User talk:Melsaran/Archive Jul 2007

Hey.

Thanks for the welcome. To tell you the truth, I hate Gill as a character. 76.185.92.3 00:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Even though you may hate the character Gill, Wikipedia has neutral point of view-policy. Please do not flame him in the article; Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable encyclopedia and respects all viewpoints. Sala Skan 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

NUMBEROFARTICLES

Regarding [1] and [2]. NUMBEROFARTICLES does not work in mirrors and other data users, so I don' tthink it should be used in mainspace. For example, http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-wikimedia-projects says "Wikipedia is the most popular of the Wikimedia projects, with -1 legitimate articles in the English language alone". Do you know something that supports your edits? PrimeHunter 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! I was wondering why {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} wasn't used, but you made it clear. What about introducing this reason in the surrounding HTML comment? Sala Skan 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might prevent problems. PrimeHunter 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

You are, incidentally, wrong about the spelling. 'Discrete' means things which are separate and distinguishable, binary and not analog[3]; 'discreet' on the other hand means 'marked by prudence or modesty and wise self-restraint'[4]. It's pretty obvious given the context which is right and which is wrong.

As for 'Wikipaedia' - if Wikipedia had in some counterfactual world been named in British English or Latin, that'd be just fine and 'ae' it'd be. But as it is, there is one name, a name devised by Americans, and so the only correct name is 'Wikipedia'. --24.186.239.25 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, how funny, I didn't know that. Sorry for reverting you. Regarding the "Wikipaedia" thing, I know A. B., and he always spells it like that, probably because he disagrees with it being spelt "Wikipedia". And WP:TALK#Others' comments says that "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Although I personally think that this is nonsense (you are only making it better readable by correcting typos), many people frown upon editing others' comments. I recommend that you don't do that. Sala Skan 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars

Heya! An edit of yours regarding 3RR was reverted at Wikipedia:Five pillars. What the reverting editor didn't explain is that 3RR is included in the proceeding paragraph, and therefore included as a hard rule by proxy. So, what I mean to say is, you were right, but the guy that was wrong was right to revert... Now my head hurts... cya aliasd·U·T 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see that. Still, I disagree with it saying "WP doesn't have firm rules", because 3RR gets applied at all times, even the edit was in good faith and reverted trolls/anons. Sala Skan 10:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment on the talk page. Good luck on your second RfB! Sala Skan 11:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
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 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

idiom?

I usually know (or at least think I know) what interesting turns of phrase mean. But this one: "Bob's your uncle" has me stumped. Clue? Thanks. Jd2718 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You go to Wikipedia, enter it in the search bar, and Bob's Your Uncle! Sala Skan 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok! Uncle! Jd2718 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting, how speech between European and American users can be so easy and so confusing ;-) Sala Skan 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirmation

Although I deleted the original article as nonsense, thank you for clarifying the phrase "So i herd u liek mudkipz" and redirecting it appropriately. This was something I wasn't aware of. Bobo . 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Some anons were edit-warring at the article on Mudkip to include info about the meme (it has now been semiprotected, but then they went on and included it in the article on Swampert), so I thought it'd be handy to create the redirect to prevent the article from being made. Hope it'll work :-) Sala Skan 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot

Re: [5]: Does this mean that pages that have the Werdnabot Archival Code are automatically archived by Shadowbot3? Should this information be added to the relevant pages? —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. As you can see at the top of this talk page (when editing), it says it's archived by Werdnabot, but as you can see in the history of this talk page, it is in fact archived by Shadowbot3. It'd be a good idea to update the pages. Sala Skan 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

It's good to finally be greeted on here -- Thanks! As for the warning, I just felt a more personalized approach would be fun :) I have one of the tools installed that reverts changes and warns users, so it makes it much easier. Thanks again! Ironman5247 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Of course, personalised messages are always preferable, but I didn't know if you were aware of the User Warning system. I have twinkle installed, by the way, what about you? Sala Skan 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have installed, too. It's an awesome tool! Ironman5247 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my name and about vandalism report

Oh you speak 1337 thats why you find my name suspicous. So I find my name Ok. But If I need to I'll change. I'm not making vandalism. I'm Removing it.

