en User talk:Redux Archive05

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT. THIS IS AN ARCHIVE PAGE

Re:Trouble at Flamengo?

Hey, Redux. No trouble at all, but these guys don't seem to realize that players numbers are not fully established yet. They have such an urge for editing so that they add all squad numbers just after 3 matches. Anyway, thanks for checking! Regards, Lesfer 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hey, Redux. Could you check Spookyadler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Hal Jordan article? Six edits only yesterday! This guy just won't stop. Thanks, Lesfer 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Lesfer 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more IP vandalism on Roger Federer

Hi, Redux. You said that we should let you know if the nonsense vandal 62.2.111.250 returned to the Federer article. Well, it did and added the same nonsense sentences again on February 10[1]. Noelle De Guzman 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adminship

Thanks for the kind words at my talk page, Redux, and those at RFA as well. I am pleased to have gotten so much support, particularly for a self-nom. I hope I don't disappoint (and do let me know if I do!). :) Chick Bowen 16:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hino Nacional Brasileiro Coral BDMG.ogg

I seen copies of the anthem placed on the Commons with this very same reason, so I uploaded that file based on what the person uploaded. However, I was wondering if you can check it out and make sure that everything is correct. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars

Sorry about using the rollback there, I know your edit was in good faith, and I realize you must have spent a lot of time on it, that's why I mentioned it in the next edit summary. However, it's pretty common convention on Wikipedia (and pretty much anywhere else) to alphabetize by last name, even when the list is in "Firstname Lastname" format. For example, look at List of National Basketball Association players, List of iconic smokers, or other such lists. Sorry about any confusion this might have caused. --DDG 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars and awards stuff

Notice about barnstar

Hi, I proposed to give Barnstar of National Merit a makover in here. Deathphoenix left a note that people originally involved in creating the award should be notified. So here I am. Please voice your opinion, and happy editing! Renata 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development guidelines

In response to some of the comments about archiving discussions, and how awards are vetted, last week I tweaked the Guidelines. No one noticed. I also archived the discussion that was used to create them. I just wanted to give you a heads up. evrik 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awards Page I think that the variety of pages Barnstars and Other Related Awards and Personal User Awards for the awards are confusing. I have been trying to streamline them by creating the Wikipedia:Awards page. Let me know what you think. evrik 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihalo Award

Psst Check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilove? wikicivility?

Someone just swooped in and nominated the Wikihalo Award for deletion. What an incredibly inconsiderate move, that completely ignores the community of users trying to make wikipedia a friendlier place. Instead of discussing it on the talk pages of the award, or going to the Awards and Proposals page, Pepsidrinka just up and nominates it for deletion. Please go to this page and vote to keep the award. If nothing else because the deletion of the award is a smack down of trying to promote wikilove and wikicivility on wikipedia. evrik 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo. Is there an ongoing discussion about changing this award? If there is, I'd like to participate in it because I think there are a few problems that need to be addressed. If there isn't already a discussion, where would be the best place to start one? --Tantalum T e lluride 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reasoned response. evrik 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar and Award Proposal format Guidelines

Please go here to comment, User:Evrik/Sandbox/Proposal_format. evrik 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my response to you comments. --evrik 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Hey, Redux. Please, take a look at these articles and tell me what you think about them. Potential candidates for deletion?

Fundação Armando Alvares Penteado
Faap Rugby - contains a full copy from Rugby football#History
Contrutora OAS

SRN, Lesfer (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Gustavo_kuerten.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gustavo_kuerten.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 17:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, I believe. Redux 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Rio-Niterói Bridge.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Rio-Niterói Bridge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Steven G. Johnson 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the bridge page I have linked a photo of mine I uploaded to commons. For whatever reason English wikipedia did not display it (German and Portuguese wiki pages were ok) but now this glitch seems to have disappeared.--Klaus with K 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting short translation

I'm working on translating an 1862 biography from Italian to English, in order to write a featured article. If possible, can you please translate just this section, which is on page 117:

Intanto, la fama in che era venuto per le sue opere od impresse, o tenute in pronto per la stampa, la protezione del Donato, l'amicizia rinnovata o stretta con parecchi chiari uomini, quali il dotto tipografo tedesco Arnoldo Arlenio, Girolamo Ruscelli, Jacopo Menochio, con altri di minor nome e coi patrizi Andrea Badoaro ed Antonio Giustiniano, gli furono strada a più comoda vita ed a più liete speranze. Stimolato dal Sigonio a mandare in luce le sue Miscellanee, sì il fece, dedicandole all'ambasciator di Polonia, per veder il quale portossi in Padova nell'ottobre del 1563: l'anno stesso offriva al suo protettore Giovanni Donato i libri de Fato del Bresciano Giulio Sirenio: nel 1564 stampava il Trattato della Fortificazione, indirizzandolo al Re di Spagna.

