User talk:WJBscribe

I'm presently on a short Wikibreak. While I'm away I won't have much access to the internet. Contributions will therefore be sporadic until Wednesday. WjBscribe

User:WJBscribe/Talktop

Angelo Sepe

The present version of the article is very different from the one that was deleted as a copyvio. It appears to be fine. >Radiant< 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of...

Thanks for your help with the references. -Will Beback · † · 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, everyone in the list is sourced so it isn't violating BLP. I think it'd be fair to make a file of all the sourced names that are removed and place it in Chidom's user space so that his previous work wouldn't be lost. -Will Beback · † · 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Zodiac Killer crap

Can you take another look at this? I deleted whole sections (all suspects, since most have been eliminated, and no arrests have ever been made), and anticipate a lot of resistance to the changes. Maybe you can watchlist it, if you don't mind. There's a Zodiac movie coming out on Friday, and I expect it's going to be hell on this page. Jeffpw 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I suggest that on Friday you list it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so everyone knows its likely to be problematic. WjBscribe 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with your deletions 100%. I was very uncomfortable with the coverage of suspects that article. I will watchlist it so that any attempt to readd them will have to comply with WP:BLP. By the way, how reliable a source is 'www.zodiackiller.com' anyway? WjBscribe 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been online for almost 10 years, and is the most comprehensive Zodiac killer site out there. 2 million hits a month. Featured on both TV and newspaper articles about the case. I think it's pretty reliable. [1]. By the way, I already put the article on that notice board. The film is having advance screenings, and there are also several TV shows in America this week. The traffic to the article is way up already. Thanks for your help. Jeffpw 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

open proxies

I've volunteered my comments on the issue you recently raised on my talk page, @ WP:ANI. I hope someone finds it helpful :)

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 08:32Z

Thanks, might be nice if someone actually un-indef blocks that IP as a result as well :-). WjBscribe 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you wanted an actual logical outcome? Silly :x

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 10:49Z

*grumble* if I *wanted* a timestamp the bot would recognize, I would have added one. By updating the in-comment one, I dodged the problem without sacrificing the all-important aesthetics.

If you need me, I'll be color-coordinating your signature for you :P

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:08Z

Pardon my trying to help :-). I hadn't noticed the change to the in-comment one. By the way, one of Essjay's Bots archives this page too. Though there are plenty of my timestamps for it to go by in thread. What colour do you think my sig should be anyway... WjBscribe 11:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You know I'm kidding ;) I actually like the current shade, although you could always join me in my .sig rebellion and transclude the whole thing. *just got done explaining why it's not going to topple Wikipedia, for the 29th time ...* That's the problem when policy makers try to legislate solutions to nonexistent problems -- the technical aspects of the system (whether transclusion causes load {no, transclusions are rendered when changed rather than on-load}) are best left to developers. And under normal circumstances, you couldn't transclude your .sig even if you wanted to ... policy overlapping an existing technical solution.

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:30Z

I can see the problem where people transclude sigs and don't subst them. But not sure I see any issues beyond that. What does the 'z' stand for in your timestamp anyway? WjBscribe 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What baseline problems do you see with unsubst'ed sigs (such as yours truly's) ? :)

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:40Z

LOL. I'd always thought yours was substituted... Just seen I'm wrong. OK, I'm actually going to shut up now. You know a lot more about this than I do ;-) .... WjBscribe 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do you like my (slightly desperate) appeal to WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY at Afd? WjBscribe 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to watch me slug the whole thing out yet again, you can check out this thread :x

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:52Z

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Possible username prob

Hmm, fair enough. It's only come up once before (somebody wanted User:Diff), and we just settled it on WT:CHU/U. IIRC, we mentioned the discussion under the request itself; I don't recall if we linked it from WP:RFC/N. Not sure about the best course of action for resolving these -- I figure taking care of it on WT:CHU/U keeps a (longer-lasting) record the bcrats can easily find and take into consideration, linking it from WP:RFC/N encourages community input. Not sure how well it'll scale, but so long as we only run into these every so often, it seeeeeems like it might be the way to go? If you have any suggestions, feel free -- as I said, this would only be the second time it's come up. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of the CHU/U side, if you'll take RFC/N? :) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N64 Kid

I'm afraid I messed up big time. I confused this kid with the Star Wars Kid. Sorry. I've striked out my AFD comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob- easily done. I only came across this article because it mentioned in a post at WP:ANI. WjBscribe 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it to ANI

