User talk:Theresa knott/archive6

1. User talk:Theresa knott/archive 1
2. User talk:Theresa knott/archive 2
3. User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive3
4. User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive4
5. User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive5
6. User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive6

Hi Theresa; in re pressure and electricity: pressure is the statistical sum of the momentum of particles colliding with a barrier. That is, a gas or fluid presses on things because its molecules bounce against it. If the particles are ions, each has a net positive charge. Charged particles can be pressurized against a surface with a flow of electric charge. The classic examples are electrochemical. This is why electroplating works, for example. Other examples include the magnetosphere, which is pressurized by the flow of protons from the sun, and the Biefeld-Brown effect, which is probably an ionic wind induced by electric currents.

As to the magnitude of the pressure, Charles' Law relates temperature and pressure (they're proportional). One electron volt is equivalent to several thousand degrees F of temperature. See the fusor, which can fuse deuterium with a neon transformer...

Best wishes, and please revert my changes, to the extent that this makes sense to you. If you agree, it would be kind to place this text in the discussion to prevent further changes,

---

Ah a nice blank page again! :-) theresa knott 14:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

All pristine white space. But for how long?

Not very ;-). (Sorry, couldn't resist) — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 14:24, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

LOL I thought someone might do this, but 4 mins that's pretty fast! theresa knott 14:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

YAY FOR ENGLAND I'm with you, until England meets Sweden. Till then, Congratulations. ✏ Sverdrup 21:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks but we will beat Sweden. This year we are going to win! I just know it. theresa knott 21:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wot no StGeorgeCross?

I'm guessing you like football then... but where's your England flag? -- Solipsist 14:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Painted on my breasts tits ;-) theresa knott 15:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Thanks BTW)

Image:Now_that's_a_great_pair_of_tits.jpg

Now I'm not really English, but that's possibly the funniest thing I've seen all day. Thank you! *GRIN* — OwenBlacker 00:01, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Smiles* I'm glad you liked it. theresa knott 05:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm completely gutted. I can't believe what's happened. This is a nightmare. What am I talking about? No, not the game: I wanted to see the actual tits. --bodnotbod 23:19, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Those are perfectly nice tits! - David Gerard 23:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, they might cheer Bill Oddie up, but they don't quite hit the spot for me, sigh ;o) --bodnotbod 23:37, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oh all right then - here's a bust (Sorry it's not very good, it was done in a hurry. I might try to pretty it up later unless anyone else want's to have a go?)Image:Bust with England flag.jpg

I am trying to be sympathetic, I promise (and here's a genuine *hug*, ok?), but surely by know you lot know that Becks can't take penalties for toffee?! OwenBlacker 09:00, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well if Sol Campbell's goal hadn't been disallowed it wouldn't have come to penalties now would it? We was robbed! (Owen send me an email, I've got a picture that I want to pass on, but it's probably copyrighted so I can't upload it here) theresa knott 09:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Portuguese had a goal disallowed too... OwenBlacker

Theresa, you're busted. I'm placing you under arrest for breach of the Trades Description Act (which I will now have to write a stub for, dman you...) ;o) --bodnotbod 19:10, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

user MNH

Has been banned from editing for 3 months. [1]. It would be quite, quite wrong to suggest it's like winning Euro 2004, so I won't. --bodnotbod 04:52, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

License

Hi, you've been involved in creating the Image:Microscope diagram.png but there's no information about license. Could you tell me more ? Is it GFDL ? We use it on french wikipedia and wonder what license it is. Thanks in advance. fr:Utilisateur:Tipiac

Thank you ! Tipiac 13:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Range blocks

Basically, the number after the / is the number of bits which are fixed. All addresses sharing the first n bits are blocked. So /28 blocks all users with the address listed, and the 2^4 -1 = 15 addresses after it. /29, which I used, blocks a total of 8 addresses. Pakaran. 16:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep, you have to choose a starting address with the "variable" bits all zero. Thus you will sometimes have to block double, or a little more than double, the range you wanted to (or use several blocks). Feel free to bug me or Morwen on IRC if you're still confused. Pakaran. 13:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tim has informed me that without hand-editing the block table (which there's no way in hell they'll let us do) you can't block over a /16 if you wanted to. Pakaran. 14:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There goes my evil plan to block all anons in one foul swoop!

