User talk:Sannse/Archive 4

January 2005 - June 2005

Mistley towers

Hi Sannse - You can remove Mistley towers, from your images needing articles as I have just written a stub to give the image a home, not a very good stub, but probably better than nothing. Regards Giano 12:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, that's great - a nice stub there :). Feel free to edit my user page any time something needs updating. -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sannse, have you seen your great foto of Mistley Towers, is currently on the main page "did you know". The foto is brilliant - I just hope the info. is correct! Giano 18:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's wonderful - lovely to see my photo there, and great credit to you for the stub :) -- sannse (talk) 21:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment correction

I apologize for assuming what your gender is. Thanks for the correction.

I'm sure glad the donation link is back up.

Happy New Year. — DV 19:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no problem, it's rather a common thing to happen around here. Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Could someone please start mediating? - Andre Engels 16:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Andre Engels

Numbered list

FYI: You may want to have a look at this missing numbered list on an arbitration you signed. --Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I've fixed it -- sannse (talk) 03:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Everyking

Hi, I noticed you were at one point involved in the dispute at Autobiography (album). Well, I've filed an RfC against Everyking, and I thought you might like to certify or at least endorse it. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was involved only peripherally and choose not to take part in RfCs at this time. Sorry -- sannse (talk) 11:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Patterdale

Thanks for checking so I didn't have to. :-) Elf | Talk 23:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Hi, I just wanted to clarify that the mediation in question on the RFA against User: Robert the Bruce (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce) is between Robert the Bruce and User: Theresa Knott, not between Robert and any of the parties to the RFA, and thus has no effect on the RFA. In addition, that mediation is unofficial, since Robert refused to work with any of the official mediators. I've explained why I believe mediation between Robert and any of us (indeed, between Robert and anyone) would be useless. Please reconsider your decision. Exploding Boy 19:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I realise the mediation is not with the same people as those requesting arbitration, but it is basically about the same issues. Mediation may be ultimately useless, but I strongly believe it should be given every opportunity possible. I'd urge you to give it time, and to consider getting involved in the effort if you can. I will however listen to other opinions, including those of other arbitrators - I'm always willing to look again at my decisions. Regards -- sannse (talk) 23:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have tried, to no avail. Looks like a couple of other admins have followed your lead and rejected the request. It's a shame, because the behaviour is only going to continue. Oh well. Thanks anyway. Exploding Boy 18:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


Patterdale

Point taken. I've rewritten that whole section, much of the same information but in my words. (talk) Chilepine 00:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chilepine - good work :) -- sannse (talk) 00:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for vandalizing my user page! JRM 18:24, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC) (I love to say this.)

you are most welcome, glad to do so anytime ;) -- sannse (talk) 19:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Ashlee Simpson Show

You're right, that was a bit out of line. Honestly, I don't think any show needs an article that long (especially a show that's only got eight episodes so far), but I can see why it looks like provocation. Sorry about that -- if I ever touch the page again at some point, I'll be a lot more judicious with my cuts. Madame Sosostris 02:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be best. I agree it needs work actually, but not quite that level of cutting. -- sannse (talk) 18:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Maori

See Ngapuhi for further clarification as requested. Robin Patterson 19:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robin -- sannse (talk) 13:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Progress

Hello again, Sannse. I've just tinkered (as invited - sort of!) with the only bit of your User page that I could find the slightest fault with.

Anyway, my reason for revisiting is to advise that "TL" emailed me very promptly (early on 21st) saying

Hello Robin
I've noticed that you have my name ... on the wikipedia ... .
I probably dont have time to write anything (at least at the moment) but I do have lots of materials that someone else might wnat to have to write up ...
so ..what sort of information about me do you want?
regards ...
... MSc(hons) PhD ... GDipInfoSci(computing). MNZCS, MRSNZ ... .

I replied at length, the same evening (7 paragraphs plus greetings), saying "... any writeup about any of the listed Ngapuhi (and others) would be welcome" and "A bit of chemistry in your background too - well, please have a look at some of the "element" articles and give them a bit of prose introduction so that they aren't just lists" - I'll send you a complete copy by email if you like.
No response yet, but her initial message gives hope and I can approach her if nothing seems to have come of it after a few weeks.
Kind regards.
Robin Patterson 05:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Robin. that's great, I'm glad she got back in touch with you. She seems the busy sort, but if you can get her interested in the project I think you will have a real asset there. I hope it goes well, and thanks for the user page chages :) -- sannse (talk) 12:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for clearing up that thing with the Pompeii images. CryptoDerk 17:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

No problem CryptoDerk, thanks for doing to work adding the images, and please let me know if you need more explanations on any page -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks to CryptoDerk's. Thanks for making it all clear: now everyone can feel confident about the images. --- hike395 16:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-revert

