User talk:SWAdair/Archive3

This page is an archive. Please do not edit this page. If you would like to comment on something you see on this page, please comment on my current Talk page. Thank you.

Re: Vandalism by User:209.158.180.130

That's funny, the thing about being from Edison. Edison isn't in Union County, and we only take students from in-county. That leaves me three options: either the person moved recently, the ETTC program (housed in the same building as us) has students who are doing this, or the person was throwing us off. One way or another, I suspect a few people because there's only a small group that doesn't like the Free Journal. Also, the vandalism to rammed earth leads me to a handful of people because of a certain assignment in a certain class. Thanks for the help, though, and I'll keep up my work hunting down the vandal in person. I'll have a few words for him.

Adminship

Salve, SWAdair!
Back in September I was a candidate for adminship, but I withdrew and since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Though you voted to oppose at that time, you seemed receptive to a future candidacy and, therefore, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Salve, SWAdair!
  I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Help fix a problem

O1thomas 15:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think that I caused a problem on the page <Religious Science>. Can you help restore it to its original form? O1thomas 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) I have been stopped by slow server from updaating this request. I found that <Religious Science> had a malicious redirection dirctive which sent it to <Fundamentalism> which is not related to Religious Science. I then edited and deleted the redirection. Unfortunately I deleted the entire contents of the prior writing, not by me, and do not know how to restore the page before redirection.

• Ah, I see the reason for the confusion. There were actually two articles -- Religious Science (which had actual content) and Religious science (which was a redirect). The only difference in the names was the capitalization of "science." You edited the second one, which had never been anything more than a redirect. Don't worry, you didn't delete any history -- besides the redirect, there was never any history at that article name. I've redirected the lower-case version to the upper-case article. SWAdair | Talk 00:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, all is now well.O1thomas 01:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Transwiki deletion of recipes

Could you please update links when you delete pages that are moved elsewhere? This way there won't be red links to pages where there used to be information. Thanks, Dori | Talk 19:11, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Regretting my vote

I keep seeing you. We must be patrolling the same lists. You are doing so much tracking / reverting / warning of vandalism that I wish you had admin status. 'Tell you what... I see you leaving the final warning on several anon's talk pages. If you notice that someone has continued vandalizing and think they need to be blocked, you can either list them on ViP or you can just drop a link to their contributions on my talk page. You don't even have to explain what the link is for. I'll know, and I'll act on it. Work sometimes takes me away from the computer for a while, but I'll likely get to it faster than if you listed them on ViP. Just link -- I'll follow up for you. And next time, I'm voting Support, damnit!  :-) SWAdair | Talk 05:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're too kind, I'll take you up on that offer. And you know you spend too much time on VfD when every time you see a boldface keep you think Hmm, I'd rather merge and redirect. --fvw* 05:24, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

LOL! SWAdair | Talk 05:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Experiment

Imteresting stuff! I admit you had me wondering where I had erred in the speedy delete conclusion.  :^) Thanks for the heads-up. Tagging and bagging continues...! - Lucky 6.9 17:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were totally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)

(note that I'm sending this message to a few people as a general call for help) Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mikhail Alekseev (copyvio)

Hi there, SWAdair! I can assure you that I've translated this article myself from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (here's the link - http://encycl.yandex.ru/cgi-bin/art.pl?art=bse/00001/95700.htm&encpage=bse&mrkp=/yandbtm7%3Fq%3D1700253254%26p%3D10%26g%3D214%26d%3D0%26ag%3Denc_abc%26tg%3D1%26p0%3D10%26q0%3D1691586480%26d0%3D214%26script%3D/yandpage%253F). I had no knowledge whatsoever of the English version of this article in Britannica. KNewman 14:08, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. By chance are you on? Wikipedia:Goat shit/addendum2 could use a speedy delete. It's obvious vandalism. VFD 05:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• LOL! That was absolutely hilarious. It was vandalism, all right -- by YOU! Hehe... first, you do a double page-move vandalizing of Talk:Ambition (card game), then you contact an administrator to report yourself. ROFL! Surely you can't be Mike. Even Mike has more sense than that. Thanks for the laugh. SWAdair | Talk 05:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Broken link

Your link to your personal policy on deletion on your user page is broken as of now. I'd be curious to read the emails, so I thought I'd let you know; hopefully you can find out what happened. JesseW 03:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you for letting me know about the broken link. I'll keep checking that for a few days to see if it is a temporary propblem or if it might be permanent. That link has worked for months so I doubt it is gone for good. I'll drop you a line when it is working again. Hmm... perhaps I should copy/paste that to a subpage here so I can link to it within Wikipedia. SWAdair | Talk 04:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Felix sapiens

