I placed entrys on the site for Bodybalance and Bodypump they are not advertising, these serve the general education purposes and were placed for educational purposes only.
This page has been repeatedly deleted then remade exactly as it was, word for word. It is clearly a candidate for speedy deletion, when i have marked it so before admins has deleted it straight away.Bartimaeus12:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps they have altered the spelling or something because this article has been deleted before. But I understand that it is the wrong criteria and I will be more careful in the future about what I use to mark for deletion. But I can assure you it has been deleted before as I make sure I keep an eye on all pages which i've suggested be deleted for being ads, as they have a habit of reappearing sortly after deletion.Bartimaeus12:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got back to my computer after a long sleep and it was already deleted. I tried to find it on the deletion log to see what happened but I couldn't find it.
I must say that I do disagree with you on J. R. Benson's deservingness for articleship, and appearently someone else does also. Nevertheless, I truly wish that I could have gotten back in time to accomidate you by reviewing my decision and possibly changing to AfD. Again, sorry. LambaJan20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a teacher myself and thought that an encyclopedia would have vast references to definitions.
Bodypump and Bodybalance are exercise programs and surly we should be encouraging people to explore the world of exercise and learn something about Bodypump and Bodybalance. There is no commercial aims and objectives.
One can type Bodypump or Bodybalance into any search engine and find the same information.
There are numerous instances of profit organizations have entry’s on this site.
I am not selling anything nor do I wish to. I am informing the wider community about an exercise program.
In a commercial sense if money is exchanges then this would be considered "Business or a Commercial" entry into the encyclopedia?
I consider that it is not. It is a "public information entry".
I also thought this site was an education site that people can come in and contribute to. I never thought the mention of Bodypump or Bodybalance would have anything else implied.
Wikipedia doesn't care whether an organisation is profit or non-profit. Indeed, I could argue that in the general case, profitable organisations deserve articles over non-profit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so topics contained within should not conform to a particular structure or ideological merit (that would be biased towards a point of view), but on encyclopaedic notability. Please feel free to go to those articles' AFD pages and argue their notability. jnothman talk 10:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Do not argue to me! I have not claimed anything about Bodybalance and Bodypump. I only informed you of the nominations and argued against your claim of "non-profit" which seemed to be an argument for inclusion. What you need to do is go to those AFD pages and argue why bodybalance and bodypump are notable encyclopaedically, not by comparing them to something which clearly is notable, but by giving sources for an assessment of their popularity and their fame worldwide. This would include links to news articles on the programmes, etc. NOTE that I don't consider the articles currently an advertisement for the exercise programmes, rather for your blogs. If you had chosen more appropriate external links, I could possibly have excused the articles. jnothman talk 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pipera"
I am not advertising anything. My blogs contain information on Bodypump releases - track listing and technical information on Bodybalance and Bodypump.
My sites are G rated and can freely be viewed by anyone. If people visit the blogs then there is a wealth of information on Bodypump and Bodybalance there for them to view.
Can I also suggest that you not be so agressive in your reponses back. By reading what you said above it is rather agressive by saying "Do not argue to Me" which is rather an agressive stance to take.
I have added additional text to the blog entry for the site, is that acceptable, if you can thing of any additional text information please let me know?
I consider it rather frequently, actually. (Warning: probable essay to follow)
I still haven't worked out what use or necessity there is in being an admin if one is mostly around to work on articles and not sysop-necessitating chores, so really that's a decision for you.
Yeh. I find a lot of admin tasks and mind-numbing maintenance, which is definitely not my aim here. So even if I was to get my own mop and bucket, what would I use them for? I dislike conflict (seems obvious, but I swear many thrive on it), and my reaction to even mildly controversial decisions here is to just drop them and find something else interesting for a while. I find admin status very interesting in the WP community. On one hand, it is touted as "not very much", and indeed it doesn't seem to be - what, you get rollback (which one can do manually, to an effect) and the ability to delete images. The ability to (un)block users and (un)protect pages. That's about it, right? And yet if it's so little, the righteous scrutiny that RfAers come under is truly ridiculous.