I don't know the context, but you might find this Netmask calculator of some use. Unfortunately, all the other bookmarks in my "Networking utilities" Favorites folder seem to have fallen out of use. Hth! — OwenBlacker 14:44, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

That's because we have been very bad and conducted each half of the conversation on our seperate talk pages. Basically I was asking Pakaran to teach me how to do range blocks properly. Once I understood the basic principles I then began dreaming of the power I had to block lert right and center. Anyway it appears I don't have the power to block the entire internet after all, which is a good thing because I have far too many "powers" that I'm not allowed to actually use as it is. (I can block logged in users, I can delete pages I don't like the look of, I can protect pages so they stay how I want but I'm not allowed to do any of these things :-( Oh well!) Anyway thanks for the link. It does look useful, although i will be working these things out by hand for the time being until I'm totally happy that I'm doing it right) theresa knott 15:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lol, fair enough. I hate calculating the damn thing myself; I try to avoid it wherever possible — OwenBlacker 15:28, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Using your superpowers...

Would you delete the category I made category:Guardian's 50 Funniest, please? It should have been category:Observer's 50 Funniest. I've moved all the articles across so it's now orphaned. I still need to add people to the latter category, but that doesn't effect the deletion issue. Ta! --bodnotbod 23:47, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Synapse.png

Hi Theresa -

While waiting for your talk page to load (I have a router from Hell), I read your user page and was pleased to note our similarities.

You are not the first to mention problems with the image above. It shows up just fine on all my browsers. How does it show up on my graphic storage page? I'll reload it, but it will have to be under a different name; I am still unable to make an image reload in the space of an old image with the same name.

Denni

Barnstar

Hey Theresa! I left you a Barnstar. I hope you like it!

God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Osbourne Martin"

Thank you, I like it very much.

VW Phaeton

Thanks for you very prompt assistance with VW Phaeton! [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 15:01, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Hi Theresa! Just a short (and belated) note to say how much I appreciated your vote in my favour in last week's sysop poll. I feel honoured to be able to play a small part in this tremendous project, and your support meant a lot to me. David Cannon 10:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evidence that Lir trolls

Snowspinner is writing a page for the arbitration committee. I saw your last post and I thought you'd be interested in seeing it, if you haven't already. Here. Mike H 23:32, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey, fuck you Theresa. I think your wording is stupid; but I dont go around talking shit -- grow up and act like a sysop. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Charming I must say. theresa knott 17:25, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

geez... Gedday Theresa, speaking of which did you have a look at that proposal for er well antisocial editors? Erich 11:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I've looked at it. It's a bit complicated for my tired brain at the moment. I'll make some comments in a day or two after I've thought it over. theresa knott 00:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think Lir is just joking here, I don't consider that a personal attack--Plato 04:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I do. Lir doesn't joke with me.

Loves and hates

Is it fair game to comment on your loves and hates? If not, feel free to delete. I wanted to comment because one "hate" struck me. First, I thoroughly agree with all your "loves" save fried onions. As to hates, ditto, except "Getting older, why can’t I stay 21 forever? It’s not fair!" I can agree with the sentiment intellectually, but I wouldn't want to be 21 again for anything. Not that 21 was bad (though I was in the Army then) but that I've enjoyed my life, and there is pleasure to found found at every age and every stage of life. The few people I know who look back too much often can't enjoy the present enough, and the present is what we've got. Would I like to be as healthy and have the same life expectancy now I had at 21, well sure, but even with a pact with the Dark One, that's not possible, but a pleasant fantasy. Hope you're not turned off by the fatherly (grandfatherly?) advice. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 03:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's fair game to comment, I wouldn't put them there if it wasn't. You are right of course. I wouldn't actually want to be 21 again. I was overly shy, had little self confidence, yet thought I knew it all. I was probably a right prick. No I want to be me now, but in my 21 year old body. That would be great. theresa knott 08:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

if you figure out how, perhaps you'll let us know. Erich 10:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As long as you help me out of the moral quandary I would find myself in. Part of me would be saying "Knowledge should never be hoarded, give this information away to everyone and we will all be young, healthy and beautiful" but the other part of me would be "Are you out of your mind! Do you have any idea how much money in this. You could name your price. You'll be the richest person on the planet" theresa knott 22:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

you mean a bit like AIDS drugs... mmm well... you need to patent the idea (you'll need an expensive lawyer). Then you can charge the wealthy squillions of $$, while giving enough to the poor to appease your conscience. If you made enough money you could immunise the bits of Africa that Bill Gates hasn't got to yet. See I knew that MBA would come in handy for something some day! Erich 23:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine WikiProject