I can confirm that there is nothing in any episode of Red Dwarf nor the four books nor any of the official comics that would substantiate this users edit. 08:58, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming my suspicions. I've reverted again. SWAdair | Talk 09:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyright Violation in Julie Simone Picture and Article

I was not able to obtain copyright permission for the picture used, which is from www.juliesimone.com. Most of the article was copied from another biography, but I have attempted since to make some changes so that it reads differently.

Deontological Declination

Deontological Declination looks decidedly dodgy. I had trouble making much sense of it, but I've revised it to be a bit clearer (though I've had to guess at what it was trying to say. :-) I think we should probably just redirect it to deontology and avoid a VfD debate... Evercat 14:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Odd page

Found this while doing a cleanup project of the Template and MediaWiki namespaces -- Template:VfD- (and a redirect at MediaWiki:VfD-). Looked like a mis-type, and couldn't find any thing linking to it. If they're not needed, can you delete them both? Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

• That's odd. I remember that debate (an article about a streaker), and there was much more than the one comment posted. 'Not sure how this came to be, maybe a mistake I made when VfD changed format. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. They're not linked, so I'll delete them. SWAdair | Talk 04:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to be having a bit of a problem with an abusive user, namely User:Fvw. This individual has taken it upon himself to be the ombudsman of what is and is not a speedy delete candidate. He's reverted my edits and left some snide remarks on my user page and the edit summaries. I've listed him on RfC as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit war will get me blocked?

My edits are kosher. Why don't you warn Jewbacca and SlimVirgin as they are violating three revert rule? --Wiesenthaler 05:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Neither of those users have violated the 3RR. You have, by creating a sockpuppet to continue reverting. Don't try to deny it. The editing pattern gives you away. Anyone looking at the edit history would be justified in coming to that conclusion. Wiesenthaler could be blocked at any time for violation of the 3RR and the burden of proof would be on you, not the blocking admin. Please do discuss major changes before making them. Please do not use this sockpuppet to evade the 3RR again. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the content of an article. How you are going about attempting to hijack the article is wrong. If you would like to bring more attention to the article, you may want to consider listing it at Requests for comment. SWAdair | Talk 05:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are very very wrong sir. I am not in violation of the three revert rule and your pattern analysis is extremely poor. Jewbacca has violated the three revert rule on AIPAC. You need glasses. --Wiesenthaler 06:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wear contacts.  :-) I'm not tracking all edits made by all three of you, as I am actually trying to accomplish some other things as well. I was looking only at the article that had been called to my attention -- Yasser Arafat. You are correct that Jewbacca has reverted more than three times in 24 hours, as have you (although using two different usernames). The policy requires that any blocks be applied to all parties that violate the 3RR. I'm about to go on real-life patrol so I'll be away from the computer for a couple of hours. I'll see you in two hours. SWAdair | Talk 06:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not Goldberg. You need new contacts. --Wiesenthaler 06:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very careful not to exceed the 3rr when dealing with these vandals. Please provide the diff links to the more than 3 times in 24 hours I reverted Yasser Arafat that you claim, so I can clarify any misunderstanding. Thank you. Jewbacca 06:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

You are not dealing with a vandal. If you were, the three revert rule would not matter. You violated on AIPAC. Now you should be blocked. --Wiesenthaler 06:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nor have I violated it on AIPAC. Jewbacca 06:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Read it and weep. Four reverts in less than five hours. Partial reverts count as you well know. You should be blocked for this violation. [1] [2] [3] [4] --Wiesenthaler 06:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The last edit you cite was the removal of an external link to balance the content of the external links proportionally. Not a revert. Jewbacca 06:29, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Partial reverts also count under the three revert rule. This rule also applies to you, Jewbacca. --Wiesenthaler 06:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stephen, as you are an admin, are you able to do anything to stop Wiesenthaler? He's deleted large sections of Yasser Arafat several times (it was properly referenced information), and has left a list of very offensive anti-Semitic terms on the List of ethnic slurs page, cleverly defending his actions by saying this is the place for them. He also, together with Goldberg (which seem clearly to be the same person), violated the 3RR rule on Yasser Arafat. By the way, I'm not sure what you meant by me vandalising his User page. If you meant my reply to him, I put that on his User page in error, and have therefore now moved it to his Talk page. Best, Slim 06:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's not "cleverly defending." My edits are legitimate. It's you who is improperly persecuting because you are personally offended. You do the same thing on Yasser Arafat and AIPAC. You make biased edits based on your ethnic identitification with Jews and Zionists. You should be banned for POV edit warring. --Wiesenthaler 06:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stephen, Jewbacca reverted only three times at Yasser Arafat while Wiesenthaler/Goldberg reverted five times. Here is the page history. Slim 06:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Except that I am not Goldberg as you are falsely accusing me. How many times did you and Jewbacca revert? Are you sockpuppets? --Wiesenthaler 06:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Goldberg -- newly created account, 28 edits total, showed obvious prior knowledge of editing Wikipedia. Edited Yasser Arafat, AIPAC, ViP and certain talk pages. Stopped editing at 20:30 hours, 20 DEC 04 after reaching the three revert limit on targeted articles.

