en User talk:Asbestos Archive5

Another question

Hi again--another possibly silly question for you. How do I find out if someone has an e-mail address posted? I got an e-mail from another user and I can't for the life of me figure out where you can look at other people's preferences. (No problem on the admin vote incidentally--congrats). Marskell 09:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the only way that you can tell is by looking at the little "E-mail this user" link when you view a User Page (bottom left on the monobook skin). The link will let you send an email, though it won't give you the address for spam-prevention reasons. If the user doesn't have an email set, it either won't show the link or it will tell you so when you click on it (I can't remember which off-hand). Alternatively, people might show their email address on their user page (like I do), or you could always just ask them for their address in their Talk. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)

Thanks. Odd, but this doesn't appear for me. If I look at other user pages or as an anon look at my own there is very definitely no "e-mail this usser" link anywhre. I'm in the mid-east and a lot of stuff gets blocked but this seems strange. Marskell 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using monobook (check Preferences -> Skins)? Check my user page (or your own, for that matter) - no link at the bottom left, under "User Contributions"? If not, post a message at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and see if anyone there can work out what's wrong. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saved with a different skin and then saved on default again and voila it appears. Odd but all better now apparently. Marskell 18:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anon users

hi. what do you make of anonymous users who don't seem to be ignorant of how wikipedia works who go around making seemingly decent edits, garnering praise and whatnot? I ask cuz you and I have each had a run-in w/ one. they irk me but I gott say- I'v made an anon edit or two in my life. I don't imagine wikipedia establishment is in love w/ this phenomenon. lemme know if you hav any feelings on about this. thankz, Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh —

Having anon users is a big part of Wikipedia philosophy: anyone is supposed to be able to edit, as we don't want to make it difficult to edit this encyclopedia. Looking around, I've found a page on this, Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing. That said, having a user name makes it easy to communicate with a user, and automatically raises the level of trust in the eyes of other editors. A hard-to-verify edit, like the changing of a date in an article, is likely to regarded as probable sneaky vandalism if done by an anon user, yet more likely to be treated as good faith if the user is logged in.

If you're interested, many users put a note on the talk pages of valuable anon users suggesting that they create an account. I've got a template, for instance, at User:Asbestos/Anon, and I know there's a ready-made one around somewhere.

As a completely off-topic aside, there's been some discussion recently on signatures which don't correlate to the user's username. While there's no policy against it, it usually makes it easier if they do correlate (for instance, do I call you Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh or Dzzl?). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 23:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Comittee

Since you'd been up for consideration for a while and it seemed like the community generally supported you, I took the initiative in making you a mediator. Please visit the Mediation Committee page and list your email address. Andre (talk) 20:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) Acetic '^Acid 23:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

dzznologic.

replied to your reply here. yaaa. Ished-out amounts of Vonn-ness 03:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X

Hi Clawson —

I'd like to just remind you that Wikipedia's three-revert rule doesn't only apply to those who are changing the article; it also applies to those changing it back [1]. I blocked User:70.23.104.48, as he had been explicitly warned against continuing the revert war. However, in future, please try to enlist the help of other editors to prevent yourself from violating 3RR when another user keeps changing an article. This isn't just pointless beaurocracy: it helps show a united voice and makes clear to the other editor that it's not just an argument between two people (though I realize his had been reverted by other editors earlier).

Don't worry too much about it now, but do keep it in mind in the future. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question was, essentially, vandalising the article. He had been asked multiple times to stop, and at least one other editor (Jpgordon) had attempted to engage the user in dialogue as well. We were both unsuccessful, and since the user kept adding irrelevant information, I figured the standard "3RR does not apply to vandalism" guideline would apply, so I kept reverting his irrelevant edits.—chris.lawson (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that that's what you felt, and that's why I said don't worry too much, but the vandalism clause is there for straightforward vandalism ("Wikipedia sUks and ur gAy"), and not for content disputes. The user may have been rude, and didn't know anything about discussing his edits instead of trying to force them through, but it was still a content dispute.

