User talk:Flcelloguy/Archive06

Esperanza Election

Hello, Flcelloguy. You already know what happened, but now we need to start the Esperanza elections for both Tranche B of the Advisory Committee and for Admin General very soon. There is currently some discussion going backstage at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/December 2005 elections, which you might be interested in seeing. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbenders

Wow! That is different. Well done for coming up with something so new.

I just have a quick question about what we're to do with creating these fictional articles. It would be a strange featured-quality article which didn't contain any wikilinks so should we be creating a whole set of articles around the central theme (e.g. Ooberlang could be an East-european dukedom ruled by the D'Rongan family who would then normally get an article of their own with a link from the Ooberlang article) or is it just one stand-alone article with no links except perhaps to existing articles? --Spondoolicks 10:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter

While I'm not very good at making user interfaces, I think I can figure out how to produce the main engine to process the diffs. Is there somewhere where we should put the code (whenever you have time, I don't have much time these days either) so we can access it and process it? (Preferably on-Wiki) Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know more Visual Basic than Java, but I did take a Java class one semester, and I also have the Eclipse IDE, so I can probably do it. As for how to process them directly, they need to be retrieved from Special:Contributions using a Web Query such as XMLHTTP. I'll look into how to do that exactly later. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Ideally, we should do a SQL query, and our work would be cut out for us, but those are disabled. So, right now, the only way to do it is through Special:Contributions, going to the "earliest" link for the user, and then finding a way to go to the next 5000 edits... quite difficult, but doable. I'll also ask a bunch of people on IRC (particularily White Wolf) to help. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if we wanted to do that, we couldn't... the Contributions method only allows up to 5000 edits per page (it's hard-coded in MediaWiki). Another thing we could do is ask AllyUnion or other user with direct access to the database to host it for us when it's done, but that would require JavaBeans, which makes it even more complicated... Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I downloaded a copy of your code and run it for myself (you don't need the Java SDK, you can have the Java JRE and it works too). Not a bad start! :) I've identified how to split the edits per namespace, and I will do so as soon as I can (I'm in the middle of finals right now), and I'll then post the code to that page. If you don't mind, though, could you tell me if you update the code for some reason? So I'm not working on an old version of code... well, thanks! By the way, I found out I broke the 6,000-edit mark... :) Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I ran into something interesting here [1]. I don't understand Perl, but perhaps it might be a good idea to contact Interiot to see if he can help us out? Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2.0

Ok, I fixed a syntax error in your counter (it was missing a semi-colon), and ran it. However, your program threw an exception when it tried to process this edit:

18:14, 14 November 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Titoxd/Sandbox

Here's the stack dump:

Exception in thread "main" java.util.NoSuchElementException at java.util.StringTokenizer.nextToken(Unknown Source) at Stats.editcount(Stats.java:76) at Stats.main(Stats.java:53)

It has something to do with the way you're using StringTokenizer. I suggest that instead of reading the first 8 words, you read the first 7, then process character-by-character to process "m" minor edits and namespaces. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't have the asterisk, so it was processing the first word... sigh. I'm working on an extension to transfer the raw HTML into a usable text file (actually, working on translating my Visual Basic code into Java). I'm in the middle of finals, though, so I probably won't be able to upload it until the 15th. But yeah.. it's working better now! Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extension 1.00

I took a little break in my studying, and wrote the extension. It is available at User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool. Right now, all it does is parse the contribs out of the jungle of HTML in the Contributions page, but it doesn't do much with them. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I played around with it some more. I released the 2.00 extension (same page), it now parses the name of the pages directly from the HTML, as well as the time and date of the edit. You're free to work on it to get the minor edits, edit summaries, and most-recent edits. By the way, I created a Contrib class that you might find handy... Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Version 3.0

Ok, I now played around with your tool and merged my code with yours. There's no more need for cut-and-pasting, all you have to do is go to Contributions, and save the source code for your contributions file. Right now, I haven't worked on the code for spanning several contrib files (it is a very different algorithm), so the absolute limit for the program is 5,000 edits. All three files are on my Tool page, so you can check them out before the code on your code page is replaced. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... thanks! Actually, BufferedReader should be able to read any text file, regardless of extension, so saving it as .html or .txt should not a problem. As for merging several contribution files, perhaps the PurgeContribs.Purge() function in my 2.15 revision might be helpful: it parsed the contributions in the source code file to an external file at the same time it constructed the Contrib class for the particular contribution. I got rid of that code when I merged your files with mine, but it is still available thanks to Wiki's history, and it could be tweaked to parse the contributions in one file and then append the contributions in another one. That said, I can't work on it since I have another final tomorrow. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jurists

Assigned, again. Be sure to update Template:MedComOpenTasks for this case and the other. Alternatively if you don't want the new case (as you have one (and a half!) already), you can assign it to Sasquatch. The case is listed under Pending as I believe all parties have accepted. Cheers R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Good work on your tool. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

note re: your tool on my RfA

Hey there...thanks for doing the work. :-) I just figured since Kate's tool hasn't been up very consistently lately, that I'd drop a note in there saying approx how things looked last time I checked myself out. It seems to me like your tool takes a lot of work to get any results from, but now that you've done it, thanks for spitting out the results. I don't suppose it came with a breakdown over namespaces? Tom e r ^talk 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of Maoririder

I have been primarily watching his edits and correcting as needed, leaving him notes about relevant policies. In light of his mediation, is there anything I should be doing to cooperate with (or stay out of the way of) your efforts? ESkog | ^Talk 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. Thank you for your support (and sorry about the edit conflict) - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 04:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tool Request

Ignoramus that I am, I am unable to comprehend your new tool. I am severly infected with editcountitis, and havnt had my fix for over a week. This is compounded by the fact that I am approaching the 2000 mark. So, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would help out a junkie like me and tell me my edit count. Cheers Ban e s 13:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how to work your new tool so I'm getting a request for my edit count right now. I know I have passed my 4000th edit not long ago but I want to find out which page was it. Please let me find out my edit count. Thanks! --Aranda ⁵⁶ 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shot, many thanks. Ban e s 06:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also jump on the band wagon and ask for an edit count? I know I'm above 13000 now, but I'm amazed by the variety of stats your tool comes up with. -- user:zanimum

Thank you so much! -- user:zanimum

Edit-counting tool

I hereby award Flcelloguy a barnstar for his creation of a back-up to Kate's tool for counting edits. --TantalumTelluride 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't figured out how to use it, I feel that we must start showing more appreciation for things like this. Otherwise, the contributors might become so unappreciated that they consider leaving Wikipedia. --TantalumTelluride 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't..

..know if you've noticed, but you've been been wikibioed. -JCarriker 18:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose

Protection has voided the inherent racism of Rose's work and therefore is going to be akin to the recent news of late. I'm alerting media about this new instance and will be able to provide the proof from Rose's websites, which are alarmingly heavy with both Anti semitic remarks and radcist ideology.216.175.120.24

Thanks, Flcelloguy! Much appreciated. It will be nice to have a little break. --Sojambi Pinola 05:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About several things

Hey, hope everything's going ok. I've got a few questions for you:

Have you had a chance to check my code? I think I've figured out a way to parse all the contribs together into a single file, which then can be processed into the tool. I've just haven't coded it yet, it requires a significant GUI change and I have to study for my last final tomorrow.
Could you have a look at Semi-protection policy? Several users (me included) have tried to answer your question.
Do you want us to make candidate statements for the Esperanza election? If so, where? Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added support for users with more than 5,000 edits now, and created a basic GUI. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Beethoven :P, I'm almost done with a much more complex GUI for the tool. I'll be posting it sometime today. Also, could you check the Esperanza election page? It seems we had a self-nom late entry, and I don't want to discount votes... Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mentored

I think this template is useful. It informs people that a user is already "spoken for" and that people shouldn't post test templates as they might normally do for such edits. Gazpacho 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

Hi Flcelloguy! I notified just the spamlist, minus those who had already signed up to be candidates and the couple of people who have left the 'pedia. Hope this helped. I'm happy to re-spam the same people when voting begins, or spam the remaining people on the membership list if you think it's okay to do that. Thanks! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 09:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Benders