I understand not counting a self-revert as a revert, but where does policy mention that the revert the self-revert is cancelling is not a revert? I can't find that in the policy. IMO, your interpretation of the policy sets a dangerous, policy-violating precedent, allowing people to revert an article five times a day. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a revert because the net result of the two edits is to leave the article in exactly the same condition as it was before the first revert. What you are saying is that if you take an item off the shop shelf, then put it back and leave the shop - that's just the same as stealing it. He made a revert, but then he corrected it immediately - the result of that was that the article was left unchanged. To say that this was a revert (or, worse to say it was two reverts) gives everyone absolutely no incentive to correct a mistake. -- sannse (talk) 11:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IRC

I can't come, sorry. I'm on a computer away from home and won't be home until ~6:00 p.m. (where I am it's currently 10:22 a.m. Sorry - I hope it's not important. Warm regards --Neutralitytalk 15:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

My only involvement in the case was a vote on the talk page with ~30 other people. I doubt it will affect my judgement; in fact, I don't think I've ever edited a Darwin page except for that vote. I have no strong opinion on the matter. None of the parties have requested my recusal, have they? Neutralitytalk 15:44, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Go ahead. Neutralitytalk 15:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. A firm belief of mine is to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Neutralitytalk 16:00, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Sannse,

Sorry for the short notice - just to let you know that your Image:Large White caterpillar 800.jpg is up for reuse as the Pic of the Day tomorrow. I've reused the caption from the previous time, but you might want to check Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 27, 2005. - Solipsist 21:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Solipsist, that looks great :) -- sannse (talk) 21:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much - J.Ward 11:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Images of tufted vetch

After looking at your user page about "images with no article" I noticed that your images of tufted vetch are linked to from the cow vetch page. By the way I was going to add my own photo of tufted vetch which is the name I know it by but as there are already four images I gave that a miss. Nice photos of yours of common toadflax too.

Chilepine 16:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Chilepine, that's good to know. I really must do some sorting and updating on my images. By the way - feel free to edit my user page to make any corrections you see.. it's a wiki after all :) -- sannse (talk) 16:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question

Where did User:Ivodraganac say that he wanted Ivo draganac to be deleted? Just wondering, thanks. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) oh, sorry, it's late :) -Frazzydee|✍ 01:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. OneGuy is violating the part of the ruling against him by continuing to make personal attacks against me. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. This is a quote from OneGuy "Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really this stupid?" Can you please let him know that rules apply to him too? 168.209.97.34 13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was that it? A simple edit of the talk page and all is well? Why did you have such a heavy hand against me in the arbitration against me for my trivial violations (despite OneGuy haven't done even more against wiki policy) and yet OneGuy, yet again, gets away with his violations? 168.209.97.34 14:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If we had felt they were trivial we wouldn't have made any rulings. If you feel that OneGuy has broken policy, then you need to take it to the dispute resolution process. We did not feel it necessary to include any specific penalties against OneGuy in the arbitration ruling - so any action (if any is required) can only come from either the normal admin route or another arbitration. -- sannse (talk) 14:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to bring your attention to [1]. If you have already reviewed the evidence it links to, I appologize for my redundancy. Thank you for your time, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Map information

Hi. I have no problem with being put in contact with this person, but I'm afraid there probably wouldn't be much point — the map I believe he/she is referring to is simply carefully drawn from a "real" map I have, not created with a GIS shapefile. (I'm not even completely sure what a shapefile actually is). Since that's what the person is specifically after, I doubt there's any use in him/her contacting me. (If you think there would be, though, I'm happy to send an email address). Could you please pass on my apologies to the enquirer? -- Vardion 04:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Vardion

RfA

Hi Sannse

What's the correct procedure for presenting evidence against evidence already presented by other parties?

In the interests of full disclosure, please would you copy this question to Robert the Bruce's RfA talk page? Thanks. - Jakew 19:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." -- sannse (talk) 20:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence)

Talk:Autofellatio poll

First indications are that we're not getting much of a consensus either way. Of course the people with autofellatio on their watchlists aren't going to be particularly representative. Also, some of those voting may have followed Cantus in because he's been doing a lot of controversial edits on images he considers unsuitable, and trying to get a new policy page off the ground (WP:IUFID). Again that selection of people will tend to be skewed in an anti-censorship direction.

Do you think it would be worth running a wider survey like the one that was run for clitoris a few months ago?