But I've found an IP making vandalism so I reverted the changes and can report you: The IP is:

69.123.33.176 This were the vandalic changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Best_Damn_Thing&diff=143118481&oldid=143118300 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Best_Damn_Thing&diff=143119727&oldid=143119442 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N00bh4ck3r (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 July 2007

Thank you for your help in the struggle against vandalism! I warned the IP, because he vandalised even after he got warned. If he continues, he may be blocked for a brief period of time.

About your username, you do not necessarily need to change it, but names in leet are often looked down upon because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia, and many vandals/trolls have names in leet. You may, of course, choose to keep it, if you continue to make valuable contributions you're very welcome here! But I just recommend you change it (at Wikipedia:Change username), so people will be less suspicious with your edits. That is all :-).

P.S. you can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Sala Skan 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link

You posted a link to a "canvas" I did. I actually didn't, I made a comment there after he made a comment on my RfA (exactly like I'm doing now). Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I couldn't have known that, I just saw the edit. I'll strike the comment. Sala Skan 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's ok, we all mess up sometimes XD. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth

My friend, you cannot have the critique removed from the intro. Removing it only makes the article POV and laughable. --Camptown 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criticism section below. Therefore NPOV is preserved. Srasku 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camptown, you reverted four times without a comment, doing so is prohibited by the 3RR. You ignored my comments, and those of Kerowren, Gakhandal and an anonymous editor. I filed a report here. Sala Skan 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon here, I got the 3RR to. No matter though, but someone still needs to edit that. And sorry to bring the discussion here Salaskan.--Anon 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The edit warrior has been blocked, by the way. I recommend you get an account, it takes only a few seconds and people will be less suspicious of your edits ;-). Sala Skan 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You passed up a perfectly good opportunity for the best edit summary of all time: "Elvis has left the article" Flowanda 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sala Skan 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambutan is back!

Thanks for [6], [7] and [8]!--Rambutan (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rambutan. You're welcome, I can't stand people who keep using article talk pages as a forum. ;-) Sala Skan 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth - Gore Aid

Point taken. It still seems to be a minority view not that widespread. Approx. 500 Google results. Only 4 "Google News" results of news media. My concern was the illusion of credibility and "widespread-ness" such a phrase gets when quoted. By way of example. Let's say 99% of people think one thing - and a just a handful of writers think something different. Without going into the merits of which side is "correct" - does putting the view of those handful of writers in a wikipedia article - and it taking up much much more than 1% of that section - create the illusion of greater dissent than there actually is? It would be wrong to censor the view altogether. If it has been articulated by someone credible - and has appeared somewhere credible. But if the reporting of it takes up as much space as the reporting of the majority opinion - are we leaving a misleading impression? What do you think? Davidpatrick 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gore Aid" is merely a sceptical nickname occasionally used by critics. It doesn't have to be widespread to be eligible for using in a Wikipedia article. It's a "criticism" section, which means that what we do is cite prominent critics. If one critic (and yes, CounterPunch is prominent enough) calls it "Gore Aid", there's nothing wrong if we include one sentence about that in the "criticism" section. It has nothing to do with majority opinions and minority opinions, the section is labelled "criticism" after all. The "Friends", "Inspiration" and "Background" sections are positive enough. Sala Skan 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPunch brouhaha

I'm curious: are you actually disputing that this publication is written from a left-wing perspective? Or are you just stirring the pot, creating a tempest in a teapot, or [insert favorite metaphor here]? If you're disputing this, I'd be curious to hear your thinking on it. Otherwise, it might be best to leave this alone, as it seems hardly worth requiring a citation for (as evidenced by others removing your {{fact}} tag). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you could probably see on my user page, I live in the Netherlands, so I don't know the magazine. That's why I want to know if it's really left-wing. If it's so self-evident, it shouldn't be too hard to find a source for it. If you cannot find a source, apparently it's not self-evident. (by the way, let's continue this discussion on your talk, to keep it in one place) Sala Skan 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, 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 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studylink

Hello, you participated in the discussion for this AFD which was redirected to the old location - the author has now added a reduced form in the 'Studylink' section clarifying the difference between the two. Should this be allowed to remain, and if so, in its current form? It could be reduced to just 'Not to be confused with the website for international students [link]' perhaps. Please reply on my talk page or make changes to the page as you deem appropriate. Richard001 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a redirect, a disambiguation page with only one blue link is unnecessary. We can perhaps add a hatnote at the redirect target. Sala Skan 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

