User talk:Ginkgo100/Archive06

Request to peer review Prospect Park Zoo

Hello Ginkgo100. I've submitted this article for peer review as a first step in obtaining a good article rating for it. Might you find time to look it over? As a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo, I trust that you might offer pointers so that this article that could better support the zoo project. I live close to the facility, can visit it, and do other field stuff. I will look for your comments here on your talk page and on the peer review page. Hope you can help! I am looking forward to your comments and thanks in advance! Gosgood 19:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to take a look, if time permits. I am unfortunately very busy in real life right now, but I'll certainly do my best! --Ginkgo100 talk 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick and comprehensive response! Exactly what I was looking for. Gosgood 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! After I posted the above about possibly being "too busy," I decided instead to procrastinate on my real life obligations and do the peer review right away. :) --Ginkgo100 talk 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the creator of Military Brats Category

I think the WP:CFD page can get a bit contentious. I hope the poster reconsiders before stating that two editors with nothing but good-faith edits should be blocked for creating a referenced and usable category, but thanks for posting a comment. I suspect that the editor did not read either the brat article or even look at the editors he/she charged with needing to be blocked. KP Botany 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:AGF, I hesitate to speculate, but that is one of several possibilities. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 talk 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I washed out my speculation in my initial post, but I'm noticing more often that comments in certain areas of Wikipedia seem to be unrelated to the relevant articles. I'm a slow reader anyhow, but since actually reading take time, and evaluating another editor's contributions takes even more time, it's frustrating to see comments where no one seemed to have bothered. Cheers! KP Botany 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fish disambiguation

Dropping in since you'd denied deletion of this (redirect) entry, as created by actions of Pabs1903 (talk · contribs) on 24 August 2006 below:

It was contextual nonsense, and the editor could have elected not to move the talk page (if I remember correctly) and in that instance, it would not have been created in the first place. I can't picture what effect the move on this and its article page were meant to have; I was just trying to clear up this silly linking together side-effect. My criteria were {{nonsense}} and {{db-g6}} since I did not want to raise a red card, but if that's the course to take, let it be. The only other editor was user:RussBot to fix a double redirect. Why kept?

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice.

As I gather these words plus a comment for the other user, it's been dealt with. Bye now. --Ricksy 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's been resolved, because I have no idea what this is about. Perhaps you intended this for another admin? It looks like closing of an AfD or RfD, in which case it definitely wasn't me. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My username

Hey, thanks for your interest and vote on my RFA. To be honest, I'm surprised that you're the first person to deem my username inappropriate. I hope you understand why it's my web-name, something I use across the whole web, not just here in Wikipedia, but I also appreciate that on face value it's unpleasant and inflammatory. When I started contributing to Wikipedia, choosing a username appropriate to becoming an administrator was the last thing on my mind, who was to know that I'd become pathologically addicted to the project and end up 18 months later with over 17k edits? Anyway, I'm not here to change the world, just to say thanks for your comment, completely understandable, and good luck, good editing and cheers! Budgiekiller 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting on User:Budgiekiller's RfA

It doesn't seem like it'll make any difference, (the RfA looks doomed now) but I'd still be delighted if you'd look at this ([1]) diff and review your !vote. Thanks. --Dweller 01:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I was aware that this username refers to a sports rivalry, but a new user making contact with an admin would not know that, and may not even know at first how to visit a user page. I would gladly review my vote if Budgiekiller were to have the username changed. --Ginkgo100 talk 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Username change applied for - Budgiekiller -> BK. Budgiekiller 08:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, Ginkgo100. --Dweller 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

Thanks for the time you generously spent reconsidering your vote. The Rambling Man 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of surprised at the negativity too... If I had my RFA right now, I might not have passed. Seems people are going through a negativity phase. Good luck next time! --Ginkgo100 talk 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Hey