Hi Theresa. I've begun to make some changes to the Alternative Medicine Wikiproject and its subpages. As you've been involved with this issue before, you may want to have a look at the Project and at its talk page. Any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you are right about my comparing him to mnh being over the top. You have to admit that his two long messages had a higher ratio of empty insult to substance than we have seen on that page for a while. I should probably just stay away from it, but it annoyed me when he removed someone else's tag and then accused me of trying to stifle other points of view when I objected. Alteripse 21:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes but I think he removed the tag in good faith. theresa knott 21:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Range blocks

So what do we do about AOL bandits, which is what Mr. Treason is? I had blocked about 8 individual IDs last night. RickK 22:32, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

We get more responsiveness, or indeed any, from AOL. Blocking AOL proxies (b) blocks innocent anon users but (a) completely fails to block the vandal. So is actually provably worse than doing nothing - David Gerard 23:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Then we shouldn't block vandals coming from AOL? Seems like a really good way to get away with massive vandalism. Too bad Wik didn't just start using AOL vandals, then all of you appeasers would have let him get away with doing whatever he wanted to do, since it's an AOL account, and all we can do is wring our hands. RickK 23:36, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's not 'appeasement', it's that it quite literally doesn't work to block the attack - David Gerard 00:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for making it so clear. And here I thought we were interested in making an encyclopedia instead of a playground where any nonsense posted has to be retained. RickK 04:22, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Geez Rick, settle mate. David didn't say he liked it. He said 'it doesn't work'. But here's a dumb question: why not make anons log in? it seems that wikipedia gets enough traffic to strain the servers, surely its at the point now where the focus needs to be on quality over quantity? Erich 06:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think they agree, it would seem quantity is still the primary goal. Check out meta:eventualism. Sam [Spade] 06:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how making anons log in would stop vandalism. The vandals would simply create an account, vandalise get blocked, create a new account and so on. In answer to RickK I don't think Wik stopped because we managed to block the anon proxies, they must be thousands of anon proxies that we haven't caught yet. I think he stopped because we stayed calm and reverted everything he did, blocked the proxies that he did use and overcame his bullying tactics, with our force of will. And we didn't appease him in any way shape or form. He wanted another user banned, we refused to ban him, how's that appeasement?

Anyway It's pointless trying the vandalise wikipedia. There are far too many of us able to revert. With AOL vandals we revert repeatedly. If they are banned users like Mr treason i revert without even reading what they wrote. It takes seconds to revert everything a banned user wrote in several articles. They simply cannot keep up with even one good admin, and there are always admins watching recent changes. We can also protect pages to stop them editing specific pages. We are far from powerless. But we need to use our powers calmly, and we certanly ( I'm talking to RickK here) should present a firm and united fromt to the vandals and not argue among ourselves. theresa knott 15:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would also point out that the despotic atmosphere which some actions of Ricks facilitate only serves to create more trolls, and justify preexisting ones, rather than helping the community. Sam [Spade] 05:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Votes for undeletion

Hello, please take a look at the formatting I did of the comments regarding "Ish"—I placed yours under "other" comments rather than as a vote to keep deleted because I wasn't sure if you meant to merely explain a point. Please correct my mistake if I miscategorized it and it was in fact a vote. Thanks! Postdlf 19:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

on ish

here's the thing- wiktionary is kind of a joke compared to wikipedia, don't you think? It only took me a minute to see how much it's missing. oh well. Kzzl

you'r a dork

Ish is a word and it's not a new sentence/adverb. hehe. Ask an american. That's some bull [ish] that it got picked on. Did you know that there are tons of crap entries in this 'pedia? There just there. it's not necessarily someone's fault. Okay, maybe some of them just need to grow. Kzzl 05:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Images

CorelDraw used to be good. I created some nice things in that. By the time it reached version 9 it became so confusion that I was seriously put of computer illustration. And CDR 5 doesn't run on my Windows 2000 machine :-( JFW | T@lk 01:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, if i di decide to buy a vesion I'll make sure it'll rin on XP before I waste my money theresa knott

Happy Birthday

Believe it or not, Cyrius was right. Happy Birthday, the song, is still copyrighted. Danny 13:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool. It must be newer than I thought. I suppse I'de better go and read the article. theresa knott