So what do you really get? Status. Status as someone who is respected by the community, knowledgable, and a level above us plebs. You get to join the self-protecting little club. This is what I feel people are really asking for when they apply for adminship. They are asking for this formal recognition. They are asking to be let into the club, and by the way please lock the door behind you.
I really abhor cliques, office politics, whatever you call it, and one thing that initially attracted me to the WP community was the apparent lack of cliques. A real meritocracy, where one was judged by their edits alone? Of course, the truth is a little more complex than that.
Although, I am interested in becoming an admin on commons. I guess this is because there seems to be far less status attached to it there, and also it's far more necessary, if one wants to help out with cleanup (deleting images and all).
Other factors influencing my feelings about this:
the fact that many admins have Talk pages filled with spurious arguments about stupid issues. Waste of time and yet necessary - for them.
I get the impression admins are expected to be familiar with every nook and cranny of every WP policy and guideline ever made. I don't even have time to read the WP:VP every week. I have no interest in becoming intimately familiar with the blocking policy. So I actually like having this separate level of people who are expected to be flawless and godlike, while I can remain flawed and ignorant, and happily handball any issues beyond my range on to them. So I guess that is the upside to the status divide.
Also, I am sick to death of instruction creep and inconsistent or haphazard guidelines within the WP namespace. Admins must be responsible for this somehow. ;P
Greetings, Jnothman! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion(?)07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support of my RfA; I appreciate your confidence. Thanks also for letting me know about my signature. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom HarrisonTalk13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I wouldn't cry if it takes a few more day to remove this article. The important thing is that the procedure is followed... Happy editing. --Hurricane11114:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. It breaks it or gives an ugle external link (please also use show preview when playing with such high profile texts). Thanks. -Splashtalk02:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is linked to is unlikely to make a difference. I rather think there is a bug (and will hopefully broach the subject on dev IRC late) that makes wiki-markup used in preview mode but not in edit mode. jnothmantalk03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also see this format used for the copyright info <a class='internal' href="{{localurle:Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License}}">GNU Free Documentation License</a> (see <b><a class='internal' href="{{localurle:Wikipedia:Copyrights}}">Copyrights</a></b> for details).<br />
as seen here: MediaWiki:CopyrightxaosfluxTalk/CVU03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Again just a guess![reply]
No, I think Xaosflux is right. The caching issue makes it hard, but I'm sure I saw your <a href=> work, but it was an external link. Adding the class would have fixed it. Perhaps it didn't appear to you to work because of the caching issue. --Interiot04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To point out again, the edit mode was acting differently to the preview mode as far as I could tell. For the few minutes I had the changes in, there was a mess in edit mode, and a hyperlink in preview mode, as far as I know. (Maybe this is something to try on my own Mediawiki copy at home, but I'm not there now; indeed, something I should have thought of before...) But if this is the case then the HTML version will work in one, and the wiki-markup in the other. jnothmantalk04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was viewing it in normal non-preview mode the whole time, and I distinctly saw an external link appear. True, I don't know exactly what you were doing at the time, but something you did almost worked. And most likely that something was the <a href>. --Interiot05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having tested it now on my home copy, I think you're right, Interiot. Do I try it out? I think the preview-edit thing was just a quirk cause by multiple servers. jnothmantalk08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. It seems to be working now... I'm sorry I doubted your suggestions, I was just too scared and confused from my first muck-around =) jnothmantalk10:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just tried This is a <a class='internal' href="{{localurle:Wikipedia:Minor_edit}}">minor edit</a> and it worked - better this way because it doesn't have the arrow icon used for external links. enochlau (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the CSS that defined the class internal, so I didn't know to use it. I also have some user CSS that meant I didn't see the icon anyway, but I should have tried that. Sorry about my mess of a reply, but feeling a bit sick atm. jnothmantalk11:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least for me, it is sometimes showing the external link arrow (the version with the full URL and without class="internal"), and sometimes showing the correct version (with class="internal"), seemingly randomly. I'd guess it's a caching problem, probably on memcached. It would be better to speak with a developer. --cesarb12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with messages in the MediaWiki namespace, I must admit, is a bit of a black art. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong, but you should contact the developers and ask them about it, as your change would have been quite a good one. — Ambush Commander(Talk)02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unwatch script you added didn't work, and I don't see how it could — the best guess I can make is that the watchlist format was different when it was written. In any case, I took the liberty of rewriting it completely. The result is ugly, but it does the job. It'll break quite easily if the watchlist HTML changes, but that's hard to avoid under the circumstances. A few span tags with distinctive class attributes would make the job so much easier... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that your version of the script is suited to non-default preferences. It accords to having set your preferences to use "Enhanced recent changes". On that basis, I will leave both scripts with explanations. jnothmantalk02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that made a difference. I managed to make a version that works in either case, and replaced both of the previous versions with it. It could probably be improved further, but it works and it's getting rather late here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out a much simpler solution that works in both formats: all I need to do is locate the history links, and the rest is easy. Sorry for overwriting your refactoring efforts. :) As for the unwatch URL, I personally prefer the version I've used since it goes back to the watchlist; if I'm going to unwatch a page, I don't want to go to that page (or to a mostly useless receipt page). I suppose that may be a matter of taste, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there... that has actually crossed my mind but I've not said anything about it in fear of being completely ridiculed :) I'm on the Clubs and Societies Committee so I know a bit about the formation of clubs. There are a few issues to consider:
We need 20 interested people to start a new club. I'd say that's not hard - we could ping the editors of the University of Sydney article, or ask IT students (more likely to be interested).
We'll need a letter from the Wikimedia Board for permission, to ensure everything is ok with them. I can't imagine any problems with that.
Activities: of course, editing sessions will have to be included otherwise that's not a wiki club! The problem is that I can't think of where we can do it, unless we ask the School of IT whether they're ok with giving us access cards to the LG labs after hours.
Hi, Congrats on Adminship! You were kind enough to say I could call on you if I had any problems so perhaps you could advise me about edits by 80.169.173.3 to the above page. This user is vandalising the page by adding the Unoriginal to the towns official page and adding a link to their own commercial site [ [1] - I wouldn't mind the latter so much but I find the former completely unacceptable. I've reverted once but it's now back again and I don't want to get into a revert war. Would you mind warning and/or blocking them - whatever the appropriate admin action is? Thanks, Dlyons493Talk19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the guideline needs to be more prominent, but I don't think it needs to be on every edit page. If someone is applying for adminship, they should already know the guideline pretty well. If you want it in, I would be alright with something small, such as a linked asterisk at the end. --BRIAN091804:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be some interest in having some kind of link to the minor edit guidelines somewhere, just not whole words, perhaps we should start a poll? enochlau (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polls don't get noticed unless they're on a heated enough topic. Being bold gets noticed. I'd rather selecting an option and going for it. Do you have an opinion, Enoch? jnothmantalk05:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind having a link, but as Brian pointed out, some people like to click on the words to check the box. I'm thinking of putting a link after it like [help] or * or something else that's unobtrusive. enochlau (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it needs to be not only unobtrusive, but also clear. [help] or (help) is quite clear, although "help" may not be as appropriate as some expression of "what is this?". (?) I think is fairly clear as "what is this" and less obtrusive, but it might not be clear to all. *, IMO, is not clear at all. jnothmantalk11:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the ap photo of Abramoff since you claim it's not fair use. Please also remove those pictures: Wikipedia AP photos
You have violated policy, who did you consult before removing the image? I'll be complaining about this.
Sorry, I was somewhat ticked off that the image was removed without due process. Ok then, I'll go ahead and upload [2] this image again and link it. I'll also put it up for deletion and wait and see the votes. -Carsten
If you are still awake... here's the compromise: [3]
Hi Joe, the script seems to be no longer working for me. When I click the vote button it just takes me to the regular edit page. I have purged the server cache (including for automod.js), cleared my browser cache and refreshed everything, but to no avail. Any ideas or help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Cactus.man✍13:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. I'm using Firefox 1.6 Deer Park Alpha 2, which may be the cause of the problem (couldnt get Firefox 1.5 to load ANY extensions !!). Sorry, I should have mentioned the browser I use. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, I'll try to determine which revision of your script I last used that worked and load that up. Enjoy your wikibreak :) --Cactus.man✍14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I remember, a quick update FYI and use after your wikibreak. The last good version which works for me is &oldid=28407464 (16:06, 15 November 2005). In the next version the vote link is missing completely. In the current version it is back, but broken. I haven't tested anything in between. Hope this info is of some help. Cheers. --Cactus.man✍15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joel, just wanted to say thanks for your support of my RfA. I am now an admin, and if there is ever anything I can help you with, just give a shout on my talkpage. Enjoy your break! Lots of love, Babajobu15:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you edited the page to say that the tool needs Java 5.0 - I've actually kept compiling it so it is compliant with Java 1.4 too, so I've updated that. But I see that you have experience in Java. Do you mind helping us with the tool? We need all the help we can get. Right now, we're starting a WikiProject so we can coordinate features between this tool, Interiot's Tool, and others that we might think of as we go along. If you decide to help, it would be very much appreciated! Titoxd(?!? - help us)01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely disappointed that you removed my entries for Bodypump and Bodybalance.
