg's talk page, I noticed you put a tag that reads blocked for repeated abuse of editing priveliges. This could be misleading, because the user had only made one contribution, and was blocked for the user's username. Thanks. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, it's a generic tag. I'll try to find a better one. — coelacan — 18:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it, thanks. I wonder why I couldn't find it before. — coelacan — 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the page for the Karl Pilkington image?
I uploaded it with reference to 2 occasions when Gervais has said he released the rights to the image. I'm not particularly fussed, just wondering. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥slurp me! 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i guess it's fine. I was just wondering, he does actually say "I give you permission to use this image" on a few occasions, what would that be attributed towards? If not, i'll see if i can get explicit permission from Ricky Gervais via email. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥slurp me! 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see. Well, it'd be unlikely that we'd be able to get one, then. Similarly, can you please check out Image:Smerch BCAs.jpg, as on these criteria, it MUST be a violation. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥slurp me! 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was glad to see that this action had been taken after this user's vandalism spree. However, you should know that he has created several other identities (very similar in name and edit history) and has continued vandalizing: Rufus Meiji, Rufus hattai, Rufus Lupus, and Rufus Canis. These are the only ones I've seen so far. He's been a busy boy. What a pest. Thanks for you time and your efforts. ---Charles 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, and the advice. Will do! ---Charles 21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, VK35. I haven't ruined anything yet so it was probably a good choice! — coelacan — 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo!!! Congratulations!! Get scrubbing :-) Grab that handle & let's rock! - Alison☺ 05:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (Ms. Malaprop)[reply]
=D Hey, check it out, I've been hard at work already! I had to extend one of your blocks too. I found myself tut-tutting... "how dare you circumvent Alison's block!" — coelacan — 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed! That's what brought me over here. "WTF - Coel's modifying my blocks??? Waitaminute!!" - tsk, tsk I can see you're going to be a troublemaker :) - Alison☺ 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (and you've been busy. Good to have you adminning)[reply]
And hey - well caught on that OS dude - Alison☺ 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, wasn't me watching though, it was just an AIV report on the IP. I wonder what "brilliant" trick he'll try next. — coelacan — 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking Vandals
I appreciate you responding quickly to my report of vandalism. Have a great day. --Keylay31hablame 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway we can do a Whois on this IP to prevent a NU? --Keylay31hablame 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, the only people who can see IPs of registered users are checkusers, and that isn't necessary in this case. The IP behind the account has been automatically blocked for 24 hours by the block I set on the username. But that's about as far as we can go. More trouble... just report it again at WP:AIV when you see it. If you want, point to the block log of the indef-blocked user when you make further reports, that will probably help the other admins make their decisions. — coelacan — 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
Hey Coelacan, congratulations on a spectacularly successful RfA! All the best with the buttons, glad to see you've been hard at it already :) Cheers, – Rianaऋ 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Riana! You know, I've already tried to block someone on AIV, only to an error message and find out that you beat me to it. I need to exercise my clicker finger. — coelacan — 06:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get used to it. She's like lightning :) - Alison☺ 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more into the psychology of it all :) – Rianaऋ 06:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"These are not the lulz you are looking for?" — coelacan — 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And they wonder why they are compelled to obey this strange creature... – Rianaऋ 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a big person to avoid the temptation to spam all the user talk pages. I thought I could, but failed. Anyway, congrats! Xiner (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you recently protected User:Thephysicalpartofit. Blocked users cannot edit their userpage, or any other pages in their userspace except for their talk page, so this protection seems unnecessary. Furthermore, pre-emptive protection of any sort is generally discouraged, except where necessary for visibility reasons (for example, items on the Main Page, and heavily used templates). Finally, when protecting any page it is helpful to add a suitable protection template – not just for the message it gives, but because it categorizes the page. When fully protecting a user talk page, such as User talk:Thephysicalpartofit, the appropriate template is {{pp-usertalk}}. This adds the page to Category:Protected user and user talk pages – without this category, it is very difficult to find such pages, and protected pages are the sort of thing that it's important to keep track of so that protection can be reviewed at a later date – this being a wiki and all. Thanks – Gurch 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought the user page likely does not need to be protected, so I'll undo that. This is why the note at the top of the page says "especially if you see me making any mistakes..." =P Thanks for the help, Gurch! — coelacan — 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thanks for your warning to [4]. This appears to be a sock puppet of same [5]. Cheers, JNW 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: uncertain fair use claims
Hi, Coelacan. You've run across some interesting cases. Here are a few thoughts:
Image:KUKL (band members).jpg, Image:Pláhnetan.jpg, and Image:Þeyr (members) LMB2.jpg provide an insufficient amount source info to determine the copyright holders, and it is questionable whether free-licensed alternatives could be created. In my opinion, well-sourced promotional photographs with a brief rationale would be acceptable in such cases.