When are you going to start making requests for things to be added into the mind benders pages? RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 23:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once we submitt are entry can we still change them?? RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza in News and Notes

I don't see a problem with either of us writing it. The only conflict of interest, I would think, would occur if either of us were running. As long as it's just a simple "the elections are happening now, go vote" message, I don't see a problem. Ral315 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Flcelloguy/Archive06: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections again

Hi Flcelloguy! I've spammed the rest of the membership list as requested (see above). I've taken care not to spam anyone I have already spammed, and avoided spamming people already declared as candidates. I've not spammed anyone on the Inactive Members list - would you like this done? Additionally, I posted a different version of the spam on ClockworkSoul's page as s/he doesn't like spam; and I didn't spam Nicholas Turnbull as we appear to have lost him :(

Hope this helps! Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza election help

I noticed on the Dec 2005 election page your name on the list of people to ask if you are interested in helping. I am doing so in this message with abit fo luck - so should you require any assistance (probably as a NPOV) then let me know :) Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about checking, will do what I can. If we should find any people who have voted who should not, do we remove the vote, strike it through and add a comment why, or what? Thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elections once more

Hi Flcelloguy! Judging from the feedback to my talk page and on spammed talk pages, many Esperanza members saw the advert to register as a candidate but not the request to vote that followed it in the same message. Would you like me to spam everyone on the membership list on Friday afternoon specifically about voting or are you happy that people will work it out over the voting period? Wikipedia editors are all above average intelligence so I'd hate to dumb down, but also I'd hate people to get the wrong idea about a democratic election. Let me know what you think/if this matters. Or say nothing if it doesn't and I'll happily go about my usual Wikibusiness once more! :) ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

First, I assume that candidates running for both positions must be listed for each position separately, correct?

Secondly, if the above is true, shouldn't we just divide the tally box into two tables? Ral315 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a second; I'm working on it. Ral315 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. They're not two tables so much as one table, separated to make it look like two. I adjusted the colors a bit...that dark green (00aa00) was painful to read with black text. Feel free to adjust everything as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Returning officer - edit counts

I'm pleased to report that a manual count of the edits of each candidate in the forthcoming election revealed that all have made over 150 edits.

As a side note, Moe Epsilon has suddenly left Wikipedia after being horribly attacked by sockpuppets during his RfA :(

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Returning officer - candidate qualifications

All candidates are members of Esperanza, except as shown below:

There's an issue of determination here. User:Brian New Zealand joined on 12 December. Does "joined by" mean "joined on" or "joined before"?

Moe Epsilon has been moved to "former members" by Lbmixpro, so I'd assume that unfortunately we must remove him from the election. I will be putting a plea to stay on his user page later, though.

Linkofazeroth is listed under "inactive members", but I can see nothing in the rules that would suggest that is a bar to candidacy. Note that the candidate added their name as an anon and has made no logged-in edits to the 'pedia since 7 November 2005.

These are just what I've found out, by the way: none of the above qualifies as a judgement or opinion on any candidate in any way! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would allow Link, as well as Moe Epsilon (for now...if Moe Epsilon doesn't come back, he/she can always be removed). Brian New Zealand did join on December 12, but he did so before Flcelloguy locked the page, so I'd assume that he's eligible (might be wrong, though). Ral315 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

iam breaking down but will be okay i need help with my contribuations..thanks celloMaoririder 20:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My blocking policy

Alright. In the future I'll warn at least twice before I block registered users, but for anons, only once. freestylefrappe 21:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding copyvios is vandalism if users know they shouldnt be doing it. If this in regard to the dispute that led to my current RFC, please see the evidence I have provided, or, more specifically, User talk:Bitola, which shows he was well aware that what he was doing was wrong. freestylefrappe 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

I don't mind, must be the time difference. Thanks for telling me.--Dakota ^t ^e 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza election time fix

I got mine fixed and noticed that SeanBlack,s was around the same time as my original so I left him a note on his talk page. Thanks.--Dakota ^t ^e 20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha Photo

Hello, Flcelloguy. Thank you for commenting on this picture. Please, understand that this sort of glimpse into the geisha's private world as she entertains a client is rarely captured on film. It is disheartening to see this rare visual contribution, which is of relatively high quality, brushed off for minor aesthetic considerations such as a shadow on the wall. This image represents a more accurate and authentic portrayal, better than anything we currently have at Wikipedia, of what a geisha actually does behind closed doors with the men she entertains. You are unlikely to find a better picture of a geisha with a client anywhere because most clients don't take many pictures in the tea room, and when they do they don't go public with them. After reading the Geisha article, I hope you will come to appreciate the rare nature of this exclusive photograph of a real-life geisha with a real-life client in Gion. I hope you will come to realize that, in light of its contribution, the image is of sufficiently high quality to support featured picture status. Please, thoughtfully reconsider. Thank you. ToddLara 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.

(Being bold and removing {{Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Watched}}; considerable objections at the talk page. Thanks!)

What the heck? There wasnt a single mention of the template on the talk page? There needs to be an overwhelming oposition for such a drastic action. You cannot test something without testing it. I am restoring the "watched" template. Please do not consider this as a revert, I just want to test the idea ok? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer: there is considerable objections to the use of the template at Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit. I, too, have concerns about the use of such a template. Would you mind testing the template somewhere else, perhaps on a subpage of the CVU modeled after a real article? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. The problem with that is I know no one will vandalise the discrete page no one knows about with that template. I placed that temlate on two articles that are already vandal magnets (its not like we are risking vandalism). If we observe a decreace in vandalism thats a good sign, if not it is inconclusive. So it is a long process. In light of that what do you think? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I don't mind having a "test" of the template, as long as it is kept short (a week or so) and is limited to one page. I still don't think it should be used, but I don't think having a test will hurt either, as long as other people don't object. Perhaps you should remove the template for now and ask other editors if they mind having the template up for a week? Also, if you're going to do a test, I wouldn't recommend doing it on George W. Bush or John Seigenthaler Sr.. The former's article is currently part of an ongoing debate about whether to include section editing, and the vandalism will fluctuate with that. The latter will receive less attention throughout the week, so vandalism will bound to drop there. How about at Wikipedia? I still suggest asking at the talk page and see if anyone minds the test for a weel. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am fine with that, however may I ask you insert the template ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is to ask at the talk page and see if anyone minds; if no-one objects, then you can add the template for a test. Keep in mind that this should be a "test"; I still oppose the use of the template. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah people will definately compain if I suggest anything there exist people who oppose ides just because I am sugesting it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Elections

Hey, that's fine, I understand. Thank you for letting me know, and (if it was you) for taking my name out from where I voted. I'll be sure to vote in February. And yes, I love classical music. I'm studying Mozart Violin Concerto No. 4 currently, along with Bach, of course...do you currently study, or play only for fun? (Thanks again...I'll be seeing you around. If I come across vandals while I'm welcoming, can I send some of them to you?)--ViolinGirl^♪ 01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Everything looks good. See you around!--ViolinGirl^♪ 12:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of semi protected

FYI. You protected a vandals change "HA HA" _→AzaToth 17:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this nasty little policy...the required changes to the software may not be implemented all too quickly, depending largely upon how the team feels about making a couple other changes we've been discussing. I'm with you on this one, however; and have been, if you check #675 on BugZilla, where I've been a little ruthless in keeping the priorities right. ;-) 86.133.53.111 17:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of developer. One of many. 86.133.53.111 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Read-only. 86.133.53.111 20:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time, either...(worked out which one?) 86.133.53.111 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not on those lists. Me. ;-) 86.133.53.111 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"No incumbents returning"

Are you not returning? I thought the Advisory Council would include you, and 3 elected members... Perhaps I'm confused... --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 17:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlist change

Bad idea, some people don't want to be bothered or spammed, which is why I had a list instead of just everyone. The way it is is kind of telemarketer like — we spam them until they say they don't want it. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha

Your careful attention to this matter is much appreciated, and your reservations are noted. Thank you for shifting to a neutral stance in recognition of the importance of the photo. Previous unsigned comment by ToddLara (talk · contribs), 05:37, 18 December, 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND courtesy note

Just to let you know - I have submitted my entry for WP:MIND round 4. Looking forward to round 2! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) PS, I hope I did it right...[reply]

Toolcruft

Well, version 3.2 of your tool is now available for beta-testing. I took out output to the console (kind of, it is still there for debugging purposes) and replaced it with a "Results" window and a much-improved GUI. The next thing to do for the tool is to process edit summaries in PurgeContribs.java (perhaps it should be renamed to Parser.java, since that's what it really is doing now, but that's another thing). I've started working on some code for that, and you can see it, it is just commented out.