Royal sandbox

OK, I'll do that in future. Although, I'm not sure if I dare try and move this to the main namespace. Do you think it will pass as encyclopaedic? Obviously I have a lot of work to do on the article, but I'm hoping it will be quite striking and, of course, entirely factually correct (I'll put in refs to support each person). I'm partcularly looking forward to the abuse I'll get when I put the link to the article in British Royal Family ;o) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 23:05, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Pepperthemaster

You really think Pepperthemaster is just a clueless newbie after this? RickK 22:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Check your page history. The insults was written by User:24.251.190.182. Of course they could be one and the same user, but I don't see any evidence. theresa knott 22:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Science. Your comment there made me think that you could help on Cold fusion: we would need a diagram of the electrolytic cell in the description of the experiment. Hey, thanks anyway ! Pcarbonn 06:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem, but since I don't know anything about cold fusion, I've had to go by the description. (I've left out the thermistor and heater to keep the diagram simple, I can put them in if you think them important) Is the diagram ok I do you think it needs any changes? theresa knott 09:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the drawing. It looks nice. I'll be back from holiday early September. I'll have a closer look then. Thank you for your quick response ! Pcarbonn 13:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amir

Hello Theresa. My ID was banned. So I finally replied today without loging in. Thank you. Amir

signature

Mmmm.... Korn. :) - UtherSRG 21:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wel I'm not that good with anagrams. If you can think of anything better let me know. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 21:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I love your sig! It's very good -- I wish I had some neat skills to create myself something like it. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 00:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't need neat skills. It's easy! You need a vector graphics program that's capable of making animated gifs. I used Serif DrawPlus but there are plenty of freeware and shareware animated gif creators on the web. I set frame 1 to 25 seconds, frames 2 - 7 were morphed from my name to my anagram, frame 8 was set 2 seconds and the remaining frames were copies of frames 2 -7 in reverse order. (This'll make more sense if you give it a go). Have fun. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 08:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As regards a better anagram - well, they're not necessarily all as interesting, but some true anagrams of Theresa Knott are "the otter sank", "stroke the ant", "store the tank", "then to streak" and "tank shot tree" (though not a proper sentence). As regards other anagrams - start by using up the K, it's tricky, then focus on the Ts (there's 3 of them). I haven't ever particularly done much in the way of figuring out anagrams, but I enjoy Scrabble, which is much the same skills. Incidentally, I don't know much about these things, but a quick investigation for the examples above (about 5 mins) suggests there's quite a few anagrams can be made from your name! (other words possible, steak, tan, hot, stake, etc.) zoney ███ talk 16:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow thanks, I shall file these away for future use. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 16:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyone say "Here's to tank" yet? Could be a sort of a toast...--Rockero 00:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Problem

Just saw the pic you added to the Horizon Problem article. Nice job. –Floorsheim 20:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Purple heart

In gratitude for all the thankless work you do around here - especially for dealing with users who would have others tearing their hair out - I hearby award you this purple heart. →Raul654 20:48, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow thanks. I'm honoured. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 20:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics

Thanks Theresa -- Solipsist 23:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image signature

I would like to turn your attention to a discussion on the Village Pump about using images in signatures. I noticed your signature, and I know that you are a prominent wikipedian, so I'd value your input highly. — David Remahl 20:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK I've removed my image and gone back to my regular sig until a decision is made one way or another. Theresa Knott 22:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What descision is that, I wonder? Plus, do you have any clue why my siggy doesn't show up when I use a template on one page like 5-10 times while it does for other people? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ, cοηtrιbs) 02:19, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Username As for templates - I thought they only worked 5 times on one page. Are you sure that other people are actually using a template? I never did. Theresa Knott 14:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw some other people using templates (such as User:Sverdrup at User:Sverdrup/sig except he uses it as a template in his sig), I guess it's not quite a good idea then. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. It's nice to be recognised for something I love doing anyway. :) Angela. 23:28, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Dear Theresa Knott,

Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in support of my nomination for adminship.

-- PFHLai 03:37, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Welcoming newbies

Hi there,

Not sure how tabs are kept on this, but I believe it's usual for new users to receive a standard "Welcome to Wikipedia" message from an admin, with open tasks and useful pages. Certainly I did. However, User:Kiand, a fellow Irish wikipedian who only started a week or two ago didn't. I could add the necessary piece myself by copying my own welcome section, but that may be out of date. What is currently used, and where does the template (if any) reside?