Incidentally, Cantus seems to have just speedied his new policy page. He's brought a lot of people together in a very short space of time--to oppose his proposals. And then he deletes all the templates and policy pages he created in the first place, as if they're no longer needed. Do you think he could be some kind of subtle anti-censorhip troll? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think a wider view would be useful - we don't seem to be getting a clear idea of the general view at the moment. Actually, I'm not sure we ever will - this is such a dividing issue - but it's worth a try. I've mentioned this on IRC a couple of times, which has pulled in some votes (on both sides). I see it is on Wikipedia:Polls and I've just got an edit conflict with fvw who was adding it to WP:RfC :) I'll also send a message to wikien-l. I'm not sure how the clitoris poll was held, but if you can think of any other way to get more attention for this that would be helpful.
As for the other question - I've not looked closely enough at editing patterns to have any opinion at all. And I obviously spend enough time doing that sort of thing for the arbitration committee without doing it on my own time - so, I will go on assuming good faith as usual :) -- sannse (talk) 20:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well on the "subtle troll" idea it was really just an idle thought, a humorous jibe. I found Cantus, whom I don't think I've really encountered before unless he was still involved in the clitoris debates when I was there, difficult to weigh up. He's been doing odd little things about objectionable pictures and then abandoning them. His actions have polarized people and galvanized them, so he tends to get people with strong views against censorship keeping an eye on what he's doing and acting accordingly. And on the other side he's quite capable of identifying people who have supported his views in the past and giving them a nudge on the talk page to come and look at this or that thing he's doing. I think I'm beginning to like him, he seems harmless enough and if he's getting people thinking about this subject I think that's a good thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, on getting the word out, I suppose one thing to do would be to put a pointer in some penis- and oral sex-related articles. talk:penis, talk:fellatio, whatever. But that would still skew it towards sexually liberal people. Put it on talk:christian and you'll probably just end up with a massive vote for relisting the picture on IfD, and probably next thing you know Wikipedia is being denounced on the 700 Club. All that demonstrates, for me, is that that probably isn't the way to go.

How about publicizing it somewhere on Wikipedia:Village pump? Miscellaneous section or policy, perhaps? This would be best, I think. We'd have a chance of getting a better cross section of the community.

Also we should give the poll a fixed end date. Some time in mid-March, say. By then just about anybody with a view should have had a chance to discuss and make a vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The pump sounds like a good idea - go ahead and add it where you think best, I would say. I agree totally that general community pages are better than specific pages for getting a true indication of the community opinion. For an end date - I suggest we see how it goes. Once things seem to be settling we can say something like "this poll will end in 5 days" (or whatever length seems appropriate). I would prefer that to setting and arbitrary date now -- sannse (talk) 21:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All the polls on Clitoris had a fixed end date. See Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines for more information. Having a deadline is good. Sometimes you'll get a landslide effect and it would tend to make one party think it's best to end the poll as soon as possible, which could affect the result of the poll. If we all agree on the points in the survey design checklist (see point 2 on the link I just cited) beforehand, then we can be happier that the outcome will be fair. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about the deadline - I don't think every poll has to comply with all the points on the guidelines, but a deadline seems fine here -- sannse (talk) 01:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You sounded a little disappointed in your latest post on Talk:Autofellatio. I think part of the problem was my failure to pin people (you included) down more clearly on what the poll was intended to be for. I was trying (belatedly, I think) to do this on the 4th when I last commented here, but I don't think it was that effective since we went into the poll with me thinking we were all pretty much agreed on Cantus's suggestion of at least 30 votes and 70%.

Far from thinking the poll has been made unnecessarily complicated and should have been simple, I think the current situation shows why it is good to follow the guidelines.

I think it's bad form to take a poll and then, when consensus isn't found, just treat a majority vote as if it was a consensus. Equally I think it would be bad form for people who favor inlining to insist that the page must always remain inlined in its current form unless a consensus is created to link it. In the absence of a consensus either way I think we should rely on the creativity of individual editors to try to find an acceptable compromise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's fair to say that I am disappointed - not with the way the voting has gone (although of course I would have liked to see a different result) but with the petty edit warring and bickering that's been the result. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in my objections to a giving a specific value of 70% - it seemed a strong possibility to me from the start that this criteria wouldn't be reached. However, I agree that the best way forward (at least until this issue is addressed on a wider scale) is to try to find an alternative compromise - although, at the moment I can't really see what that might be -- sannse (talk) 16:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I've seen worse, to be honest. Much of the bickering was about the purpose of the poll, etc. This was not inevitable and I should have foreseen the possibility and tried to put the brakes on until we were all agreed on the poll design (the survey guidelines recommend "about a week", and I think they're right). I'm still new to Wikipedia so I'm making lots of mistakes for the first time; hopefully the last.
Despite lack of planning there does seem to be a broad consensus that we need a deadline. Don't be too disappointed; I was surprised myself at the strong minority that emerged in favor of inlining. Although the initial response may have had something to do with Cantus's activities immediately prior to the poll, I think it's probable that the overall response over this first week of polling reflects a fairly wide uneasiness with the idea of giving this picture special treatment. It remains to be seen whether this is just self-selection by people opposed to censorship; if so the proportion favoring inlining can be expected to rise steadily as a more representative selection of people encounter the poll.
So to summarise, I think that the poll will still serve some value, even if it shows no consensus either way. I've tried to ensure that the poll will, eventually, reflect a true sample of views and not just the views of a pro- or anti- censorship clique. We can also discuss possible solutions because a lot of people have given their reasons for voting one way or another, so the landscape is much clearer now. It doesn't seem to me that all of those voting one way or another are immovably committed to either proposition; I'm certainly not. There is room here for maneuver. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Darwin Arbitration