The program is now becoming quite complex... I would recommend to make it a JAR file and then upload it somewhere for easy use... but then, that requires actually handling exceptions, not just creating empty try{} catch{} blocks like I've been doing now... :(

But anyways, the tool is comming well. How, I've done it, I don't know, because I don't really know Java... :O. But I shall be working on it some more too, but I need you to review it and to make some changes before you deploy it... Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and move it wherever you desire. :). If you want a "neutral" name, I had begun work on this tool as WikiEditAnalyzer in Visual Basic, so you might want to think about that one. Just tell me whenever you do it (and tell Interiot too, we had talked about setting a WikiProject to collaborate on this stuff), and tell me when you update the code, because I have a few ideas to solve some of the issues you've listed on your project page. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looking through my User space I ran into this page generated by RobyWayne, which can give us some ideas for output for the tool. So, how's the edit summary thing coming? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, how's the tool coming? (I'm spinning my wheels here! :P) Are you still having trouble with the Unicode parser? We're going to get a lot of incoming requests, since Interiot's Tool got firewalled :(... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Benders

I love the new format. Good idea! Really gets my creative juices flowing. You can find mine here. BTW, I found a clever way to do interlanguage links on the faux articles. I put in [[de:en:Wikipedia:Mind Benders/5/Redirect]] and when you click to see it in german, the article redirects to english and then redirects to the article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost/arbcom

Please see the relevant threads on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005. Elections will likely be the second and third weeks of January, and there have been the usual provisions regarding suffrage and socks. There is some debate on whether we should use Special:Vote software (like last year) or an open vote like WP:RFA (as Jimbo requested). R adiant _>|< 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder

Hi there -- you may not have noticed this since it's now buried in the page: User_talk:Maoririder#Regarding_your_legal_threats -- He started making them almost at the same time. Hmmmm.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A lot of people have tried to assume good faith, but... BCorr|Брайен 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo

Chillout. The dispute was resolved off of Kumanovo. No one disputes the current version. You're taking this a little too personally. freestylefrappe 17:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)a[reply]

The test

Cool Cat, when will the test end at Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.? As I said earlier, that test won't be too reliable because the amount of attention has gone done significantly. Just curious; I don't want the template there that long... :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because of the template? ^-^'. It can end the second you wish to end, I do not care about it anymore.

I decided I am no longer going to come up with ideas that may/may not make wikipedia better.

All I get is people annoying me or oposing my ideas with out bothering to cite reasons. See talk of WP:AGF.

The only thing people dont push me around too much is when I write about Anime. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

Crossposted re: your message: I have been following it, and tried not to get involved while the mentorship was active, but since it seemed to have stalled out and Maoririder had continued his behavior, I felt it ws OK to do a bit of cleanup and later some warning. It would help if others would clean up after him (i.e., deleting sub-stubs and talk pages that consist of things like "{{reqimage}}{{Cleanup-date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}{{uc}}pleeeeese add picture here. this needs it bad. pleese mentor meeee! Lucky you said to mentor me but i got to get help. my bad." But I understand that that wouldn't be you since you've been trying to mentor him, Flcelloguy. So I'm open to your approach.

And BTW, he's following this whole exchange closely, watching the watchers I suppose: see [this diff].

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to your judgment and the judgment of the MedCom with the whole situation. android 79 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Kurier

Thanks for the info! I had heard that the Dutch Wikipedia was going to do a story on it, but not the German one. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 23:56

I would watch nl:Afbeelding:GWB_vandalisms.png to see if any articles ever link to it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 01:00

Wikibio

Could you please do some expansion on exisitng wikibios like Essjay's wikibio; we have a unique opportunity to make a complete wikibio since he has left wikipedia. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poetlister et al blocked

As you were a facilitator in the mediation case involving Poetlister and User:RachelBrown, I thought it pertinent to advise you that Poetlister has been blocked indefinitely under suspicion of being a sock puppet of User:RachelBrown. My involvement was that Poetlister sent me an e-mail asking for my own neutral advice as to whether the situation warranted an escalation to RfC given that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters had refused to participate in the mediation. I suggested yes, suggesting that SlimVirgin be removed from the complaint. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please see my request here : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarification_of_apparent_ArbCom_decision_to_indefinitely_ban_User:Poetlister_as_suspected_sock_puppet_of_User:RachelBrown which to date has not been answered. In other words, zero evidence has been provided that they are actually socks, that CheckUser was actually used, and furthermore that they were actually acting in a way that disrupted Wikipedia. All that we have is the statement from User:Mindspillage that they are, which is apparently based on her "private interaction". Since the only 2 other people who have a clue what is going on are User:SlimVirgin and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, both of whom are involved in disputes with these users (with accusations that they both abused their admin powers), there is a very strong suspicion that they merely sent an e-mail to Mindspillage asking for her to ban them, and that no evidence exists. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who Zordrac is, but I'm almost certain that s/he has a closer connection to RachelBrown/Poetlister than s/he is stating. Zordrac has taken in the last day to writing all over user talk pages scurrilous things about me, even though I've never interacted with this user (under this name) before. Just for the record:

I am not an admin, so it's really hard to imagine how I might have "abused my admin powers".
I had never heard of User:Mindspillage before yesterday, let alone emailed her with any request.
I have no knowledge about how CheckUser works, or what the ArbCom procedure around banning sockpuppets is, and hence no involvement in any of this whatsoever.
There is no Wikipedia cabal.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Don't we usually have some evidence that this has been requested etc? I mean users who are indefinitely banned have to go through ArbCom first, right? Yet this one just happened. Okay so she's on ArbCom but that doesn't mean that she can ignore process, does it? There was no request for Arbitration against the users in question - there were RfArs that they were involved in, but none which were against them. Can ArbCom members just decide on the spur of the moment to ban someone permanently with no evidence? List of blocked users says otherwise. Note that the ban effectively destroys all complaints made against the admins in question, and has been coupled with accusations made against all of the other persons who had supported the view that the admins had acted inappropriately. I don't see how this can be seen as reasonable by anyone. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Ah! Sorry, yes, I've just been behind, catching up on arbcom stuff first. (And missing the mild FLorida winters already!) Will answer you shortly... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder evading block

I have listed this on WP:AN/I as well, but thought you should know that Maoririder has created a new username at User:Jesustoldme (evidence at User talk:Jesustoldme). (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Wikistalker

It looks like my first Wikistalker contacted Lulu to encourage her to start Wikistalking me. Oh goodie. Or, wait, did Lulu happen upon your talk page too? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See: User:Zordrac/Poetlister for everything else. Sorry, I wiped what I previously wrote and included it in this page. You inspired me! :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

I am a newbie finding this all to be quite fascinating. Thanks for the welcome and suggestions.--Delzen 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration (mine)

SCZenz filed a request for arbitration regarding my actions here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freestylefrappe. I have listed you as a party involved. freestylefrappe 18:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

File:CandyCane.JPG

A candy cane for you!