Image:Corsaire -PNB School -1.JPG is tricky. It is replaceable as a staging of Le Corsaire, but it there is no possibility, currently, of finding a replacement depiction of Pacific Northwest Ballet School's reconstruction of "Le Jardin Animé". Since the uploader appears knowledgeable in the subject, I think that it is reasonable to keep this image provided that a couple of concerns are addressed. First, this pic should be moved down to the relevant subheading; second, some critical commentary is required that explains why this particular staging is unique in comparison to how the scene is normally set up.
Hope that helps, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 month
Agreed. I was thinking of reblocking, myself, after I took a closer look at the pattern (doesn't seem to mind not editing for a week sometimes). Thanks, — coelacan — 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to know you support it. -- Zanimum 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
...for reverting the vandalism on my user page and blocking Gamma1847 so quickly. It's good to see you putting those new buttons to good use.--Kubigula(talk) 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. — coelacan — 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AIV Report
By all means, you call the shots. Thanks for notifying me, though, I'll be sure to watch that in the future when considering submitting AIV reports. Have a nice day, Dåvid Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that does help (especially the warning temps so I don't have to scrounge around for them). I see you recently(ish) got the mop; congrats! Dåvid Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
when warning about removal of speedy tags,
there is a special warning series (can be found, like others, at WP:UWT). Specifically it's the {{uw-speedy}} series, which tries to explain to the user why they can't remove them. Just a tip. Later, — coelacan — 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I know about the tags and used them for the first of the socks that were removing tags. After that, the rest of them got blatant vandal warnings. I'm pretty sure I'd handle it the exact same way next time. --Onorem 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the page has been recreated again...any chance you can salt Justin Carjulli? --Onorem 03:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --Onorem 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could use some help, please
I'm hoping you can help with a small problem I am having. User: Abu badali seems to be checking my contributions and removing images from articles that I have uploaded. My feeling is that he is doing this in retribution for my support of the Rfc against him. He has stalked me in the past (Theresa Knott has challenged him about this), so I am not surprised. His latest episode has been to remove this image from the article about Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. If one looks at the licensing, it states clearly that the photo is available for use by the public, so long as the RFD (Dutch Information Service) is given credit for it. Its use on Wikipedia fulfills this criterion. The notice from the RFD says Deze foto mag worden gedownload, gebruikt en gereproduceerd zonder schriftelijke toestemming....Voorwaarde hierbij is wel het vermelden van het auteursrecht van de RVD.: This photo may be downloaded, used and reproduced without written permission...on the condition that it is stated the rights are from the RVD"
Abu Badil removed the photo with the edit summary "rm problematic commons image (source seems bogus)". I do not know if the source is "bogus' or not, as I did not upload it. I note, however, that it is the image used on the Dutch Princess Maxima article, and has been used for over 6 months without being deleted. Given that she is as important a person to Dutch society as Prince William would be to the British or Laura Bush would be to Americans, if there was a copyright problem with the image, I think the Dutch Wikipedia would have removed it long ago. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the image yourself and reach your own decision about it. If you don't see any problems with the image, please stop Abu Badil from deleting it again. Thank you. Jeffpw 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've refered the image issue to Husky on Commons as he's a Dutch wiki admin and should be well placed to figure out whether that image meets GDFL requirements (and any discussions there may have been about this on Dutch wiki). WjBscribe 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news is how I read it. The Dutch Royal House English site stipulates non-commercial use, with an exception made for the media. That's essentially the {{promotional}} tag, which puts this in the "repleaceable fair use image of living person" territory. I delete those every day. I strongly suspect this will be deleted from Commons, so I suggest you don't revert the image back in while that deletion discussion is ongoing. Sorry, Jeff. =( — coelacan — 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for speedy deletion
The Comfortably Nowhere Wikipedia page is about a published book, I have included the publishers website, the ISBN for the book. the year of release, the author, etc. what exactly am I missing? The reasons that have been listed so far for it's deletion do not apply, I am not the author of the book in question, I do not work for the publisher, nor am I associated with the book in any way other than having read it. If you could tell me what about the article I need to change/add I would be happy to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornsloth (talk • contribs).