Compare with...

User:Wiesenthaler -- newly created account, first edit at 20:59 hours, 20 DEC 04. Showed obvious prior knowledge of editing Wikipedia. Edited List of ethnic slurs, Yasser Arafat, AIPAC, ViP and the same certain talk pages. Following same edit pattern as User:Goldberg.

No, Wiesenthaler is not a sockpuppet of Goldberg. They are both sockpuppets, of someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and is likely a registered user. I am certain enough of it that if these two accounts are used again to violate the 3RR, both accounts will be blocked. SWAdair | Talk 08:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are just plain wrong. I am not Goldberg nor am I a sockpuppet of the person who is controlling Goldberg, as you have repeatedly and falsely accused me. Your edit analysis leaves a great deal to be desired and you are violating the "assume good faith" rule. I resent the accusation and your threats. --Wiesenthaler 18:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also: Wikipuppets. Please update this page if you can make it more accurate. --Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More Deontological Declination

I'll trust your judgement on the matter.

I'm not sure you should, actually - it might possibly be dangerously close to original research, I think. I can't say for sure whether this sort of thinking has actually been seriously suggested anywhere, though I recall having similar thoughts a few years ago when I was studying philosophy...

That is so far outside my knowledge base I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Does it make any more sense now? :-) Evercat 21:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, your cleanup really helped. Now this armchair philosopher can understand what it is about.  :-) Since it is linked from Deontology, others interested in the field will eventually find it. We'll see if it stands the test of time as an article. SWAdair | Talk 03:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So SWAdair, what does your edit analysis tells you?

Looks like a sockpuppet evading 3RR to me. [5] --Wiesenthaler 06:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That's interesting. Are you saying you believe that Slim is a sockpuppet of someone else who recently edited that article? Even a cursory examination of the edit histories over the last couple of days shows that Slim is not a sockpuppet of either Jewbacca or Jayjg. SWAdair | Talk 09:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about sockpuppet User:Sheaner, probably User:Viriditas who is also User:Nasrallah vandalizing my User page. If you block any of them, they will all probably be blocked. I can't get the diff to work but this is the History. [6]

06:21, 22 Dec 2004 Sheaner m (Shame on you Alby, using a sockpuppet for an edit war) --Wiesenthaler 16:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wishing you the best

Hey man, I see you added your picture in your user page. I'm just dropping you this note to wish you a very Happy Holiday and I hope that this New Year brings you and your loved ones happiness and lots of joy. Your friend Tony the Marine

Common practice

Is it also common practice for users to retain copies of deleted material for the sole purpose of trolling other users? That is what is happening. I am appalled you would support that. As the "victim" of a failed RfC, I should not have to fight so hard to have that frivilous allegation deleted according to procedure. -- Netoholic @ 05:30, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• I agree with you. I really do. Remember, I'm the one who spoke up on the VfU and said "Keep deleted." At the time of the VfU, I didn't even know these records existed. It would be fruitless, though, to Speedy those user subpages. They would simply be undeleted for being out-of-process deletions. I personally believe that uncertified RfCs should be deleted and the slate wiped clean -- that's why the policy calls for it. However, there is very well established precedent allowing users to keep records of just about anything in a subpage of their user space. There's no way around it. If you want those deleted, you're going to have to take it through VfD, which of course drags the whole thing back into the public eye. If you can convince someone to Speedy them, *I* won't undelete them, but you can be sure someone will. SWAdair | Talk 05:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. Vacuum only gave up on the VfU (after quite a few people said it should stay deleted) because he knew he had this backup. Isn't it MUCH better for it be deleted, and he have to provide compelling reason for undeleting it? He keeps it only to troll me, even adding it to his User:Vacuum user page. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
    • The RfC process is to delete uncertified pages. This is no different, I don't care that he tried to do an end run around that process by "safeguarding" them in his user space. I document things to, but I do it by copying them off-site. You made one point that is important - going through VfD drags the whole thing back into the public eye, feeding this troll. You can at least do the service of restoring my {{db|}} tags. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