Thanks for your help :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-15 04:14

Image Tagging for Image:Eusebiooficial.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eusebiooficial.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, although I'm really starting to get tired of being second-guessed on every single affirmation about images. Redux 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who made the page about "the online community about a strip in a newspaper"

If Ebaum can have a page, so can we. If the vagina can have a page, so can we. If Numa frigging Numa can have a page, so can we.

The page is well written and is doing no harm, so why not leave it alone, eh? —This unsigned comment was added by 88.108.27.142 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for your contact. This discussion will be referenced to the article's talk page. Redux 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Project

Count me in ;) Lesfer ^(talk) 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help in this project. There is a similar article in the Portuguese language Wikipedia: Brasil na Copa do Mundo de 2006. Regards, Carioca 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Pontes camp.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pontes camp.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue addressed on Image page; hopefully clarified. Redux 19:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me :) Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

I just want to know how you learn so many languages. I understand that (apparently) as a native of Brazil you have native Portugese and a fair advantage in Spanish, but how did you go about learning French and Italian to an advanced level? Have you traveled, or is there some method that I've missed out on. I intend to learn Portugese and French after finish Spanish (which I have learned up to this point in Spain and intend to return). If you have any suggestions for ways of getting this done, or better yet, secrets, please let me know. Diabolic.Insidious 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hi, Redux. User:Lesfer and I are constantly reverting vandalism by 170.66.1.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). As you are an administrator, can you do something? Regards, Carioca 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redux, please, take a look at my talk page and check his message, as well as the following one. Please, also check user Agaro's talk page. SRN, --Lesfer ^(talk) 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. Let's hope that he will not do vandalism again. Regards, Carioca 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism today. Hopefully he's quit. Thanks, Redux. --Lesfer ^(talk) 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help on Roger Federer

Hi Redux. If you wouldn't mind, I think we need an admin to weigh in on what counts for speculation in the Roger Federer article, particularly Talk:Roger Federer#Plantar fasciitis and maybe Talk:Roger Federer#Equipment. Thanks. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, the Talk:Roger Federer#Federer's Racquet discussion could use your expertise on Wikipedia policy. Thanks. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brasil Bandeira.gif

Per your updateCan you show me where on the site they provide a sufficiently free grant for their copyrighted works (i.e. permitting derivative works, commercial use, resale, unlimited redistribution, etc)? I looked, but couldn't find it... but given my linguistic limitations, that's not too shocking. Do we have any reason to believe that it wasn't just removed from that site due to copyright violation? Have we contacted them? Feel free to reply here and, thanks for your help. --Gmaxwell 00:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of the website, under the header that says GIFs animados (translation: animated GIFs), the very first sentence written there says GIFs animados grátis. This very last word means free. Further along that opening paragraph, it says Animações e Imagens Animadas Desenhos Retratos para Paginas web, which translates: animations and animated images, drawings and pictures, for webpages (my bolding). This means that the images are free, and even meant to be used on websites. The sentence is rather clear and self-explanatory (granted, it's in Portuguese) about the lack of restrictions for the use of any images originating from the website. It is not, however, a "mainstream" website, and its contents get "renewed" every now and then (most likely due to restrictions on their servers). Redux 02:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you know the difference between grátis and livre. We require more than just use at no cost. To me it sounds like it's saying what simmlar sites in english say: you can use these at no charge on your website but you can't sell them. --Gmaxwell 08:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any incompatibility between what the website says and the use I've given to the image here. I'm using it, not selling it; the tag says it is copyrighted, not that it is PD or anything of a sort. Perhaps we could find a better tag for it, but as far as the use goes, it is within what the website authorizes: I am merely using the image on my user page (on a website), as it says anyone can do with the material it offers. Furthermore, we can't just translate individual words: it seems to me that, what the webmaster means when he says what he does is that the images can be used freely; it would stand to reason that, if they wanted to do otherwise, they would not state what they do without at least a disclaimer somewhere, which doesn't exists. You are assuming something that isn't there to the detriment of what is. Redux 12:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal again

Hey Redux, it looks like 170.66.1.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is back. —Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Hi. Let me ask you something: 65.13.57.11 (talk · contribs) keeps changing wikilinks to a redirect format. Is it vandalism? —Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 00:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really had no idea this kind of activity was so common, so thanks for explaining me the matter. I've already warned him about it.