Hi Sannse, I suspect you meant to leave a note about the arbitration decision on User:Adraeus's talk page. Its not easy to spot the difference, but it looks like you landed on his main user page. -- Solipsist 17:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Solipsist, that was a silly mistake - I've put in on the right page now -- sannse (talk) 17:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editor's response

By all means, if I get my facts wrong, go ahead and correct them for me. Fortunately for my sensibilities, but unfortunately for my accuracy as a reporter, I wasn't using Wikipedia at the time of the vandalism. All I knew was that the image was used, but since you can't view deleted images I wasn't aware of exactly how it was used. --Michael Snow 19:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IDF

what's worng with the pictures?

see the talk page -- sannse (talk) 18:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Housecleaning

To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell -- sannse (talk) 11:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thai dog

You got there before I did; thanks. I was trying to figure out (c) on images & text & it was nice for someone else to have dealt with the query first. :-) We'll see what happens. Meanwhile, I have to take down the image for the Utonagan as it was apparently uploaded without the permission or knowledge of the photographer who really doesn't want anyone using it out of her control. Sighhhh. Elf | Talk 02:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think if we don't get a reply shortly we'll have to go the usual copyvio route, but maybe we will get a good response this way :) A shame about the Utonagan, that's a nice picture.. oh well, we still have an amazing number of dog photos now, a real improvement to the section. Yesterday was the first time I'd checked my dog watchlist in about a week - I'm so glad you are still active there. Thanks for all you do -- sannse (talk) 11:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Got your update. Thanks. Elf | Talk 01:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


LaRouche arbitration

Sannse, I saw your comment on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision in endorsed Fred Bauders comment about HK, "basically he edits in two areas, La Rouche related articles and in classical music." I believe you are incorrect. Here is a list of all the more than 150 articles that the HK team has edited: User:Willmcw/sandbox2 You'll see that only a few are music related (and of those, several of the edits were to express LaRouche theories). Many of the article edits are related to esoteric topics, and are purely LaRouche theories. (Counterculture, Henry Luce, Tavistock Institute, etc). Personally, I think that HK's work outside the LaRouche articles are more harmful than his edits to the LaRouche series, because the POV is so obscure that it is hard to recognize and correct. -Willmcw 23:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anthony

I'm currently on a laptop and about to leave where I am, but I should be in IRC within half an hour. Snowspinner 21:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sannse

Sannse, I have an inquiry to make that I don't wish to make here publicly. Do you have an email address? Or can you email me at ddw@theologyweb.com?

Dee Dee Warren 14:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dee Dee. I've mailed you so you have my address - if you don't get that then it's sannse(at)tiscali.co.uk The e-mail link you can see while on my user pages works too, if that's easier (if you have a mail address in your preferences) Regards -- sannse (talk) 14:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce's RFAr

I was cruising through the WP:RFAR page and I came across your posting, with "...the incorrect allegation by Robert the Bruce against Exploding Boy and Calton" Which caused me to go WHA? I can't recall crossing paths with the guy (Robert the Bruce, I mean) and any allegation is news to me. What was it? --Calton 04:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Carlton. The allegation was that you and Exploding Boy were accounts of the same person. It was made on Robert the Bruce's user page as part of his evidence there. There was no background or reasoning given for the allegation, so I don't know what caused this belief - but it doesn't really matter anyway because it was clear from the technical evidence that there is no connection (I had already reviewed the edit history evidence and not found any indication there of sockpuppeting). Anyway, it's not anything to worry about, the accusation seemed unlikely from the start and is dealt with now. -- sannse (talk) 12:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suppose this kind of thing may turn up from time to time. As we can't really rely on the person making the allegation against an otherwise uninvolved third party to inform them, and not all of us follow WP:RFAR (and certainly not the cases we're not even party to, to the extent of wading through long lists of evidence posted on user pages), I wonder if perhaps it might be wise of ArbCom in future to inform such accused third parties on their talk page when an allegation has been made in Arbitration. This would also give the accused third party the opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf if he wanted to, though it wouldn't be required.
Such a procedure could also have been followed through by putting a notice of Exploding Boy's (now confirmed) allegation that Robert Brookes and Friends of Robert were sock puppets, and the suggestion that Robert Blair could also be some kind of sock of Robert the Bruce.
I hope you'll take this as a constructive suggestion; I intend no criticism of Arbcom's conduct in the case of Robert the Bruce --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I had the same thought on receiving Calton's message. I naturally assumed that this was an allegation made as a result of past conflicts, and repeated during the case, rather than a new and unexpected suggestion - I thought that Calton and Exploding Boy would be fully aware of the suggestion from past interactions with Robert the Bruce. That was probably naive on my part. In future I will be more careful to ensure that those involved are fully aware of such allegations. Live and learn... -- sannse (talk) 13:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your photos

Sannse, I just looked at your photo gallery, they are so beautiful. That goose is way cool. I may use some as a background for some CSS design I want to try. They are stunning.