Hi, Flcelloguy! I hope you have an enjoyable and relaxing winter break. :) Take care, Sango 123 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pleiades large.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Fir0002's edited version, Image:Pleiades half.jpg, was the promoted version, so I have uploaded it over Image:Pleiades large.jpg. Congratulations, and thankyou for nominating it. It is indeed breathtaking. Raven4x4x 04:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Flcelloguy/Archive06! Hope it's a wonderful one! (happy New Year, too!)--ViolinGirl^♪ 15:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violations on my talk page by User:Sojombi Pinola

could oyu help me? I'm having difficulty with the above mentioned user. Thank youMary Hope

"She" misspelled my username, which could lead to some confusion. (The fourth letter, a vowel, is different.) Please feel free to follow the discussion on our talk pages. I think it's a waste of time, and apologize, codependently. As to "knowing who" she is, I would happily explain my comment offline. "Her" claims to the contrary, I do not believe anyone is victimizing "her," least of all me nor willmcw.

I have made no 3RR violation on "her" page. I expanded and clarified my own comments, in quick succession, over a short span of time. --Sojambi Pinola 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Vote Changes

Titoxd got another vote=28 to 29 Firefox got another vote=17 to 18 Wikizach 17:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

On the [Chad-Sudan conflict] page I have asked to move it to [Chad-Sudan War]. There is a lot of controversy on this. Please come and help. Thank You Wikizach 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder has moved

He is now at User:Jingofetts. See evidence for sure per a conversation on his talk page (labeled "Hello") and mine (labeled "Hello again"). Not against policy, I don't think, but thought you should know where he is. Same edit patterns as before; his stubs seem to be improving a bit but he still uses tags very incorrectly. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe when you reduced his indefinite block, you specified he read Your first article before coming back. Personally, I think that is a resonable condition put on this user. If he becomes disruptive again, I think we should insist on this. ike9898 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ESP elections

Hey, Cello. I went around and checked the final tallies, and they match the votes on the voting page. However, they don't take into account any discrepancies you might have found. Cheers. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know that you still have to certify it, so don't worry about it. By the way, did you hear that Interiot got firewalled? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um... controversy... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. By the way, since I had updated the numbers, but they got lost in the commotion, would it be ok if I updated the table (I'm not election staff after all)... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, from what I've seen. If Merovingian and karmafist end up tied, do we have a run-off election? And if so, is it one week or two? Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flcelloguy! Late to chime in, but I can confirm that I can see no discrepancies in the votes cast and finally recorded. The votes discounted, if counted, would not change the results of the election. Therefore I would happily <carter type="jimmy"> declare that the voting in the Esperanza General Election of 2005 was free, fair, open and transparent. </carter> My only caveat would be that the election was temporariliy closed early and in that period, some votes may have been lost; however, judging by the editing pattern and the times between votes, it seems unlikely. The time the poll was closed was far enough out of "peak Wikitime" to have had a negligible effect; also the poll was reopened and remained so in peak Wikitime for enough time for that mistake to be rendered null. Finally, the margin of victory of the 4 winning candidates is such that, barring a fluke surge in voting during that time that was radically different to the previous pattern, no ultimate effect on the result was likely.

I have roughly tabulated this in a OO Calc spreadsheet (I know that's sad, but this is an encyclopedia, after all!) and I can tart the spreadsheet up and make it available should anyone have a just complaint. (I really hope they don't, I'd have to spend so much time on it, it'd be killing, honestly!)

Otherwise, in my humble opinion, the result may now be officially announced (I looked on the page but haven't check my email; if they have been announced, I will look like an idiot. But the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree on that score, so I'm not worried ;) ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Go.com, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hey, cool. I was thinking that someone should create the Go.com article when it came up as a red link in the Signpost last week. Nice work on it :) Ral315 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN and ArbCom

I would probably run them all at once, if you have time to do so. The elections start hours before we go to press, and I feel we should have all candidates profiled by the time they start. On another note, what were you planning on doing for candidate profiles? I mean, I think we should give the candidate's name, date of first edit, sysop or bureaucrat level, any other meaningful titles (ArbCom member previously, MedCom, etc.), and possibly a statement from the candidate. But is there anything else we should have?

Another note for the January 9th issue: Since we go to press so soon after the opening of the elections, we might talk about how the elections are doing, who's in the lead, etc. If you can start a skeleton of a vote tally, I'll update it at press time.

Thanks again for all your work on the ArbCom elections series, and elsewhere (stewards elections, etc.) Ral315 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Council meeting

First, let me congratulate you on becaoming a member of the new Advisory Council. I would like to arrange a meeting with the Advisory Council in IRC either on Saturday or Sunday and wondered when it would be possible (taking time zones into account). Please could you respond on my talk page as soon as possible. Thank you. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail concerning this. Any queries, reply to the email :D --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks

--Delzen 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Pattersonc 01:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude

I want to personally thank you for filling in for the Admin General. I feel like I abandoned you and the rest of the Advisors. I'm really sorry about this. Esperanza entered its darkest age after Essjay left. All hope seemed last, but you kept the project alive. Thanks again. Have a Happy New Year. Acetic Acid 03:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Please see...

I've responded, please let me know if you still find my explanation inadequate. Thanks. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admending Process-?

Hey, just officially joined Esperenza. So, how exactly does the charter admendment process work? When will it begen?

Thanks! Wikizach 05:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being elected on esperanza advisory committee! Since I am now a member I thought I should congratulate our small government too for being elected. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some ideas for a new voting process, and a extention of terms. Wikizach 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolcruft 2

Hey, I finally figured out how to parse the HTML from Special:Contributions directly... if we process the code as UTF-8, there shouldn't be any problem with parsing section autocomment summaries. So, how's the Tool coming? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... well, I can process the HTML page as unicode directly, so maybe I can have a hack at it, now that I have some time. Can you put the updated source code on the project subpage? Thanks! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... by the .txt files, do you mean input files, or the source code files under a different extension? (Because if the source code is fine, but just under a different extension, there shouldn't be any problems by just renaming them...) But don't worry about it, keep working on it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But yeah, answering your questions, you should see the source code as .java files, although some weird renaming could have happened during the moving process. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh... .class files don't contain the code, unfortunately. Do you still have access to the old computer? Because if you do, you could try generating a JAR file that includes the source code, then retry the copy. The program will run, but the code is inaccessible. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, .class files won't give you the source code information as they are encoded in bytecode, not text... :( The Java compiler will let you run them, but not see them (I learned it the hard way...). So, i think it would be quicker to just retransfer them, if possible. (Sorry to hear about the computer, though). Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how's the code again? It seems that we might be able to get webhosting for a JAR file from Lar, but it would be nice to debug your code and release that version. I'm also trying to get more programmers involved in the project too. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Council Question

Hey Flcello, we had a good meeting on IRC the other day, one of the things we talked about was trying to make a reformed version of NPA through the ideas of Esperanza as a whole, I was wondering what you thought about my process for it, as well as the idea overall. karmafist 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TD Waterhouse Centre photo

The photo you uploaded of the TD Waterhouse Centre (Image:TDWaterhouseCentre.jpg) lacks license information. Please provide information on the source and license of the photo. --Tetraminoe 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND

When are you going to start making requests for things to be added into the mind benders pages? Time is about to run out...

P.S: Mind Benders seems to be nice up to here! I'm starting to think being a manual NotificationBot was worth it, after all. Fetofs 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I was thinking that. It's a week past its finishing date. I mean, I'm in no rush but perhaps a note on the announcements section, just to keep us in the loop ;)? --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose #2

As far as I've determined, User:Sojambi Pinola and User:Jonah Ayers have a history that pre-dates the founding of Wikipedia. Pinola is apparently a friend of Rose's, while Ayers seems to have a negative obsession with Rose. Pinola has essentially followed the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, while Ayers has been breaking every policy we have starting with the first edits of his that I noticed, which added fraudulent and libellous material.[2][3] He's engaged in so many seriously abusive activities, including repeatedly posting personal information, that I'm preparing to ask the ArbCom to ban the user. Though I have not been involve as a mediator, I've tried to be a neutral editor and to work towards consensus. I think a lesson for me here is that when editors come to the project with bad faith it is difficult to turn them around. Of course we need to assume good faith, but that does not mean it is always there. -Will Beback 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe will beback has ever done anyhting to help the article, he has chosen sides ,and never truly tried to deduce the accusatiosn that have been cited and sourced about the entry's subject, biff rose. his neutrality has been a joke, if you can call it that, and his catty remarks have been injurious, at one point he tried to imply that a neditor was akin to david duke, a tactic he has apparently used more than one time, on more than one article when others disagree with him216.175.114.62