See Wiktionary and Talk:Wiktionary. I found the ezboard comment by googling "wiktionary is crap." The rest is mine. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOKIO HOTEL

THERE ARE NOT A ROCK BAND!!! THEY ONLY HAVE GUITARS AND MAKE POPMUSIC!! TOKIO HOTEL= POP!! NOT ROCK ODER ALTERNATIVE! Minutes to Rise

Stop typing in all caps.
Please use proper spelling and grammar.
They are not a "pop" band, do you know the band at all?
If you think they are a "pop" band, find some sources. I can find hundreds of sources saying that they're pop-rock or alternative rock.

Sala Skan 14:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now stop reverting, I added multiple reliable sources. Get some reliable sources stating that they're "pop" in order to add that genre. Good luck. Sala Skan 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE NOT COOL

your are a tokio hotel fan and this is f****** GAY!!! they are just pop! maybe pop-rock but not alternative rock! NOT THE HELL!! maybe pop-rock but not alternative! but they are just pop!Minutes to Rise

First, I am not a fan, second, learn to use proper English, third, stop swearing, fourth, don't blatantly revert me, find a reliable source if you want to change the genre. Thank you. Sala Skan 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock abuser

You're welcome for me deleting it (Molag Bal's been disruptive for the last few hours), but I don't know how to protect a deleted page. I'm a fairly new administrator, and I haven't learned to protect deleted pages yet. A more experienced administrator will have to do it unfortunately. Acalamari 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'm not an administrator (yet), but perhaps you'd like to read WP:SALT. It explains how to protect deleted pages in detail. Regards, Sala Skan 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the redirect version; that was the easiest and quickest. If you check the history of that talk page, he trolled after I turned it into a redirect. He can't abuse the unblock on that account anymore. Acalamari 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Sala Skan 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Salaskan, I noticed your note regarding my 3RR block. Note that per WP:3RR, edits by sockpuppets of non-banned or non-blocked users are specifically not excluded from 3RR limits. In the specific case you criticized, the sockpuppet was suspected to be that of a banned user, and not a known sock. Therefore the normal 3RR limit applied. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these rules. Thanks, Crum375 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is not a strict exception in those rules, but still, I feel it is extremely unfair to block someone for "edit warring" (rather "keeping an article clean") from a troll who is probably a sock of a banned user. Sala Skan 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salaskan, we need to follow rules. If you think that there should be an exception to 3RR for 'reverting trolls', by all means, go to WT:3RR and try to form a consensus to change the policy. I can tell you why they would shoot you down - they would tell you that deciding who is a 'troll' is a matter of subjective opinion, and if we allowed 'troll reversion' to be free of 3RR limits, we would have a giant free-for-all on our hands very soon. But if you disagree with a policy, the way to handle it is to convince people to try to change it at its Talk page, not to criticize the admin who correctly enforces it. Crum375 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't "criticise" anyone. Second, if I were to propose an addendum to the 3RR, it wouldn't be "trolls" (which is indeed subjective), but rather something like "sockpuppets of banned users". Sala Skan 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you said: "Then the block was an obvious mistake. Editors shouldn't be blocked for reverting trolls/sockpuppeteers. 3RR even says so." Don't you consider that criticism? And your suggestion of no 3RR limits for "sockpuppets of banned users" is already in the 3RR policy, can you please read it? And in this case, this was a suspected sockpuppet - the exception is only for known socks. Crum375 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it is in the 3RR policy, which is why I said that; if I didn't know the policy said so, I would have proposed it already. And no, I don't consider that "criticism". Sala Skan 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I guess I must be confused then - please help me.

You say "I know it is in the 3RR policy", but you also say "if I were to propose an addendum to the 3RR, it [would be] something like 'sockpuppets of banned users'". If you know it's already in there, why propose it as an addendum?
You say "I don't consider that 'criticism'" - if you say that my block was "an obvious mistake", isn't that criticism?

