User talk:Dev920/Archive4

http://socialitelife.com/images/santa.gif http://www.iheartjakemedia.com/displayimage.php?album=221&pos=8 Please, leave me a message. I am happy to be help or be helped.

To join the WikiProject LGBT Studies, what exactly must I do? jtowns 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dev, and thanks for the invite to join LGBT Studies! My question is the same as above: what exactly do I do to "officially" join the project? --Dialecticas 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zazzer

You're welcome.--Cheers Zazzer


Reversions

Some of your latest edits have summaries indicating you're reverting something small, but you're replacing large sections of articles with old content. Please verify your edits. Thanks. --*Spark* 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Libel

You are underwarning for your unfounded and libellous comments on the bisexual talk page. You are in brech of wikipolicies. You may not remove this warning from this page. Attempts to do so will also be reported. NerriTunn 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no power, here! Now be gone, before somebody drops a house on you, too! Jeffpw 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You amaze me, my dear!

As if patrolling the pages of Wiki for assorted vandals and goths asn't enough, you have injected so much life into the LGBT Project, Dev! Every time I check in on Wiki, there are new users showing up there! On behalf of everybody who participates there, Thank You! Jeffpw 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

If we no long have to cope with T(/N)erriN(/T)unn, would you have any objection to my going through the list of bisexuals and removing to the talk page anyone for whom the source is NNDB or similar? And also those included only for having been in a threesome or only once having been linked to a person of the other(or same) gender? -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Council

Given the size and scope of the LGBT Project, it seems to me that it would make sense to have at least one member of the project be involved, at least minimally, in the WikiProject Council, to be there to offer any comments and suggestions regarding proposals which may affect your project. Given your status as the "reviver" of the LGBT Project, I would think that you would probably be the best person to be involved in the Council. I, for one, would welcome your joining, and any input you might wish to offer. Badbilltucker 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do? Ohhhh, that's the hard one. I think it was founded (before I joined) to create the Project Guide, since then it was responsible for the creation of the Project Directory, and has kind of helped to spearhead the effort to get most of the larger projects engaged in assessments. We also recently helped organize the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page. Granted, officially, that doesn't sound like much, and may not be much. Unofficially, particularly with the presence of Kirill Lokshin, it's recently served as one of the primary places to appeal any conflicts between projects. The dueling Shark projects mentioned on some of the archived talk pages is probably the best example. Also, because of the ties to the Proposals page, we have recently been able to at least advise people starting new small-scope projects that there might be an existing larger project which already covers that subject, and that maybe they could form subgroups of that project. I personally don't think the LGBT project qualifies as a "small" one here, by the way, it's scope within the biology and biography fields is probably more than large enough. This has been one of the bigger things lately. Also, I think it is primarily functioning, at least right now, as a place where the various projects can maybe pool their efforts for mutual project improvement. So, yeah, you're right, it is kinda hard to see what it does, because a lot of it isn't particularly obvious, and it has, to date, not done a great deal beyond what I've mentioned. I guess it's current goals as such are to try to encourage smaller projects, where possible, to consolidate into larger projects (Cats & Cat breeds, Food and drink & Tea, that sort of thing), and to basically provide a mutual support service for the existing projects, particularly the content-related ones. Most recently, a proposal to make a kind of combined project newsletter is on the talk page, and I think that might be one of the more interesting possibilities. The content-related projects in general are often seen as being less "official" than many of the other groups, and this is a way to give them a stronger voice, hopefully. Basically, on a functional level, it probably right now functions as a place to exchange ideas and let the various projects try to help each other. Sorry for taking so long to get to the point, but at this point the group isn't really well defined, just potentially one of the more effective ones out there, and I would personally love to see as many different voices at the table as possible. Badbilltucker 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's wonderful, Dev, that you've been asked to join; and I thank you for taking on this task. You are the logical choice, of course, given your addiction unrelenting enthusiasm for all things Wiki. Jeffpw 16:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WP:COUNCIL/Signpost

The subst didn't work because you put "Wikiproject" instead of "WikiProject". Mike Dillon 23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of heteroflexibles

I dunno if you've seen but NerriTunn has created the above article. She defines its scope as includes both the self-identified bisexual activist and the bi-curious, as well as those who may identify as heterosexual but have nevertheless had at least one same-sex experience. It has already been put up for AfD by MrDarcy and has only delete votes so far. I have decided not to vote so that she can see that a concensus of neutral and unrelated editors is against her and there is no suggestion of victimisation. I suggest others who have been in dispute with her do the same.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Partnerships

Your B-rating for the Civil Partnerships article has been removed. Such a low rating is wholly unjustifiable. It has been the work of many editors, several of whom were involved in the consultation process for the Act itself. It is neutral, informative, instructive, balanced, accurate, written in clear and precise English with not a hint of being prolix.