I was just over at biff rose, and what a mess. Best I can say, having seen Will Beback and his work, he at times is a great editor. he gets to the quick like nobodies business. But, and this is a big but, he does not seem to accurately address some very important issues, and seems to side very much with one editor at Biff rose, as well as entering into some rather rude arguements. I think that should be looked into, because that sort of thing should not be fostered by a wiki administrator.Kevin hopetter 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Featured picture question

Both your and Dschwen's oppose votes were on the basis that the only article the photo was in was Remembrance, which you said was a deletable article and so the photo could not be considered to illustrate an article. You were probably right too, as the article is now a redirect. The photo has however been moved to Remembrance Day, where it is well illustrative of the subject. As neither of you had any problems with the photo itself, I considered your objection fulfilled and promoted the image. Apologies if this assumption was incorrect, but that was my reasoning at the time. Raven4x4x 00:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I really should have contacted you and Dschwen to ask your feeling about it being in the new article. I will be sure to do that in future. Raven4x4x 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you comment on a potential FPC?

hello flcelloguy - This is Debivort, the FPC contributor who made the annotated San Juan Panorama, about which I am thankful for your support. I was wondering if you had time to comment on another potential FPC that I am making. You can find it here. Thanks if you have time! - Debivort 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment at any time. Is the font that you don't like the label font, category font or title font? They are Verdana, Copperplate and Lucida caligraphic. Let me know which you would like revising, and I'll upload a new variant, but, if it is the label font, then I would suggest a sans serif font, rather than times. Ciao, Debivort 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral Redirect

Our "friend" Voice of All has unilaterally put a redirect on List of sexual slurs to make it redirect to Sexual slang. This was done without any discussion or consensus. He then removed the edit option from the page to undo his vandalism. Can you do anything about this admin/vandal? 155.84.57.253 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIND BENDERS

I'd like to still be considered for it. I'll write it now. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jingofetts's IP address

Based on a textdump I removed from his talk page, the IP address is 169.244.143.115. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another featured picture question

I promised to ask before assuming, so here I am! I've been trying to decide what to do with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DrugChart for a few days now. You were opposed partially because the image itself was meaningless outside the article. I was wondering if you had seen Image:Drugchart.png, which does contain the text, and what are your thoughts on that image? Thanks. Raven4x4x 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, and for the advice. Raven4x4x 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom elections page

Hi, why did you revert my clarification of the election process? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr page

I moved it back since moving it broke every single subpage and even though a subpage would have been a better choice to begin with we don't have the time and I doubt anyone has the energy to fix all those broken links, I also changed the main elections page to point to the voting page for the votings. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when your done undo my move then, also please make sure the main 2006 page points to the right page with no redirects and if there's any erroneous redirects please fix them... Thanks. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also my table at the top of the page that needs to point to the right spots as well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have less than 1 hour to get everything working as it's supposed to, no pressure though :) If this works properly remind me to give you a barnstar. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that when the elections start the notice for the top of the watchlists should also be changed to have a link to the /vote page in addition to the link to the candidate statemetns that's already there. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geni is saying that it should stay and I agree with him/her that this doesn't really require consensus. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While your doing that I'll fix them all on the main page so the listings point to the correct place. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reliese that in order to fix the mess you have just made Jtkiefer is going to have to fix about 3 links a minute?Geni 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it, I'll get both, I can do it with a simple find and replace but I have to do it carefully to avoid screwing up people's candidacy statements. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor and check those links, I think I got all of them but the table is still screwed up, I have to try to find a way to fix that. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the links are breaking again. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to use a forward slash. what the hell happened to Skyscrap27's subpage?Geni 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy out the table and fix the table, you and Geni can take care of the rest, I'd suggest changing them all to [[/USERNAME]] Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it should be working now, though hell if I know if all the section editing stuff got through unscathed and I don't especially want to go through each line of the table code to proofcheck it... I guess we can fix any errors as we find them. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka

Ta. I'm still opposing, now based on the statement, but at least it's an informed oppose. :) Ambi 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Thanks for informing me. That's perfectly fine if you'd like to take over one of my beats at some point, though I'd like to keep the Arbitration Report. Any of the others are open. Thanks for your great work on the ArbCom series this year, as well as the Steward elections. Ral315 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollcall

Hello, I'm just checking to make sure you're active. I'm checking with all the mediators listed as active to make sure they are truly active and ready to take a case. Reply at my talk page ASAP :) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage?

I'm just curious if you'd written some suffrage-scanning code as well, since you did a string of suffrage edits just now... --Interiot 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random request

Hey there! I picked you kinda at random since we've had almost no interactions, and you're doing some gruntwork on the arbcom elections. Could you take a look at my vote page and do some long comment filtering? It's getting a tad chatty there. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolcruft 3

(Replied here, where it's nice and low :) :P) Don't worry about that, I know that the ArbCom election is much more important than the tool, so all's ok there. Well, there's still a purpose and need for this tool - we want to have a backup for Kate's (and now Interiot's) tool in case the Toolserver is unavailable. As a result, we need something that can run independently of other servers (except Wikipedia, or course) running. As for cooperating with Interiot and Oleg (who I didn't know was working on something similar) - sure. I've been advocating that since the beginning. We're not in a rush here, but I'd like to work on it before I have to return to school, hence the code requests. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shh, I didn't see this. :) Sorry, I just had Flcelloguy's talk on my watchlist still.

For what it's worth, I'm up for both more cooperation, and for duplication. In terms of bot code, I wonder how many separate copies of code there are to update some wikitext on wikipedia. And things go down. And the toolserver doesn't replicate databases from some asian servers, so Kate's and mine don't work for them, so they definitely need a separate tool (but a tool that won't grossly violate policy and get blocked).

In terms of cooperation, I'm realizing more and more that Wikipedia attracts a lot of smart geeks, and people on wikitech-l and #wikimedia-toolserver are coming up with new toys all the time. Whenever I write a new tool, I'm afraid someone else has already put the time in to write a better one. And there are a lot of ideas out there, and a lot of need for different kinds of bots, and SQL queries and stuff (eg. this one is pretty silly, but shows the range of stuff that people could create). So I think more communication between coders about proposed tools, suggested features, etc. would be good. Also, I encourage you guys to get an account on the toolserver, because it's so nice to be able to run 5-minute-long SQL queries against the database (as well as being able to write shorter CGI-based ones). Kate has JSP running on the server too [4], for what it's worth. --Interiot 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know SQL, even if you're not a prolific coder, it can still be a lot of fun to play around with queries on your own, and there are a lot of useful queries that one can run (another one I don't see advertised much: [5]... overlapping with Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count, but updated more often and is much more efficient). And Kate really is being nice about letting people have an account. I sent you an email, check your inbox. And yes, I'm very interested in becoming an admin. --Interiot 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Benders Notification Bot

Hi. I was poking around at the Department of WikiFun and saw Mind Benders. I think this looks like a lot of fun and I would like to participate in the future. Please add me to the list for the notification bot. Thanks! --Think Fast 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I put the page you suggested on my watchlist. January/February is the busiest time of the year for me, so I don't think I can join in this round, but I look forward to participating in the future! --Think Fast 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin on Simple English Wiktionary

I fulfilled you admin request on Wiktionary in Simple English. villy ♦✎ 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on my RfB

Hi. I have answered your question. I am terribly sorry for the delay in answering it. Naturally, I have the page on my Watchlist, but it appears that soon after you posted there, severeal other posts took place, and because you placed your question at the very bottom of the page (perhaps we might consider moving it up to the "Comments" section, since it is not one of the standard questions?), it somehow slipped passed me for a little while. Sorry again, and thanks for participating in my RfB. Regards, Redux 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing To Your Attention

ArbCom votes w/o suffrage:

Filocht, Ilyanep, Golbez: Davidpdx voted twice, I informed him on his talk page so he might remove it by the time you see it
James F.: Oppose 43 is unsigned
Ajwebb, Netoholic: Turcottem hasn't suffrage (145 edits) Kate's Tool

Just informing you because I saw them on Interiot's tool and I know you're one of the people looking after these

Ilyanep 16:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Oppose 43 was by Davidpdx. It should be allowed, though, since he hadn't voted before on that one. Ral315 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I try to stay out of it because I'm a candidate and I don't really want to mess with that. Ilyanep 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here; I know it's fine to do them, but I don't like touching other people's votes as a principle while I'm in the race. Ral315 (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thank you very much for the nomination. I'm going to be away from the computer for the rest of the evening, but I'll accept it first thing tommorow morning. --Interiot 23:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaoJin (Maorider)

It seems that MaoJin has been caught by the followign block: 13:22, 12 January 2006, Hall Monitor blocked 169.244.143.115 (infinite) (contribs) (Unblock) (severely high ratio of vandalism from this IP; please contact an administrator to have this block removed) according to User talk:MaoJin DES ^(talk) 23:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:169.244.143.115: I was only going by User:Hall Monitor's findings. I have no additional evidence. Feel free to unblock, if needed. OwenX 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recommended course of action makes sense. Thanks for taking care of this! OwenX 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Vote

I didnt know that. I guess I should have just gone through the whole list one time, rather then split it up as I did over two sittings. Thanks for pointing it out though. It was just a mistake on my part. I'll fix the one where I voted both ways. Davidpdx 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Ah I see. Sorry if I was a bit harsh, I didn't think about that. Thanks for clarifying things :). -Greg Asche (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re that annoying, ugly and unreadable {{sprotected-small}}. It has been proposed for deletion on the WP:TFD page. Your comments are welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning??

Hi, the reason I have been editing is to remove some unfair and unjustifiable references to Gibraltarian, who Woohookitty keeps mentioning and accusing of vandalism, unjustly. I did post replies to his rants, but he removed them, therefore the only fair way is to remove the comments. Either I am allowed to reply, or the comments must be removed. Anything else would simply not be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.225.219 (talk • contribs)

Just for your information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Workshop --Ecemaml 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolcruft, toolcruft everywhere!

Hey! I've worked on the tool a little bit, and I implemented edit summaries for the most part (I'm having a bit of trouble with malformed automatic section-edit summaries). Right now, AySz88 is working on automating the tool for processing directly from Special:Contributions. Do you still have new GUI code available? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I hate when that happens. Don't worry. I'm trying to debug it now (and I'll merge in AySz's contributions) and then I'll send the JAR file to you so everyone's on the same page. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current version, v3.31, is posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool already. The only diff that's breaking the code is copied directly to here, if you want to work on it right now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My votes

Hello, I see you struck out my votes in the arbitration election. The rules say voters should have 150 votes by January 9th, and I did. I also registered before September 30th. You said you were going to put a note on the talk page but you didn't see which one, and I can't find anything. Could you direct me to it, please, because I would like to join in the discussion. Thank you. Pintele Yid 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Querying my vote

According to Wikipedia my first post was 23:13, 31 July 2004 (hist) (diff) m Welsh Assembly Election 2007 and I have made over 500 posts (which I assumed allowed me to vote). Can I ask what the legal definition of suffagre is and how close I am to obtaining it? Harry Hayfield 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose votes

There seems to be something up with my oppose votes which is confusing the Mathbot counter into increasing the total by one - don't know if you can do anything about it. Would not want to do it myself in case it looks like an attempt to interfere in the proper processes. David | Talk 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to my own oppose votes at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv, currently at 46 but showing at 47 in Mathbot (not by Interiot's tool). David | Talk 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Grammatical error

Trying to post the details on that same page. Very short post. No URLs in it. When I go to save page it says that the page is protected by a spam filter. I know it cannot be anything in my short post. Is this a general page problem? If so do i just wait for it to resolve - shall I give you the info on this page - or shall I use the WP page you mentioned. Thanks. Davidpatrick 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all - just want you to know that my note on your talk page was not referring to the actual issue. It was to let you know that I had just encountered a separate problem on the Wikipedia:Help desk page when I was trying to give you the details of the grammatical problem. And I didn't want you to think I was inexplicably switching from the Help desk page to your personal talk page without a reason!

Anyway - now to the actual original problem.

Thanks for the rapid response. It's a fairly minor error - but I suffered through grammar lessons at school so I feel I ought to share the little I learned!

It's a line on the standard discussion page given to anon. users (ie those who are only identified by an IP address)

it reads:

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by their numerical IP address.

I believe that the use of the plural is incorrect. I think it should read:

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by his/her numerical IP address or This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address.

Hope this wasn't too minor!

Thanks Davidpatrick 02:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to help even on a small thing. My parents may think that their investment in my education wasn't entirely wasted! Davidpatrick 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed your edit to the MediaWiki page. 'They' is the most commonly-accepted gender-neutral pronoun, and it was used on that page as such. 'The user's' works as well, though, so it matters not. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathoschild dropped me the same note. I thought you might enjoy reading my friendly response.

Thanks for your note. Glad that you're not unduly worried by the change. The topic of singular/plural is one of those where there is certainly a common colloquial tradition of usage that is nonetheless gramatically erroneous.

eg if someone said this:

If the person has a problem tell them to see me

It's just one person - so it is not correct to say THEM"

It has to be:

If the person has a problem tell him or her to see me or If the person has a problem tell the person to see me

Of course the erroneous usage has become commonplace - even cropping up in popular songs. The New York Times actually took Sting to task once on this particular point - describing "If You Love Somebody Set THEM Free" as "post-grammatical"!

Of course the lyric wouldn't scan so well if it was "If you love somebody - set him or her free"!

Anyway - I hope my change didn't seem persnickety. Thanks. Davidpatrick 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpatrick 05:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Double-posted on my user-page (where the discussion is merged).) No more gramatically erroneous that the singular use of 'you', a plural pronoun. ;) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Interesting point. Wiktionary defines "you":

You was originally a plural form, the singular being thou. You gradually came to be used as the polite singular and was eventually generalized to the singular in all circumstances.

I think usage being "eventually generalized.... in all circumstances" is different to colloquial usage that hasn't been "generalized" and accepted by grammarians. The fact that "thou" (the original singular of "you") became abandoned in common parlance meant that there was no alternative. Whereas a person can still use his or her knowledge of grammar to be correct!

What dost thou think of that?! Davidpatrick 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page, since there's no need to double-post every comment. If you wish, I can copy&paste the merged discussion to your talk pages for your archives. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 13:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Flcelloguy... You nominated me for RFA, then mentioned three of my tools in the Signpost, and have been keeping a close watch on my RFA's tally. I'm honored, and am thankful for all of it. Regarding the tallying... is that something I can help out with? I've kept away because I don't know if it's a conflict of interest, but you seem to be spending some amount of time on it. --Interiot 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Navy binoculars.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder

Howdy. Are you still mentoring Maoririder? If so (or even if not) LEAVEMETHEHELLALONEDAVID (talk · contribs) may interest you. android 79 20:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see User:FragileFrigateBird. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now User:TexasLonghorns2006 seem to be his latest incarnation. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page we can use to collect evidence of Maoririder's recent actions, just in case the issue of discipline comes up again? BTW, I thought the following edit summary from a recent User:FragileFrigateBird contribution was illuminating:

"start! stubs right now feeling my way again changed medications..."

ike9898 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

and why are you wasting hours each day on this website when you could be doing more useful things ?

Popular misconceptions versus historical accuracy

I did appreciate your assistance on the singular/plural grammatical issue. And enjoyed the historical mini-debate it provoked!

General question. I'm fascinated to know the Wikipedia attitude to the issue identified in my headline. Especially as it relates to the naming of articles where there is a need for a qualifying descriptive (arising from a need for disambiguation.)

Obviously we want to be as user-friendly as possible. So we designate terminology and article page titles that will help people locate the page as swiftly as possible.