This is not about it being a CSD.... This is about admins not willing to follow the process and protection written into Wikipedia:Requests for comments - " If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted". It took two days for someone to get around to deleting it in the first place, and now this. Don't get involved anymore, and don't ask for my help, for anything. -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

I am not willing to accept that it is my name that has to be dragged back through the muck, nor that I have to be the one that "sets precedent". That excercise will be flawed because some people will vote either against me or vote based on the content of the RfC, not just the concept of people copying off dead RfCs' . These users are making copies in defiance of the consensus which established the current procedure which says these are deleted. Why ignore that consensus? I only wish I was the only one who this is being done to, and it is a horrible activity. Vacuum should be the one to explain why he must maintain this copy, or else every RfC which fails is going to end up this way, and the deletion process is dead. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

I believe you agree with me... what I am confused with is why you keep calling these "speedy deletes". These went through the process, and coming out the end, they are uncertified and should be deleted according to the steps described on WP:RFC. There is nothing "speedy" about it - it is simply the next step which is documented. -- Netoholic @ 08:34, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

A related vote in progress - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC -- Netoholic @ 07:56, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have voted to delete, as it is an inappropriate use of user space -- an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy. SWAdair | Talk 09:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Answer

NO!!!

• LOL! For anyone interested, see User talk:68.23.101.16#M*A*S*H announcers.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 03:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• YOL (yawning out loud), actually. Let him have fun till he gets bored and goes to bed or does something really daft, and then let's clear up the mess. In the meantime, PDFTT. -- Hoary 03:29, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Rachael Yamagata

Mostly I didn't remember for certain if 'blanked by someone else' was as speediable as 'blanked by original contrib', and if and how it being a copyvio might effect the answer, but at the moment didn't feel I had time to look it up. I have, on a few occasions, when in doubt, just tagged them, and figured someone more certain would either remove the tag, or delete the item in question. Niteowlneils 06:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSD#2

Hello. Since you disagreed that copyvio-blanked-by-author qualifies as a test page under the current CSD criteria, I wanted to explain my reasoning. I really think it does qualify according to current criteria. Here's why: Someone comes across Wikipedia for the first time. They see these notices that they can edit any page or even create an article. They're thinking "Can I really create a page here? Do they really let just anyone do that?" So they go to one of the last web pages they were looking at, or pull up one of their bookmarked pages or whatever. They copy that page, paste it into Wikipedia and click save. "What do you know? I really did just create an article." A minute or two later, or even an hour or two later, they realize what they did and then try to delete it -- only they can't. The only way they can see to get rid of it is to blank it. "Maybe that's all it takes to delete an article." The entire purpose of pasting the material from another website was to see if they really could create an article. When I see copyvio that was subsequently blanked by the author, without first being tagged as copyvio, I assume that is what happened. It makes no sense to post copyrighted material, then blank it, unless the purpose of the original post was a test. SWAdair | Talk 07:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid once you start trying to interpret "what they must have thought" as justifcation for speedy deletion it becomes a slippery slope. I'd be happy to have copy-of-webpage-followed-by-blanking become a CSD, but I'm not comfortable with "it must have been a test, because…" justifications. --fvw* 13:26, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Could you please explain the reason why you have deleted Temporal Games?

Greetings!

I don't understand why you called Temporal Games page a spam? It was a page about a game development company, which work on mostly RPG projects, I don't see any spam here. As there are pages devoted to other gamedev teams like Akkela, Bethesda, Blizzard why there can't be a page of Temporal Games?

P.S.

I respect your work very much, but still I disagree with your deletion. If there is not so much info on the page, I may add more.

Thanks.