Dee Dee Warren 01:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dee Dee! It's always great to hear of my photos being used :) The goose was funny - kept following me around with that mad look in it's eye, I just had to use the photo somewhere ;) -- sannse (talk) 09:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weird juju

Last night I noticed the change of the Malinois article. So I put some explanation on the article's talk page and used Wikipedia's move facility to move the article back to where it had been. The changes all showed up on my Watchlist. Now, this morning, I see that *you* have a note in the page's history that you put the article back, and my move post-neutrality doesn't show up on the article's history page--but the *origination* of my move *does* show up in the Belgian Malinois' history page. So if I used the move facility--(a) where did the article go after I moved it if not to Belgian Shepherd Dog (Malinois) and (b) where did you find it and move it *from*, if not from where I had already moved it from, at Belgian Malinois??? Not that I expect you to have the answer, but I am very baffled. Elf | Talk 16:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't move it - I just reverted Neutrality's text changes. So your move back from Belgian Malinois to Belgian Shepherd Dog (Malinois) was the only one after Neut's move. This problem is that moves are currently not very well documented - once you moved it back, Neutrality's original move no longer shows up. I didn't even notice that bit of what he'd done to be honest - I just saw the text changes and fixed. Glad you caught the move -- sannse (talk) 19:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I actually managed to figure it out about 5 minutes after I posted, and brought up this page again to edit it out saying "never mind", but then was unable to edit/save wikipedia at any time until just now! Thanks. Elf | Talk 02:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creatures Wiki

Noticed your edit on the Creatures Wiki, thank you. :-) --GreenReaper 14:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi GreenReaper - I'll pop over again some time :) -- sannse (talk) 17:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User talk:CheeseDreams -ban notice

I think you made an error in your summary. CheeseDreams' bans are to run consecutively (ie: one after the other), not concurrently (ie: with their clocks all starting at the same time) as you have stated in your summary. See point 7 of the final decision and your summary for CheeseDreams. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doh! thanks for picking that up Tony. I've fixed it in both places I made the mistake -- sannse (talk) 17:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Just to clarify, I did know what I was voting for, just got my words muddled when writing the summary -- sann)

Image:Los Angeles skyline daytime 2.jpg

Hello. I tagged it ((PD)) only because the uploader User:MattSal had claimed "This image is in the public domain." If his comment was incorrect, then the tag is incorrect too. He seems to have been gone since early December, and it looks like he previously changed his mind about whether the image was fair use or public domain, so he may be confused. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell, it does look somewhat unclear, I've replied in my usual vague fashion ;) -- sannse (talk) 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mail

Hey Sannse, I sent you an email of something to be aware of, I do not know if you received it.

Dee Dee Warren 14:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dee Dee, Yes I got it and have commented on the talk page -- sannse (talk) 17:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Email

Hi! That makes sense since I've been wondering why I haven't received anything from several people lately :( Please tell him to use villekoistinen(at)hotmail.com instead. Thanks for giving me this information! Vzb83 21:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have a special 'license' template in fi.Wiki that says the image is licensed to be used in Wikipedia only. I therefore assumed it was a common way. I can use the GFDL license in the future if I'm asking for permissions, although I think it will be a lot harder to explain properly. Also, I can't see any reason why a picture that has a permission to be used in Wikipedia only wouldn't be as eligible here as GFDL or PD pics. Vzb83 21:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your break

Hope things are well, and that you are having a nice break! :) Dysprosia 11:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dysprosia, it certainly helped :) -- sannse (talk) 23:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User 65.39.159.10

Hi Sannse. FYI, I noticed that you blocked IP 65.39.159.10 for vandalism (I presume). Well the IP seems now to be unblocked and back to vandalizing, see: [[2]]. Paul August ☎ 14:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an isolated one, but he can be blocked quickly enough if it continues. Best to report such things at WP:VIP or WP:AN though, you are more likely to catch someone there is quick action is needed - I've been mostly away for a week or two -- sannse (talk) 23:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sannse. Yes, I could see that the IP wasn't going on a vandalism spree. But I wanted to give you a heads-up since you had had some experience with the IP. Paul August ☎ 13:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks Paul -- 13:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome "back"

Your voice of reason & experience is always welcome in the Kingdom of the Dog Project, and missed when it's gone. I need a break, too, but I always obsessively try to catch up to everything I missed when I come back, which ruins the whole concept. Elf | Talk 01:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Elf. Yes, the need to catch up does sort of defeat the object, but then so does not quite being able to stay away ;) -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Methionylglutaminy...serine