By the way, I suspect this anon could be Chupu (talk · contribs). —Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking user:Prerna astrogirl

Is there any way we can block this user? S/he continually uploads copyrighted images of tennis players, without providing any tags, despite being warned many times. Thanks. Stanley011 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption and vandalism at Flamengo

Hey Redux, please, take a look at these anons:

—Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your concern

Redux,

I appreciate the civility and measured response in reply to my vote and rationale behind such. Indeed, the intent was not that of trolling, if it came across that way my apologies. Reviewing the various candidates this morning, I happened upon your nomination along with several others. The editor whom you credited a barnstar for has a persistent demeanor that isn't constructive towards the editoral process here. In any event, much success in your future endeavors. Netkinetic 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About fake votes

As you asked me to copy the texts for clarifications, the texts are: "Let's assume an user has one non-detectable sock-puppet account (reason may be using different proxy or IP for sock-puppet account). He/She signs a particular RfA with one or two fake votes per user account. This adds total 5 signs from his/her side. If (s)he does this process in very beginning of a RfA. Let's say (s)he opposes by all these 5 votes and other users have signed 4 supports and 2 opposes. By adding this particular user's contribution RfA stats is (4/7/0). I am just guessing (not sure) other users may follow the same trend as majority opposes the vote and it may be converted to unsuccesful promotion while it was deserved a succesful promotion. It's just a virtual incident." Shyam ^(T/C) 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, ok, I'll start with the more obvious: it would be very crude for someone to cast more than one vote with the same account. I don't believe anyone has ever tried that, since this doesn't even take any kind of checking to identify (normally, any user can just strike the extra vote(s) out and leave a message for that person that the rule is one account, one vote — but that one vote would still count).
So, in order for someone to try this scenario you described that person would have to set up five different accounts. That kind of scheme is really very easy to detect. First, those accounts set up just to disturb Wikipedia will have only a handful of edits to its credit, many a time all of those edits will have been in RfAs. Second, the account was set up usually in the same day (sometimes only minutes before) the vote was cast. When we see that, someone marks under that vote: extremely high probability of it being a sock puppet, or a vandal. We don't delete the entry, unless it is a notorious vandal, but nor does the closing Bureacrat need to be the one to uncover the scheme. We lay it out there in advance — if you check, even now, in the more recent RfAs, Slim Virgin has done that when a banned user tried to circumvent the ban by returning under a sock puppet ("American Saga"). That being the case, the Bureaucrat will disconsider the votes in question, as if they never took place, and that's because RfA is not an election per se. It isn't a simple vote, where a vote cast is a vote that counts. The point is to get consensus for promotion. For that to happen, there needs to be legitimate community participation. If we have reason to believe that any given participant is not a legitimate member of the community, then this input cannot be considered in building community consensus.
Then I'm sure you'll ask: but how do we know when a user voting is in one of those cases? Naturally, we don't do a background check in every user participating in RfA. I can only describe it as some kind of "fine tuning". Someone will always notice that an account no one ever saw around before has suddenly cast a vote in a RfA. That's why it's an asset having so many experienced users around: it may go unnoticed to some, but there will always be someone who will catch on.
And RfA is not a place where newcomers hang. That's why an account created only minutes before voting, or one that has but a couple of edits to its credit is immediately red flagged. A legitimate newcomer simply doesn't know that RfA even exists, and even when they first stumble across it, they take a little while before realizing what it's all about, how it works, etc.
And a very interesting technical point: about sock puppets, it's not always illegal to have sock puppets, you can have those, but under no circumstances can a user try to use a sock puppet, not even one that is being used legally, to try to vote twice in a RfA, *fD or any similar instance. Anyone caught doing that would be blocked immediately (all accounts), and in all likelihood, end up banned from the project. Have I covered everything? Redux 02:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very thanks for the big response. I was talking about a sock-puppet account which has been created very early and uses ocassionally his/her account for proxy signature at various places, may be WP:FAC, WP:FPC, WP:FLC, WP:FPCAN, WP:AID, WP:RfA etc. and rarely uses for editing articles to avoid any conflict with other user about his/her sock-puppet account contribution. Is there any solution to preventing these kind of acts, when he tries to use differnet IPs for different accounts. We do not have any criteria to prevent him/her to do so. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. In this case, the first step is to read Wikipedia:Sock puppets. Then, in light of that, analize the user's actions and see if it constitutes illegal use of sock puppets. Participating in any kind of community consensus building under different aliases (obviously, without disclosing explicitly this condition) is unacceptable. If that is the case, a good place to report it is WP:AN/I (the Administrators' Noticeboard). Something that I've had some experience with is that a crafty puppeteer is sometimes able to stay a "borderline" case. They hope to disturb but without ever breaking explictly a serious enough rule that would get them blocked (in theory). Example: nominating an article for deletion with an account, but not casting a vote, then returning to vote "delete" with a different account. The thing is, this is called gaming the system, and it is also grounds for a block. When reporting the incidents, it's always important to provide diffs and other links to any piece of evidence that supports your claims. Redux 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, now case is more clear but method to resolve these type of cases is quite complicated. But it can be detected by analyzing a sockpuppeter contribution and we can suspect that (s)he is a sockpuppeter but it can not be confirmed if different IPs have been used. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 17:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say "complicated" so much as "laborious": it can be a lot of boring work; one needs to go through a potentially long list of contribs, diffs, etc. But we identify sock puppets and their puppeteers by their track records usually. We have identified and blocked/banned anonymous contributors who were (a single individual at a time, obviusly) controlling three, four or even more IPs. We have blocked/banned accounts that were identified as belonging to the same person, all on the basis of analizing their history on Wikipedia. If the suspected sock puppets are all registered users, than there is a chance that the same IP is behind them all. The only way to identify those is through a CheckUser. That, however, is reserved only to very serious cases, and will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, due to our privacy policy. Redux 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About some of the questions

