User talk:Aecis/Messages 385-396

User talk:Aecis
Archived messages
Messages 1-12 • Messages 13-24 • Messages 25-36 • Messages 37-48 • Messages 49-60 • Messages 61-72 • Messages 73-84 • Messages 85-96 • Messages 97-108 • Messages 109-120 • Messages 121-132 • Messages 133-144 • Messages 145-156 • Messages 157-168 • Messages 169-180 • Messages 181-192 • Messages 193-204 • Messages 205-216 • Messages 217-228 • Messages 229-240 • Messages 241-252 • Messages 253-264 • Messages 265-276 • Messages 277-288 • Messages 289-300 • Messages 301-312 • Messages 313-324 • Messages 325-336 • Messages 337-348 • Messages 349-360 • Messages 361-372 • Messages 373-384 • Messages 385-396 • Messages 397-408 • Messages 409-420 • Messages 421-432 • Messages 433-444 • Messages 445-456 • Messages 457-468 • Messages 469-480 • Messages 481-492 • Messages 493-504 • Messages 505-516
Archived Wikipedia Signposts
Signposts 1-12 • Signposts 13-24 • Signposts 25-36 • Signposts 37-48 • Signposts 49-60 • Signposts 61-72 • Signposts 73-84 • Signposts 85-96 • Signposts 97-108
Archived newsletters
Alternative music: 1-12 • 13-24
Formula One: 1-12 •
Military history: 1-12 • 13-24

Please read WP:DATE for correct formatting instructions

Per WP:DATE, places of birth and death are not to be entangled within the lifespan of the individual. Thank you and Cheers, CP 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your CfR closure

Hi Jc37. I just noticed your closure of the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Paintings by artist. Could you elaborate on your reasoning behind this closure? As the nom, I'm obviously biased on this, but I can't deduce your closure from the discussion. Yes, there was one concern about the existing standard/convention. That might result in a discussion to change the convention, but I see no ground for suspending the application of the standard/convention altogether. AecisBrievenbus 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The man thing that "hung up" this nomination from the discussion was that most of the commenters were "hesitant" for various reasons. One significant one (particularly since this was a group nomination) was the question of "nicknames" vs. presumed "full names" (but only for "some" of the cats, and which they were wasn't clear to me), and what the convention on that should be. The question of changing the over all convention to "paintings by" was secondary to that. That said, I wanted to make sure it didn't appear I was "closing the door" on any renominations or other discussions which may eventually result in consensus, hence the rest of my comments. I hope that clarifies. If not, please feel free to ask : ) - jc37 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has clarified your considerations when you closed the CfR (thank you for that), but I'm afraid I still don't see your point. It is true that Johnbod (talk · contribs) was a bit reluctant, in view of the nicknames. This would probably apply to Category:Botticelli paintings‎, Category:Carpaccio paintings‎, Category:Correggio paintings‎, Category:Mantegna paintings‎ and Category:Perugino paintings‎. The only real objection to the CfR came from HeartofaDog (talk · contribs), who opposed the naming standard in general. But as I said in my first message to you, while that might result in a discussion to change the existing standard, I see no ground for suspending the application of the existing standard altogether. I'm weighing my options at the moment. I'm not sure whether to request a second opinion at WP:DRV, or to request renaming of the categories not covered by Johnbod (talk · contribs)'s hesitations (Category:Chagall paintings, Category:Dürer paintings, Category:Rubens paintings‎, Category:Vermeer paintings‎ and Category:Zoffany paintings‎). I will let you know. AecisBrievenbus 01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Incidentally, not to dissuade to from DRV, but if I were to offer a preference, I would suggest just renominating them, since the renom is the same length of time as a DRV (which may result in a relist anyway). You could split the noms entirely individually, or into semi-related groups (such as the group you list above). And perhaps this time a clearer consensus may be found.
Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins

Hi Aecis. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have decided to request a review of your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Paintings by artist. I would like to ask you to explain your considerations for the CfR closure there as well, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 29#Paintings by artist. AecisBrievenbus 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the notice. I've left a comment there requesting that those reviewing (including the closer) to please take our discussion above into consideration. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of L.E.K. Consulting

Hi, thanks for getting back to me regarding the deletion of the L.E.K. Consulting entry I wrote earlier today. I understand that the article was speedy deleted because it had been deleted previously. What I don't know is why it was deleted in the first place. Although I am an employee of the firm, I was very careful to follow Wikipedia guidelines and avoid writing anything that came across as biased or as an add for the firm. I essentially described what a typical consulting firm does, provided a bit of history, and wrote what I believe is an objective description of L.E.K.'s collaboration with the Wall Street Journal on the Shareholder Scorecard. L.E.K. is a top-tier consulting firm, rated higher by the Vault guide than other firms with Wiki entries, so I believe it meets the "notability" requirement as well. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Best,Geoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.64.37 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Concerning your laser quest edits

I do not know if you actually play the game, but the "Denver Download" is part of lq/Laser Quest slang. This bit of slang has been part of LQ playing for over five years now. I know this as I have been a member for over ten years. If you are unfamiliar with the game, please refrain from editing the page. Perhaps you thought it was a bit of NPOV trying to prop up a certain team, but there are people who will verify this. If you need proof of it, go to www.lqarena.com and ask in the general discussion forum about it. Thanks for your timeRocdahut 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I ask again for you to not engange in a revert war over this slang term. You do not play the game, therefore how can you claim to have knowledge of said slang. Furthermore, to say that there is a no encyclopedic documentation of the slang further ignores the very nature of slang itself and it is given birth through the subculture that spawns it. I have attended the North America Challange several times, as well as the regional tournaments, and several side tournaments where this slang was joked about, commented on, and put in "historical context." However, as the laser quest members are not given to going to officializing every bit of jargon that they come up with, this slang was not "reached the history books" as it were. I can understand your mistake in thinking that the slang "Denver Download" was simply a gag, as you do not appear to play the sport or know anything about it. However, your lack of understanding has led you to revert/alter the page in error. A slang term may infact be an "in crowd term," to borrow your words. Furthermore, I view your edit note comment about the revert due to,"barely encyclopedic incrowd cruft," as a thinly veiled insult towards myself. As such, I am seeking an independent moderator since you have done this. Again, thank you for your time, but be more careful in the future. Rocdahut 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 1 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Eddy de Neve, and Law Adam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thanks for fixing the messed up page move. My mistake, good catch. AvruchTalk 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beating Retreat

Possibly relevant for those who don't understand the connection with operation Meating Retreat. --Camptown (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admins

I have nominated Category:Rouge admins for deletion. Please express your views on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Quest Sources

Apologies, but it will have to wait until at least the end of this week. I am college student who must put his future and grades above finding wikipedia sources. I will, however, seek this citiation documentation when I am free for Christmas break. Rocdahut (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments during Rijk Van Roog/English Potato Famine hoax

A discussion of comments that I made to you during the Rijk Van Roog/English Potato Famine hoax has been raised as part of my my Request for Adminship (see "Oppose #1"). Could you comment on your reading of the situation.

Thanks, --sony-youthpléigh 11:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]