What browser are you using, which doesn't support soft hyphens? They work for me on MSIE6SP2/Win, Opera/Win, and Mozilla Firefox/Win. I know it also works on Safari/Mac, Omniweb/Mac, and Opera and Firefox for all platforms. I wasn't aware there were any browsers left which didn't support the character. Jordi·✆ 11:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's strange - I'm using Firefox, so if you've looked at that I'm not sure what's wrong. But to me, it just ends up as one long line needing a lot of scrolling to read. -- sannse (talk) 11:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apparently I just happened to be using a nightly with a fix. I just installed FF 1.01, and notice it's still broken in the official release. Yet another old bug in Gecko: bug 9101 I guess that means I'll have to use hard hyphens for now. Jordi·✆ 11:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A bit more info from people on IRC - Firefox 1.0.1, Mozilla 1.7 and MSIE Mac don't wrap; IE 6 and Safari do... so it's quite variable. So yes, hard hyphens for now it seems -- sannse (talk) 11:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Sannse/dog watch and more

Hi Gangleri, yep, it's not quite a complete list yet. If you are going to use the watchlist, then feel free to add any dog-related pages you want to - I only ask that you take care in removing articles from there, as I may have a reason to be watching them.
I am not currently intending to add any of my images to Commons because of concerns I have over the lack of licence and upload information on local pages. See this page for example. There is nothing to say who uploaded the image or what licence it is under. Even the en. template that shows the image is from Commons is not good enough in my opinion. This is only about my images of course, and I'm happy for then to be uploaded to other Wikipedias as long as the correct infromation is transfered, but until the problems are sorted I won't use Commons and ask that none of my images are transfered there. I'm also not going to suggest moving anyone else's images there until this is sorted <End of rant>  ;) Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just passing by--What an awesome Yosemite photo. Yeah,eople keep asking about moving the dog images to Commons and I'm certainly not going to be the one to do it; I've also been waiting for the licensing issues in general to become clearer but, to me, they just become even murkier over time and with international issues, too. Sannse's point about not being able to see the info is well taken on top of that. 64.166.85.254 19:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Crud, that was me; I was logged in when I came here because I got here from my watchlist! Elf | Talk)

Preterist page

Sannse we had another vandalism of my website URL, and an inappropriate edit as per the discussion page from anonymous user without discussion. See my discussion page comments.

Dee Dee Warren 18:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re-create or restore?

Hi Sannse, recently you deleted User:Xed, subsequently recreating it and redirecting it to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. By doing that, the history of the page was lost. Are you sure that was the best thing to do, or should the page maybe have been restored (instead of recreated) and then redirected? I don't feel particularly strong about it (I know that it was Xed's wish to have his user page deleted) — but I just wonder why you chose to undo your deletion, and if by that rationale it shouldn't be better to keep the history of the page. — mark ✎ 17:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi mark. Yes, I intended to remove the page history completely and replace it with the redirect only. Xed has told me that he has left Wikipedia and will not be returning once his ban expires, and asked that his pages be deleted completely. The deletion policy suggests that User and User_talk pages deleted for this reason are redirected to missing Wikipedians after deletion to prevent confusion to people looking at the page later [3] - which seems sensible to me. So the recreation wasn't a change of mind, just the remainder of the deletion process. -- sannse (talk) 19:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying and for providing a link to the policy — couldn't find it myself (wouldn't have expected to find it amongst the criteria for speedy deletion). Regards, — mark ✎ 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

[4] Hyacinth 02:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When did reminding another contributor about Wikipedia guidelines become ridiculous? Hyacinth 06:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would you have rather that I wrote a long letter explaining how conveniently forgetting to add an edit summary to controversial changes is dishonest and not good faith? Hyacinth 21:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe "none of your business" would have been "nuff said", but since you took an interest this is a wiki, and you could have done the same. Hyacinth 09:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remainder of conversation at User talk:Hyacinth

Hararssment by a banned user

Although EntmootsOfTrolls has been hard banned, he repeatedly resurfaces on Wikipedia in various guises, usually with anonymous IPs beginning with 142.xxx. (And he repeatedly is blocked, over and over.) Well, he has just made a new attack on on my User discussion page, for the "crime" of following standard Wikipedia policy for the deletion of a duplicate article.

(1) EntmootsOfTrolls (EoT) originally broke Wikipedia policy by creating his own article on Ethics, parallel to our real article. His parallel article existed solely to promote his own point of view. All I did was follow standard polict for redirection or deletion, by asking others for their input. Yet see EoT's diatribe against me on my home page!

(2) He is publicly accusing me of "censorship" on the Ethics article. (This is despite the fact that the edits I made are part of the consensus version that has been accepted by the vast majority of all editors of this article.)

(3) He explicitly violated Wikipedia policy by anonymously deleting the link which had the article say "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page for voting and discussion on the matter." When an article is up for discussion on such issues, a single user may not unilaterally just delete this. So do you have any suggestions? I'd hate for this banned user to start an edit war. Its only a matter of time before he goes after other of his self-perceived adversaries. RK 20:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry RK, I don't have any insightful solutions to this problem. EntmootsOfTrolls is banned, absolutely and (excepting a surprise decision by Jimbo) irrevocably. As you know, the problem is purely a technical one of keeping him off the site. At the moment, all we can do is revert him, block him, and refuse to respond to him. Any articles that are clearly by him can be deleted. This applies to any sockpuppet of his we find (with due care to identify these accurately of course). If at any time this conflicts with your revert limitation, then I would suggest a note on WP:AN to ask for help in reverting. Apologies for the slow response to your message -- sannse (talk) 17:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell

User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine [5], just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page [6] because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page [7]. I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Just a little request for future images:

I'd sure like to have your Passion_fruit_700.jpg image available for the Cookbook, but I can only do that if it is in the Commons. Please consider using the Commons for your images.

