This is an archive of past discussions with User:GlassCobra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk)08:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
guess who?
Hey there! How's it going? Thought I'd drop bye and say hi, thought maybe we could chat sometime. Also, if you have any projects that you need help on, I'd be happy to assist you. I haven't been working on anything much lately, and would like to start a new project. Thanks, and TTFN! --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me!18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Tags on Page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya
For almost three months now Tags on the above page remain there. No body has come out with any improvement/new information on this topic. Please suggest for how long these tags would remain on the page. I would like to add more material to this page and give more citations to the material already placed, once tags are removed.117.198.129.5 (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This month you have indicated new or continuing interest in WP:CHICAGO as either an active or semi-active member. The response to the project membership survey was strong enough that we should attempt to organize it in a more fully functional way. Please sign up at Wikipedia:CHICAGO/leadership if you would be willing to serve as a leader of the project from September 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009. The various leadership responsibilities are listed there. The roles will be somewhat similar to the roles of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. We are a less mature and developed project than WP:MILHIST however, so our division of roles will be slightly different. Please respond by the 23rd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Helpme on Wrong Page
Glass, thanks for setting me straight. When I went back to the page where I left the helpme to remove it, I couldn't find it! (I did try to fix my mistake though.) Sorry I messed up. It's kind of a habit for me today. Tracktowner (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, GlassCobra, for the advice and the crappy T-shirt. :) I appreciate your comments at my RfA, and in particular that you made mention of my answers to the questions. Thanks, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)19:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Mops
Hallo, and thank you for your kind words (I'm intrigued to know where you've seen me, as I don't think I'm familiar with your name... were you around the great New York debate recently perhaps?)
I don't think I want to apply for a mop at present, as I spend too much of my life here on Wikipedia anyway at present and really ought to get on with more real life things. Being an admin would give me even more useful things I could spend many happy hours doing at the PC rather than going out and getting fit / interacting with real people / etc! There are too many days when I sit down with my bowl of muesli in one hand and the mouse in the other and then lo and behold it's lunchtime. But thanks, anyway. I'll carry on scouring WP for "could of" etc, and adding my new template to UK charities, and generally pottering around. PamD (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: RfA
Hi GlassCobra, just letting you know that I've responded to your RfA question on my talk page (basically, I would be open to running, if you would like to nominate me). As I said on my page, feel free to ask me anything you may have questions about. AlexiusHoratius04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Mops
Hello there Cobra! Thanks for the new feature, I've encountered many times that rollback would be useful. I've thought about becoming an admin several times, I just don't know if I want to take on the extra responsibilities of blocking and page protection. First of all, I don't really know a whole lot about blocking so I'd have to do research on that subject. Plus college is starting very soon so I don't want to have the extra urge to come on here more often than I already do. Thanks for the offer though, I really appreciate it!! HoosierStateTalk18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightsaber combat
While Allementando was a sock of Frederick Day, the decision to redirect the crufty, original research-laden lightsaber combat was a good one. The Lightsaber#Development of combat style section is sufficient to cover "lightsaber combat" from a Wikipedia-appropriate out-of-universe perspective; the 65K separate article is more appropriate for Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right; I suppose "poorly referenced" is a better description. Oodles of quotes from texts don't overcome most of the commentary being original research. Only that three paragraphs toward the end -- something along the lines of "depiction in film" -- consistently refers to reliable sources. And note, too, that just because there's a footnote in front of some assertion, many of them are specious or point toward an unreliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is definitely fixed. When I say I could not access the history, I mean that, at least on my browser, all the buttons at the top were obscured, and I could not figure out how to get to the history. Does that make sense? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I restored the businessman article. I don't think it is right to accuse someone of being a criminal without a source. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons The anonomous user can find a source to support his claim rather than just rewrite the article. I also memo'd on the anon's talk page. Thanks for the advice. --Npnunda (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra/Archive 18, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me. — JGHowestalk - 19 August 2008
If "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance)" is your only reason then you should delete all the other pages listed here because they are exactly the same as the one you deleted.