But what happens when there is a minor conflict between a popular misconception (that may make it marginally easier to locate a page) versus the historical accuracy of something? Or between popular (but erroneous) descriptives used elsewhere (outside Wikipedia) versus the historical accuracy of something?

Does Wikipedai prefer to err on the side of user ease - even if it codifies existing misperceptions. Or does historical accuracy play a part? Do we have a mission to gently err on the side of factual accuracy even if the outside world has made minor mistakes?

Given that disambiguation pages customarily have a few words of descriptive text that help delineate the various meanings of the same word (ie the visitor is not dependent solely on the descriptive word(s) in parentheses that help disambiguate an article title - does that not mean that there is a preference that the descriptive in parentheses should err on the side of historical accuracy rather than popular perception (or misperception)?

Sorry if that's a bit philosophical for a Thursday morning! Davidpatrick 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about the single/plural issue. As you say - it seems to be agreeably settled now. I greatly look forward to your response to the above note about "Popular misconceptions versus historical accuracy" Davidpatrick 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! our notes crossed! I will send you something specific as an example. Davidpatrick 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example. A rock band picks a name for itself. Band becomes successful worldwide. Has wikipedia article written about it. Band name has other meanings. Already are articles about that word. So article is named with descriptive about it in parentheses "(band)" as a suffix. That article name becomes accepted. Then an article gets written about another band that used the identical band name - but over 20 years earlier. It was the first band to go by that name. (That fact not in contention.) The earlier band was well established and had worldwide releases but never achieved mass success. A cult band rather than mass appeal band. And still sporadically active. When article about this first band to have the name was written it could not have the suffix "(band)" after its name as that had already been applied to the article on the more recent band. So the article was named with a suffix that referred to the decade it had been formed.

Another wikipedian notices it and notes that since the band that originally had the name was active in subsequent decades - and is still sporadically active - that it was unduly limiting and inaccurate to use the decade of its formation as the differentiating descriptive. So - since the fact that the band had the name 20 years before the successful band is not in contention - nor that it was the first such band to have that name - the suggestion is made that the descriptive suffix should be "(original band)". It's factual. It's documented. A fan of the latterday (and far better-known) band of that name - objects. Yes it might be factually accurate that the first band was the original band to have that name - but the term "(original band)" would be confusing to people seeking an article about the much more successful recent band of that name. They might see "(original band)" and think that it was an article about the very first lineup of the recent band. So - though by any standards of historical accuracy the first band WAS the "original band" by that name - it is claimed that use of that descriptive might confuse fans of the later, more famous band - and therefore should not be used. That is an example of where a historically accurate title might be rejected because of a notion that it might be confusing.

A corollary of that is the suggestion to use an alternative descriptive to distinguish the original band from the second band that IS in popular usage - but happens to be factually inaccurate. There are online record retailers that have tried to confront the problem of there being two identically named bands with product on sale by identifying the original band by a definition of nationality. Using a suffix that includes a country name and the word "band". To differentiate it from the other band. But the country always ascribed for the band's nationality is NOT the band's nationality. In fact none of the members have that nationality! (They are multiple nationalities and thus they cannot easily be labelled by nationality.) They happen to have at one time lived and recorded in that country - but have no affiliation to that country beyond that.

The distinction made by online retailers is an informal one - and is not reflected on the actual packaging which just has the official name of the band. It is only in the descriptive text on the webpages of online retailers. One party says - "well it may be technically inaccurate - but since it is in popular usage by online retailers - it is the preferred way to describe them on wikipedia which must be accomodating to users." The other party says - "a factual error by other non-official parties - no matter how widespread - is not the sanction for wikipedia to compound the error on its own pages in the erroneous naming of an article. The disambiguation page can alert visitors that the band is sometime erroneously described that way - but the article name in an encyclopedia should adhere to the truth rather than to popular misconception."

So that's the Gordian Knot! I find it fascinating. I wonder if these issues have been addressed somewhere in the wikipedia guidelines? Davidpatrick 03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND

Just to warn you, my computer is not on a working mood and I only have six questions ready, so I won't be able to post them right now. I'm going to try to post them by the 23^rd, but that is likely not going to happen. Can you wait a little for my pc to get fixed if that happens? Fetofs 18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to start without me, the questions are here.

- Thanks for waiting. I guess I wasn't the only one with problems ;)My questions are ready.

WP:AAP

User:Wikizach has written a brief text on it, but I'm afraid that doesn't nearly live up to our standards of journalistic quality. As such, I'd appreciate it if you were to write about it; nobody else in the newsroom has expressed that intent. R adiant _>|< 13:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And note that there are two proposals now based on the opinions expressed in WP:AAP, as noted on its talk page. Thanks for your time. Radiant_>|< 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've made some small corrections to the article (hope you don't mind), please take a look at it. In particular, some of the new questions were missing from the statistics, one %number was incorrect, I've clarified the bit about the RFC proposal to more accurately match the actual proposal, and I've reworded the initial reaction to the WP:COC, since to my best knowledge there have not (yet) been any comments that it may be undesirable (if there are, please let me know, I'd be happy to discuss it with them). Oh yes and I've added a short warning that the statistics don't fully represent the opinions. Yours, R adiant _>|< 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Special Seris

When you are done with the Arb.Com. special seris on the WikiSignpost, can I do a seris on the Userbox wars?

Thanks for all your Help!

)

Wiki eZach 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Your arbitration committee vote motivation said I could ask if I had any questions. Well, I've really enjoyed the feedback I'm getting in the arbcom election, and it looks like I'll be on the reserve bench for this year. I still want to do the best I can though, and see how far I get. :-)

Could you tell me a bit more about the reasons for your oppose vote in this case?

Kim Bruning 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote

It doesn't seem fair, but thank you for explaining. Pintele Yid 07:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okefenokee Swamp

Thanks for your contributions to Okefenokee Swamp. I wonder has anyone invited you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida? --Tetraminoe 09:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No confidence

If you are going to weaken this tool by putting a proposed tag on it, you will have to do the same for the dozens of other tools that have no official status in Wikipedia either. --Cunning Linguist 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Xiangqi

Replied. enochlau (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND

Hey...do you mind helping me with my questions? I'm drawing a huge blank. I've got two done. I'm #5. Thanks :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I'll try those tips. Obviously, though, I won't be finished then by the deadline (GASP! IT's passed already!) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 00:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

..for your support, and your congratulations. Even if you are going to give me the third degree later! :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections

Thanks for your congratulations. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost interview

Thank you for the questions, I have endeavored to answer them below. - SimonP 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SimonP. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
A mix of delighted and daunted.
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
I had great concerns about the election, as I don't think RFA works all that well. For the most part, however, it worked quite well and kudos are due its organizers.
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
I obviously owe a great deal of thanks to the large number of Wikipedians who supported me. For those who opposed me, my goal is to prove them wrong by being an excellent arbitrator.
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
They are without exception an excellent group of people.
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
I do think this is a good idea. Incumbent arbitrators have an inherent disadvantage when facing reelection as their job ensures that they regularly penalize other users, and these same users then come back and vote against them. Some avenue has to be created to overcome this handicap, and while direct appointment may not be the best solution it is an adequate one for the present.
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
I still don't really know what I'm doing. I've been WP:BOLD and jumped into a few cases already, but I think it will take some time before I am fully grounded in the procedures and conventions of the ArbCom.
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
For the most part I feel the ArbCom has worked fairly well, especially considering the difficult task it is tasked to perform. Speed has always been a weakness, as is the mess that evidence pages usually become.
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Human nature, so we could dispense with the ArbCom and all write an encyclopedia in harmony.
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
It seems like a useful idea, and anything to speed up the process is important. However, a great deal of power could be accrued by these clerks. I think having multiple clerks with multiple viewpoints, who can collaboratively process cases, would be a good idea. Similar to how we have multiple users work on each article to ensure its neutrality.
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
I very much plan on finishing my term. I've been with Wikipedia for four years and expect to be fully involved for many more. Then again, I'm sure that the last group of arbitrators all expected to finish their terms and a surprising number did not.