It seems that on 15 Jan 2005 somebody else copied it over there. So, in this case I'll use his copy. There are thus 2 copies on the wikimedia servers now. He also forgot to categorize it; I'll do that now I guess.

BTW, that's a very useful picture. It has a nice layout. Left-side lighting would've given less glare.

AlbertCahalan 18:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netaholic

I added links to Netaholic's arbcom decision indicating where to complain about his behavior now, and he reverted it (History). I understand that ArbCom pages should not be edited lightly, but all I did was provide contact information for the mentors, User:Raul654, User:Kim Bruning, User:Grunt, and User:Netoholic/Mentoring. (Blanking and reversion seem to be his typical responses to criticism.) - Omegatron 21:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The reversion was totally valid. The wording of the final decision has to reflect the wording that the arbitrators voted on – otherwise it's simply not an accurate record of what we did. Adding in the mentoring page might give the impression that the arbitrators decided this page should be created and used - not the intended impression I'm sure, but it could look that way to someone coming across the page. Regards -- sannse (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry. - Omegatron 19:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am me

Happy?--Fangz 14:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks -- sannse (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Inquiry

sannse, you are cordially invited to join Inquiry. Adraeus 11:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adraeus, but my wiki-time is pretty full right now, I'll stick with the things I'm already involved in for now. Regards -- sannse (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 13:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence request re Wareware RfA case

Greetings. :) Thanks for the note. I'm totally unfamiliar with all of this. I'm thinking that simply copying a portion of the RfC page to the evidence page should suffice. Yes? (It's fairly detailed.) Peace. deeceevoice 22:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that clearly sets out the problems, in a way that makes it as easy as possible for the arbitrators to understand the issues, then that will be fine. The most important part is to provide us with good, relevant diffs - rather than "he did this", we need to know "he did this, on this page, and here is the diff as evidence of that". Just try to make it as clear and concise as possible. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then I believe the RfC info will suffice. No sense in spending time simply duplicating the info. Thanks. :) deeceevoice 08:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted. I'm hoping the Arb Com won't sweat me about the format. Having gone through the trouble of compiling the documentation for the RfC, I'd hate to spend more time simply reformatting it. The requested information is there, and I believe it is clear and concise. Hopefully, that will be sufficient/acceptable. Thanks again. deeceevoice 09:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the periodization of the evidence is found not in order, I volunteer my services to organize it accordingly. El_C 09:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have been talking about accepting evidence in different formats than the usual timeline - so we can see how this goes first. If necessary it can be rearranged. We need to leave some time for other evidence to be added before making any decisions of course -- sannse (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it over (& recollected that) the narrative follows a consistent chronology (rather than being otherwise thematic); any reformatting of the timeline would, therefore, be purely cosmetic (and easy enough to do). El_C 09:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, El_C, I'm not doin' it unless they specifically request that I do it. "Purely cosmetic" -- precisely my point. Sannse, hopefully, you and your colleagues on the Arb Com will be flexible in this regard. Thanks, El_C, for volunteering; but should they request that I reformat it, I'll try to find some time to do it myself. Right now, I'm swamped with work, but you've already been more than helpful. I've appreciated your assistance and support. (Remember our bumpy start? :D) Peace. deeceevoice 11:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this to the other arbitrators. As we are keen to try different formats, this is just fine for now - if any of the others feel it should be changed we'll let you know, but for now this is fine. Thanks for adding it -- sannse (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Any movement at all in this matter to date? deeceevoice 22:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case was closed because Wareware left Wikipedia. I'm sorry, you should have been notified of that by the closing Arbitrator - it seems he forgot that bit. -- sannse (talk) 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him