Awesome!
For being particularly kind and patient with newbie editors and for going that extra distance in taking time to explain things - Alison☺
Yes, I couldn't help but notice. You go the extra distance to help others. Well done :) - Alison☺ 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
=) I just want newbies to be able to contribute as effectively as possible; it helps them help everyone else. Thanks for noticing. — coelacan — 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well that's what makes you an awesome editor and a superb admin. So there! - Alison☺ 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these kind words are going to backfire on you when I go rouge, you know... ;-) — coelacan — 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're all watching you closely, ya big troublemaker ya! I'll be the first out to say, "That Coel character. I knew they were trouble from day one, y'know" :D - Alison☺ 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to congratulate you here, but also take up your offer to provide some help: could you please undelete Emerald Group Publishing Limited either as history or into my userspace so i can start off a new article on it--whatever dates, etc. may be worth reusing would be helpful. (this is in connection with a current AfD nomination for some of their journals). -- thanks. DGG 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One refresh, and there it was again, as if I'd never touched it: [6] --Dynaflow 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RickRoach spamming
No, I was just taking on good faith the reason for the speedy deletion posted on all but the last article User:RichRoach posted - on the last one, I posted a db-spam myself, but another editor speedied the rest. Having said that, this user would likely qualify for blocking even if these were posted for the first time, as it is obvious spam-bombing, even if all the articles are new. Realkyhick 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. I take particular glee in ridding WP of obvious spammers. In may be a character flaw, but ... :-) Realkyhick 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Information
Thanks for a clear explanation as to the reason for the deletion, though I do find requirements for notability vague at best. I'll wait to repost the article until the book has become more noteworthy, despite the fact that I do not believe it's up to so few to decided what is and is not noteworthy.
User:Cornsloth
MfD suggestion
Before taking it to MfD, you may instead wish to drop a notice at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion. Sparking a discussion there may be a better first step, and perhaps prevent the drama. - jc37 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's a good start. I was going to message you and Vegadark and Mike Selinker (and doesn't Xiner do some closes there too?) instead, but sure, the central talk page works too. — coelacan — 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen User:Xiner in awhile, but yes, he and several others have in the past been active there. Be aware that several admins active on WP:CFD do not want the pages remerged. (Both MS and I have attempted to fight against that in the past... but perhaps Concensus has changed since then...) - jc37 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request acknowledged
Thank you for your concern and feedback of my behavior at the Talk:Christopher Michael Langan page. I am thankful you responded to me in such a polite, yet direct fashion.
I re-read the essay on WP:troll. I agree, formal DR is the best way to go. Since his comments are more often intended to encite anger, to bully or intimidate wikipedians from continuing to engage in useful discourse ("Sounds like a press release" ... "There are policies to deal with such editors"), or to even mock those whose interpretation of policy differs ("Are you serious?? Please read ...."), the label seems to apply. But since this user's IP address changes from one day to the next, it is exceedingly difficult on how to respond. I thought calling a spade a spade was the best way to proceed, and indeed, I seemed to receive a modicum of support for my position when another admin did this.
If he continues to engage in such activity, would it be better if I remove his comments? --Otheus 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this won't "patch things up", but would it be considered inflammatory? [7]
Thanks, no problem - I didn't know that noticeboard was around. I'm still a rookie at this stuff.--Fizbin 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links
You may have only done this once or twice, I dunno, but be sure to delete the links from articles when you delete images. It's a pain sometimes I know. Orphanbot helps out a lot on these, but not some categories that are more controversial. :) - cohesion 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try. I know I've forgotten a few. =( — coelacan — 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, ever since firefox lets you search in text boxes my life has been a lot easier ;) - cohesion 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD close
Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bage. I think the right outcome here is disambiguate and have created a draft at User:WJBscribe/Drafts/1 but having commented it needs someone else to close it. Do you mind doing that if you agree that's the right outcome? WjBscribe 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go have a look. — coelacan — 17:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — coelacan — 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. — coelacan — 17:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to work on the rest of WP:AFDO :-). WjBscribe 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UCFD
I will not be making an MFD nomination, nor will I be airing my general concerns at WT:UCFD, while SchmuckyTheCat's page is an open issue.
I'm not changing my page back ATM. That should "close the issue" with those who want to make it one. As to me, the issue is open, but I'll reserve on acting on it. SchmuckyTheCat 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as long as the thread's on ANI though, it's open, and I've decided that after the archive bots put it away I'm still going to wait a few days to bring up deletion talk. I do want to keep the issues quite separate. — coelacan — 09:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
csn?