Regards, zoney ███ talk 13:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Admin? Me? The 14th Earl of Wimslow? With MY reputation?

Hello. Saw your kind recommendation on my talk page. Ever since I joined Wikipedia and noticed there was some kind of opportunity for advancement I've thought: hmmmmmm, I could do with a feather in my cap... (I mean in general not necessarily Wikipedia related). I think I'd like to read up a bit more about what it means first. I'll have a read of relevant pages and see if it appeals. If you can recommend anything I should look at please do so. Whatever I decide, thanks very much. It's lovely to be asked. Very best, --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 16:33, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers for the tips. I'll definitely consider it. I suppose my main question is - say I don't edit on Wikipedia for a week, would I then be considered a bad choice in retrospect? Or, to put it another way... I'm confident I would do little or no harm with my new powers (ie, I'm happy I would be responsible). However, I can be less sure that I could live up to an expectation that I would work x hours a week, every week. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:57, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about that! You don't have to put in a set number of hours. I don't. Sometimes I do loads, sometimes I don't do any. There were times last year when i was working heavily on a wikibooks chapter that i didn't even log in to wikipedia for weeks on end, let alone do admin stuff. It's not as if we only have a set number of admins to do all the work. The general principle is 'the more the merrier'. No the only important thing is, that you are trustworthy, and if I didn't think that i would never have suggested nominating you. Anyway - let me know if you are interested and here's a little light reading to be going on with Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list (just give 'em a quick once over for now, you only need to really know these policies when you come to use your powers). Theresa Knott 22:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, that's reassuring. I think I'll ask you to leave it for 2 weeks. The reason being is that I set up 3 categories, all of which are now being deleted: category:alcoholics , category:gay icons and category.... I forget. So maybe I'll lay low on the admin front for a short period, let all that embarrassment blow over. Then I'll come and ask you if you still want to list me. Thanks, it's a privilege. Best wishes --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

As a side note... something good has already come from your approach. A couple of times I've noticed a vandal on the move and reported them, but I also groaned inwardly as I took it upon myself to go around and revert the edits. I now see that admins can revert much more quickly, so it makes little sense for a normal user to try and do it. It also explains why I found so many of the edits had been reverted within minutes, way ahead of me... --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 20:07, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Did you know?

That Sie is a real (or proposed at least) english word? It's a Gender-neutral pronoun.

Kate likes using those a lot for some reason. Maybe sie likes eunuchs (unix) too much ;-)

have a nice day! Kim Bruning 22:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for reverting my bad edit. Theresa Knott 22:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you can think of a less scary anagram let me know.

How about:

Good admin anagrams:

• TOKEN THREATS or
• THE TOKEN STAR

or the bewildering, but provocative:

• HOT NET STREAK or
• TEST THE KORAN

• --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Another possible admin one:

task not there

If you're sick of being plagued with questions...

the rotten ask

Or, if you don't particularly do much roller/ice skating you could be:

not the skater

Such fun! Yes, some of us need help! zoney ▓█▒ talk 11:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right that's it. I've said I wont use the animation (except on this page) but I'm going to have to use somr of these in my sig somehow - they're just too good to waste. Theresa Knott 14:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, I did wonder if you might be asked to stop using the animation. It was pretty groovy, but if we all started using them the Village Pump would look like a Christmas Tree with lots of winking lights. Or, more sinister, like squinting into a forest from your tent flaps and imagining lots of blinking, large toothed mammals. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 20:11, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Alas, I'm always late to every party. I believe "taketh no rest" would be a good watchword to the admin, although an admin on wikivacation might prefer to "start the keno". My own personal favorite -- Nate the Stork. I had fun with this, and hope it proves some amusement to you. James Rosenzweig, I am sad to say, offers little to the anagrammologist, although an omission of the "m" allows "Zion's Jews agree" -- a noble, if unlikely, sentiment. Keep having fun, Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Pah! - think you've got problems? Try getting anything out of my name... even a computer struggles. Anyway, that's not what I'm here for --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) ....