Signpost interview

Hi Flcelloguy

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
I am delighted that the community felt sufficient trust in me. It is very gratifying and confirms my belief that I have done good things while I have been here. This is especially so since I believe I am the youngest Arbitrator (past and present). On the other hand, I am a little alarmed at the workload!
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
To my surprise (and gratification) they were conducted for the most part very well. I had my concerns about the procedure before it started, but the only significant problems came with trolling on the questions pages. I am grateful to the elections organisers for their effort. As to a possible improvement, it was annoying and disruptive to have over sixty candidates, the vast majority of whom had no chance of election. I hope a future election will exclude these somehow.
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
To those who supported me, thank you, I'll do my best not to disappoint. To those who opposed, thank you as well. Your opinions were useful, and I also got some good laughs from the rationales (the one saying transparency was more important than justice was priceless).
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
The ones that I know are all exemplary Wikipedians and wonderful people. I hope to get to know those whom I haven't previously known very well.
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
I think it is very important to have a good number of experience Arbitrators on the Committee. The selection procedure is to be commended for allowing this to happen.
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Bloody hell, there's a lot of work!
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
The main strength is that it normally gives the right decision. The main weakness is its tendency to be drawn out with open-and-shut cases taking far longer than necessary.
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
I would prefer to have more time to understand the process before I make any such judgments.
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
I think this is an excellent idea. Evidence pages have a habit of becoming a horrid mess, which makes our job that much harder. For to allay the fears of any who have concerns about those without community approval shaping Committee decisions, I shall never base my opinions solely upon that of a clerk, but shall use such an opinion as a good place to start reading a case.
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
Yes, I do intend to finish my term. I don't know exactly what my plans are for 2007 yet (I may be extensively unable to contribute to WP), so I have no idea whether or not I'd stand again.
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Get back to work!

Thanks for the questions. Don't make me look stupid! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

I just feel like 2-3 days of SP won't hurt. Maybe it'll scare off a couple of the vandals. It's borderline but brief SP won't hurt anything. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. I don't proactively protect. Next time, just overrule me. I'm more offended by people criticizing me without knowing my record on this stuff than people overruling me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize. Didn't mean to snap at ya. We've had one hell of a bad week on RfPP. Not sure if you've taken a look, but we had one case where a guy threatened a *vote*. I usually don't power trip, but admins run the page. Period. End of story. So a vote is sort of pointless. Anyway, that and lots of other stuff. I probably need to take a night or two off from it. Thanks for the kind words and for not getting mad. :) Just a stressful week. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR admins turned this guy down. FOUR. We often don't even have 4 admins watching the page! :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolcruft... again

Hey, I've finally got rid of that darned bug that prevented correct processing of edit summaries, and the Tool has been released to version 3.4, so you can update your copy. AySz88 has been working on a ton of nice code that will allow us to parse directly from Special:Contributions, we just need to merge the codes together. However, while the tool can process the edit summaries, it doesn't do anything with them (there's nothing in Stats.java that calls on those fields). So, would you mind having a look at the code and telling us what you think we should add? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Don't worry about it, though... just have a look at it right now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Wikipediology Elections

Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | ^Θ 04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a little favour

The Sun Yat-sen article, that I've been busily working on previously, is under frequent vandalism attack by anonymous users recently. Since most contributors to the article are logged-in users, I hope you can protect this article from being edited by anonymous users. This has been discussed in Talk: Sun Yat-sen and so far received no objection. Hope you'll do me this little favour. Deryck C. 05:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

...Answered. Sorry about the delay. And I hope you weren't expecting anything great. :-) Dmcdevit·t 06:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help a newbie?

I've found a new user who has used his email address as a username. He's User:Nihitmehta08@yahoo.com. I'd like to intervene and advise him to get that identity deleted so as to avoid SPAM, while he still has only the one edit to his name. However I'm afraid I've no idea where to start. I'm not an admin so even if he agreed I couldn't do anything to help him myself. My guess, from his anon contributions here is that he is a very young newbie. Do you think I'm right to be a bit concerned on his behalf? If yes are you able to help him out? Cheers AndyJones 09:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just butting in here) You should advise him to go to wikipedia:Changing username Raul654 09:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have suggested that. AndyJones 09:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Sorry for the delay; I was out of town over the weekend and had limited Internet access.

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
I'm honored that the community granted me that opportunity and I hope that I won't let them down. I said right after the election that I was in a state of shock and it still seems a little unreal.
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
I expected the worst and was pleasantly surprised. I think enforcing the rule against diatribes on the voting pages helped matters. In the future, the suffrage rules ought to be decided further in advance.
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
In both cases, that I'm not taking it personally.
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
They're good folks with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
Their experience thus far has been invaluable. In that regard, I support Jimbo's decision whole-heartedly. Too much turnover on the committee would create chaos.
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
It's a good idea given the amount of paperwork we handle. Any deliberating body has a support staff; it makes sense that we have one.
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
Barring unforseen developments, yes. I'll run for re-election if I think I still have something to offer.
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Please take care in writing your requests for arbitration. Explain yourself concisely and provide relevant diffs. The easier it is for us to determine what's going on and why the faster we can arbitrate your case.

Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Emma Watson

Heya! I noticed your edit hereto; I intentionally put this at the top because this information is regularly changed incorrectly. Was I incorrect to believe it important enough to top the page? Radio Kirk talk to me 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that people often change that information to an incorrect version?

Yeah, constantly. But, perhaps you're right that the comment will do the job. Radio Kirk talk to me 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview answers.

> 1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

It would be fair to say I was thoroughly shocked that I got so much support. I never expected that; hoped for it, of course. I'm still feels a little unreal.

Arbcom is hard work, and right now it seems a touch daunting, but to what sane person wouldn't it? All I can say is that I welcome the chance to work hard for Wikipedia and its community of editors.

>2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?

The elections went better than I feared. While it would have been nice if we'd all known how they were going to work a bit more ahead of time, there was surprisingly little chaos. While I had my worries about open, RFA-style voting, the advantage of it is that the results are clear for all to see - verifiable.

A fair few users were surprised to find they didn't have suffrage. Perhaps next time it should be clearer more in advance.

>3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

That in both cases I hope I exceed expectations.

>4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

They are a great bunch of hard-working, committed Wikipedians that I respect very strongly. I doubt we'll all agree all the time, but that's not the point - we all have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and will try and do the best for the project.

I am worried about nobody having heard from Filiocht since before the election concluded, and I hope he's OK.

>5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?

Arbcom needed more bodies, given the dropout rate in the past and the fact that some peoples' lives inevitably get busy. All three have proven themselves good Arbitrators, willing to work hard at the task, and they all got good approval ratings from the community. Speaking selfishly, I'm glad that it means we have eight experienced Arbitrators on the committee so us newbies don't have to come up to speed on ALL the old cases all at once. It also helps keep continuity, which is a good thing in my opinion.

>6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

That there's a lot of procedure to get used to. I'm handling it by mostly jumping in and seeing what works.

>7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?

The biggest historical weakness has been speed of decision-making, especially on cases of serious disruption.

>8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

We need to explore better dispute resolution at the pre-arbcom stages. When things get so bad the arbcom get involved, peoples' positions are entrenched and bridges have been burned.

>9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?

I support it. Wikipedia is getting bigger, and the number of arbcom cases will inevitably increase. Help with the mechanical mechanisms of the Arbcom and in helping present evidence will improve the arbcom's efficiency, which I think we all agree needs to be better.

>10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?

Right now, I plan to finish my term. RIGHT NOW I would say I would run for re-election, but that's a long, long way off.

>11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?

Remember the goals of the project, and remember that most people are trying to do the right thing in good faith.

Sorry for the delay; I was very busy ;) —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim16

This known vandal just attempted to "blank" his talk page again. I believe he's overdue for intervention. Radio Kirk talk to me 00:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, I logged off before your message. Jim16 has no contributions since your warning, so I'm not going to do anything at this point, but if he persists, feel free to ask me if I'm around, or you can try WP:AIV. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob... as it turned out, the reason I didn't take him to WP:AIV at that moment was because there was no more activity. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]