You have said several times that a block of SchmuckyTheCat might be appealed to WP:CSN. I thought that WP:CSN was for discussing bans (and that's what its header says). Am I misunderstanding the nature of CSN? Nobody has suggested banning SchmuckyTheCat. It is true that SchmuckyTheCat uses the word ban instead of the word block; I have avoided pointing this out in the interest of keeping civil, since I assume everyone knows he has the wrong word. Of course it is good to discuss questionable blocks, and my impression is that the first place to raise such a discussion is the admin noticeboard. CMummert · talk 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. CSN seemed to have a different focus when it started. Currently though there is the discussion of Daniel Brandt's unblocking. It seems unblocking is not outside the scope of that board. The admin board is primarily frequented by admins and the sort of question that gets asked there is "I made this block, is it good?" But if someone were going to try to appeal a block and actually get community consensus for unblocking (rather than the simple {{unblock}} template), CSN looks like a reasonable place to do that. Non-admins give a lot of input there, and there isn't that "this does not require admin intervention, move along, nothing to see here" attitude there. If not CSN, there are other venues to get community feedback, like the village pump. My point essentially is that if this is discussed in a slow-moving venue (not ANI) where more than a handful of admin will comment (not AN), the finding will be that the community does not find this disruptive on any level that warrants a block. — coelacan — 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In every case, I wouldn't make a block unless I could present enough evidence to justify it. And more importantly, I hope that there is no need to block anyone here. All this talk of appeal is just jumping the gun. CMummert · talk 00:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. It's part of my explanation of why you shouldn't block in the first place (because it won't stand and it'll make you look bad). I don't share your analysis that failure to follow consensus is by definition disruption. Consensus does not trump policy, and consensus must derive from policy. The fact is that STC is not disrupting the encyclopedia nor creating a hostile environment for other editors. All our policy derives from the five pillars, and I think it's clear that the first pillar (it's an encyclopedia) simply does not apply in this case, so STC has got a better case on the fifth pillar (IAR) than you do in enforcing a consensus (of debatable acceptance) that is based on no other policy than consensus itself. GTBacchus's point, that "making rules about how others may use user categories is even further removed from our project than using those categories in the first place", is something I really couldn't emphasize enough. It's not just wild and out of process to block an editor over this, but it's quite frankly bizarre to have raised the option in the first place, and to continue to hold it as an open option, as you seem to be doing. We obviously disagree, and I think you're coming at this from a legitimate perspective. But when I dig down to see just what policy such a block would be based upon, I find a foundation of sand. A block based on consensus without policy is a block from bureaucracy, and if UCFD is coming up with a need to block a decent editor, for disruption based only on axioms ("acting against consensus is disruptive by defintion") then there's something funny going on there. — coelacan — 01:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we disagree on several issues here. You, along with GTBacchus, have been calm and clear in presenting your opinions at ANI, and I appreciate that despite our difference of opinion. CMummert · talk 01:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's all cool. Play it by ear. =) — coelacan — 02:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. — coelacan — 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahah, oh no - that was an article I tagged for speedy deletion, but it looks like in the time it took me to add the tag, and process it, it was deleted in the meantime - in which case it ends up that I made an article consisting entirely of a CSD tag. ---Haemo 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I'm looking at the deletion log, and the article was only created once, by you, and deleted once, by me. Possibly there was a different article by a slightly different name (or capitalization) that you meant to tag? — coelacan — 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's wierd. I think what happened is that it was a similar article called "Dragon Snakes & ..." (something else). However, I can't find it anywhere in the Newpages log. I think I must be losing my mind. --Haemo 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: quack?
Thanks for checking on that. :) Blast[improve me] 21.04.07 2029 (UTC)
Saving Jeeny
Jeeny has just "quit Wikipedia" with angst statements on her user page and her talk page. Soon after she was blocked. I am not going to argue the pros/cons of that (frankly, I DK), but my sense is that she is an intense, well-meaning late teen who is over angst'ing. And probably suffering from some silly editing by others and didn't know how to react. Perhaps a kind word from you as the blocker might help her get over this crisis. Life goes on, etc. (PS: I DK her in real life, but we've edited together.) Bellagio99 21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[First part is from Coelacan to Bellagio99 to give context -- I hate having to switch back and forth between pages.]