You have provided no reason for such a low ranking nor is there any indication as to the criteria used nor your ability to judge the content of such articles.

Should you wish to rate the article again, please start a discussion first. 81.159.212.153 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the article isn't nominated for GA. Have restored your rating on the talk page and explained that B-class is logically the highest rating the page will get until nominated for GA status. Hopefully that clears things up. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 - The request to explain your actions and your qualifications for judging the work of othersis perfectly reasonable. Much hard work has gone into this article and it simply too much to describe parts of it as "abysmal". If you employ more temperate language and act in a a collegiate manner, you will find the overwhelming majority of the editors on this article both helpful and reasonable. Joel on the SOL 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not an anonymous IP and I question both your ability to rate articles and the manner in which you choose to interact with other editors. You are high-handed and rude. You have now used the words POV Pushing trash, a further example of very poor interpersonal skills. Please reconsider your tone: no reply required. Joel on the SOL 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I formally request that you limit any further conversation re this subject to the appropriate Talk Page. I will not tollerate your abusive postings further. Joel on the SOL 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas came early!

How did you know what I wanted?~? Thank you so much!!!!! By the way, I gave Sandy one today, for her help with reformatting the references to James Robert Baker (see the talk page). You're a peach! Jeffpw 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh

Mediation

You have not formatted the mediation page correctly. Your reason stated is inaccurate and POV and therefore unaceptable. Re-read the Help article associated with the page you are attempting to construct. You should also allow time for a consensus to emerge (or not) on the article talk page. Please sign ALL contributions to my Talk page. These basic errors reinforce my views on your unfamiliarity with WP protocols. Joel on the SOL 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Joel on the SOL 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from Joel's talk page: Sorry I forgot to sign the notification. It was dinnertime and I was in a hurry. you state that I did not fill out the request correctly; how so? You also stated that my reason stated wasinaccurate and POV and therefore unacceptable; again, how so? I would also like to add that you were the one who suggested mediation. I was merely fulfilling that administrative task for you. This message will be copied to Dev's talk page, as she is also a party to the mediation. Jeffpw 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Joel has now reverted your rating 3 times (4 if he was the anon IP who did it earlier). you might want to contact an admin about that. Jeffpw 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jeffpw 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar! Oscar!

I've compared the two, and ours is infinitely superior. It was a fun exercise, if only to make me appreciate the English wiki more. (aren't we chit-chatty today!?!) Jeffpw 21:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil partnerships

Dev, I need you to cool it on Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom as some parts of your last comment there ("hissy fit," "ignorant," etc.) were inappropriate. You're in the right so far here; please take the high road before this escalates into a broader conflict. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mucky Pup

Woof, Woof! I haven't been paper trained yet! Jeffpw 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another war...

Good grief Dev. I leave the world of Wikipedia for a day and you've got yourself into another small war. How do you manage it :). Anyway thought I'd share thoughts:

  1. Civil Partnerships. mmm- Joel is taking this personally. I've made some fairly extensive suggestions for ways the article could be improved. Hopefully everyone can be persuaded to work together to make the project better rather than get hijacked into a personal argument. You might want to think about using words like 'abysmal' to describe people's work though- it does have a slightly inflamatory effect.
  2. NerriTunn. I suggest we just get on with the discussion and ignore her baiting compeltely. She's in a minority of one and we've acknowledged the existence of her viewpoint. I've decided just not to reply to her posts on the talk page- she knows I disagree and its time to move on. The inevitable deletion of homoflexibles will be all one needs to establish that she's barking up the wrong tree.

Anyway, hope tomorrow goes better for you. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very best of luck with the interview. I will do my best on oil pouring front... -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrocle / Patroclus.

Hi! I'm now a member of the LGBT group! I just want to be sure about what you asked me. Patrocle & Patroclus : do you want me to "polish" the english version, with the help of the french version? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaliJim (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Image

It was a picture of the pope. It wasn't all that bad, I was just a little upset. You can look at the history of the article on the pope and you'll see it. KittyHawker 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Congrats

Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You helped choose Death as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Death was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Damala

Dev, I see you've tagged this article as A-class. In know nothing says one can't but should we wait until after a successful GA nomination for the page before giving it such a high rating? Anyway I shall nominate it for GA (along with Bisexuality which is also tagged as an A but hasn't been put up for GA) and see what comes of it. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've nominated Damala. Think I might hold off on Bisexuality though- don't like the idea of nominating an article with the neutrality disputed tag. Shall have a look at it to see if issues can be resolved... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to LGBT project

I'm not sure why the fact he was married to a bisexual is relevant. Have a look at my discussion with Jeffpw on the subject as to why we thought best to untag the article (and also our views of the rating- jeff thinks B, I think GA subject to nom but neither of us supports A). But maybe we should invite discussion of whether he qualifies amongst members of the LGBT project? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. See what you think of this rather interesting AfD for Gay lisp. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note at the LGBT talk page for people to have a look at the article. I've deliberately only noted our various conclusions and not the underlying arguments so that people come to the page fresh. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Announcement
The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!