Anyway, though email I've encouraged him to get a username and start making proper use of the talk page. Hopefully he'll start to realize that his current tactic won't get him anyway, and start acting civilized. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So am I to understand that repeatedly adding irrelevant/ungrammatical/otherwise inappropriate material to an article is not "straightforward vandalism?" If you look at the page history, you'll see that Josh and I have reverted the anon's edits previously, largely with edit summaries "please discuss on Talk". It was my understanding that continued insistence on the addition of controversial material (without discussion and consensus) was one of the definitions of vandalism.—chris.lawson (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A further note, just as a heads-up: {{subst:subst:{2|702310448}}} (talk • contribs) is the anon's registered username. Please note that he has betrayed his highly biased point of view on my Talk page: [2]. As I pointed out on his Talk page, he is trying to support a non-neutral point of view with his own original research, which is two strikes against him, no matter how polite he is about it. If he's going to slur college professors, I don't think he's mature enough to edit here. Just my opinion, and admittedly a very harsh one, but I thought you should know what he wrote, and what I thought of it. Please continue to keep an eye on his edits (and mine; constructive criticisms are welcomed :)). Thanks.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/3RR

Would you mind taking a look at my report on the WP:AN/3RR page? I'd appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of works in irregular time signatures

Hello,

Thanks for your recent edit of List of works in irregular time signatures. That guy has been driving me nuts, and he doesn't seem to read the comments or participate in any discussion.

Anyway, I'd be curious to know what attracted your attention to the article and why you chose to do what you did. I'm kinda' new to the wiki and haven't had a chance to read all the FAQs/guides yet.

Cheers,

Dave (User:Dkaplowitz).

Hi Dave,

Actually, I was just doing a little bit of RC Patrol (see WP:RCP). If you click on the "Recent Changes" on the right (assuming you're using the monobook skin) you can see all the edits that people have made recently. An edit made by an anonymous user without an edit summary is quite possibly an act of vandalism. Clicking on "Diff" beside the edit, you can see exactly what it was the editor did. In that case, I saw he had just deleted a bunch of text, so assumed he was just a straight-forward vandal, so reverted it.

Hope that makes it clearer, feel free to ask about anything else!

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 09:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my article

Hi Asbestos,

my name is Riccardo! Three days ago I edited the Wikipedia page on "child prodigy". I just added "Arthur Rimbaud" in the list of child prodigies in literature. Since he was probably the most famous child prodigy in literature history, I felt it was unfair not to mention him in the list. However, my article was deleted because "[..]articles on Wikipedia are expected to be encyclopedic in nature[..]". To be honest, I don't understand what was wrong with my addition! :-) Could you comment on that?

Thanks, cheers Riccardo (140.105.16.2)

Hi Ricardo —

I'm not sure quite what you mean. The child prodigy article still exists, Arthur Rimbaud is in the list, and there is an Arthur Rimbaud article. I can't quite tell what it is that you're referring to. Can you be more specific? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying protected pages

Since you're an admin and previously experssed interest in renaming Wikipedia:Ask a question, I was wondering whether you could correct the name on protected pages from Wikipedia:Ask a question to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question to reflect my recent move.

To be specific, please fix:

If you notice any other pages that still use Wikipedia:Ask a question, protected or otherwise, fix them if you can.

Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 20:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 05:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 06:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 3 2005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed? Come see Wikijunior Solar System!

Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MedCom

Hello, you are one of the 7 remaining active medcom members. I have immensely decluttered the WP:RFM page. Now I would like to start assigning people to cases. If you do not have the time for this, please remove yourself from the active listings. I hope that we can become active again, and we won't need WP:TINMC to cover for us as they have. Please check RfM frequently as I may be assigning you. And of course you can always turn down cases and choose your own, its not some kind of the-leaders-make-you-do-what-they-say deal... anywho, just saying I'm trying to revive the medcom. Thanks, R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation assigned!

Hello Asbestos! I've assigned you a mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jnc and Barberio. R e dwolf24 (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have a busy schedule myself. Also, you might want to see if you can locate a copy of Janet Abbate, Inventing the Internet (MIT Press, 1999), which is the best current academic history of the development of the Internet (although it has its faults, it's still pretty good). Noel (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Troll image, hat or no hat?

Hi Asbestos. I was just wondering, does that troll in Image:DoNotFeedTroll.jpg wear a hat, or is it supposed to be his ear/nose? I would appreciate if you could clear this up for me asap, as this is keeping me awake at night. // E23 11:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E23 — it was meant to be his ear (on the left, nose on the right). Hope that wasn't too confusing! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my articles -- writing, editing others, and submitting photos

Hi - you sent me a note in the midst of my writing an article == about asking you questions, if I had any, or discuss stuff. I have an addictive LOVE of writing and I have a lot of history to write about, some of which I know first-hand. (1.) I have perused the Wiki outlines about styles, etc. and have tried to gear my writing to be encyclopedic but not dull (history shouldn't have to be) -- but probably still "ain't perfect" by Wiki standards. (2.) I have a problem not being able to understand alot of the jargon and communication techniques laid out in Wiki -- even in writing this. (3.) I saw mentioned that some articles are actually "protected" from editing, which surprises me, as Wiki is advertised as being info that ANYONE can edit...gee...shouldn't it really say, "anyone can edit SOME info..."? (4.) I have been an anonymous editor on some articles. I only registered because I thought it was required to contribute photos. Do I have to go back to old articles I wrote or edited and put my user name on them somehow? If so, HELP!! (5.) Also, I tried to follow the instructions on how to get pictures inserted because I have photos ready to go, but the directions are too much, and too frustrating for me to follow. They lead to too many questions without another person to initially walk me through it. I seem to be clueless...thank you! IS THAT BOLD ENOUGH?