Actually I blocked her about ten minutes after her last edit; she had already left. The reason for the block was that in leaving, she tried to remove her contributions from Wikipedia and claim she no longer allowed for their use, but a person can't do this under the GFDL. So rather than try to fight it out, I blocked her for 24 hours to stop that from continuing. Afterwards, I left a note to tell her that this can all be forgotten and put in the past if she comes back after the block. If you think it's a good idea, I'll also try to welcome her back after the block wears off (in another 22 hours or so). — coelacan — 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bellagio99 replies
I think it is a good idea if you welcomed her back. She's been a very ambitious editor, "be bold", and probably got too wound up in the moment. As a university prof, i am hearing all sorts of stories about wrought-up individuals, high schools and universities this week, so a good time to cut some slack. Thanks. 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The next morning (in North America): Jeeny is back and calm and feels embarrased about her Wikitantrum of deletions. So no urgent need to do anything, but still a short welcome back would be nice. Turns out she isn't a teen, but in her late 40s. Well, we all act like kids sometimes, especially online. Live long and prosper. Bellagio99 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Jeff had e-mailed me privately detailing some of the harrowing things he was experiencing outside of Wikipedia. I think he may have been channeling those issues into his Wikistress. I'll send him an e-mail and see if I can get him to tell me what's shaking. --David Shankbone 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good solution. Darkspots 09:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye, Darkspots. I would normally just delete that sort of thing, because there's no way to know what the article creator is talking about. But they'd just created Muggbutt too... probably also worth deleting but a redirect works too. If they keep separating the article and removing the redirect, deletion may be necessary. — coelacan — 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time to unprotect Project gender studies?
Hi Coelacan, thanks for your comments on my talk page. It crossed my mind that the protection at Project gender studies is probably no longer neccessary. I requested its protection on Januaray 21st[8] and its been protected since then. I think it's probably time to unprotect the project page--Caililtalk 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for unprotecting the page, hopeful it wont be attacked again. About 2 hours ago I was setting up a broad watchlist to keep an eye out for User:Anacapa - well I found some new edits by him from Wednesday April 18th 2007, more POVpush on Incest and Rape. I'm adding it to the report page in a section called return. I'm guessing I should I wait for further edits by Anacapa before making another report to CN.--Caililtalk 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thanks a bunch for your comment, your offer of help, and very good advice -- which I'll do my very best to heed. :) Jeeny 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Testing new advice given with my sig clickable. I though it was just because it was mine. LOL. I didn't know other's couldn't click on it, although I began to wonder about it. Thanks so much, again! Now, how do I provide a link to my talk page too? Jeeny 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can add something after your name, like [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] [[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]] which does this: Jeeny(talk) 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Or you can split the links across your name, like [[User:Jeeny|Jeen]][[User talk:Jeeny|y]] which makes the "y" clickable to your talk page, like so: Jeeny 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Those both need the "raw signature" box to be clicked with the little checkmark. — coelacan — 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Sheesh, I just did a preview test (on my page) and saw that my "talk" link wasn't a link at all. Then saw your message which you probably posted while I was doing my test. :) Jeeny(talk) 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Bellagio99: May I butt in here, as I have corresponded with both of you about Jeeny in past day. But now I need advice (plus also following the advice you just gave Jeeny about links). How do I get an email me link on my User page, and how do I email others? I've enabled email yesterday (I would rather have had a private chat with Jeeny, rather than splashed across her User Talk page), but I couldn't figure out how to do it, and I couldn't find a Help page? Bellagio99 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up from Bellagio99
Thanks for the email pointer. I had eyes but couldn't see. I only looked across the top, as I basically live on My Watchlist. I wasn't even aware of the toolbox, etc. on the left, except for the main Wikisearch box. And I had only looked for help with "e-mail" and not "email". Not one of my better days, but brain dulled from doing taxes. Bellagio99 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to know that too. I wanted that about 2 weeks or so ago because of my dealings with paulapatty. He needed help that I could have providied. Pictures, cropping, sizing, graphics, etc. and email would have been VERY helpful. I thought I turned it on, but like belalagosi, ;p I'm a meathead, but I did my taxes months ago. :) (you said "butt") lol -Jeeny(talk) 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What no welcome back for me?
Thanks for giving me a nice 24 hr wikibreak--I needed it! Took in some sun, played some tennis--it was phenomenal...but I would have appreciated a kind welcome back note, similar to the one you gave Jeeny.Stanley011 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_LMB2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_LMB.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