But when are you gonna get the fuckin' shiny buttons, hon????? Jeffpw 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm home if you want to chit-chat. On IRC my name is Amsterdad, on Skype my name is KingCranky. Let me know if you A) have the time; B) have the inclination; and C)which chat format you want to use. Got some great news, by the way: my book project, which was stalled, is back on track after 4 months of trying and failing to track somebody down for a series of interviews. I have one book in me and it looks like it is going to emerge. Joy! Jeffpw 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on undernet, not in any channel. With my username you can type directly to me. Alternatively, we can use gmail (you have that addy now) or yahoo (trex132). As to the ANI thing, I am going through contributions as we speak/type. Jeffpw 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail it is, then, Hit me up when you get the chance. I am working on my second article from that ANI page now. Jeffpw 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Hurdles

Hi, WjB - I've appreciated your comments over at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. As you may have seen from my links on that page, I've been sort of shoved into taking point on getting the Copyeditor's Barnstar approved (as opposed to making changes to the current Editor's Barnstar). Have you gone through the barnstar approval process before? This is my first time and I'm actually rather unclear how much support we need to get a go for a new barnstar, or even for an Other-Related Award. The first run-through was rather abruptly (and, imho, inappropriately/prematurely) archived by Evrik, so we've re-proposed it. It's once again getting strong support, but I'm really unclear on how much is enough. Any thoughts or pointers? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna. WjBscribe 10:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, thank you! I'm not sure I'm seeing what you mean... ok, keeping the same angle between the quill and broom, but moving them up... how high? and reducing them in size? I'm willing to give it another go but am not sure I'm seeing it. At what spot on the star would the quill and broom cross each other? PS - How about if you propose the additional text about Wikilinks? I agree it's worth including, but would prefer it if you propose it so I don't lose anything in translation. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Timestamp for Bot. 12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Making Amends

		Copyeditor's Award
		This Copyeditor's Award is awarded for excellence in copyediting. --South Philly 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my post last night was angry. --South Philly 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you didn't see my post on the Barnstar proposal page? --South Philly 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read both the RFC and your other comments I will say this ... At one point last year there was a lot of debate over how to administer the Barnstar proposal page. There were a lot of conflicts over the stuff that people want to make barnstars. It was agreed ... kind of ... that the wikiproject that started the barnstar pages in the first place. Evrik is the only one who is still around as everyone else has moved on. So, while he is not an admin, he does carry what little authority was given him when the pages were set up.

The problem is not Evrik, but the weak system that was set up in trying to administer the pages - and keep them from cluttering up the pages. Can you imagine the problems that would arise if every barnstar that was proposed just got put on the page?

Finally, without naming names, there is a small cabal of people with common interests who seem out to get him. If you want to see what I consider an accurate description of his actions, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Evrik#Outside_view_by_Cobaltbluetony. --South Philly 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay

However you try to work round it, the fact is that Essjay, regardless of his efforts within Wikipedia, systematically lied about his identity and, far more importantly to me, used that to browbeat his opponents. If in a dispute, someone announced they were a professor in that particular subject and therefore knew what they were talking about, I would be much more likely to defer to them. Essjay has taken the principles of trust and good faith and taken advantage of them. Checkuser and oversight are privileges that are given out only to the most trusted users on Wikipedia: Essjay has established that he is willing to lie to his own advantage. It is inappropriate for him to have those tools. Essjay is undoubtedly a great contributor to the wiki, but apprently so is Giano, and no-one would give him oversight. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Essjay's fiction is not why I said he should resign. He used that fiction to sway other to agree with him, which is wrong. Taking advantage of someone's trust in you to be who you say you are is wrong and that is why I think it is not appropriate for him to hold roles that require absolute trust. If I were simply angry because he lied, I would be screaming for his bit and for Jimbo's head too. But I don't care about that, what I care about is that one of our highest ranking users has been proven to have abused the trust the community placed in him to his own advantage and that is wrong. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think even you must agree with me that the evidence being turned about Essjay's fraudalent use of credentials has gone way beyong knee jerk reaction. You said we had no evidence of his abusing Checkuser - until a month ago we had no evidence he was a twenty four year old from Kentucky. We all believed that Essjay was a theology professor; with that exposed as a lie, no-one knows what they can trust anymore - there are people questioning whether Essjay is anything he has ever claimed. There are doubts raised over whether he is gay, using a sockpuppet (his apparent boyfriend), or even if Ryan Jordan is his actual name. This is an incredibly worrying development, for all of us - Essjay's standing as an exemplary Wikipedian has made his fall only harder, and he's taking our credibility with him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]