As you can see from my vote on the AFD, I agree with you that the article "New Cold War" should be kept. That said, you would help our case if you changed your vote to "Keep" instead of "Withdraw AfD", which is not possible under Wikipedia policy for someone other than the original submitter of the AFD. —Lowellian (reply) 04:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for semi-protection of Talk:Grawp at WP:RFP. I won't revert the IPs because that that would be feeding the trolls. The vandalism can be reverted in a few minutes after the semi-protection has begun. – sgeurekat•c22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
While I don't wish to be accused of canvassing, I just felt a message might be in order, since you mentioned me in your comment on this RFA: I have changed my opinion from 'neutral' to 'support', see [1]. Obviously, you are free to make up your own mind; but I just wanted to make the point that I have decided I trust Geni enough to give him a second chance at adminship. Terraxos (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
I'm not sure you saw, but I actually addressed the AfD issue in question 6. I hope that will give you cause to reconsider. Everyking (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
help me ;)
Hey man, how are you? It's been a long time isn't it? Anyways, I am getting in an edit war with user Alpha 115 at the Chen Ling article. Can you help? I already warned him at his talk page, but he doesn't seem to listen. Thanks, AmandaT/C10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there my very helpfull and always friendly snake. Thanks for warning him again, hopefully this helps and if not, you know what to do ;) Here everything is fine, thanks :) A bit sad that the Olympics are already over, but then on the other hand that is what makes them so special. As soon as you get used to them they're over and you got to wait another four years. AmandaT/C14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, can you have another look at Park Sung-Hyun and Zhang Juanjuan please? This is an anonymous user who adds something to the article, but doesn't seem to understand that it's not cited and probably irrelevant as well. Thanks, AmandaT/C15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is this term Modern Kung Fu been deleted? It is a system currently being taught and excepted by many thorough out the world. What is needed to re-submit and have it accepted?
Devin Willis
devin_willis@mstarmetro.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.70.144 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra only deleted Doin Thangz once; different administrators deleted it the second and third times. As an aside, perhaps you should take it as a sign that you should stop, and read the copious warnings on your user talk page. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, on second thoughts, I think it is probable that the user did create the image, but for some reason doesn't want to talk directly to me about it. I'm going to leave it through sheer boredom- I certainly don't have any opposition to anyone else proposing its deletion or trying to talk to the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
He and his wife have agreed that neither will resume editing or other significant involvement, whether with existing or new accounts, without the agreement of the committee, and that the Committee's decision may be to ask the community. He is aware that any breach of the agreed conditions will result in enforcement by blocking.
Wikipedia makes it clear that if one does not want one's postings to be brutally edited, one should not post. That said, there is always an opportunity for fair-minded people to work together to be a part of this free global encyclopedia for the benefit of all. In the case of this Wikipedia entry for Collective:Unconscious, a widely-recognized and longest-running independent off-off-Broadway theater in the Lower East Side of New York, a discussion by "GlassCobra" (if that is his or her real name) could have replaced his or her rampant and uninformed deletions of informed, valuable, notable, demonstrative, objective, and useful contributions to this Wikipedia entry. No one (especially me) is "hell-bent" on anything, as "GlassCobra" accused; quite the contrary, as a contributor to Wikipedia, I will work with any and all even-tempered members of the Wikipedia community to make this and other entries as useful as possible now and in the future.
Justindavila (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"GlassCobra," is that is your real name, apparently, I need to spend additional time reviewing all salient points of the COI issues as listed in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.
Citing oneself
I cited myself once in the entire article as a producer in a single series. As listed, I was one of over 30 directors of the facility, producing one of dozens of long-running series, over the theatre's roughly 14 year run. As per the COI, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest....Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged."
Financial
I am neither "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations" nor do I "expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia."
Legal antagonists
I am not "involved in a court case, or close to [any] litigants."
Self-promotion
Whereas I no longer have an official affiliation with the organization, I am in no way engaging in "self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."
Autobiography
Nothing in this article is autobiographical, and with one exception, I am not mentioned.
Close relationships
I have no "high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."
If you take serious issue with a tongue-in-cheek comment about a "viscous fluid," then just edit that, fine. This latest revision was absolutely not a reverted previous version, and this simply shows that you did not do due diligence in your review. If you would have reviewed more carefully, you would realize I was one of over 30 members, and my formal relationship ended in 2002.
Methinks you dost protest too much. Please carefully consider your future editorial suggestions in light of this, before you threaten "to issue... a short block if you continue to edit in this manner." I could easily escalate this issue in the same manner, but I believe it is in the interests of the Wikipedia community to some to a calm, mutual balance for all parties.
I hereby appeal to you that we "try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner" before this becomes a more formal conflict. Justindavila (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find in the Manual of Style where it indicates there cannot be more than one infobox per article. Can you point me to that, please?
Can you indicate the specific conflict of interest? Certainly I am cannot be promoting my interests in a defunct theatre; that doesn't make any sense. Certainly New York University, and over a decade of press coverage (some of which is listed as references) indicated this theater had significant enough value to the culture of New York to warrant one of several million articles in Wikipedia. Not to mention New York University's Fales Library interest in materials to be preserved for posterity as part of their Downtown Collection. All images, including logos, have ownership information clearly listed. This article is absolutely not "wholly unreferenced."
Of course, I would appreciate your constructive suggestions in light of this information.
