Jump to content

User talk:Sjakkalle/July 2007-2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Sjakkalle

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3meandEr (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 21 May 2008 (→Notice of deletion debate for Instant-runoff voting controversies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.

  • If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
  • I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

Note that I am not an administrator, although I used to be one until November 2006, and will therefore be unable to aid in any business which requires such tools. There may be a cases where you have a complaint about an admin action I made previously, if this is so just post it here and we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now an administrator again, but will probably not be very active with them. If you need help with something which needs admin access, feel free to ask me. If it's uncontroversial I'll probably help you as soon as possible, if not I'll direct you to a suitable discussion forum. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi,

I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

Thank you, Sjakkalle, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd 00:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado, Sjakkalle, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 00:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Orientacion (Prison Break episode)

The article is proposed for deletion because it does not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability. The episode has not been aired nor has any official information (i.e. press release from FOX) of the episode been released. Aside from the premiere date, the article cites the source from a fan site for its summary. There were no additional information (on production etc.) other than the summary. Had the source been reliable, the summary still does not warrant the standalone article for the episode as the short summary should be then merged into the List of Prison Break episodes article. That is why the article is proposed for deletion. Regards, Ladida 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough, and I have no strong opinion about this particular article. I removed the prod tag because someone else had already removed it in good faith, and it should therefore not have been reinstated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butte County High School

You may want to revisit Butte County High School. Alansohn has done a very nice job expanding and adding sources to the article since you !voted to delete. -- DS1953 talk 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs about Drugs

Hi! Where is the current version of the List of Song about Drugs? I was quite upset to see that somebody deleted it. --AStanhope 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

My RFA
I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain.

Edison 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on Mig Greengard

Just to let you know that I have answered your question on my talk page... SyG 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicule

Regarding the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Überplay:

  • Keep per Starblind. A company that has produced award-winning games has certainly gained some glory and notability for itself as well, "WP:NOTINHERITED" refers to relations which are not very relevant to the context. Also, the nominator should know better than making this kind of edits, soapboxing for the deletion of the article in the article itself, in an utterly ridiculous self-referencing fashion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, you should really pay more attention to things before you call them "ridiculous". It's bad karma, if nothing else. By now it's fair to say I have figured out that the article is going to get kept, so to publicly conclude I'm "soapboxing for its deletion" is sort of ridiculous itself is it not? Do you realize that in your haste to revert the comment you didn't like added, you also reverted other unrelated changes to the rest of the article? Reswobslc 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

Hi there; my understanding of this principal is that authors posting to this website specifically forgo their copyright, allowing wikipedia to copy, amend, move or otherwise change the wording without permission or acknowledgement. If my understanding is faulty, I would be grateful if you point me to the appropriate source.

The article has had, as you will have seen, a complex history, having survived three previous AfD discussions. I took this popint on board in assessing consensus, which in my view was on this occasion overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. While merge was mentioned, there was no consensus to do so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground trivia

I restored the old edits of London Underground trivia and Talk:London Underground trivia. London Underground trivia's latest edit still redirects to London Underground statistics. Anthony Appleyard 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros

I appreciate your concern and posting the comment on my user page. But if you studied closely, Metros has nominated every article for AfD.--NightRider63 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and other people have agreed with said nominations. It wasn't me unilaterally deleting anything. It was me nominating and other people agreeing with what I believed. Metros 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, he is following me everywhere i go. He watches My Contributions and goes to every page. I shall do the same.--NightRider63 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Human chemistry

Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Previous comment removed - didn't notice that Tim had already suggested this.] Yes, ditto. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, a merge has been completed with material from Human molecule, but strong concerns remain in the deletion discussion. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the new version and see what you think? All the best Tim Vickers 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

Don't know if you've seen my reform ideas, but if you've any comments, let me know on my talk page. --Solumeiras talk 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Betty (porn star)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Betty (porn star), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty (porn star) (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar

Why have you moved Myanmar back to its unconstitutional name? Evlekis 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is one which I joined late. User:Duja took the liberty of switching it very recently. I often visited the page but never consulted the talk page (I never thought there was a reason, I mean looking at the article, how is one to know that there is a naming dispute happening behind the scenes?). Even so, it has been difficult to follow, and I did not have the chance to put my own vote in; the pattern is to submit messages and publish them upward rather than down. Never the less, believing pasting to be the correct way, I took part in the talk two days ago: I left another message yesterday asking if anyone would oppose a redirect, and nobody replied. What was I to do? Evlekis 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the new information. In the meantime, could you tell me the exact way to redirect pages without pasting? Obviously if it interferes with edit history and the like then I don't wish to appear inproper. Thanks. Evlekis 12:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yeah I did go down that path but as you know, Myanmar was not empty, it was previously occupied with the present-Burma article. Not to worry. Thank you for your help. Regards. Evlekis 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

With thanks!   
Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly.
I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman!
Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine!
- - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Variation (C60) of the Ruy Lopez

Hi! Please, look at http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm (C60), http://64squar.es/openings/show/1791 (Bulgarian Variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a5), or http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1357159 . Best wishes, Mibelz, 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first source is the Geocities page which was used in the article, and which I feel had reliability problems, and I think the 64squar page looks like it has the same problem. In addition, neither have any history, analysis, or description beyond the defining moves. The chessgames.com page and comment is more interesting, though I again have some concerns over reliabilty (the "kibitz" section is basically a forum where almost anyone can register and start writing what they want although I guess there is some form of moderation). But if you have, or can locate, the Popov article, then there might be something worth having here. I don't think that it is in need of a full and separate article. Except for huge variations such as the Dragon Sicilian, which several books have been devoted to, few variations of openings need separate articles. The 3...a5 Bulgarian variation is very obscure (59 games in the Chessbase database is tiny, especially when almost all of them appear to be amateur [=my level] games), even compared to fairly rare sidelines such as 3...Nge7, 3...Nd4 and 3...g6, but it can perhaps with some reasonability be added to the Ruy Lopez article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerull

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Nerull, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Gavin Collins 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic rail accidents

I was sorry to see that the article on list of rail accidents of major historic significance was deleted - I had missed the discussion. The reason for having this was that the current list of accidents is impossibly long (even when broken into sections) and you can't see the wood for the trees. There is, I am sure, a distinction to be made between major disasters killing 50+ people, or which led to a major change in operating practices, and the hundreds and thousands of more minor accidents. I can't agree that most fatal accidents lead to major changes; usually the result is a small tweaking of the rules, or recommendations for a specific location. It's difficult to see what the best way round this is, but the present list is far too long and uncategorised to help someone new to the subject looking for key points. Any ideas for improvement? It was correct that the information was a subset of the main list (obviously anything in this list should also be in the overall list!) Hyperman 42 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I continue to stand by the opinion I wrote in the AFD nomination statement. The problem is that "major accident" is a subjective term which leads to all sorts of trouble regarding original research and neutrality, because, what does "major" mean? Although this page is an essay the point about clear and unambiguous criteria is one which reflects an essential part of a list. Using the death toll as a measure is objective in one sense, but it is also arbitrary. I disagree that the current list of accidents is so long than comprehending it is difficult. I find the list to be well-structured, and it is easy to see at a glance both where and when the accident occured. Each entry is brief, and navigating the encyclopedia is eased by links to separate articles when appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Opening Move

Hey man,

I noticed that you wrote several of the articles for the chess opening moves. In them, you often allude to how often that particular opening is played by the masters, based on statistics you garnered from a program. For example, in the article on Benko's Opening, it is cited as the 5th most popular. Could you do me a big favor and look up the complete list real quick and post it here? I haven't been able to find it on the Internet, and I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.
--68.181.235.37 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chessgames.com has an easily accesible list here, but the database is a bit limited in size. The full ChessBase database however has a larger sample, and is more reliable. The database is here and selecting the "moves" tab on the right of the window should list the moves by popularity (you may need to fiddle a bit with the board to get the list up) if you click the heading marked "N". For the very rare moves the popularity ranks are perhaps not quite as certain. The only other possible problem is with the moves 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, which are vying for the third place, both databases above put 1.Nf3 ahead, but the Oxford Companion to Chess, under "English Opening" (I think), listed 1.c4 ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nodlandsvatnet

Can you include the references and points of notability you mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nodlandsvatnet in the article Nodlandsvatnet? The community may decide that the references you mention define notability for the article, if they are included in the article. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success!