To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today!

Islam

Hello Dev

I understand that you got very frustrated about the Islam page. If you do feel able at least to look at it again, you'll see that I made a contribution on the talk page that at least partially supported your edit. If not, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you very much for your help in improving the article. I learnt a lot from seeing how you approached it. Itsmejudith 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get on really well with user:Aminz, who always gives credit where it's due, and user:Truthspreader seems to be a rational person too. I try very hard to support and be fair to all religions but some see it as a zero-sum game between Judaism and Islam, which is ridiculous. Anyway, I appreciate your contribution and understand why you want to move onto something else. I can't spend too long on controversial articles without going round the bend, so I try to do something more restful, like helping to clear the backlog of articles for wikification. Itsmejudith 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Days

I have just responded on my talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page that might help you

This is the Latter Days page at Box Office Mojo, the best site that I know of for a film's box office performance. By the way, your boxoffice section doesnt tally with either BoxOfficeMojo, or IMDB. [1] Jeffpw 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Request for help

  • "It was not well received by film critics, although it was popular with most of those who saw the film." makes no sense, if critics who saw it liked it, who didn't?
  • "the audience loved the film so much they gave it a standing ovation." is there a source for that?
  • "before rolled out across America" not sure if "being" belongs here, please check.
  • "it should, however, be pointed out that the film was" could probably be removed without compromising the sentence.
  • "after shooting wrapped" doesn't that expression usually end with "up"?
  • "cover showing Aaron in a sexy nude pose" not sure if "sexy" is really appropriate in terms of being encyclopedic.

I have not read the FAC yet, but reading the article the prose seems fine. The minor concerns above, some not even big enough to be 'concerns' is all I found. Great article overall, and I'll wait for your reply before supporting especially about that first point. One thing though I didn't notice while reading the article is the film rating, not too important but would be an intresting note to add to the infobox. - Tutmosis 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your offer, if you wish I would like to see some work done on Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet (UK). :) - Tutmosis 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, umm Alan Cumming if you wish. - Tutmosis 17:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shadow cabinet page itself lacks any information about the history of the practice along with references for the existing lead paragraphs. - Tutmosis 18:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation

I think I was just exercising my contrarian spirit. Haiduc 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking and other things

You might like to check out WP:SCISSORS. Bring the matter up there, maybe start a subpage for the project designed to counter votestacking? It's certainly a problem.

"Gay romantic drama"? It's your call, but last time I checked no film had yet developed a personality of its own, much less a sexual identity. IMO that really does need changing. BTW, have you got the refs for that article? It's so close, but there's just a few more things I'd like individual cites for. I'll try to get in some more copy-editing this evening. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Shall I leave a list of stuff that I think needs cites on the talk page, or just whack {{fact}} tags onto the relevant places? Great article, BTW, congrats! Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Days

Hey there! I apologize for being so slow in writing the section for this article. It's still in the works, but I've put it off during the holidays as I've not really had time to go online. I'm off of work this week, so I will plan time to finish the work. Take care! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperlalalalalalanza.

They're on Planet BWAHAHALOL, obviously. I stopped even reading up on EA. I can name about 15 people at EA that are decent, and Natalya is certainly one of the classiest people I've known. The rest? I can't frankly see they even understand the idea of kindness.

As for me, I'm a tough bitch. I'll survive, honey. But thank you so much for thinking about me. *hugs tightly* Stay out of trouble, and curb those inclusionist tendencies, and happy new year. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. It may prove of interest. Sigh. Just a quick note reaffirming your lack of meatpuppethood and saying congrats on Latter Days! Great article, well worthy of FA. I'm still not going to see the film, but it was most certainly an interesting read. Bravo! Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world I'd say yes, as it's a good idea, but practically I think it'll be too controversial - "Inflaming passions! Oh no! Heaven forbid! MFD!". There is something of a feeling against having so-called factions within wiki. Congrats again on Latter Days. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have mail. Moreschi Deletion! 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit confused. Create a brand new MFD with the header "Wikipedia: Esperanza 2" - I think that is correct. Moreschi Deletion! 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Clever. Ignore me. Moreschi Deletion! 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And more mail. Moreschi Deletion! 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games‎

Wow, User:WaltCip was bang out of line there. Def needs to read WP:CIVIL (and maybe WP:DICK too). Keep it cool though... xx

WJBscribe (WJB talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you

I thank you and applaud you for your audacity and boldness in nominating Esperanza for deletion. It takes guts, but know that my recent change of heart has put you and I on mostly similar sides.