Hi, Tawker. Since you mentioned it during one of the discussions, I thought it would be more adequate to talk about this first here, in the "privacy" of your talk page (if you'd prefer to move it to the main forum, that's ok too). It's concerning the set of questions you've added to Ezeu's RfA. Not all of them, just a few:

Question n.3: I fail to see a practical point in that question. It's highly speculative, and it would only serve a purpose if the candidate were to say something clearly inappropriate. But in terms of testing a "regular" user's aptitude for Adminship, it would seem to be of little service.

Well, I do admit, its a little bit of a "think tank" though I think it could be ommited ok

Question n.8: Seems to be redundant with the standard Q1.

Well, Std Q1 asks what chores, this one somewhat is a "what motivated you to run" - I think I'll modify it to that extent

Question n.9: It seems to me that it introduces a level of complexity to Adminship that really shouldn't exist (and I don't believe it does). It would seem that, even if Adminship is a big deal, it's not that big a deal. Yet.

In a sense, I grabbed that one from Rob Church, in short, I'm really looking for people to say that its not a powertrip and that its not a big deal, as admins by themselves have no more of a vote, no more of a say than any other user, and I like to see how the user percieves the role.

Would you agree with any of this? Redux 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've enclosed some replies, please let me know if you have any questions == Tawker 18:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast High School

I first want to thank you for granting my request. As to your question, I hope that this person will eventually stop messing with the page. I'm hoping that this protection will hinder his efforts, in a sense waning him off. If, however, it won't work, then I'll go back to just monitoring the page day by day. It's such a shame that some people will vandalize a page for no reason than to do it. Thanks again for granting my request. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 11:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Redeemer (statue)

I've just been addressing the apparent copyvio for this article, and saw your unanswered question on its talk page - from the pdf this seems to be copied from, it seems to be correct, so far as any randomly searched piece of information on the web is correct with reservations ;) Anyway, it looks like the user who added the content originally is dormant, so that section will disappear in a bit; I was wondering whether you would consider adding the information you thought was correct? With the tagged information removed that page will look a little small... --User:Firien § 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I thought that the history was very good, but wasn't sure it could be included at all from the wording on {copyvio}, which asks something be rewritten from scratch rather than just reworded. If there hadn't been another source of information I would have replaced the detailed history with a link to that pdf, which would convey the same information and step around the copy issue. I don't have any other sources of information on it apart from a quick net-browse (only came across it by being sidetracked from another part of the wiki), so a native encyclopedia does seem the way to go. --User:Firien § 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci Code