• Thank you for your kind question. I deleted the article as spam because it was basically an advertisement, promoting the company and the demo it is working on. In typical promotional style, it even spoke in the first person "Our current development project..." It appeared as if there was no attempt to provide any information on why the company is notable, but only an attempt to promote the company and get people to click on the external link (i.e. spam). Together with The Tales of Walenir, which began "Temporal Games announces the debut project... The Tales of Walenir", it appeared that these two articles were created, not because either is notable, but in order to use Wikipedia to advertise. Articles about notable companies or products are eagerly welcomed here, but articles created to promote a company or product that is not yet notable are considered spam. SWAdair | Talk 09:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• RE: Ok, thanks much for an explanation... I was really very busy doing it, so just copied the text from the web-page. I will write a normal text and then post it. Happy New Year! And thanks again.

• • Ah, that explains why it sounded like promotional material. It was. LOL! Ok, drop me a line when you've re-written it. I would like to see it, and not to delete it this time.  :-) Happy New Year! SWAdair | Talk 10:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Formatting

Hi there. What people seem to do when they need another title in a series is tack the number onto the end of the whole title, so it would be Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Username2 or maybe Username 2 (with a space). I think pretty much anything will work OK. Hope this helps, & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Glad you found an answer, or an answer found you. Happy edits. Hyacinth 21:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Little Help

I am going to take it your an admin, i was wonder if you could help me with the vandal 66.108.158.41, i have cleand up his stuff, just do what you need to. Also I added POV tag to American Civil War besed on edits and history, seems to be a sigificant bias, just checking if i am cool with doing that. Thanks. --Boothy443 07:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

N/p figure i'll do what i can to help.--Boothy443 07:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's the least that i can do, considering i dont work (long story), as for the POV, i hope that you see where i am coming from, their seems to be in this article and other a extreme slavey bias, while completly ingnoring other issues, as for 172 no i havn't but i'll drop him a line.--Boothy443 07:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: VfD

Hi! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I'll go back to the pages I tagged for VfD and list them on the right page, following the guidelines. JoaoRicardo 00:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok

Hi. While going through Gangtok's history I saw that you had deleted the page (Dec 28) which featured some anon's edit. Well, since I was in the town recently, I have now constructed this page from scratch. It would be nice if you could have a look at the page now to see how the article has matured. Regards, Nichalp 20:54, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Response to message

Thank you for your message. Best case scenario would be if you restored it to the version it was before someone reverted my first deletion.

Indeed I am not missing, nor have I claimed to have left...I frankly find other admins screwing around with what I choose to do with my talk page odd. But if there is some guideline (which is what wikipolicy is supposed to serve as) which someone wants to enforce thats fine.

In compliance with any such guideline I would like my page restored and the history to be as it was before the first person restored the entire history.

Also, I've seen you have similar political proclivities as me. One of the founders of modern libertarianism still does not have a page Isabel Paterson. Her work is referenced on various pages but no page exists. I may get around to creating it myself but could always use some help, thanks. Arm 23:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Thanks Stephen. --Boothy443 11:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cool cool, yeah i noticed that the serves have been really really buggy over the past couple weeks, seems to go along with the server and other upgrades, get to be a bit fustrating at times. --Boothy443 12:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cookies

Aww! Sweet tooth treat from a sweet guy! :-) That's so...sweet! hah

Thank you very much, hon. Mike H 03:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas/Draft

No! Please don't delete! I'm still working on it but I'm swamped with other things right now. I don't understand why it's even tagged that way: it doesn't meet speedy criteria at all and why would anyone even care about deleting this? It's obviously still a work in progress! Yeesh! I've also left a comment with User talk:Velela. RADICALBENDER★ 15:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Committee to Protect Bloggers

Hi there, appreciated your welcome mssg, and your personal page...so I thought I'd ask for your two cents on the proposal to delete my entry of Committee to Protect Bloggers As you can see from the discussion on [7] I believe that the importance of the organization outweighs its newness, etc. I don't work with the group myself, I just think it's important. Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated.