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Assertion

Please withdraw the claim that I have made an "assertion" that DGG and AnonEMouse are anything less than respected editors. This is both false and hurtful; it also fails to assume good faith about my actions. Thank you. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll admit that my wording was a... testy way of saying that people should have taken a more careful look at the AFD before declaring that all the keeps ought to be null and void. For the record, I don't think that you consider DGG and AnonEMouse to be SPAs, etc., and I have posted on the DRV again to clarify that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offence, but your "clarification" doesn't help. You haven't withdrawn the slur against me, and you have added a new false accusation, saying I have dismissed "each and every keep argument as having been made from" sockpuppets, meatpuppets or SPAs. This is a complete lie, and I must ask that you withdraw this as well. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote in the nomination that you had counted "4 "keeps" - of which 3 are: the author (who is also the subject of the article), one SPA or sock and one person who it doesn't appear has read the article or debate and is basing their views on a different article." You clarified now who the three "bad" votes are. That leaves you with one "keep" which I assume you consider valid, yet DGG and AnonEMouse are two people, so your mathematics don't add up here. The "each and every keep argument as having been made from sockpuppets, meatpuppets or SPAs." refers to Coren's vote that "keeps were at best in conflict of interest and at worst WP:SPAs." Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnonEMouse's "vote" is a "weak keep" rather than a "keep", which I haven't addressed just as I haven't addressed MisterHand's merge (there is no requirement to address every single "vote", obviously). However, this is ignoring the substantive point: At the present moment, your remark that you claim is aimed at Coren continues to look like an outright lie aimed at me. I again request that you withdraw this hurtful and untrue remark (or properly attribute it; but withdrawing it would obviously be better). ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you decide that the "weak keep" is not a "keep" as any other, then I feel that your nomination statement is misleading. You are then arguing on technicalities (was it "keep" or "weak keep"?) and not substance (were there any reasonable arguments presented for keeping?). I stand by the basic substance of my statement: that you and some of the others who called for overturning the decision were too quick to dismiss the arguments presented by the "keep" side. People can read the debate and make their own decision on who is right. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic

Very good advice as always.--MONGO 14:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

That was remarkably quick of you. I copied the article before redirecting, & then pasted it into its new name. Unless you've reverted it extremely quickly again, it should be OK now. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did once try the complicated page renaming procedure, but couldn't get it to work, so I've generally been doing what I did here. I should perhaps make clear that there's no reason why there shouldn't be 2 articles, abhidharma & abhidhamma. The correct title for the one that exists at present is abhidharma. Maybe I'll write the other one some time. In some other cases the title is simply wrong, eg Brahmajala Sutta (Mahayana), which I redirected in a similar way. Perhaps I should have done that differently. I think I put an explanation in either the edit summary or the talk page, or both. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your help and the removing of the deletion tag here Olle Åkerlund. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Sjakkalle, I was wondering if you would like rollback rights on your account. You revert vandalism, occasionally but correctly, and you're a former administrator, and therefore I assume that you know both how to use rollback, and understand it's for vandalism-reversion. Acalamari 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) Acalamari 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Acalamari 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey man, apologizing on behalf of the idiot that has hacked into my computer, he posts lots of nonsense and is almost getting me cut off from editing anything. If you have to suspend the IP address, let ME know first, so I can try and keep MY good faith going. Write me back if you have any questions.

Thanks! User:Snuffereet —Preceding comment was added at 08:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oxford Companion to Chess and unusual opening moves.

As you seem to have this book, can you let me know which of the following, if any, it covers.

  • 1. d3 Mieses Opening
  • 1.e4 Na6 Lemming Defense
  • 1.e4 f5 Fred Defense
  • 1.e4 f6 Barnes Defense
  • 1.e4 g5 Borg Defense
  • 1.e4 h5 Goldsmith Defense
  • 1.e4 h6 Carr Defense
  • 1.e4 Nh6 Adams Defense
  • 1.d4 Nc6 Queen's Knight Defense
  • 1.d4 d6 Name unknown - Would be most interest in it's name if 1.d4 d6 is covered!