Now let us prepare for the shitstorm of keep nominations by users who were too bored to read your nomination :). DoomsDay349 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent nom! Multiple barnstars on the way both for this and when Latter Days gets the gold star. You ought to take up rhetoric teaching. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever have an RFA, I promise to be your first support vote :). DoomsDay349 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be exhausted from writing that "speech"! Here's a glass of juice. =) Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A glass of juice for Dev! Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A glass of juice for Dev! Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys! Something doesn't make sense here. None of us...none of us are in Esperanza! How are we being kind to each other! Does not compute...beep...err...beep...AAAAAAAA!
) DoomsDay349 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Yet, isn't that just the point...Moreschi Deletion! 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the nom - I do hope that people read it. You're a shining example of WP:BOLD! Martinp23 22:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - hopefully admin coaching will be movable, though I agree that it could do with a better name, especially after this MfD ends :) Martinp23 22:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your nomination of Esperanza, maybe you could consider adding something to WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, which would prevent the concerns of what you gave in your excellent nomination from happening again and in turn, making it Wikipedia policy? --tgheretford (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think that the juice looks pretty. Have you considered drinking it yet??? In addition, although I'm a co-nominator for deletion, I feel that I can still vote as I please. =) Besides, other voters are suggesting historical tagging. --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question you asked, where you outline the problems with how distant and exclusive Esperanza is in comparison to the general Wikipedian community, something added to WP:NOT#SOCIALNET in regards to social organisations like Esperanza, which distract editors from contributing to Wikipedia. To sum up, a proposal like "Wikipedia is not a place for social organisations", which would prevent a organisation like Esperanza forming again in the future. --tgheretford (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos --Cyde Weys 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dev920, I wanted to thank you for your kind words, and I also wanted to praise you for having the courage to nominate Esperanza for deletion and risk more criticism from people who disagree with you. As you can tell from the essay on my userpage and from my long explanation on the current MfD, I've regretfully become convinced that Esperanza should probably be deleted, and that whatever parts of it are still deemed useful to Wikipedia should be migrated to more appropriate areas. I do think that the Stress Alerts page, or something similar in concept, would still be of value to Wikipedia, but it might be best if there were some sort of restrictions on it, i.e. requiring people to either list themselves or give permission for others to list them, per privacy concerns raised in the EA MfD. This might be something for Peter to consider. I don't want to give much thought about this right now, because I've found again and again that process-related discussions tend to bother me (one reason I left Esperanza). I do hope to finally respond to everybody's messages and start contributing to the article mainspace in the near future. I hope you have a happy new year. --Kyoko 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your esperanza nom is the best nom that I have ever seen for an AfD. Tintin (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I (PullToOpen) award you the Original Barnstar for your incredible audacity and boldness when nominating Esperanza for deletion. Your nomination was one of the most well thought-out and well written nominations I have ever seen. Sometimes the best thing for a project, ironically, is removing it from existence. Cheers, PTO 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably made a few enemies in this MfD, but I can tell you that you certainly earned my respect. PTO 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza

Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't even thought of any of the proposers of Esperanza negatively when I started plastering the idea of awards around. I was just implying that the old existing proposal wasn't likely to get much attention there. My apologies for having phrased it in such as a way as to seemingly make you think otherwise. Badbilltucker 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Gay Rights in Isle of Man

Dev, I certainly can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but it seems to me your post in the "deletion" tag on this article may be mistaken. The Isle of Man has its own Tynwald and thus may very well have its own local laws on sexual conduct; I find this under Politics of the Isle of Man:

The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom or the European Union. However, the Isle of Man is part of the British Islands, and the United Kingdom has responsibility for all external, citizenship, and defence affairs. The island has no representation at either the UK or EU parliaments.

Now I do agree that the gay rights article is pretty much worthless as it stands, and may well deserve deletion for lack of appropriate content; but not for having "laws identical to the UK," I don't think. But you live in the UK; am I mistaken on this point?  :-) --Textorus 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Dev. I agree, if Manx law is identical to that of the UK, no need for a separate article; though I suppose that fact would deserve a mention on the UK article. But I'll leave that up to you, or whoever really cares about the Isle of Man.  :-) --Textorus 05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==prod==

I hope this is the right way to respond to your message. I was using the "random article" feature and came across an article that I proposed for deletion. Then I got to looking at other "prods".

Anyways, from the perspective of someone outside the UK and the Falklands I don't think that we should just assume that everyone knows that gay rights are the same in the Falklands as they are in the UK. My edit summary was "The reason for proposed deletion could be the content of the article: "see UK gay rights", but let's not lose the entire article"...

where your reason for prod was "rights are no different from UK - this article doesn't need to exist" 70.71.18.178 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back

I'm back. Is there a chance you could edit the first paragraph of the lead section? It bugs me. Never Mystic (tc) 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Never Mystic (tc) 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

I sincerely apologize for any disagreements we may have had in the past year (months?). Cheers to a new beginning!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 17:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