Aha, I was wondering what that "Hot net streak!" stuff was about. --Scam while on 17:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like this anagram a lot. It seems apt for me after a certain user once accused me of threatening to upload pictures of myself naked [2] Theresa Knott (Hot net streak!) 18:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Can I ask for your input at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Frustration_-_deletion_without_discussion - it's not the loss of my categories I'm worried about, I have mourned and learned acceptance. It's the wider issue. At the moment we're heading for history repeating itself again and again, I also feel category deletion is currently being run as some sort of fiefdom. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

I just found out that wikipedia has both {{protected}} and {{vprotected}}. -- Ponder 15:21, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Cool. I've changed Mark Thatcher. Thanks! Theresa Knott (Hot net streak!) 15:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hot net streak

I'm curious... are you commenting on an Olympic volleyball string of great points close to the net? Are you uncomfortably warm from sitting in front of your computer browsing the web for streaker pictures? Is this a tally of the total (not gross) number of recent internet articles about High-occupancy toll lanes? - Tεxτurε 18:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Read the section above this called "If you can think of a less scary anagram let me know". I'm commenting on me! (well I am pretty hot hot stuff when I streak on the net). Theresa Knott (The token star) 18:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've seen it. I like my thoughts better... (Imagining Theresa streaking in front of the web cam... used to be you needed a stadium...) - εt τu rεx? 19:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"User:Theresa Knott" could always be "ak: note,rush,retest" or "One task:reset hurt" or "Thor: a ten tusk seer"

If I were to use my "User talk:Texture" it could be "Task: Rule Texture" - εt τu rεx? 19:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the duplication and reverting my edit on Wikipedia talk:Username. I hadn't noticed it was already there. Angela. 22:18, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Peacemaker award

Peacemaker award

Thanks Theresa for being a peacemaker at User talk:RickK#Anonymous vandalism, and for moral support :) ··gracefool |☺ 00:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Life after Zork

"Oh lord I miss Zork - the really don't make games like that anymore"

if you haven't played it, Grim Fandango should hit the spot. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks I shall give it a go Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 00:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks

Theresa, you offered a version of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks at [3] as a revision of my previous version.

I didn't change your version because it was entirely acceptable to me. Indeed I later reverted to your version (after an attempt to find a compromise version that was more acceptable to Snowspinner, by leaving his text in its entirety with the mere addition of a link to my Calvinball.)

And I thank you for your version.

I don't see much point in linking to Wikipedia:semi-policy, but, like you, I never removed it. I did try to balance it with Wikipedia:Calvinball, (which I note you moved to my user space) and with Wikipedia:Proposal Not Accepted By the Community, but your version is as good or better than mine (and besides, my attempts at balance were removed in their entirety).

My interest is simply that calling something "semi-policy" will make newbies or anyone not familiar with the labyrinth that is Wikipedia politics think it's official. This then would allow less than scrupulous persons to convince those not in the know that they had contravened a policy which is merely an opinion, and that's not fair.

Your version honestly states it is not a policy, only a proposal, which I think is far less confusing than calling it a "semi-policy" and then qualifying it; for in the latter case, a user must essentially wade through the history of the proposal 'and the semi-policy page to figure out whether a particular proposal is fish or fowl.

In the now current version (not yours) semi-policy us introduced as "It is also suggested to refer to such proposals that did not achieve consensus but had significant support based on reasonable arguments and prior practice, as semi-policy."

This to me is a bit mealy-mouthed: "It is also suggested" implies the community as a whole endorses the suggestion when the suggestion is in fact semi-policy is the creation of a single user.

"but had significant support based on reasonable arguments and prior practice" begs the question of significant support: (the support was insufficient to pass it, or else it would be policy) and the question of "reasonable arguments and prior practice": enough users felt the arguments were unreasonable enough or enough inconsistent with prior practice that they voted to oppose it. This is not to deny that there may have been significant support or reasonable arguments; again, only that it begs the question by assuming those things to be true.

To be briefer: I fully support your revision (which is why I didn't change it) and I think it superior to the current version. You have my entire support (for what it's worth) to make your version the current one.

And I find your parody, Wikipedia:Those who disagree with Angela must not sign their comments quite apt.

Oh, and you're the Great tits person, right? -- orthogonal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made the compromise edit in order to try and stop what I felt to be a pretty silly edit war over nothing. I don't like the word semi policy, I don't see the point in it, and I don't see how adding it to the page clarifies anything. However I don't agree that it does any real harm. I don't believe that newbies will think it official (unless they are incredibaly dim). Personally I remove personal attacks when I see them. I do so knowing that it isn't offical policy, and that people might not like it. In a strange way this is a good thing because when people complain to me (and they have done on occasion) I am forced to explain. "It's not nice to have personal attacks, it's offputting to newbies, it looks like we don't realyy mean it when we say 'personal attacks are not allowed',it makes conflicts worse when we should be working towards consensus, etc, etc" rather than just saying "it's policy".