Hey Ginkgo,

I'm glad for your interest, I'm glad to have another user to help me out with it, Patchbook's continual attacks are making me worried that I might eventually violate WP:KETTLE. And in answer to your question, that comment was in response to that edit by patchbook. That area was not for him to post in, and with the 3rd person it was clear IMO that he was trying to make it look like someone else and to further his own arguement, though that IP has been identified as his. Admins aren't taking any action and frankly I'd really like to be done with this situation, he's disrupting the project. Cheers, SGGH 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where it has been shown that User:208.127.49.118 is also User:Patchbook's IP? Also, per WP:OWN, any user may edit any page (except protected pages), although the edits must be good faith and reflect consensus. Regarding the edit you cited, by assuming good faith it's possible that the IP user accidentally posted on the right page. Clearly there are also bad faith possibilities, especially if it can be proven that the IP is a sockpuppet. As a neutral third party, I'll need some time to investigate (outside opinions are always helpful in disputes). Also, for what it's worth, I am an admin. --Ginkgo100 talk 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to Police memorabilia collecting you can see that the above ip address has been removing the tags that Patchbook didn't like having there. Kintetsubuffalo also noticed that the IP and patchbook were on at the same time, and I believe that the IP threatened Kintetsubuffalo on his talk page and signed off as patchbook here. I believe there are other cases where that IP has signed its messages as patchbook, for instance here, the ip removes that image from my talk page, and patchbook was linked with that. SGGH 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though no Checkuser was performed, I think any editor would see that as strong evidence that the IP and User:Patchbook are one and the same. It's possible, though, that Patchbook just forgot to log in, especially since he signed the anon posts with his user name. I've left a note on his talk about this. I did see the apparent threat as well, and I am concerned about that. I've also tried to clear up an apparent misunderstanding about the deletion policy; accusations of vandalism by any party in this dispute should be thought over very carefully. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that he didn't sign in deliberatly to try to hide, I was just saying that I'm pretty sure that IP is him. Yes I agree the situation needs to be handled carefully. If he is correct about the WPP:LE logo then I will thank him for that, however beyond that situation I would prefer to step back from the conflict in order to remain objective. SGGH 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may have seen that I deleted the image, technically out of process, following WP:IAR (which I have never invoked before to my memory). I'll restore it immediately, of course, if the legality issue turns out to be a false alarm.
By the way, I unfortunately have a lot going on in real life, so I may miss things. If I do, please feel free to fill me in here or by e-mail. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your rationale for deleting said image, the reason you gave: "speedy delete per WP:IAR, as use of this image may endanger Wikimedia Foundation", makes no sense to me. If you want to go over statutes, please be specific to code and title. You say you have a lot going on, however you deleted this image which affects the template for WikiProject Law Enforcement, should I bring this to another administrator? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user has asserted that the use of this image violates U.S. federal law. It sounds plausible. I don't know this law myself, but in the interest of erring on the side of caution, I deleted the image. If indeed the use of the image by Wikipedia is a violation of the law, the Wikimedia Foundation could be liable. If and when it is determined that the use of the image is legal, I will immediately restore it. I've requested comment at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, which is frequented by people well-versed in these matters. I'll ask at other appropriate places right now. I hope the answer can be found as soon as possible. --Ginkgo100 talk 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ginkgo has made a good call, I would rather go without the logo for a little while than go to jail lol. Besides, we could get another more unique logo anyway... SGGH 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have the image back...? SGGH 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I am finding that I have been the subject of quite a bit of discussion on Wikipedia, and extend my apologies to anyone who I may have offended. I am new to this and am learning.

I posted this additional information and also emailed it to several interested parties and to the Wiki Legal counsel for review. If you read it carefully you will see the main basis for my concern. I am now retired and have not been practicing for over ten years, but the recent legal research I did on the subject leads me to believe there is a potential liability here.....thus the concern.

"== Link to Title 18 and opinion on FBI Image use ==

My concern has nothing to do with copyright. My concern is not about use of the image of the FBI badge, or seal, or term FBI in general, for informational Wikipedia articles. I believe that to be lawful under current law.

I suggest individuals go to the official FBI website [2] and examine "A LAST WORD TO THE WISE" at the bottom of the page. You will find an official posting indicating the position of the FBI on use of the name and logo.

My concern stems from using the FBI badge logo for personal or group ID, or awards in Wikipedia. This would appear to violate USC Title 18, PART 1, Chapter 33, Section 709 [3], which restricts unauthorized use of names of federal agencies. The section authorizes the US Attorney to prosecute unless the parties have written permission of the Director of the FBI.

Since the Wikipedia law enforcement group and individual members of it are using the badge likeness, it infers endorsement by the FBI which is what the federal law mentioned strictly addresses and prohibits without authorization.

An option would be to either formally request permission for the Wikipedia law enforcement group to use the FBI badge logo from the Director of the FBI, or to formally request a legal opinion from the US Attorney. Both options might cause unwise scrutiny to Wikipedia.

