User talk:Neil/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pinktulip
I thought my WP:AN post wasn't going to get any hits and then a few people showed up, so I'm glad, and thanks for the post. You might look at Talk:Terri Schiavo again. As I think you know, I'm not about punishing people for glib humour but this is bullshit. Where I live and where I was born have nothing to do with how I edit a page. No links provided--you might just read down from "Marskell is becoming destructive". It's actually sort of amusing. Marskell 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ya, well... [1]. It's harmless really, and just sort of juvenile but it's the refs to where I'm living that I'm uncomfortable with. He also seems to like dropping "nigger-lover" into posts whenever he can. Suggestions, including yours, appear to be doing little good.
- Thanks for calling me a superhero by the way... Do you want to start a cabal?... Marskell 07:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Check it
Recent talk page shenanigans aside, I have a user page here User:Marskell/Schiavo that has the page as it was before the removal of the medical history but with some changes of my own. It's at 72 K and I honestly feel that if we can get it down to 65 we should go with it. Just wondering if you think that might work. Marskell 12:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The point wasn't to revert his changes as such. I was thinking every section since worked on by him could be cut and pasted to the version which contains the medical history. There was simply no consensus to remove that. If we keep his abbreviated version of the medical history we should abbreviate the whole thing and have a 20k article. At least then the coverage wouldn't be lopsided.
- Option two is to simply stop watching it, which I'm half leaning towards. Wasted enough time a few months ago on it and I'm wasting more now. Marskell 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, Pink and his socks have been blocked. Let the dust settle a bit and then take a look at the page fresh. Marskell 08:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles that need to be wikified
Hi Jitse. On Feb 8, you deleted Articles that need to be wikified, which was a redirect to Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Some guy said it failed rule 5 - which it did - but one of the exceptions was if 'someone found them useful' - if someone had bothered with a 'what links here' check, they'd have seen someone did (I use it on my user page). There's no handy WP:WIKIFY or something similar, unfortunately.
It's no big deal, and you're doing an great job keeping the RfD page tidy, but maybe it would be helpful if you just checked before deleting, especially when the entire 'consensus to delete' was one single nomination. Thanks. Proto||type 11:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, I appreciate your feedback. It seems that some people are hesitant to comment on adminstrative actions because these sometimes lead to angry responses; this worries me greatly.
- When I delete redirects, I check the "what links here" to see whether there are links to the redirect. I assume that I also did this for Articles that need to be wikified. However, I do not bother about breaking links from talk pages, since they often link on purpose to the redirect page. I think that, when scanning the "what links here" list, I unconsiously skip any link which is not from the main namespace; in particular, I did not consider the link on your user page (and on the pages of other users). You're right that the fact that you are using it on your user page signals that it is useful to you, so I should pay attention to links to redirects from User page. I will do that from now on.
- I hope this answer suffices; if not, please let me know. Thanks again for your comment. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Valentines Day!
 |
May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell |
 |
[edit] 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal
The administrator, reverted his decision and reposted my article to the FAC page. If you like it, please vote "support". Thanks again! --Jayzel68 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Funniest RFA comment ever award.
I never thought I would see the words "titty bridge" on WP:RFA. Nice work. Ral315 (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On behalf of my left eye
which lost the strabismus game to my right eye, I would like point that "poop" is a somewhat POV characterization of an achive. ML will keep that characterization as is, but you might want to ask yourself if the label "poop" has an more NPOV information value than, say, the nutritional value of popcorn. -- AlhambraGuy 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Aledhaydnjones.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aledhaydnjones.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: RFA
On Cooksey's RFA each of your Neutral comments incremented the vote counter. I grouped them without chaning the content. Although RFA is "not a vote" the numbers havnig meaning to many, even in the neutral column. If you feel this is an inapproriate change of your RFA discussion, please revert my change. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Baden-Powell AfD
You cited my opinion in your own opinion on this AfD; so I thought that I would inform you that I have changed my own vote after further research.
Cheers, -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cyber Slam
The Cyber Slam entry has been updated. This is far from complete, however I just throught I would inform people. Tigger-oN 11:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Philipino actors
Dear dude of awesomeness. Did you find a sollution for the bizarre Philipino actor stubs? I presently reside in the portal of eternal fraternal love and Premiere Production is toplisted with 61 links due to the actor stubs linking to it. It's bad karma and it's making a lot of people sad and depressed... and we'll prefer to remove it from the list rather then spending energy researching obscure information for a non-notable company. Wiki be With you. Celcius 22:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Aight man - I'll strikethrough the sucker. Another glorious victory for the army of mostly good people. Celcius 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dodgy Philippines actors
I noticed you have a link to a page in my user-space; note that I'm just using that as temporary working space for stub-sorting, so I wouldn't depend it on having any given set of contents at any point in time. Best place to monitor is probably Cat:Filipino actor stubs, as that's where I'm dumping^Wsorting them. Alai 23:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Strampop
Dear Sir,
I find your accusation of sockpuppetting to save this article offensive. We are working hard to ingrain what we feel is a term that adequately describes an as-yet un defined niche in the local cultural scene, and yet we find people who are barriers to progress. How you can claim to be a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist, and yet make rash decisions and accusations like that is beyond me. Kilbosh 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Fully aware of the wikipedia use of sockpuppetry, I would like to see a retracting statement, as I do not feel that this is the case. A statement suggesting sockpuppetry would be more in line with what you are proposing, as opposed to a blatant accusation. Meanwhile, I feel you are not aware of what we are proposing with our page. strampop is no longer a protologism: we are not utilising Wikipedia so as to create a new term. Strampop is a term which is already embedded in our culture, and we feel that, as a part of culture, it should be catalogued in thie encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is, afterall, a living, breathing project. The time when it starts refusing change is the time when it starts to die. Regards. Kilbosh 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re : Hey
All taken care of. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:mathbot
Hey Oleg. This diff - [2]. That crazy Mathbot overwrote my comment! Grr, stupid bot! :@ Just kidding, I don't mind, but you probably ought to look into it. Proto||type 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- That was a subtle bug when the bot encountered edit conflicts. I wrote that specific code with much more care now, so it will either try to merge its changes in, or fail, but not overwrite others. Hope it will work as expected. Thanks for the note! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Katelyn Faber
Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 19:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