I agree that the current version is far from ideal, but have no intention of reverting to my version. Instead I will talk to people, and see if I can come with somethid we can all agree on.

Yes I am the great tits person. I take it you've clicked on the link on my user page? They are lovely tits don't you think? Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And patriotic too, with those George Crosses.

As to personal attack removal: my feeling is that I want to avoid anything that distorts the meaning of another user; I think subtle distortions might be made even by removing attacks. My other worry has to do primarily with votes: 'any tampering with another user's text on a vote raising the possibility of vote tampering. Yes, it's possible to tell what's been removed and whether tat alters the meaning of vote by checking the page history, but others only know to check the history if the redactor leaves an indication that the removal took place , e.g., "[Removed Personal attack Here]".

But if we leave an indication that an attack was removed, this does little to repair the breach, as every reader sees an attack took place, and can usually figure out who made it and toward whom, but without seeing the actual text of the attack, are apt to imagine even an worse attack than in reality was made.

The alternative is to remove the attack and leave no indication that any edit was made. But this is tailor-made for abuse, as it would make it commonplace for one user to edit the words of others (on a talk page or project, not in an article where editing others' words is part of writing the encyclopedia). And were the practice of removing personal attacks to become common, others readers would be less and less inclined to research the history of each one, or even to check if user B had altered user's A's text, possibly allowing many honest removals of personal attacks to hide a few dishonest changes to meaning.

Far-fetched, perhaps, but when it comes to votes I want to remove even the impression that impropriety is possible, in order to preserve confidence in the system as a whole. (and cut down on complaints about cabals, for instance.)

Your argument that not having removal as a set policy, thus requiring explanation rather than just a demand is something I hadn't considered. That you prefer to have to persuade than to be able to dictate to others I think speaks extremely well of you and is precisely the sort of attitude a Wiki requires; my worry is not that you would be "tedious, fretful, and dictatorial" but that others might be.

(Yes "tedious, fretful, and dictatorial" is taken directly from HMS Pinafore :) "Well, hardly ever!") -- orthogonal 23:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Theresa, I wrote some instructions about IRC at User:Pcb21/IRC. There are many ways to access IRC and I decided to write about just one of them - a way that should work for as many people as possible. Let me know if you have any difficulties and let me know how to improve the instructions for the next person ! Pcb21| Pete 13:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions

Answers on User talk:VeryVerily. Thanks for your interest. VV 00:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He has explained himself reasonably and apologized. So, I should probably just drop it. VV 00:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I reckon that's probably the best thing to do. Thanks for being sporting about it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the listing and posted notice of such on Aevar's page. Again, I appreciate your taking interest in this matter. VV 00:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semi-policy

I see it as an acknowledgment of reality, really. There are a bunch of things that are not explicitly policy that have been cited by the arbcom. Jimbo and the arbcom have said that there are rules that aren't policy. And things like remove personal attacks are followed by people even though they're not policy. Since the reality of the situation appears to be that there is a gray area in existence, it seemed sensible to at least acknowledge it. Snowspinner 00:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

As regards all these "proposed policies", is it possible the perpetrators (OK, perhaps a different term would be more appropriate) could use a subpage of their user-page to do so? Or is it just that having them in the "Wikipedia:" namespace draws more attention? Where would one make such a suggestion? (On a user-subpage to set an example? :o) On VP? zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

33451 for Admin

You should know that there is no current request for comment against me and I would greatly appreciate it if you edited your comment on RfA to reflect that. By the way, if you don't support me, why don't you sign it instead of trying to spread propaganda about me, how long I've been here, and how many edits I've made? — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why did you feel it was neccessary to report accuse me of "trolling" RfA? I simply wanted to become a sysop. If you feel that it's too early, can you suggest how much longer I should wait?