Mshafb 00:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos: Thank you for your response. (1.) Regarding the input of photos, I notice you did not include the most puzzling part about choosing the license. Do I ignore that? Or do I have to do that on each one? How do I do that? What do I choose, if necessary, and where do I put that information? For the most part, the pictures are photos of people I know, either taken by me or by other non-professionals, and some of vintage years, as well as maybe artwork painted by my deceased parents who were professional artists, and whose copyrights for reproduction I am assuming to hold since I own the original art. Should I worry if they go public that they may be copied by other artists? (2.) In doing geneaology and historical work in other legitimate websites, I found that my name and inquiries were used as a title in a pornography site, OF COURSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. I am very angry and embarrassed about that. What can be done to make sure anything I include in this site will not be co-opted by porn sites? (3.) The particular site I wanted to add more info into was for "Ted Neeley." It is pitifully poor, only a sentence or so in the initial bio. It seems to remain protected, so I wonder about the timeline for that one? Or can't the original writer build it up with more quality info?

Thank you...

Mshafb 14:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)mshafb[reply]

Wikipedia:Image_sleuthing#Image:FierceSnake_Olive.jpg

Can you take a quick look at this one and help get a suitable picture for the Fauna of Australia FAC? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active Case?

Hello, I'm sending this to the five of you with cases listed as active in the active tasks template. Just wondering which of you still have it active and how you're doing with it... Please message me on my talk, or email me if you see fit. Thanks :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Corncobs.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! I never knew there were so many different coloured varieties of corn. Very nice image.

History of the Internet

User:Coolcaesar is again induldging in pointless personal attacks on the talk page. (And a suspisious anon attack that smells like a sock puppet) After going to his talk page to ask him to stop, I discovered that User:Jnc had been the person who asked Coolcaesar to join in the 'debate'. [3]Coolcaesar's comments have almost entirly consisted of personal attacks, including one attack that labeled me as mental unwell because of my disability.

I would like you to ask these two to explain their actions before we continue this mediation. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 11:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with waiting for JNC to return, no one can help getting ill, but I'll be a tad concerned if this drags on indefinatly. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 18:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos warned me to lay off the ad hominem attacks, so I decided to check out the progress of the mediation. Okay, I will concede that some of my comments were perhaps a little extreme, immature, and uncalled for. I apologize for that, if it will help the situation. But even though I have repeatedly urged him to do so, Mr. Barberio has still not given a reason for why he has not obtained and read Janet Abbate's book (currently the authoritative scholarly analysis of Internet history) before persisting with his rather unorthodox view of the history of the Internet. Professor Abbate's book is widely available at English-language libraries worldwide, and can be purchased from practically any online bookstore.

Please keep in mind that it is against Wikipedia policy to publish original research. I believe that Mr. Barberio's views fall within that definition because they are so far from the mainstream of published work on the history of the Internet. Specifically, I am referring to the books published by historian Janet Abbate, journalist M. Mitchell Waldrop, journalist Katie Hafner, sociologist Thierry Bardini, journalist Steven Segaller, etc. There are also the books published by the two creators of the Web, Robert Cailliau and Tim Berners-Lee.

Wikipedia is not supposed to publish original research, but rather conform to the mainstream of verifiable published research unless and until the direction of mainstream research changes. If Mr. Barberio feels that his analysis is so valid, then by all means write it up and get it published in a peer-reviewed history journal (I suggest IEEE Annals of the History of Computing) and then as a book by a major academic publisher. Then it will be worthy of citation on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 04:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in to find out if the mediation is still totaly deadlocked. I checked to see if User:Jnc was still away and saw the message there, unfortunatly it seems Noel interperated the arbitration process as 'a lack of support from the community in dealing with a clueless, argumentative, biased, stubborn nitwit'. Should we interperate this as a withdrawl from the arbitration process? --Barberio 18:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required).

Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

Further comments*:

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz --TakLung 05:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.26.177.2

Regarding User:203.26.177.2 and his... well, vandalizm, as I don't know how to label it. I agree that user maybe shouldn't be blocked, but I just don't know what to do now. User has this List of Bosnians project of his and he just adds the link to every page about Bosnians. Now, that's wrong, isn't it? I mean, we use Categories for that kind of stuff, right? So, what is to be done? The user is clearly breaking the Wikipedia customs... --Dijxtra 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dijxtra —

I left a long message on the contributor's talk page. In the future, this is probably the best way of resolving these issues. I see he's been using almost only Talk pages for a while now, so I can't see him as causing much trouble at the moment.

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your action. Should I now remove inapropriate links from articles? --Dijxtra 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dijxtra"

Hi there,

I am the mysterious and potentially troublesome user 203.26.177.2 - and not a "he", but a "she" (yes, there are some of us around :-))). Sorry for any problems I may have caused, I have been editing the List of Bosnians for a month or so, and have (naturally!) come across some interesting discussion re Ivo Andric and Josip Broz by inserting comments where relevant. And, yes, I have been adding links to the List of Bosnians as I wasn't aware of the categorisation rules and these just seemed like intuitive links to me (I'm a mad cross-referencer). I didn't know I was breaking some rules in the process, I am very, very new to this and don't really know what the rules and regulations are, so thanks for letting me know. Also, please feel free to leave me messages and I'll correct my conduct accordingly, :-). I didn't react to the first three 'vandalism' ones as I didn't think they had anything to do with me (it appears the above IP is also used by another person). Thanks! 01:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

69.253.195.228

I noticed you just blocked him for 3RR. I think this was appropriate, but I feel I should tell you that I just put up a user-conduct RfC for him. I wouldn't want him to be unable to respond due to a block. Thanks, Dsol 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dsol,

If both you and Mgreenbe want me to unblock him, I can do so. However, the block is only for 24 hours, so I don't know whether it's necessary. A block often gives users a chance to reassess the situation and potentially come back calmer and less trigger-happy.

I hope the RFC goes smoothly, and I had previously suggested to the user that he could post his own RFC on the article if he truly believed the article was POV as it stood. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, as you can see below, I just suggested the same thing. I'll unblock him, which of course should not be seen as an endorsement of his behavior. Even at 24 hours, it seems unnecessarily brutal to submit an RfC when he can't even respond. (Even if the circumstances were accidental...) Brighterorange 02:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Would you mind if I unblocked User:69.253.195.228, whom you blocked today under 3RR? I totally agree with the block, and would have done it myself, but it rather unfortunately coincides with an RfC just made about his behavior. It would make sense if he were able to respond to the RFC, which is not possible when blocked. Brighterorange 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking IP

Thanks much for doing that for me. I got an e-mail from the fellow; seemed he really was a clueless newbie. The incoming traffic is getting so dense here that it's all to easy to misconstrue someone's intent. New pages patrol is a pain sometimes. I appreciate the backup. :) Best, Lucky 6.9 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troll image

Hello Asbestos

would it have been better if the sign you created was saved in the Scalable Vector Graphic format instead of compressed bitmap (i. e. jpg)? --Wendelin 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendelin —

As far as I am aware, Scalable Vector Graphics aren't a universally-recognized format. Is there a way to save an image as an .svg and make it available to everyone?

For the record, the image is copylefted under GFDL and CC, so you are absolutely free to use it to make a vector graphic of your own if you wish. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome tooth picture

I know this is several months late, but I just noticed you were the one responsible for making the picture of the tooth in cross section and wanted to say THANKYOU. That is a great picture and very much needed. - Dozenist talk 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I even notice that it's been translated into several different languages, which is quite cool, and shows how quickly wikipedia can spread stuff around. If you have any need for similar tooth cross-sections, feel free to let me know. Keep writing those great articles! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

you've got a case. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug-free

Hi there Asbestos, Im SWD316. I saw your name to the list of drug-free Wikipedians. I created a template and category for it at Template:Drug-free. You can add it to your babel if you want. Hope you use it! SWD316 23:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

Hey, if you're back, I'd like you to take #Cult television at RFM. Update Template:MedComOpenTasks if you accept :) now, back to my break. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note regarding the mediation of this... I think it would be best to carry on with the formal mediation, instead of through the Cabal; firstly due to the fact that this route has been first to respond, and secondly as I don't want to step on any toes (any further) by going down a route opposite to what Sanhedrin chose. HowardBerry 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re.: 3RR violation