A suggestion to consider

I would just like to ask you about refactoring all the comments in the "Wow" section of the Esperanza MfD to the talk page. The actual MfD page is, when last I checked, 125 kilobytes long (probably more now). I think this will free up a little more room, since its already so big anyway. Thanks!--CJ King 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue II - January 1, 2007
Happy New Year to all our members!
Project News

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

Woot

Hey hey hey! Looks like it happened; Esperanza was actually deleted this time. Thank you for your fantastic nomination, and remember that if you ever need anything come to me. Ale all around, here here! DoomsDay349 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EA Essay

I made a discussion on WT:EA regarding that paragraph I added to the essay on Wikipedia:Esperanza. I'd prefer that we have discussion there, in order to have a fluent and not-broken thread.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

I got it posted twice to my wall. Don't mind getting it once, but no need to post twice. I'm sure it was accidental – but if you are using a bot of some sort to post it, check that i'm not on the list twice. I am but one man.

Thanks. jtowns 06:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 1 2 January 2007 About the Signpost
Effort to modify fair use policy aborted Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer" News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

My deepest apologies; I wrote that at 5 in the morning and I think my brain was fried...I normally try to avoid gender always, unless I know the user personally and can guarantee their gender. Again, apologies. Ral315 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

(Continuing this on your talk page so as not to clutter that page with an irrelevant discussion.) I never made any remarks as to your character. I said that you have an agenda; more specifically, a unilateral agenda (edit summaries such as this: [2]) in favor of eradicating every part of Esparanza that you can from Wikipedia's history, and you have been doing it with a vitriolic attitude, in my opinion.

Also, for the record, I'm not sure how you got "Bbatsell says I am an awful person + THERE IS A CABAL" out of my one sentence. Besides, wouldn't I be included in said cabal? That's what I read on the internets, anyway. :) —bbatsell ¿? 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I don't understand how wanting to preserve Esparanza's history (for all the reasons on the talk page, and in accordance with the consensus reached on the MfD) is "nit-picking", but so be it. —bbatsell ¿? 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{prod}} on Gay rights in the Isle of Man

You added a {{prod}} to Gay rights in the Isle of Man. I removed the prod because the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. As a crown dependency, the Isle of Man has its own legislature, tax system and laws. It has Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. In practice, it often adopts laws that closely resemble U.K. legislation, but not necessarily at the same time as the UK. I think that the Isle of Man retained criminal legislation against homosexual acts by consenting adults as a crime many years after the United Kingdom had decriminalized them. I don't have a reference for this, or I would have added this information to the article.

The Falkland Islands are a different situation. I think that most UK legislation automatically applies to the Falkland Islands, but I am not certain about this. – Eastmain 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • After I wrote the two paragraphs above, I saw the message from Textorus on the same topic and your reply. Perhaps I should rephrase what I wrote earlier. If the Isle of Man did not repeal its anti-sodomy laws until the European Union required it to, this should be mentioned in the article. --Eastmain 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:LGBT upkeep

So I'm considering signing up to maintain the Featured Biography, but I have some questions. How does one/the group decide which article is featured? Is it only FAs? Or is there a nomination/discussion process for deciding? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a WikiFaerie myself (and I only just learned that term yesterday!), I know what you mean - we seem to have quite a few sp and grammar checkers, even maybe a troll or two, but not many categorists (no work yet on Category:LGBT), editors, or even writers. <sigh> As I recall, Tiger Marc seems to have done some article creation, and also Textorus. Probably some others, but they don't seem to be playing the Jumpaclass game, do they? :)
Personally, I'm challenging myself with John Burnside and actually creating an article! Go me! :)
So I think I'll go ahead and sign up for the Featured Article maintenance. Wish me luck! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your query

I haven't gone anywhere as of yet. However, until this situation is resolved, I will be restricting my editing to the Rfc and Arbcom. Once it is settled I will make a decision about remaining. Jeffpw 11:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be very clear, Nkras is indeed a disruptive editor. He has caused many problems, and if he chooses not to edit anymore, the project may well be better off for it. My concern is that--in my eyes--due process was circumvented, and the penalty he was given was far larger than his transgression. I will not be leaving Wikipedia over this, but my feelings about how it is organized have definitely been colored by this incident. I shall probably confine myself to my relaxing little janitorial duties for the present (I now clean up FAC nominations, add {facfailed} tags, and make sure former FACs leave the appropriate trail). Jeffpw 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Week

The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Wikipedia Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 15:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I deleted one of your comments on DRV. Feel free to reinsert it - but please think three times about the best way to de-escalate the situation. Review my attempts on users talk page. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not assume that I blame you for any escalation that may take place. It does, however, take two to tango - even if only one of the two is wearing a tango costume and lugging around a tape recorder with tango music and a portable dance floor, it always takes two to tango. I often find that trying to stop a profesional tango dancer from tangoing is actually harder than getting rid of all of their partners. Consider who is more likey to stop dancing, and if my coming to you is a sign of blame or respect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am not an adminstrator, nor would I ever pass RFA. I appreciate the compliment by mistake, however. I'm glad to see this ended amicably. I'll see what I can do about solving the underlying problem here - I would appreciate your input at any point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from the ashes...