Sorry about that - I've struck out the word current, and removed part of my comment (I'll strike it if you prefer) I'm sorry you feel that I'm adding propaganda. I see it as adding factual information. Many people judge potential admins based on how many edit's they have made and how long they have been here. By adding the info once, it saves everyone the trouble of looking it up themselves. As for advice on how long. I'd say give it another three months of only good edits Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork)

If I have another 3 months of good edits, will you nominate me for a sysop? Apparently some people think that you have to be superb to get a self-nomination. — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't answer that before the three months is up. I only ever nominate people I know really well and think they'd make a good admin. However if you are suitable admin material you ahouldn't have any trouble getting a nomination from someone (e.g. someone who has worked with you on an article), Once more piece of advice - I'd remove the request from RFA right now if I were you. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 14:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Two things: Why should I remove the request from RfA instead of letting it get rejected? And also, why do people think you need to be super to self-nominiate? — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. If you leave it there, there is a possibilty of people thinking you only nominated yourself for a laugh. They may hold this against you in the future. If you remove it early less people will see it, and you may find a better response in the future. Of course this is my personal opinion. The descision as to whether remove it early or let it run its course is up to you.
2. I don't know! I personally feel that the standards of self nomination and nominated by someone else should be pretty much the same, but other people feel differently. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 14:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Roche Limit diagrams

Very good work. I've still some suggestions for improvement. (Stand on the toward-the-sun side of a body just outside the Roche Limit and throw a rock up. It will be captured by the sun and 'fall' in the direction of the satellite's orbit, becoming a satellite of its own. It won't fall toward the sun, it will fall towards the horizon.) (BTW, if you haven't already seen Edward Tufte's books I'm sure you'd be interested.) -- Kop 01:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BushIsEvil

So it's acceptable for him to call me a faggot? RickK 22:36, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

No it is not. Revert him, ask another admin to intercede, protect your page if necessary. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's my talk page that he's editing, and it's the edit summary that has the personal attack. RickK 22:41, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

What's the point of having policies if we don't follow them? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's the point of having unworkable policies? Besides, I showed on the Talk page where his User name is unacceptable. So I'm the only one who has to follow policy? RickK 22:44, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Rick you are an admin! Of course you have to follow policies. He is a newbie. It is up to admins to lead by example. If admins don't follow policies no one will. I know what it's like to suffer personal attacks, in all the time irismesiter and MNH attacked me I never once blocked them. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tough. They call me names, they get blocked. RickK 22:49, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Think about this Rick. It's clear you're a bit upset, calm down before you answer. Are you really saying that you have no intention of following the same policies that everyone else has to? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One more thing. How is the policy of "you're not allowed to block someone for personally attacking you" unworkable? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Can of Worms

Alright I suppose, your problem now ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So now you've unblocked User:BushIsEvil in total violation of the POLICY on non-use of offensive usernames? Why don't YOU follow policy?

From Wikipedia:Username: Inappropriate usernames Inappropriate usernames include both clear and masked names. Wikipedia does not allow certain usernames, including the following:

No deliberately confusing usernames: usernames designed to cause confusion with other contributors or features of the software. If someone else is using a nickname that you wish to use, please consider using your real name or an alternative pseudonym instead. In the unlikely event that someone else is editing Wikipedia with your real name, please add a middle name or some other way of distinguishing between you and the existing contributor. Do not choose names such as recent changes, Administrator, or any other part of the interface or commonly used terms on Wikipedia.

No inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflamatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to:

Names which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred Names which are recognised as racial/ethnic/national/religious slurs Names which refer to symbols of racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred Names which refer to sexual acts or genitalia Names which refer to violent real world actions Names which are scatological or pornographic No harassing or defamatory usernames: Harassment and defamation is in any case inappropriate on Wikipedia. Further, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia.

Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. RickK 23:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I only unblocked it because my previous unblock of the IP only didn't work ( I saw another autoblock in the list of blocked addresses. If the user loggs in under the old name again I will reblock. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you.

Please see my comments at User talk:BushIsEvil. BushIsEvil2 23:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, he followed your rule by not signing in with BushIsEvil, now he's BushIsEvil2. You gonna block him or not? And this guy is no newbie. RickK 23:41, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm on him already. Let me deal with it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

reply

see my reply to your comments on my talk page -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:27, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

replied again. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:13, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

and again -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:12, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Re: 33451

Theresa said: 33451 I also intend to vote against you if you ever stand for admin again. Voting against someone who you feel "would make a good admin" is IMO trolling. I feel that people who troll will not make a good admins.

I was typing too fast and I meant to say that she "wouldn't make a good admin." Is there anything I can do to change your mind, and even if i did mean that she would make a good admin, how is that trolling? — i386 | Talk 17:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When will you...?

When will you archive your Talk? I mean, you're still linking to your tits, fer crying out loud! ;o) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:57, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)