Crum375 17:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If I were to" (...) "I would" differs quite a lot from "I'm thinking about", "I want to" or "I will", right?
I criticised his block, yes, I didn't even speak about the admin who enforced it. Heck, I didn't even read your name, I have never interacted with you before. If I think a block is unjustified because it follows the letter of the 3RR but not the spirit, am I prohibited from saying so? This had nothing to do with you as a person or as an admin at all; I merely expressed my opinion on the matter.

Sala Skan 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "criticized his block" - can you understand that that is a criticism of the blocking admin? And you now say that the "block is unjustified because it follows the letter of the 3RR", yet in your message on his Talk page you said: "Editors shouldn't be blocked for reverting trolls/sockpuppeteers. 3RR even says so." Where exactly does 3RR 'say so'? Crum375 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand that the blocking admin may have felt "criticised", but I didn't direct the comment at them, nor did I intend to insult them.

3RR "says so" in in the exceptions section, specifically the line "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block". Yes, you are right in that it hasn't yet been proven that Minutes to Rise is a sockpuppet (although it is very likely), so your block followed the letter of the 3RR, but in my opinion, it didn't follow the spirit.

Opinions can differ. I think the issue is sorted now. I am sorry if you were insulted by my (somewhat aggressive) comment, but I still stand by my point. Alright? Sala Skan 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your "I am sorry" as an apology. But you are very wrong about "the spirit of 3RR". The specific point of the blocked/banned user 3RR exclusion is to only allow unlimited reversions for known sockpuppets. If suspected socks were allowed, then you would have total mayhem, because there are no standards for 'suspicion', and anyone can 'suspect' anyone, turning the 3RR policy into a joke. Ironically, User:TheLetterM, the blocked user, understood this point, while you seem to have difficulties grasping it. Crum375 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do understand this point. I did not argue that your block was not in accordance with the "spirit of 3RR" because he was a suspected sock, but rather because he was a troll who didn't discuss anything on talk pages but merely kept on blatantly reverting and leaving uncivil comments. TLM happened to be the first one reverting, if MTR were first, he would have blocked. This time, TLM sought polite discussion, MTR did not. Anyway, to me, this matter has been sorted. Sala Skan 21:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Closing TfD debate

Hey, thanks for closing this debate. Only two comments: please add {{subst:TfD bottom}} at the bottom of the debate, or else the rest of the TfD page will be imbued with green :) Second, practice differs on the issue, but it is generally better to include {{subst:TfD top}} under the header of the debate, since unlike AfD, all of the deletion discussions are meshed together on the same page. Happy editing, Gracenotes^T § 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, you're right. I usually do add the bottom template, but this time I forgot to :-). Thanks for the tip by the way, I will put it below the header from now on. Sala Skan 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myk Gammone

You are trying to delete Myk Gammone from Wikipedia which does this great session musicial no justice. Whilst gathering his bio, I had to put something up to start. He has done session work for artists such as Falco and Leo sayer.

You must not delete Myk's page as he is a staple in pop culture doing session work for many famous musicians such as Falco. I am in proccess of gathering all of the information needed to meet Wiki's criteria. Thank you Sixstring1965 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the page in the form that was originally deleted does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If he is notable, you must make an assertion of notability. "three unsuccessful singles in 1980" does not assert notability. I'll give you some time to expand upon the article. I see you added the {{hangon}} tag to the page, so please explain your concern on the talk page (as the template asks of you). Sala Skan 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the edits, I left some information in during the save ie the pizza maker was his father, unsuccessful was a total mistake before putting up the save. I am in talks with his publicist. This was intended as a holder page. I am looking for a clear scan of his first disc to also include. Sixstring1965 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

info box

How do I create a proper infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavcjs (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 July 2007

What kind of infobox are you looking for? An infobox for a certain article, your user page, a template, ...? Sala Skan 13:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rambutan

I think you left a message on my talk page in error. I was arguing FOR him to be unblocked. I would also appreciate it if you could be more civil on my talk page and not resort to profanity. Kelpin 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not profane to say "crap", but thanks for requesting my unblocking, Kelpin.--Rambutan (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK maybe profane was the wrong word - I should have said vulgar. As for my original point, there is no point leaving a message for Phil Sandifer on my Talk page as I doubt if he will look at it in the near future - far better to leave the message on his Talk page. Kelpin 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't direct the comment at you, I replied to Phil's message. I was assuming that Phil had the page on his watchlist, as he posted a comment there. And the word "crap" was about the contents of the page. I could've called it "nonsense" or "rubbish" instead, true. Sala Skan 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Outta