Another option would be to design a generic emblem to replace the FBI badge logo for the use of your Wikipedia law enforcement group which would not be in conflict with the laws.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is NOT to be construed as legal advise. " Patchbook 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the deletion of this is right or not, but when you delete something, please remove all links to it, preferably in all cases but especially with images, like it says on the page you get whenever you click 'delete'. As it was you left dozens of talk pages with an ugly broken image at the very top, which only took a 5-second edit to a couple of templates to fix. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What templates? As it appears the image deletion has been undone. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. The image has been restored so I readded it to the banner template, assuming that its restoration means everything is okay. SGGH 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, the image was okay'd here SGGH 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cross-posted the question here and here. The consensus from the three areas seems to be "weak allow", so I went to undelete, but it had already been done (with a rather uncivil edit summary, I might add). At any rate, glad it's been resolved quickly. --Ginkgo100 talk 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasons for removing the image, you did the right thing. Just wanted to offer my two cents. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Patchbook has a point though, I'm letting the users of WPP:LE design a new one anyway, cause its about time we had our own customized one! Thanks for your help Ginkgo SGGH 11:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hill

Thanks for creating a disambiguation page for Park Hill. The next step is go through what links here for that article are fix the links. It looks like most are for the building in Sheffield, but one or two need to go elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I missed that step. Thanks for pointing out the omission. --Ginkgo100talk 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a cat

Hi Ginkgo. I saw you created Siamese (disambiguation) and redirected Siamese to Siamese (cat). I admit I agree with you that for many English speakers these days the word "Siamese" often refers to the cat. But I have to disagree with the redirection for several reasons.

  • 700 years of Siam and its history, culture, language, and millions of people can't possibly be less significant than a cat breed.
  • There are many wikipedia articles with links to "Siamese" and most of those aren't talking about the cat.
  • Thailand and the Thai people still exist. We are not going anywhere and we still use the word Siam and Siamese to refer to all things Thai.
  • For most dictionaries and encyclopedias, "Siamese" doesn't refer just to the cat.
  • The cat called "Siamese" is actually a single breed out of 17 or more Siamese cats. It was a misleading term to call the breed to begin with.
  • If Siamese redirects to the breed, why don't Persian or Burmese redirect to the cats too. Persia is now known as Iran, and Burma is officially Myanmar, just as in the Thailand/Siam case.

Sorry for the long ranting on your talk page but I just don't want to be assimilated by cats!! --Melanochromis 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I was under the impression that the term "Siamese" was deprecated to refer to Thai language and people; thanks for correcting me. I'll make those changes right now; I apologize if this has caused you any offense. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. You don't have to apologize. I wasn't offended or anything. Cheers !! --Melanochromis 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Life

Why do you block so many people? How much spare time do you have? What do you do for a living? Piratesbooty 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life's full of mysteries, isn't it? --Ginkgo100talk 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(snigger) SGGH 15:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Park Zoo Update

Hi Ginkgo. I merged the main article and my sandbox draft into a new version of the article, now in the main space, incorporating (I think) comments people have made. If you have a moment to look (and comment (and edit)), I'd much appreciate it. After the dust settles a bit, I want to put it up for GA or FA review. Thanks! Gosgood 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award- many thanks.

A Barnstar!
Law Enforcement Wikiproject Achievement Award
I hereby present you with the Law Enforcement Wikiproject's Achievement Award for your help with all our logo problems, user problems, and your work on Law Enforcement articles. Many thanks. SGGH 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! --Ginkgo100talk 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fish

