User talk:Jnc/2005B
American Nihilist Underground Society:
Hi. You recently replaced the redirect at American Nihilist Underground Society with {{deletedpage}}, but didn't protect the article, so it's still receiving periodic vandalism. If it was an oversight not to protect it, could you please do so? If it was intentional, I think the page is doing more harm now than it was as a redirect, and I would appreciate it if you clarified your intentions. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Endocentric:
You seem to have added to Endocentric the phrase
- For example, if a has a "lion house", that phrase is endocentric since it functions as a noun, as are its two constituent words.
I'm afraid I can't make any sense out of
- if a has a "lion house"
which I assume was an editing error of some sort --Trovatore 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Lithuania:
Ok, thanks DeirYassin 08:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).:
Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.
RIL - M.O.
1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.
2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.
3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone
4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone
5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.
PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Good to see you again:
You're right probably. :-). Still, I'm an admin and have some responsibility to stay up-to-date and weigh in on new policy. (Luckily no-one managed to create a policy for the automatic de-op'ing of admins after an arbitrary amount of time...). Your advice is appreciated! — David Remahl 03:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Reply to comments on my talk page:
Noel, I am sad that you consider me to have committed what you consider to be an offense against your authority. (Although, of course, not one against Wikipedia rules.) I take my responsibilities as an admin very seriously, and I am quite upset that you are calling into question my good faith, and, in particular, my ability to keep my roles as admin and editor separate.
Let me explain my actions. I did two things: First, I unprotected the article, which had been blocked for over eleven hours to keep out a 3RR sockpuppet editor, to allow anyone to edit it, as is normal. This was a purely technical action, and quite in accordance with policy; protecting pages to temporarily halt edit wars is only intended as a temporary measure, and is not intended to be used for long periods.
Then, almost two and a half hours later, I went back to the article, wearing my normal user's hat and edited it, in what I considered to be good faith and in a way that was fair to both sides, and also reflected other editors' discussion in the talk page -- note, for example, that I replaced the list I removed with a cite to the original source of the removed text -- and left the article unprotected as before, still available for anyone else to edit. Note that the article was unprotected both before and after my editorial edit.
Now, if I had wanted to abuse my admin powers, I could have simply edited it whilst protected, or used any of a number of subterfuges to hide my actions. As you can plainly see, I did not, and all of my edits are clearly visible, and are as explained above. I can only imagine that when you made your comments, you had not checked the timestamps.
Please calm down before you begin describing other people's actions as "egregious" or an "offense". May I suggest that the way forward with the IP sockpuppet is to deal with them by blocking their IP range, rather than indefinitely blocking pages, or taking issue with other admins? -- The Anome 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Celebrating:
Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Pi:
I apologise for creation the reditrects for partial representations of Pi, Noel. I left a message on the Pi talk page but no-one answered. Can I either see the page where it was discussed or can you explain briefly the reasons. Redirects are cheap after all... --Celestianpower talk 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
COTW:
Actually, I may have done somthing without knowing the details. Thanks.--Bhadani 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia error message on save:
Thanks. Yes, I'm very well aware of that and I did check the history between each save and even waited about a minute each time to see if they were saved. But this time it took even longer than it usually does on these save-errors (about 4 minutes from my first save, it turned out), so I thought the saves hadn't gone through, which also happens sometimes. Shanes 19:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Felix Manalo Article:
Sorry about the cut-and-paste. It wasn't apparent to me that time that WP provides a move feature. Ealva 22:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
RfD:
Just wanted to make sure that someone was watching. Some Wikitasks have been left undone because the last person who cared gafiated, after all. Good for you. Septentrionalis 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
RE:RfD:
Hi Noel. I was just looking through my talk page and I realised I'd forgot to reply to your message (*cue believeable excuses stage-left*). Sorry about the delete thingy, I didn't realise it had to stay there for a week (I'll leave the page alone now :-p). Oh and thanks for the offer of archiving the noticeboard but just as you have no time, I'm currently sorting out WP:PUI and have no time for it either (with a pinch of bone-idleness thrown in too :-P). Speaking of which, I don't suppose you know of anyone that might give me a hand? There used to be me and another admin but he hasn't got time for it either and I just look at huge lists sometimes and want to cry. Anyone, theatre aside, if you do know of anyone please let me know. Thanks a lot Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 05:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
IAS:
I'll go see what you've written. As for Fine Hall, both the name and the math department have since been moved to a new building, halfway across campus. This ancient history had not occurred to me when I nominated the redirect, but I still think it should go. (I agree with how you handle replies; watching other user talk pages embarasses me, without necessarily telling me I've been answered.)Septentrionalis 15:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- "My blushes, Watson" ;) Septentrionalis 16:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Your comments on Muwaffaq's page:
You said that if he "pulled this kind of stunt again" he would be blocked. Please see this edit [1].Heraclius 04:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Quux:
← No relation to Guy Steele; in fact, I didn't know he invented "quux" until you pointed me to the article. The "plus one" doesn't indicate any kind of relationship; it indicates that I needed something random but longer than four characters. :) --Quuxplusone 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Re:Vandalism:
I commented at User_talk:Redwolf24/Archive08#Vandalism. Redwolf24 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
3020 (user):
Yeah, after I put the rfc template on the page, I tried to add it to the rfc page and was having problems accessing the page, so when I came back and the database was working again, that was the first edit I made. It was when I saw that the link was red that I realized that it had been deleted between the time the system went down and I was able to come back and add it to the page. Sorry about that, I should have checked prior to making the edit. (Ugh. System error again when I tried to add this)John Barleycorn 04:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Swamithoppu:
Sorry for the failure to sign the comments.
Noel wrote: RfD notices go on the redirect itself, not the target page, the talk page, etc.
- I did place the redirect on the page I proposed to redirect. I think I also placed the RfD on the Talk page as well though, I am unsure why that is not proper?
- My opinions for the correct name were posted on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.
Noel wrote: Comments about what to do with an article always go on the Talk: page of the article.
- Sorry about placing the comment on the content instead of the talk page.
Noel wrote: Never, ever, cut-and-paste to move a page from one name to another. Use the "move this page" link.
- I did (do) not cut-and-paste anything, sorry for the implication! Thanks for the instruction, however "Never, ever," seems a bit rough (since I have never done such a thing).
Sorry if I got the procedure wrong. I appreciate your comments. I have never attempted a redirect of a page, I now have a little better understand of how to do it, but I will still leave the redirects up to the administrators. Your comments were very helpful. Steven McCrary 00:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Princess Alexandra of Greece:
In continuing with our previous conversation at User talk:Matjlav, the reason I moved "Princess Alexandra of Greece" to "Alexandra Georgievna" (then later someone moved it to Alexandra Yurievna) was because the former article name would be more likely applied to Alexandra of Greece. What's more, the article did not even mention in a headnote that Alexandra of Greece could also be reffering to the aforementioned Queen of Yugoslavia. That's why I feel it's more efficient to put the article on Alexandra Georgievna. --Matjlav 04:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have written my answer to your message at User talk:Arrigo#Alexandras of Greece. Please visit read it. Arrigo 20:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
my original request for deletion:
Unfortunately, I did not know that. I thought that as the requested deletion had got done, the request is unnecessary and can be deleted. 217.140.193.123 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Substantive title:
Article looks pretty good to me. There's no need for it to be terribly long, I think. If you haven't already, you might ask Emsworth or Proteus to comment. john k 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Ditto John. Thanks much for creating that. I'll give Prince a look as well... Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi:
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, I like Recent Changes patrol. :) Zoe 05:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Alexandra of Greece/Ancestral data:
Hi Jnc,
I read your post on the talk page of Alexandra of Greece with great interest. I've never heard anyone connect the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Glücksburg dynasty before. This must mean that the current royal families of Denmark and Norway are also related to the Eastern Roman emperors. May I ask, where you found these data? Best regards from Denmark. Valentinian 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)