In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The remedies are currently only proposed, and haven't yet been fully voted on. I will be considering my votes in this case very shortly, and will look at all the evidence before voting - as, I'm sure, will the other arbitrators. I will also consider your comments here. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I must say that even indefinite ban both for Paul and me would be better for me, than being forced to tolerate Paul's attacks any longer. I only wanted to say that I will consider then, that the decision is not right, some form of collective punishment, as I know that I never had any bad intentions against Paul. His behaviour of course did annoy me a lot, but I find everything which can be considered to be a personal attack, too primitive behaviour to be used, not to talk about that it is too cruel to be anyhow in accordance with my principles. I mean to state a supposed fault in person, I may state a fault in person only when it is anyhow substantiated. I also don't want ArbCom to take the role of the underdogs, as Matthew Stannard thought it has done, on the Paul Beardsell's talk page [8]. Their way of thinking is kind of too strange for me, and I also don't find their jokes funny, maybe one may say the same about me, but because of that I cannot find any way to approach these people, to find a way to anyhow have good relations with them. Trying to talk to them with entirely good intentions, they find a way how to show you in bad light. Trying to find a consensus, they first push you as far as they can, and then say that you push your POV. I have no idea, how would it be possible to make peace with them, except a rare chance that they show some real signs of changing their behaviour. I talked on many forums before, saw severe conflicts and very hostile behaviour, but never had a conflict with anybody, which I couldn't solve. On intelligent forums no one were ever banned, everything was possible to solve without it. But not in this case here, something unimaginable, and very unfortunate. And this is in addition to everything else, also not interesting to anybody, so I really don't want you to deal with it a long time, don't want for anybody else to be forced to read that dull hostility, which is most there was, in editing the article. But I cannot stop before I use all possibilities, to be able to edit a single article, the one which I started.Tkorrovi 23:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes if there is something which I can do for you concerning that case, I mean find out something or such, I will gladly do.Tkorrovi 00:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

172

Here is my belated response. [9] 172 13:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:172 -- sannse (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uwe kils

hallo sannse - your many photos are just great, congratulations - I hope your depression is getting better - best greetings from depressed Uwe Uwe Kils 03:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Uwe, and sorry to hear you are so low at the moment. -- sannse (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration - Paul and Tkorrovi

Thanks for the message. I suggested at the start of this arb that I might have been included, but wasn't clear about the process of adding my name. Let me know if anything is required of me.

I was checking out the gadfly article and related topics. I have been likened to Socrates by other people, so I'm honoured to be involved in this one, and from it will maybe get some useful tips on how to be more effective in that type of role in future. Of course, Socrates was executed for his pains, and I'm interested in how wikipedia groupthink might operate in the context of an arbitration committee.

One of the things that judges look at in determining motives and facts is the timing of events. I observe here that you've decided to include me in the list of protagonists shorly after I alluded to Kafka's classic, The Trial. Matt Stan 07:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Njyoder

Thank you, Sannse. I find the technicalities a little baffling. Is it OK to move bits of my own original statement on Requests for arbitration/Njyoder—some diffs and the descriptions of them—to the Evidence page? The point of that would be to make my statement itself more concise. (I won't move anything that Njyoder cites in his response, of course.) Bishonen | talk 18:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen, I've asked David to reply to your question as he is active on the case -- sannse (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copy it. Leave the statement as is, for history or whatever. The focus of attention at this stage is on the evidence page. Don't forget diffs, diffs, diffs! - David Gerard 22:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uwe kils

hallo sannse! I did not contribute because I spend many months many times in hospitals after I was arrested by brutal police during imaging of dying fish in a pollution scandal - I suffer now from major depression, had even accept an offer of my university to go to early retirement - now I have a lot of time for Wikipedia, which helps me to get over my depression. like you say it does for you - may I ask you a favor: can you vote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils we would like to have that for our Virtual University project proposals - good luck - keep up with your fine work Uwe Kils 23:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an awful time Kils, if that's not an understantement. I'm Sorry, but I don't think that needing the page for another project is the right reson to vote for an article to be kept. Each article should be judged only on its suitability as a Wikipedia article. Wishing you well -- sannse (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant of course vote after checking the sources - Uwe Kils 16:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Sannse,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Yellow-rattle close 700.jpg is due for a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 2nd June. I've reused the previous caption, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 2, 2005. -- Solipsist 08:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Solopsist, looks fine :) -- sannse (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
congratulations, very nice image, sannse Uwe Kils 18:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


Hi Mark, Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi Sannse,

Sorry for the long delay in replying. Thank you for updating the Tri-Brindle image copyright on the Basenji page. It looks fine. -- MarkK 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mark -- sannse (talk) 17:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

hallo Sannse! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings Uwe Kils 20:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Talking to Adam Lopez by email

I'm so jealous I love him. Antares33712 18:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the advantages of replying to the foundation's mail, we've had a few famous correspondents :) -- sannse (talk) 17:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate

Seeing you informed Irate of his ban, I thought you might have special interest in this.

On Meta, Irate created the "m:WikiPedia Liberation Front". I informed Angela of it, it was deleted, or RfD'd (I forget exactly). Then, Irate posted "Do you mind burning your own books." on my Meta talk page, and recreated the said page on Meta, with the text "To liberate WikiPedia from the clutches of those who see it as crucial ego support. Obviously this cannot be done in the ful view of the ArbComm or it's running dogs." Aphaia put the page up for deletion, and Irate has began to live up to his name on the RfD.

Your comment on this deletion process would be much appreciated. Sad to see old cases re-emerge. -- user:zanimum


Pic of the Day

Hi Sannse,

Letting you know that your photo Image:Ring tailed lemur and twins 800.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on the 1st July. You can check and improved the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 1, 2005. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Thanks Solipsist -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)
congratulations, Sannse, very fine photo - best regards Uwe Kils July 1, 2005 00:58 (UTC)