No one bothered to enter into any dialog with me regarding this and that is really disappointing from a educational perspective. If knowledge is the article is not there then how can people learn, of you don't have entries on a subject then how can it become knowledge.
As a teacher and educator I find that educationally unsound and totally un-academic and serve neither the interest in education but a total lack in regard to education, as we know it.
I also think that if someone is to comment on an article that they should be content expert in that area as well.
There also seems to be a large amount of debates regading deletion of threads in some sort of non - academic approach here.
Imagine if this site was around in the 1400's to the 1600's and a deletion policy was around then clearly a lot of academic knowledge would have been nominated for speedy deletion at the expense of academic enlightenment.
By the way I have a double degree in education and training and now working on my third degree in education and training at a post graduate level and education and training is my academic area of expertise.
Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask! Sceptre(Talk)
Thanks for your recent support on my RfA. It passed with a final vote of 24/1/2 :-). If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 48/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. AecisMr. Mojorisin'21:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do a lot of speedy deletions on Wikipedia, and, when a speedy candidate is listed under AfD, I have to close the AfD discussion, too. Anyways, I modified your AfD helper to add an AfD closer that specializes in speedy deletions. See what you think of it here - it borrows heavily on your script. --M@thwiz202017:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've finally replaced all the pages; I've been collaborating with dab, who has decided to change the subject of the articles to the Phoenician letter, and so all my stuff is put under Hebrew section (except in Aleph, where we made two separate articles, Aleph (letter) and Aleph (Hebrew). The articles still need info on their significance in Arabic, but I think as they stand they're better than they were. Thank you for all your help and support throughout this "project" of mine. СПУТНИКСССР02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I should have taken the "particularly" out. I was tempted to reply to your question about non-Mizrahi communities by saying something like, "Well, I hear and see it plenty in my non-Mizrahi community here in Providence," but that would be WP:OR, right? So then I did a Google search and found lots of non-Mizrahi sites...as a matter of fact, I didn't see any sites I recognized as Mizrahi, although I didn't check them all. But this, to, is OR. :-) Encyclopedia Judaica lists it under common Hebrew phrases used in correspondence and speaking without mention of a particular use in any community. I'll look in my shul's library tomorrow to see if I can find a better source. Benami23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that A"H is used with ordinary people, while Z"L is a notch in respect above that and used for rabbis and so forth. See this article in the Forward. That said, I've certainly seen Z"L applied to ordinary folk, too. Benami00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help on January 24 at the Help Desk regarding Conditional Cells. From studying C++ years ago, I remember the switch command, and I was trying to find some way to implement it in wiki...Had no idea that it was a template, but that makes sense now. I'm putting a new related question up, if you care to check it out. And again, thanks for the help! tiZom(the man)03:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christine Belle is the director of the winner in the BBB category for the Texas Music Educator's Association. She is known throughout the entire state of Texas (I don't know if you ever looked at a map of the United States, but Texas takes up a big chunk). Her and her band will be performing in San Antonio in February for over 20,000 people. She is a quite notable person.
On the issue of verifiability, I gained the information in this article from Christine Belle herself. I believe the article is worth keeping.
![[2]](https://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/050822_Issue/050813_Peri_wide.widec.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abramoff-ap.jpg){kind=link}
_closeup.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for your help on the help desk, about making the sqaures at the end of external links not appear (see my signature)--