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Outta, by Kai (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Outta is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Outta, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Radiant]

It is not completely clear to me that the meteor shower meaning is vastly more commonly searched for than the others. Please go through WP:RM so this decision gets a bit more community input. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will do so. :-) Sala Skan 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codelyoko193

Oh- um- I didn't know. The only deletion temp. I know is subst:prod. SOrry! Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just a tip for in the future. ;) Sala Skan 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Arbitration Committee report

Your edit to the Signpost report on this week's ArbCom decision was absolutely correct. It was just a typo on my part, but a bad one, and I am very glad you caught and fixed it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Sala Skan ^{(Review me)} 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Tie In Sites

I've reverted your edit to the above. A discussion of how to log into one of the sites is precisely the sort of thing that should be included in an encyclopedia! No one is hacking into anything - the sites were created by the BBC for fans of the show to log into. There are clues to how to log in, in the show itself! Kelpin 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they? Oops, my mistake, then. I'm not familiar with Doctor Who, but I saw you guys discussing the password of a site, so I thought it was some hacking thing. My sincere apologies. Sala Skan 12:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - if you log in you get a little game to fire a missile at the world map. Which probably wouldn't mean much unless you'd watch the World War Three (Doctor Who) episode. UNIT is a military organisation in the show that deals with extraterrestrial encounters. Kelpin 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the above means you're now aware that I'm not under the impression Wikipedia is a "random forum"? Excellent. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say so? Sala Skan 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: yes. Sala Skan 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility: Q

Hurry Hurry In that list, there is no article for the letter X. Make the article, even though there might not be anyone to put in there. Because there is a gap and that can't happen, according to your edit summary.

No, there isn't currently a gap, because there are simply no monarchs in that list with names starting with an X. However, when we delete the Q article, there is a gap. Where else can one place that entry? In the P or R sublist or so or so? That's quite illogical. (by the way, forgot to log in? :)) Sala Skan 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

I reviewed you. Useight 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot! Sala Skan 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay people AfD

Hey there, I just wanted to apologize if you felt attacked at all in the recent gay people AfD; it just so happens that the maintenance of these lists is one of the basic ongoing tasks of the LGBT WikiProject, so a lot of people have strong opinions about it. It has actually been debated within the Project as well. Anyway, as much as AfDs often annoy me, I can't deny that they usually prompt article improvement. And though I supported keeping the lists, you of course have a valid point and the AfD nomination was perfectly appropriate to submit to the masses! TAnthony 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I noticed, yes. Apparently, this list is a very huge thing by the LGBT WikiProject and is being constantly worked on. I was just wondering how this list wasn't indiscriminate. You guys clarified that at the AfD. Thank you for your kind comment, by the way, I was a little embarrassed when I saw that the AfD had so many speedy keep votes, so I quickly closed it :-). Sala Skan 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	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 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a business trip, I was unable to deliver them all at once. Sorry for the delay. Ral315 » 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, no probs. I read it a few days ago, though, so it doesn't really matter. ;) Sala Skan 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is in it's 5th AfD

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) Lentower 03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment there, thanks for your notification. Sala Skan 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bowker (writer)

Why to do say that this author is not notable. Not the most notable surely, but has a niche in crime and science fiction and have been nominated in the Philip K. Dick award. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that he is not notable, if I thought so I would have tagged the article with {{db-bio}} or nominated it for deletion. I do however, see only one reference, and we need more references to establish notability. Sala Skan 11:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Russian War Relief

I am webmaster of education-research.org and manager of information services of the Education and Research Institute. I believe you tagged the article "Russian War Relief" as "infringing the copyright" of a public domain FBI file, which I posted online. FBI files are public domain and are not copyrighted. Do you know why the header says "Russian war relief" instead of "Russian War Relief"? How can I fix this? Thanks.Mark LaRochelle 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're totally right, it is in fact copied from a public domain resource. I removed the speedy tag, sorry for the inconvenience! Sala Skan 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I moved the page, as you requested. Have a nice day! Sala Skan 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]