Hey, thanks for the warning. As you are already checking the article, could you please take a look at my post in Talk:Zatanna? Am I wrong? It would be a chaos in Wikipedia if every user decided to edit articles only to please themselves. There is nothing to be changed in there! No reason at all! Thank you. 200.162.245.104 19:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe

Thanks, I totally forgot there, I was juggling about 4 things at once, plus responding to frappe on his IP, which I also blocked. karmafist 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were loosely connected to the incident, please weigh in on: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe. freestylefrappe 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sanhedrin and Cult television mediation

It seems Sanhedrin has replied to the mediation request (s)he made (finally), but (s)he didn't do as you asked and let you know... so I thought I'd better do the honours. Howie ☎ 13:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User male & Template:User female

Changed the category from Category:Male user to Category:Male Wikipedians. I assume you will also be making one for females :P -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nods on your response* Well going by the fact people are already using category:Male Wikipedians and category:Female Wikipedians I think we found the right one in the end :) Your template is a good idea however :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Made the text for the User male the original blue you had was more manly. Bolded the sex and changed text color to white. bolded sex on female and left color how it was. Now we need a User transgender :PPP -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go with the lighter blue with black. Color is not my area :) Bold the sex though makes it stand out :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 19:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Symbol

Looks something like this http://www.gendertalk.com/img/logo/tg/glogobw100.gif (not my image or site) It is pretty wide spread appears to be public domain. I would remove the triangle it's pretty but different than the others. Let me know what you think :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)}

Re: Male Wikipedians

Thank you very much, I intend on using the userbox. Croat Canuck 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Female Wikipedians

I will get right on to editing the female userbox as the original is too big, thanks.--Ali K 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teastar

As Homer Simpson* mmmmm....teastar. Thanks for the teastar. I am trying to control any anger I feel and I have to say it's going better than the last time, :-D SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Buchanan

Hey, I was looking through Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club and recognized your name from somewhere. I must have either run into you before or seen some of your edits/comments elsewhere. I was directed to a discussion going on at the article on Roy Buchanan, and it seems to be getting a bit heated. If you think you can comment on the editing between the two parties or know of someone who may be able to help, I think it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Dozenist talk 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

No connection at all. Fred Bauder 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi..

Hey, Sorry about the trouble i gave you to find my username. I should have used my signature but i didn't know how. And It feels good to know that you appreciate my questions. Thanks a lot. And i would really appreciate if you could tell me how to set up my user page on wikipedia.

Thanks a lot again..

P.S. I'll keep the questions coming,, :)

Jayant, 17 Years,India. 15:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry about this, it seems that Jayant412 saw the link to your talk page embedded in your welcome message to me on my talk page, and came here by mistake. Just to clarify what happened. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem :) It's my fault, since I hadn't noticed yet the generally accepted practice of responding to talk page comments on the other person's page rather than your own - I guess the cheery "New Messages!" notification is more important than "threaded" continuity. I'm glad we have the (diff) thing on the New Messages notification now too, that's useful. And I know what you mean, I've {{hello}}'d a few people that way myself. :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 21 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 18:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Television again...

I've added a reply to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cult television, as - once again - Sanhedrin doesn't have the manners to reply to his/her own mediation request. Howie ☎ 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following through the mediation - though I'm not sure why it went that far anyway! Stephenb (Talk) 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the ID mediation request

The article has since been rewritten, mooting many of the specific points raised by Marshill. Also, he's been MIA, and a number of editors suspect that he was a sock of a particular editor attempting to evade a block. Either way, I have no need of mediation at this time. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivars (re Carrot)

Hi Asbestos - single quotes and normal (not italic) type is the correct orthography for cultivars - thanks, MPF 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan

Asbestos,

It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously when you allow mentally ill people to publish delusional, self-promoting entries about themselves.

Who's next? Roger Maynard, maybe?

Steve Grant 69.253.238.4 04:35, 7 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]

I had been asking for updates for quite some time on the mailing list, and never got any. I can only assume the cases are all inactive, which is why I scraped the page. If anyone's case is still active, they can put it back and let me know. I was offended by your vote suggesting I'm only doing this to boost my wikiresumé. I've long been annoyed at how we didn't have an active mediation system, and the medcab was a great idea. I've been largely inactive for some time, and I had time to assign cases, but not mediate, as assigning is quite easy - point and shoot. In the formal cases I've taken, I've found I'm not the best mediator, which is why I only take a case after everyone else. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Shahada

There seems to be a problem with your image as you can see here [4]. I thought I would let you know as it is used in a template.--God of War 06:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Asbestos/Archive5