Let me say that again, I would appreciate your constructive suggestions, as opposed to your threats of blocking my account.
Please show me where in the MOS more than one infobox is forbidden? Thank you.
GlassCobra
GlassCobra, if that is your real name, you are in the wrong. I have worked with both you and Jennavecia, and responded explicitly to both your and her comments, in a good faith effort to establish a good article, again and again. Anyone can review the history of this article.
While I regret your abusively antagonistic stance, especially in light of your ignorance of this subject matter and arbitrary edits, you can expect an escalation to your superiors appropriate to your abuse of your role as Wikipedia editor, which may be called into question. Is this what you want? --Justindavila (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
--Justindavila (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The symbol for Collective:Unconscious, I Ching hexagram 64, is a part of almost all the images presented in the article. This justifies an explanation of what the I Ching hexagram 64 is. --Justindavila (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have made every effort to accommodate reasonable recommendations by admins and other editors, even relentless editing by "GlassCobra." I regret that "GlassCobra" fails to "see any kind of significance in the logo," despite the link to the wikipedia I Ching article which explains the logo, but I understand that he or she may be uninformed and/or may be trying to prove some other point or gain wiki "cred." This effort to ban me is completely unwarranted. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." I have made every effort to collaborate with other editors to come to agreement on changes, and explain my viewpoints in a friendly, positive, and objective, manner. The article may ultimately include conflicting viewpoints. I will ask you and again ask GlassCobra to please not abuse the power of an admin. Thank you.--Justindavila (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Glass Cobra, It is about Eric Yepao. Eric Yepao is a businessman. He is a man with values and principles. He has never been arrested in the UK. He is not a criminal that story has been made up by someone who is trying to discredit him on Wikipedia. When you are a successful businessman people start to become jealous.
GlassCobra, The original article about Eric Yepao has been vandalised by "the anonomous". The anonomous claimed that Eric Yepao is a criminal and that he has been arrested in the UK for identity theft and fraud strangely the so called anonomous does not have any source to back his claim.
Eric Yepao is businessman and if he finds out that the original article written about him has been vandalised by "anonomous". It is very likely that he will start a legal action for diffamation and calomnies against Wikipedia and anonomous.
The story about Eric Yepao being a criminal is untrue.
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion of the ban there at all. The first mention of the word "ban" is in the header of the note you left declaring him banned. I see a number of concerns raised about his behavior... but I don't see any support for a formal ban with extensive community support per WP:BAN. So I'm going to have to review this based purely on whether the block would be legit without the ban. If you really think a ban is necessary, as opposed to a final warning, it needs to have broader discussion than this. Mangojuicetalk15:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you could...
Hi GlassCobra. Any chance you can do something about 66.210.75.2? the IP you just reverted on the Cradle of Filth page I reported him to AiV yesterday after they repeatedly deleted citations for music artist genres that they didn't like... but the on-duty admin wanted to attempt the friendly and AGF-ness approach even though the user, across numerous IPs, has never adhered to any warnings/dialogue previously. So today they are right back at deleting citations n such again. Frustrating. Thanks for your assistance. The Real Libs-speak politely16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The IP is just off a 6 month block, actually. Appears to be a school IP, but a one year softblock is warranted, in my opinion. Enigmamessage17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!
I think you should assume good faith in this case and not ask for this to be reverted.. It takes a bit of time to prepare an edit and they happened virtually at the same time AND it also had consensus that it's a borderline BLP vio/should not be in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't split up the discussion like this, it's not helpful. Cobra, I replied to this comment by Hobartimus on ANI. I'm asking you to revert to the wrong version before the armies of political hacks on either side (or one side specifically) descend on you to give you grief. I'm not sure how it came out as bad faith to H, since it's just asking for policy. But oh well. rootology (C)(T) 00:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think it should be reverted. That's a pretty contentious edit per WP:BLP and there's a lot of discussion on the talk page. I'll leave a note about it at WP:AN. Kellyhi!00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hobart and I were already debating in the Please help! section. I just didn't want to see anyone try to screw GC. rootology (C)(T) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
RFAR alert
One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
08 Yankees Season
Please do not delete my contributions just because for some reason you deem them 'speculatory'. It is improbable if not impossible that the Yankees will make the playoffs this year and their remaining games against Boston are at Fenway. Therefore the Red Sox will not return to play a game in old Yankees Stadium. And even if the Yankees do somehow make the playoffs, they haven't made it past the first round since 2004 and everyone knows that 2 teams from the same division do not play each other in the Division Series. Food for thought, digest it as you will. Faethon Ghost (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello GlassCobra. You undeleted this article for another admin to look at. When I click through to the copyright on the website involved, it allows only non-commercial use. I don't think that works for us. Am I missing something? EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