Thanks ChessCreator (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, I'll need to find the book before I can come with a definitive answer, but 1.d3 and 1.d4 Nc6 are definitely covered. I will need to look into what 1.d4 d6 is called. I'll come back to that... Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the 1984 first edition. I think there is a more recent (1992?) edition, which I don't have. In the 1984 edition, YES to the Mieses Opening, NO to all the rest -- the Lemming Defense; Fred Defense; Barnes Defense (1.e4 f6) -- there is an unrelated Barnes Defence to the Ruy Lopez mentioned, and in discussing the Barnes Opening (1.f3?), the authors note that Barnes sometimes played 1.e4 f6; Borg Defense; Goldsmith Defense; Carr Defense; Adams Defense; Queen's Knight Defense. This edition lists "only" 701 openings and variations. I believe that Quale, who has the newer edition, said that it had over 1000. 1.d4 d6, as I've said elsewhere, is listed in tOCtC as the Pillsbury Defence. They refer to 1.d4 Nc6 by the cumbersome name of "Nimzowitsch Queen Pawn Defence" rather than Queen's Knight Defense. That is actually a perfectly reasonable opening, by the way, unlike all the above-listed zany defenses to 1.e4. Krakatoa (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Krakatoa is right. The exotic responses to 1.e4 are not covered in Oxford at all. 1.d4 d6 is called the Pillsbury defense, and the entry is short, saying that it usually leads to the Pirc Defense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! ChessCreator (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Must newspapers cite their sources to be a reliable source?

Many thanks for your helpful and detailed reply at the village pump. Pgr94 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotto

I'm willing to bow to your superior knowledge of Norwegian culture in this one. I will point out that I cannot read Norwegian, and I can't even get into that "online entry" page to see how substantial the entry there is. With that said, I still think that an omnibus article for all the lotteries run by Norsk Tipping is the way to go (a la Lotteries in Australia).

Good work on the rewrite by the way, it does look rather better than what it was when I first looked at it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Good idea

Your BLP idea is much much better than Opt Out. I think it has potential to work, if only we can convince people its the easiest of all the methods (mine included). MBisanz talk 07:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at WT:BLP and WP:BLPN. There might be a place there to squeeze it in. And on either WP:AN or WP:ANI there is a thread on Opt Out, it could be attached to as a subheading. MBisanz talk 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me with a move?

Hi. Per the discussion here, I attempted to move the article First move advantage in chess, together with its associated talk page, to the better-punctuated First-move advantage in chess (same name, but with a hyphen added between the first two words). Not being an experienced "mover," I cut and pasted the article and talk page into the new locations. I promptly got messages from assorted humans and bots advising me that that was not how one effectuates a move, since it messes up the history. Having now learned of the existence of the "move" button, I restored the old article and talk page, blanked the new ones, and attempted to move the article and its talk page that way. Since the new location(s) now had/have a history, that didn't work either. Could you please help me do this move? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, that kind of fix-up needs admin access, and I resigned my bit in 2006. I have made a request for my adminship to to be restored, but if the bureaucrat declines it, we'll just need to ask another one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, didn't realize. If you want me to ask someone else, let me know. Thanks again. Krakatoa (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving it, and for your kind comments about the article. I nominated it for A-class, and it looks like a shoo-in at this point: four yeas, no nays. One other thing -- could you please move the talk page, too? Right now, the article is kind of schizo, in that the talk page for the (moved) First-move advantage in chess (hyphen between first two words), i.e. Talk:First-move advantage in chess redirects to Talk:First move advantage in chess (no hyphen). Thanks again! Krakatoa (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on the Dario Poggi article and it being saved from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Why did you close this as keep? Only one good source was found so it still fails WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the basic reason is that after reviewing the debate, I found that consensus was for keeping the article, and that some of the reasons given by those calling for deletion was rather superficial (for example "another non-notable wiki" is sometimes OK in a nothing discussion where everyone agrees, but when there are serious arguments presented for keeping, such a contribution becomes rather useless.) I also think there were at least two sources mentioning the website in question. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put information on all sources at User:Otterathome/Sandbox, if you still feel it should be kept I shall be putting it through WP:DRV.--Otterathome (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that my close of this AFD was correct, but if you want to bring it to DRV I cannot prevent you from doing so. But remember to overturn an AFD to "delete", you will almost certainly need to demonstrate that consensus was actually for deletion, or that some policy is breached in a serious manner by the article. Also consider that just because there is only one major source cited in the article, that does not mean that that there don't exist more sources. Especially for English Wikipedians, sources on foreign topics are difficult to hunt down but that does not mean the topic is not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Inciclopedia‎. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otterathome (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit taken aback