Okay, I've checked out Geo's edits and left a message at his/her talk page. I'm going to request that, in the interest of diffusing the situation, you not interact with the user for a day or so. I understand that he sought out your articles, and he has been admonished for that, but making edits like this aren't helping to cool things down. If anything comes up, feel free to drop a message on my talk page or shoot me an e-mail. Have a nice weekend. – Merope 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i want to apologize for anything I have done to offend you. Also, I added a film infobox to Boyfriends and added the info in the article, Do you happen to know where a picture is? Geo. 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Surreal Barnstar
Your decision to nominate Esperenza for deletion was an act of courage and ballisness that most regular Wikipedians would never even want to comtemplate. The Surreal Barnstar, made for "wildcards" of Wikipedia is right for you.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You've earned it. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Natalee Holloway referencing help please

None of the references are properly formatted; most, if not all, are simply links thrown at the end of sentences. Before looking at anything else, there are no inline citations. The first priority right now is probably to adjust all the citations to the proper format as noted above. --Jones2 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 2 8 January 2007 About the Signpost
Special: 2006 in Review Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair" News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Barnstar Dilemma

I noticed a few days ago that you were having trouble formatting your Barnstars, and ended up deleting them. I happened upon two userpages today that may interest you in this regard: User:Grm wnr and User:Wizardry Dragon. Both have shrunken Barnstars. When I saw them I immediately thought of you. Hope it helps. Jeffpw 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen the approach taken at Daniel.Bryant's user page? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Portal

I don't mind lending a hand with keeping this updated. Perhaps the News section. Presumably, others will also add news items of note they see but I don't mind having a look at the main LGBT news sites every couple of days and noting stories of interest. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a view as to how many news items should feature? Should we set a max number or just remove older stories after a certain number of days have passed? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD vote on Mr. Lady Records

Hello, you voted to delete Mr. Lady Records on articles for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Lady Records. I have added many reliable sources to the article, and ensured it now asserts this (now defunct) record label's notability at the time (meeting WP:RS and WP:CORP, the two concerns raised. I'd be very grateful if you could consider revisitng the AFD and the updated article, and consider whether the article should still be deleted. If you still don't believe it meets Wikipedia requirements, please advise as to why (this would be helpful). Many thanks. Proto::► 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's terribly notable, but it's well-written enough to be worth staying on Wikipedia - I haven't actually voted myself on the AfD, and I think it's important the process continue. However, I find it highly likely that the decision will be to keep since your overhaul, as already appears to be becoming the case. Well done for your rescue. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nominated for deletion in the first place :) Thanks anyway! Proto::► 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, archives are pretty much mandatory. Beyond that, however, the preferred method of changing content on portals is by automatic rotation, either by date (e.g. Portal:Germany) or at random (e.g. Portal:War). Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged categories

If you propose that Category:XXX should be merged into Category:YYY, that means that the articles in XXX will be moved to YYY and then XXX will be deleted. If you just propose to delete XXX, the articles in XXX will have the category removed from the article, they will not end up in the parent, and then XXX will be deleted. If an article is orphaned because of the deletion, an admin will have to make a judgement call about where the article belongs. This doesn't happen all that often. – Samuel Wantman 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you have any interest in being an administrator? I'd be happy to nominate you. Just say the word. – Samuel Wantman 22:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drop me a note when you are ready. – Samuel Wantman

Axm restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Wikiproject

Yeah, the project page has actually been on my watch list for a while now, so I suppose I might as well make it official :) —Celithemis 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I might have a way to get the font color to work after all, just need to test it out. —Celithemis 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...oh, I see. That was supposed to be background color, right? So it looks the way you meant it to already? —Celithemis 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I have begun to realize the huge effort you have put into the LGBT WikiProject. It's truly remarkable! Additionally, I still have to finish that little section for Latter Days...between the holidays, gym, work and my own featured article work, I haven't had much time. Once Mr. Foote has stopped pestering me, I intend to do some research and finish the section. Take care and keep up the good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that User:Celithemis be granted a LGBT Barnstar for her work? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

What's going on with Esperanza? When did this crap about the discussion resuming in a month get around? Are they actually going to try to revive Esperanza? Jesus Christ, we should have salted... DoomsDay349 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what the hell happened? When did this come about? This is not a good time to spring this on me, several vandals have me pissed. Oi vey! (yeah, I spelled it wrong. Deal with it :) DoomsDay349 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God. Is there any reason to even bother delaying it? A horde of users will clamor for its restoration, it'll come back and still suck, we'll go through another MFD, and that time we'll have to salt it, once and for all. Why don't we just ask Jimbo what he thinks and screw everything? DoomsDay349 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than willing to write him a message. The question is; if he disagrees with us, are we willing to support him? We have to be prepared for the unexpected. I'll message him now; let's hope he cares enough to respond. DoomsDay349 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the die has been cast. Let us see how this plays out. DoomsDay349 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't like to beat around the bush. Let's get this bad boy over with once and for all. Goodnight. DoomsDay349 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Quick update.