Yeah, several users have notified me of that already. I have already put in a request from protection. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redux, This user from student-rant is trying to push this whole Da Vinci page issue off on the admin of the googlefact blog. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#da_vinci_code_page This is the reverse. I contacted M1ss1ontomars2k4 several days ago to request a solution to this situation. At that point he requested that I make a blog strictly devoted to the da vinci code puzzle and link it at the bottom of the page under external links. The googlefact site has never deleted or removed anybodys link unless the googlefact link was previously removed. (Which it was) I have tried to abide by the rules as best I have been explained them. The fact is users want to see this information, but it should be listed at the bottom under external links and multiple links should be allowed including this users page 67.101.128.6

Not only that but 67.101.128.6 has been spamming my blog repeatedly with extreamly foul language and multiple posts with this type of content. I have all ranges of people viewing my blog and have had my blog around since well before the da vinci quest came around and that type of behavior is unacceptable to me. Rodgerbales 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response: "had my blog around since well before the da vinci quest came around" LOL yeah right. Your blog started in February 2006. Some of the Webquest discussion links you deleted dated back to 2003, and 2003 is the date the related discussions started - the blogs themselves went back further. Of the blogs regarding the new google quests, one of the two started at the same time or prior to your blog, so how do you justify removing them? You can't, and that is all there is to it, but common sense seems to be severly lacking in Wikipedia regarding this matter. Sorry it turned into what it did, but you started it, so stop crying innocent and at least own up to what you did. "The fact is users want to see this information, but it should be listed at the bottom under external links and multiple links" Oh really. So why did you not follow your own argument here then, hmm? You deleted everyone's link and added only your own, and you added it in the article, not at the foot of the page as you would have everyone else do. Sheesh this is so ridiculous. Enjoy all your ad-impression revenue.

RfA

Hi. I'm sorry to see you've decided to withdraw, even though consensus was unlikely to be reached. I know it's a disappointment to have a RfA fail, but you should not let it get to you too much. Check out this RfA, which, at this time, is about to close. Notice the overwhelming support that the user has received. But notice, also, that it's this user's third attempt. Of course, I'm not saying that you will fail again before you succeed, or that you are certain to get it the next time. What I am saying is that, as long as you don't let yourself be discouraged, a good contributor is bound to be recognized by the community. A successful RfA is all about doing good work, so all you need to do is keep at it. Cheers, Redux 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words but this will be my last interaction with the greater Wikipedia community (I will still continue my present work within WP:Air). I make massive edits in one save to reduce server loads but apparently the edit count is the sole measure of my worthiness. In addition, I'm expected to assume good faith and be kind to newbies when some imbecile puts "f*ck you" in the middle of a page (exactly how is this good faith or a test?). There is too much ivory tower stuff in the opposing comments for me to want to be involved in the greater community. Again, thanks for your kind words but no thanks. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Redux, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unprotection

So what about lifting the protection from Kosovo article? you said you can do that. I have nothin against stopping unregistered users from adding there, but new users should not be banned. Thanks in advance. Ilir pz 09:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking user:Bencsmith

Please consider permenantly blocking this user. S/he has contributed nothing but nonsense edits to articles, and has also written highly offensive remarks on his/her user page that had to be reverted by other users. I don't see him/her as having the potential to contribute to wikipedia in any positive way, ever. Stanley011 19:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Redux/Archive05, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight.
If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever...
Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me...

The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up and Esperanza

Hey buddy, it's interesting that you sent me a message today, because today is actually the day I went from a full Wikibreak to a semi-Wikibreak, so you still got me in a more active time. :-) It's too bad about your RfB. When I didn't know about it (and therefore didn't vote), you had a much higher level of support. I guess I should stop giving you my support. ;-) As for why I left Esperanza, it was not due to anything negative, I assure you. It's just that, one day, I suddenly realised that I actually did nothing for Esperanza aside from adding my name to the list, my Wikipedia Firstday to the calendar, and Essjay to the list of users on Wikibreak. I took a look at the aims of Esperanza and realised that I really didn't do anything for the project, so I left. That's it, really. It has nothing to do with Esperanza being useless to me; rather, it's me being useless to Esperanza. :-P If in the future, you don't a response from me for several days (probably not too much of a problem when I'm on semi-Wikibreak), please feel free to fire off an email. Heck, if you want to discuss offline how we can start our plans for world domination, you can fire off an email. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha... thanks for the info, I'll probably fire off an email in the near future. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind

I saw your request and just put in a minor support for you [2]. Good luck with all that. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd want to create more work for yourself, but I decided to endorse your insanity. I hope you get your account! --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Deputies

Hi there, I've rewritten the Chamber of Deputies article to clarify the situation regarding English usage. I wouldn't regard 'House of Representatives' in English as a translation of 'Câmara dos Deputados' in Portuguese, and when I wrote about the Australian or New Zealand House of Representatives in Portuguese, I translated it as 'Câmara dos Representantes'. It's not a term that's used in former British or American colonies (House of Representatives being far more widespread) but it would be understood, if accompanied by 'the lower house of parliament/congress' or 'the [single chamber] parliament'

See the talk page Quiensabe 23:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your confidence

Dear Redux/Archive05 — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 72/2/0 and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any adminnery I can help you with in the future. —Wh o uk (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Redux

How've you been? Sorry for the late reply (blame the wikibreak ;-). I've added my endorsement as well; it's simple, but quite accurate. :-) Best of luck! Sango 123 (e) 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mitnick

Due to his being the first major conviction, he is clearly notable. According to the KVBC interview with him on May 15, he now lives in Vegas. Also look at the company web site which is located in Las Vegas. If you look at some of the other people listed as Las Vegans, they are at best no more notable then Mitnick. So if we are going to remove him, there are many others that should go. Vegaswikian 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.

Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!

♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Armas Imperiais

Olá Redux; acredito que as armas imperiais por si carregadas no servidor estejam imprecisas, pois a "almofada" dentro da coroa imperial é verde, sendo esse um dos diferenciais em relação às antigas armas de D. Pedro quando Príncipe Real de Portugal, Brasil e Algarves, podendo ser conferido no sítio oficial da Casa Imperial do Brasil. Obrigado. Tonyjeff 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pode deixar; amanhã eu desenho a bandeira e atualizo o arquivo no servidor então. No artigo Família Imperial Brasileira, em Português, há uma versão das Grandes Armas, com a coroa imperal com fundo verde -- mas não é a coroa que utilizarei, claro. Até. Tonyjeff 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olá Redux; eu não consegui encontrar a ligação para atualizar a antiga bandeira, e acabei por carregar a nova numa outra página: Bandeira-imperial-brasil.jpg . No entanto, com certeza seria melhor se pudéssemos atualizar aquela. Você saberia como me ajudar? Obrigado. Tonyjeff 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Thank you very much, and it's good to see you as well. --M e rovingian {T C @} 04:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi there, Redux. Could you please take a look at Flamengo's article? This anon 201.78.221.168 (talk · contribs) just won't stop despite the fact I've already told the squad should follow WikiProject Football standards. Thanks. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check up my article?

Hi Redux, I am a swede who have been using and promoting Wikipedia for years but have resently started to contribute. I am learing and that quickly I belive.

I have found some sort of hidded vandalism is growing on Wiki? I understand that articles need to be cleaned, and deleted from, nonsens, no encyclepedic and illegal info but as I understand there is a invitation for users to request, start and develop knowledge and then there is users who only goes for deletion (even have theire own philosofy club Deletionists on Wiki:-0 )

Here is an example: One article Global Reserve Bank was on Wiki for years, some of thouse deletionists (Just deleting not contributing) made a deletetion (this was before I knew how it works in Wiki and I did not write the article but have been working with the www.grb.net network for 18 years.

Now there is very difficult to get some of the fact about GRB on wiki again, its attacked all the time with refering to first deleting (even if is was undeleted for a while)

Now I would like you to check Global Reserve Bank article and se if it should (or not) should be let to be developed for the future? I would be much happy to get some second oppinion, if it really is that bad I can just let it go, but I do not understand why there can not be a article about something that was in wiki for 4-5 years earlier, has been active for more then 20 years and have 3000 members and influence in the development of Ecological Economy development? --Swedenborg 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

Thanks for your support in helping me understand how to get this article published... somehow it was deleted and I dont understand how it could be with so relatively many Keep votes and so pore arguments for delete?? Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank --Swedenborg 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

And that's cool that you remember seeing me around before I became really active - I don't even remember myself much then!. ;)

-- Nataly a 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use debate regarding television screencaps

Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of American Dad episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.

If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.

Cws125 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFB

I've added a question to your RFB. It doesn't really affect my vote, as I don't doubt your ability for the position, yet I'd like to know your view on the issue I asked you about. Cheers! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Redux/Archive05