Hi Ginkgo,

How are things going? No wikistress, I hope. I'm writing because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes. Recently, I had hoped to expand Wikipedia's article on "Unicerosaurus", which was originally claimed to have been a dinosaur, but which is actually some sort of fish. The references to this animal are obscure; I was wondering if you knew anything ichthyologist-related which might shed more light on this genus, as I've scraped the bottom of the dinosaur barrel on this one, with only a short stub to show for it. Any ideas? Happy editing. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wikistress as I have been away from Wikipedia until, well, today. As usual you have uncanny timing in contacting me. FishBase has not heard of Unicerosaurus (and I don't even know if it contains fossil species anyway). I am not sure it has been demonstrated that this is an actual fossil, considering the original source and the fact that it has never been described; it seems like a Creationist hoax that somehow squirmed its way into a bunch of genera lists. You might be able to find something in the archives here by becoming a member, something which I was not inclined to do. This site calls it a "poisson", i.e. fish. Other than that, you may have dug up (heh) everything there is to dig on the "one horned reptile". --Ginkgo100talk 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the reply (and the pun), Ginkgo. I saw something somewhere which indicated the name was based on teeth, but I don't even remember where I saw that. I appreciate your suggestions, although I'm not certain I really want to register on a creationist site. Still, even that might be worth a shot at this point. My efforts to contact the author of the paper who debunked Baugh's claims have so far yielded no results, but I'm still looking. Thanks anyway, and thanks for the suggestions. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! --Ginkgo100talk 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why

why did u delete my Bonehead 2 article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bam134 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2007.

Because it did not include a reason why it was notable; that is, it did not say how it was important. --Ginkgo100talk 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

am I paranoid?

who is this loser summerthunder, and why do you and other the other person keep changing my talk page, then blocked me for being someone else? Am I crazy or what? Last time I checked, I know nothing about that guy. I am me, I have Obsessive-compulsive disorder, do you want to make me miserable, and have no life? Why is that this whole world trying hard to get me? I don't want to take any more medicine, so don't make my life miserable! This is one of the site that I am having a lot of fun. I want to make every article that I write as perfectly as it can get. oh my god, my heart is beating so fast, and I am feeling dizzy, just because I can't use the old account any more! I already have one disease, it is very serious. Don't make me worse! --IamOCDpatient 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OCDpatient

IS banned as a sock and has been blocked indef. Please do not restore his edits. pschemp | talk 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back with new name. User:IamOCDpatient  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blocked. pschemp | talk 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm the one who found the sock evidence and indef blocked him, after I had restored the edits per WP:AGF. --Ginkgo100talk 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems our friend is back (202.78.207.118), with a vengeance it seems. Refreshing his user contribution page is quite amusing. *grin* Cosecant 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to post that when I got an edit conflict.lol 202.78.207.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Ginkgo100talk 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now having fun with 200.87.6.19. Cosecant 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected the favorite articles. --Ginkgo100talk 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbereality

You can place a nonsense speedy notice on such pages, they are not tolerated. Happy editing to you! Teke (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably could have speedied it, but I tend to err on the side of caution. Personally I have a low drama tolerance, so I'll often prod a borderline article instead of deleting it right away. But eventual deletion was inevitable, so a speedy per WP:SNOW works too. --Ginkgo100talk 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Zoo

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo#Denver Zoo photos. So, did you get any pictures? :) Cburnett 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple... I'll upload them when I have the chance. --Ginkgo100talk 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hi Ginko100: I noticed that you have many userboxes stored in your userspace. If you'd like to userfy more, now's a great time (there's no more userboxes listed at CAT:GUS. —Mets501 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... that's not my current project right now, but perhaps another time I'll add to the ones I'm hosting. --Ginkgo100talk 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, no obligations, just a suggestion :-) —Mets501 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reporting

Oh, I'm sorry. Sometimes I forget to check if they have recent warnings or not. I'll try to be more careful with that in the future; thanks! · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I make plenty of mistakes like that too. --Ginkgo100talk 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do something about this

User:SpamSpamSpamSpamspam, username and vandal; Block... Retiono Virginian 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Dealt with Retiono Virginian 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my userpage, much appreciated! J Milburn 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Ginkgo100talk 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my "civility"

In your recent note on my user "talk" page, you included this edit as a supposed example of incivility. I dispute that: in this case, I was responding to someone who didn't address an issue I raised, and has since declined to respond to me at all. My point—a perfectly legitimate one, on which I believe I'm correct, judging by how the rest of the world capitalizes words—is being ignored here. Don't you bother to check out disputes like these for context before scolding people? Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words are you just being obtuse? Please let me know, as I don't want to waste any more time bantering with a crank if that's the case are not civil regardless of context. I am puzzled as to why you hink they are appropriate. --Ginkgo100talk 01:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Left with Uncertainty

I was the person who origanally inserted the template for the speedy delete. I meant to give my reason for the nomination, but did not have the time. Just figured I tell you, since you gave the reason. Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandals

Thanks for informing me, but the Animal Face-Off vandals seem to be persisting and aren't stopping. And they/him/her have/has several aliases. Dora Nichov 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm dealing with that. I'll try warnings/blocks first. I'd like to avoid semi-protection but it may come to that. --Ginkgo100talk 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dora Nichov 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A-class debate for 1st INfantry Division (United States) now open

The A-Class review for 1st Infantry Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!--Pupster21 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome.