I'm surprised that you would take my civil contributions to the discussions on notability and try to make it appear that I go around describing people's edits as vandalism. On an individual level, I'm very careful to avoid using that word. At a policy discussion level, it's the appropriate word.Kww (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The full quote of the paragraph in question is I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case. Articles on things like Bulbasaur may be a common practice, as is asserting that every actor on the Disney Channel is gay, or substituting "penis" for the noun of the author's choice. Doesn't make them acceptable or desirable.
Quite frankly, if you think that a contribution like that is "civil", and "appropriate", then you should read WP:VAND and WP:CIVIL before you make any more contributions to any discussion. When I started to contribute to Wikipedia, many of the articles were on various fictional spacecraft (most of these have since been merged and redirected). I have also contributed several hours on RC patrol in order to stop vandals and block those committing it. Let me tell you: seeing an editor like yourself, in all seriousness write that he would happily treat contributors like myself as vandals is extraordinarily insulting. It demonstrates a complete and utter contempt for people who sincerely believe that Wikipedia should cover fiction in great detail, and make a good faith effort to provide this. You may disagree with such people as much as you want to, but you should have the decency and respect to avoid labeling them as vandals. Someone who is creating and contributing to Bulbasaur is here in good faith, someone who asserts that Disney Channel is gay or throwing about "penis" all over the place are not, and comparing the two is like comparing everyone on the left-wing in politics with Stalinists. Vandals are people who have no regard whatsoever for the website, and deliberately make edits which they know are wrong, harmful, and whose only motive is creating a nuisance for themselves. You should only use that term for vandals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you create those articles without any sources at all (the context of the above discussion)? When the article was redirected or deleted because it failed to meet WP:N and WP:V, did you recreate it time and time again without making any effort at all to correct the deficiencies? I've given up on Bulbasaur, but it stands as an excellent example: four pages of text, without a single third-party independent source. People have looked for years to find sourcing, and have found that there are none: Bulbasaur simply has never been examined as an entity by a third-party, independent source. Yet, the article remains, and efforts to get rid of it are met with resistance by editors that do not have any intention of meeting sourcing standards.Kww (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were they unsourced? Yes they were. Did I recreate them time and time again? No, I didn't since there are other battles to fight than whether or not to keep fictional spacecraft in the encyclopedia. (Also, the fact that the person who redirected them was someone who also had a genuine interest in the subject, and also made contributions like article writing and source-finding, and not just "article policing" by adding various maintenance tags makes me much more inclined to accept and trust their judgment.) But all that is fairly irrelevant, because someone recreating such articles may be edit-warring, and may (or may not) be making wrong edits, but they are not doing so in a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Therefore it is so crucial that you don't call, or treat them as, vandals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why I don't use the word in edit summaries in these cases (with one notable exclusion: VivianDarkbloom, an editor whose article recreation was in notable bad faith, a part of a campaign to promote her own work). I quite strongly feel that the presence of unsourced articles does damage to the encyclopedia, and knowing recreation of an article that cannot be adequately sourced is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more thanks!

Just a quick thank-you for deleting the Audi Allroad Quattro Concept article. If we can work on getting rid of these misleading articles, then Wiki will be a better place! -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions[reply]

Notice of deletion debate for Instant-runoff voting controversies

You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Ok thanks, even if the user blindly removes information time and time again to insert his/her personal view on the subject? Thanks againMeander₪ 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjakkalle/July_2007-2008&oldid=213926716"