Oh okay, great to hear. Best regards! — Tutmosis 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tearing my brains out

Well. Here we go again. We've got ourselves a freaking (restraining self badly here) deletion review. Jesus H. Christ, I don't believe this. I really don't know what to say. I am just amazingly pissed off at the level of stubbornness achieved by our peers. DoomsDay349 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote will say it all. Read it. DoomsDay349 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Their efforts have spread like a weed, and I don't know how to cut it off. Rest assured that there is no way Jimbo is going to listen to them because of the way they have conducted things. I'm not too worried about that group.

I don't want to whine to you, but I just can't comprehend this. The question is, why? Why don't people just move on with their lives? Why must they cling to Esperanza as if their very life depends upon it? They astound me. I dunno, mate; just don't know. If it's recreated, I'll be up in arms; until then, I don't care. DoomsDay349 23:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

Hi Dev920! Thanks for your comments and invitation! They are much appreciated. I put _a lot_ of effort into that article, it's nice to see it worked out as a GA. :)

Regarding your invitation to join the LGBT project, I have to say I was a bit discouraged when a few weeks ago I asked for help with Same-sex marriage in Spain in the projects' talkpage and got no response. Seeking individual members of the project to review the article proved equally useless. It did dishearten me a little, and I didn't get a very good first impression about how the project worked.

If I join, what would it imply? Cheers Raystorm 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By imply I meant the tasks involved with the project, which you have perfectly stated. I'm glad to hear new editors have joined since in order to keep the project going and improve it. You're right, I only contacted personally one member of the project (who did agree to review it but later did nothing). I thought I had contacted Aleta as well, but it seems it slipped my mind. My mistake. Anyway, thanks for the lenghty response, I have to run now but I'll definitely think about it. :) Cheers Raystorm 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I just joined the project, I'm looking forward to helping with articles and working with you. :) Cheers Raystorm 12:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk question

I have posted a reply here Regards - Adrian M. H. 21:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriends (movie)

Hi Dev. Thought I would let you know I've moved Boyfriends to Boyfriends (movie), redirect Boyfriends to Boyfriend and added a dab at Boyfriend (disambiguation) to the move. It seemed a fairly straightforward decision, but if you don't like it or disagree, please let me know, I'll revert and we can discuss it. Best, Proto::► 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I do object, and not just because it would be Boyfriends (film). There's an actual film called Boyfriends, so it shouldn't be changed for a redirect. It might a good idea to put "You may have been looking for Boyfriend" at the top, though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be film (didn't spot it was a British release). I will fix that. Usually, a plural will direct to the singular (so tables redirects to table, babies redirects to the same place baby does (infant), dogs to dog, sharks to shark and so on. Does this make sense? Proto::► 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the title to Boyfriends (film). Also, see below! Proto::► 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Baby is a crap 2003 film that no-one has made an article for! But, whatever, I'm not going to argue with any more people this week. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (with regards the crapness of that film), but see Baby (disambiguation) - the musical is at Baby (1983 musical), the rapper at Baby (rapper), the Natasha Bedingfield song's at Babies (song), and so on. Proto::► 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Lady

Me again! Thanks for fixing the rating on Mr Lady Records. I notice B means "Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with." - what do you think needs to be added to get it to A? Proto::► 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

It's perfect...and approved. I'm not saying that you can't have that account name. I'm just a bit quesy approving it. Honestly, it sounds like you're asking to do a lot of Bot-like functions. It might just be better to run over to WP:BRFA and request approval (it could then be automated). That said, good luck with AWB. Make sure you mark your edits as minor (this type particularly), and don't make too manyy each minute. Regards, alphachimp 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Barnstar

Hey Dev, I notice the LGBT barnstar doesn't seem to have been uploaded to Commons. It would be nice if other language projects had it available. Do you mind it being uploaded there? Do you want to do it or should I? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do you want to ask Ouro given you worked with him on producing it originally? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for asking, that's very nice of you. However I don't have a commons account, and I don't have a problem with you uploading it yourself, so go ahead. And have a nice Sunday! --Ouro 09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Studies...