Wikitravel

Hey Steven, whats the status between wikitravel and this project, oh and btw i got you email and i have been on her longer, since November, but under a different user name. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Humm, would be nice if we had a convention with them, would remidy a problem i have with some city articles, and stuff. As for the adding to my name, i am on "the list" which at the rate that it's moving means that some time next century i'll have my other articles.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 11:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Searles Castle

Thanks for your edits - reads much smoother now. The castle managers are supportive and are sending some non-copyrighted pictures that I'll include when they show up. I'll also add some external links for additional historical context. hydnjo talk 20:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I need your help, my friend

How you been?, I need your help, I wrote an article about Wilkins Zambrana and some sneaky person went on and pasted an article about the same person under the title of Wilkins in violation of the copywright. The text was copied word for word from here. Could you help me out here? Tony the Marine

Thanks

Thank you buddy, for showing me the way. Take care, until next time! Tony the Marine

Thanks

:)

• ==Re: Thanks==

You're welcome. I noticed an anon edit to a user page, checked, and sure enough. He hit another user's page as well. I left a message and am now watching him. One more and he's blocked. BTW, you can sign messages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. SWAdair | Talk 12:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• ==re: Thanks==

Ok thanks again. Muya 12:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Text of the Attribution-ShareAlike License

Personally, I'd move it to Wikisource (I'm an admin there as well). I'm not sure if we have a section on copyright licenses (international relations is my area there), but it wouldn't surprise me if we did, and I don't think it's a bad idea. I'd be interested to know why you think it's not suitable, though. :)

In any case, it might be worth tossing it to us, and if the rest of the Wikisource community decides to get rid of it, then we can make the call. Ambi 12:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know...

...I'm not a blocking maven, I'm afraid. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Both for your kind words and the support in my request for adminship! Refdoc 23:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Searles Castle FYI

This picture is the best I've been able to get so far (other better pics are too comercial). When the snow melts and the green comes back I'll go up and take some pictures myself (I live nearby). Also I'm trying to find more editorial material. hydnjo talk 23:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:-)That's a wonderful picture. Thank you for remembering me, and please do remember me again when you get more pics.

The picture is not very representative of the grandeur of this piece of early 20th century Americana. I'll illustrate it better later. I'm glad someone else besides me is interested in this kind of stuff. hydnjo talk 04:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Watching and waiting, huh? Grutness|^hello? 05:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your page was vandalized by a page move vandalism. I have corrected that. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, the same vandal moved my page. No worries. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WB?

Havent seen you around for a while. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahh is see, as for me, it keeps me busy, not like i have much else to do.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

A quick thanks for voting me to adminship. utcursch 08:08, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

vfd/delete

if you're going to go through and proactively change the submissions i made of multiple nodes for deletion, the least you could do is send me an email, ping me on irc, update my talk page, whatever. but just un-doing it and not saying anything is uncooperative and childish. Avriette 11:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• LOL! I absolutely love your edit summary.  :-) Okay, I don't exactly see the adjectives "uncooperative" and "childish" as applicable, but I agree it would have been nice if I had left a message for you. I do apologize for not taking the time to give you that courtesy. To be honest, though, I hadn't realized I had changed more than one. I recall your name from the Arbiter article, where I eventually changed it from Speedy to VfD, but I didn't realize I had changed any other tags you submitted. I had to go through my contributions to find the other one. I'm sorry. If I had realized I was changing multiple submissions by the same person, I probably would have left you a note. I didn't realize it. BTW, I agree with you about the amount of trivia (I still use the word "fancruft") in Wikipedia. I don't envy you the job of cleaning up the Care Bear situation. Happy editing. SWAdair | Talk 06:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • oh, i agree that fancruft is the right name for it. care bears are at the top of my list, but i think i'd like to throw myself on the star trek fan cruft too. every minor character to ever appear in star trek has their own page. cleaning that stuff up isn't hard, it's just a matter of convincing somebody (or groups of bodies) that a single page with sections for each minor character is just as effective as eight zillion pages of minor characters (or indeed MORE effective). some people just think that the wikipedia ought to include a definitive guide to each niche cultural item. and it isn't the case. i've got some others in mind. i suspect it will be an uphill battle. but i don't mind fighting it. when i have some "real content" to provide, i'll quit the sisyphus act, and contribute. until then, i'll just do the meta- thing. reorganize. appreciate the apology. look forward to working together with you. are you available on irc at all? i'm looking for some guidance in both wikipedia culture, and also for procedures (eg my confusion wrt delete and vfd). i only just recently learned about the four-tilde signature, and i've been doing this for close to a year. Avriette 15:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Replied at User talk:Avriette. SWAdair | Talk 03:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moon landing

Stephen: Many thanks for fixing that redirect. I'm not finding the merging of the two articles as easy as I had imagined. The "Moon landing" article is fairly straight forward, but paring down the "Space race" article is tougher than I had thought. Your proposal on the quote sounds good to me, but I'm not clear on what Armstrong actually did say. Sunray 07:09, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)