Hope to have a good tenure here.

Thanks for the welcome.

Any suggestions on how to make myself known? Not in an infamous way, either. xD

Ninjarrr 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say just start contributing! Find articles you are interested in and improve them any way you see fit. You might want to review our core content policies when you get a chance (neutral point of view, no original research verifiability, and biographies of living persons. --Ginkgo100talk 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particle physics page

Hi. I had removed a section of the particle physics article which does not belong (it described a crank theory). You assumed it was vandalism and reverted the page. Is there a different way to remove an entire section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aroodman (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Responded on user's talk. --Ginkgo100talk 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP 83.133.111.24

I think that may be an open proxy, possibly associated with the proxy site being used to bypass the blacklist. The earlier contributions from December seem to be liberal use of "banned" templates on user pages, and that wasn't JB196's MO. Worth investigating possibly. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the IP to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. --Ginkgo100talk 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that project. One Night In Hackney 00:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shields Pictures, Inc.

Hi Ginko100, I am new to Wikipedia and I must have done something wrong. I have been trying to figure out your objection but have had no luck. My brother said that maybe because I put contact info. I removed that info. and tried to submit it again but it wants to know if I want to override you, could you please tell me what I am doing wrong? Thanks, CCBear 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shields Pictures, Inc.

I found it ... Yes I see the problem. I will shorten it to just info of the historic film series. Thanks CCBear 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you were able to make the article conform more closely to Wikipedia standards. Yes, the problem was that the original article read like an ad, complete with contact info. The new version is much more matter of fact and neutral in tone. Thanks for your contributions. --Ginkgo100talk 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Help! there is an ip that dont stop to vandalise: User_talk:12.150.84.181, ive reverted 6 of its vadalism and i think it should be blocked... -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. In the future, it is best to report these at WP:AIV, which is monitored by admins all the time. I can only handle a report if I happen to be online at the time. --Ginkgo100talk 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll do that next time, thanks -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 10:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and likewise! If you have any questions about your new sysophood, feel free to ask any time. --Ginkgo100talk 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

friends list

Hey Ginkgo, I was about to add you to a friends list on my webpage, a nod to how helpful you've been, but I don't know what country you live in (I have the flags of the nationalities next to the names, partly cause I like the way it looks :D) You are UTC+6 but that could be a lot of places. SGGH 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States. --Ginkgo100talk 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Primitive" (Biology)

It looks like its been a while since you've suggested changes to this page, but let me keep you informed. I've begun to elaborate on the subject, expanding the concept of "primitive" organisms, and the reason behind its lack of favor in the biological community. However, there are still a few grammar mistakes and it lacks any organization, because (1) I typed it quickly to include an overview of my knowledge with the topic, and (2) because it's a rather short subject to write about. Just take a look at it and see how it's going. Give me some suggestions, and comment on my ideas. LifeScience 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition!

Thanks very much for the Barnstar! No reason to tilt windmills and I'm glad my particular brand of humour was taken as such. Thanks again! -- Borameer ™ 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (the editor formerly known as . . . okay now the joke is just getting silly)[reply]

A Threat Against Me.

Ginkgo100, this user, 192.26.212.72 continues to blank warnings on their talk page. I reverted the edits a few times, and now the user says they're going to contact the Wikipedia management to launch a complaint about me. See this edit: 1. Acalamari 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already sorted. Sorry about that! Acalamari 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rights and Humanity

Gingko ... look at the patron list !?!

Rights and Humanity has Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's wife on its board. Give me or someone else a chance to work on it, for crisp's sake!

How on earth can you conscience deleting its stub in comparison to all the cruft that it all over the Wiki !?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.123.22 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I did miss the well-known names on the patron list, which I suppose could be considered a claim to notability. In this case, I will restore the article to give you a chance to expand it, although I do not usually do this. As for the deletion of "cruft", when I do speedy deletions, I delete all articles that meet the criteria, regardless of one person's subjective opinion of its "cruftiness". My conscience is clear. --Ginkgo100talk 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]