Do you think I could be helpful to the wikiproject if I am simply interested in LGBT issues, but don't think I would consider myself knowledgable? I am a quick learner...thanks, in any case, for the invite, I would like to help if I can. bcatt 03:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more Esperanza crap for you

Follow the linky. I am so sick of this shit. DoomsDay349 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling bad right now mate

Hate to whine to you, but this has just got me kinda upset. I feel like this damned MFD has stirred up so much bad blood...it pretty much destroys my chances at an Rfa, and God knows I'd love to be an admin. I dunno man. Just needed to tell someone, pathetic eh? DoomsDay349 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bluntness is much appreciated. I agree that sometimes I don't have a level head, but I think I was much better in the MFD than I was here, it's just that this being so drawn out is frustrating, you know? But thanks. I'm going to just chill, go back to reverting vandalism and writing articles, and maybe in March I'll go for it. Two months seems like long enough for this to die out.

Also, what do you mean by "we'll find out next week when I am nominated"? You're running for adminship? You know you have my support, if you do. DoomsDay349 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally unaware of any policy discussion. If you can show me some of the newer ones I'd be more than happy to get into them. DoomsDay349 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the nominations don't exactly refer to policies, but the content within them. I understand policies, just sometimes don't exactly refer to them. For example, I'd list "Blatant original research" rather than "Violates WP:OR". But I'll try. Thanks mate! (you should know that despite my frequent use of the words "mate" "bloody" or other English English terminology is not because I am English, I am quite American, I just use the words.) DoomsDay349 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my recent noms. I've had at least a dozen AFD noms. DoomsDay349 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caution: Beginning period of restraint: See here. DoomsDay349 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought to let you know I'm feeling better. Am a bit upset with the knowledge that I won't be able to stay up tomorrow night, but on the whole I feel good. WP:FUCK has truly enlightened me. Still frustrated, of course, but I now understand that the arguing is futile and I'm only fueling the hate I seek to destroy. Thanks for the support...course I'm still neurotically worried about opinions of others and would kill for some responses on my editor review, I check my watchlist like every five seconds hoping someone's written :) But thanks for everything, mate. DoomsDay349 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dev

Hi Dev, Thanks for your "Goodbye" comment, very nice of you... You'll probably see me again as a member one day, but now it's just a wrong/bad time for me and it makes me hard to be a member of any project (I'm still in Wikipedia but I have less concentration now for doing more, sorry again) DaliJim xxx

IAR

While I'm happy, on a individual level, with the video link on the Jack G - I really feel you are misusing the concept of IAR when citing it in support of returning it. IAR is more typically used in administrative actions and it's a slippy slope to use it to try and trump WP:BIO. --Larry laptop 22:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your upcoming RFA

I see that it is likely that you will become nominated for administration in the next week. While I think that overall you are a good editor - I have a few concerns about some your interactions with others and how that might affect your conduct as an admin. As far as I am aware, it's not against the rules to show you the questions that I will pose to you when the RFA occurs.

I will be posing the following to you when the RFA occurs:

QUESTION ONE:

Towards the end of last year, you set up Userproject:Conservatives (the project is gone but interested editors can seem some of the debate on the matter here - a project that had the aim of producing NPOV but comprehensive articles, assist the Tories in winning elections. There was a rather heated discussion about it, you refered to other editors as "fools" at one stage - my question about the matter is as follows:

1) How would you handle the matter if you were an admin looking at the matter rather then setting up the project?

2) What are your thoughts about your conduct during the discussion on this userproject?


QUESTION 2:

You have mentioned that you had a featured article with the Jake Gyllenhaal article - at one stage, you set up this page. Discussion about it can be seen here (scroll down to dispute) - (I feel the sub-title "Because, seriously, they might *not* be gay..." was indicative of a bias - you disagreed). You also said in dicussion: 'I have now set up a website to pull those pictures I was referring to out of the locked gallery at IHJ. It is available here.[3] I propose that, as these are photos, the provenence is largely irrelevant and we apply WP:IGNORE regarding WP:RS. Dev920 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

1) What do you think about editors setting up their own sites so they can then use them as sources?

2) As an admin, how would you deal with such sources?

--Larry laptop 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No during the RFA will be fine. --Larry laptop 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It seems I will be posing a third question.

Question 3:

Checking your sandbox - I found the following table, I followed the link on the table to the JT article where you said the following What?! Do you usually kiss your same-sex friends like that?! What is your proof for being gay? A sex tape?.


1) How would you as admin deal with such a source if used to support the idea that John Travola (or other public figure) was a homosexual?

--Larry laptop 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article - I'll make the question clearer in the RFA. --Larry laptop 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait for the RFA - others might want to follow-up. --Larry laptop 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay icon up for Afd now

Please see the discussion (you can get there via the ugly tag that has been slapped on the front of it. 6 hours work, possibly for nothing. I am massively pissed off. Jeffpw 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Studies

Thank you for inviting me to join the club. I'm not sure what I could contribute there, I've passed over the project before, but didn't join cause I couldn't think of anything to contribute. All I really do is layout (I'm a wikignome).100110100 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello Dev920

I've accepted your adoption offer - thanks for adopting me!

So lemme know what's next :-)

Thanks

--Qwertyca 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]