This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi SoWhy, can you please check the second reference on the page Jakob Liv Rosted Sverdrup? First, I don't know if it's ok to link to a basic google translation of a page, and second, I don't know if it will work for everybody, or if it's only working for me because I accessed the page (the url itself has loads of numbers and mentions mozilla quite a few times). And third, if it is ok to link to the translation and if it does work for you, is where I put "google translation" ok? I didn't see any already formatted way of doing this on the citation templates page.

I'm still working on the page so forgive any messes. It's a lot better than it was! Thank you, :-) Maedin\ ^talk 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Google Translations will be able to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. They are not very reliable and they tend to screw up the meaning. Even if I cannot find any guideline discouraging it directly, I'd advise against it as per aforementioned reasons. I'd go with WP:EL#Non-English language content and WP:MOSLINK#Non-English-language sites and follow them for that source. Have a nice evening :-) So Why 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gracias, I will use the foreign language guidelines instead, I hadn't been able to find that! Cheers, Maedin\ ^talk 11:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'd suggest though that you do so completely, i.e. try and find an English source for it. It makes it much easier for others to verify. :-) So Why 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for an English source. I hope I manage to find something! Maedin\ ^talk 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that in your message to Traffic 1, you used the jargon WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Please be careful about using these phrases - it would be much more helpful to tell a newcomer that something doesn't satisfy [[WP:NPOV|Wikipedia's rule on neutral point of view]], where the text of the message tells him/her what to expect, than to quote the shortcuts at him/her, even when the shortcuts link to the page. Please notice that in my message I provided a link to NPOV, but the text of the link is "neutral", not NPOV. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Explain jargon#Wikipedia jargon. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a problem. It is quite clear from the post that the user in question is not new to Wikipedia, at least that they already read some of the policies. I did not see any reason to assume this user to be a complete newcomer and thus I did not act like he/she was. Also, as you already did use full-name links, there was no need to use them again. So Why 11:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to be relatively new. Yes, he knows some of hte policies, but I get the impression that he isn't familiar with NPOV. Even if it would make sense that COI is short for Conflict of Interest, I don't see how he could be expected to guess that NPOV is the same as "neutral". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I was under another impression. My impression was that this user was sent by the people he claims to represent, who in turn must have told him/her about why it is not allowed to create such article at the moment. I will bear your words in mind and be more careful in the future. Regards So Why 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, I was wondering, are you interested in having a request for adminship anytime soon? I'd like to nominate you if that's OK. I think you're well qualified for it. What do you think? how do you turn this on 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the kind words and thanks for the offer. I'd like to accept it but I am currently waiting for a response by Dweller, who promised me a look at my contribs, before deciding. If his response is positive and if he decides to nominate me (which I think would be nice of him), then I'd happy about a co-nomination by you, if you want. I will notify you about my decision and be happy about your support if your offer is still valid then. Regards So Why 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. how do you turn this on 13:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've not yet had a chance to look into your contrib history. The permalink was a good idea. Might drop you a little questionnaire. Watch this space. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. That's why I used the permalink after all^^ I'm looking forward and am thankful for your help. Regards So Why 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied here. A while back, a user had made the imho great suggestion to create a very similar option to automatically include a link to a custom Google search. user: Everyme 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See below. – xeno ( talk) 01:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content

Alan Fine (born June 12, 1953) is an author, executive coach, consultant and speaker. Fine began his career as a tennis coach in the United Kingdom. In the late 1970’s he worked with Graham Alexander and Sir John Whitmore using Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game as part of their coaching process. An outcome of their work was the development of the performance model G.R.O.W. (Goal, Reality, Options, Way Forward/Will).

Fine has coached athletes in Europe and the United States. They include Davis Cup tennis team member Buster Mottram, PGA member Stephen Ames, CBS golf commentator and Ryder Cup participant David Feherty, and European PGA golfers Colin Montgomery, Phillip Price, Paul Lawrie, Bradley Dredge and David Llewellyn. He has also worked with Professional Squash player Phil Kenyon, the British Olympic Fencing team and the Welsh Amateur Golf Team.

In 1985 Alan Fine founded InsideOut Development, a professional training and organizational consulting firm. He consults with individuals and organizations to increase performance, as well as providing executive coaching and leadership training.

Alan Fine is the author of Play to Win Golf (w/ David Feherty) and InsideOut Golf: How to Achieve Peak Performance as well as a contributing author to Coaching for Leadership by the Drucker Foundation. He is the author of the book InsideOut: Discovering and Doing What’s Possible. Fine has also contributed articles to GolfWorld and Golf International.

Basic ideas

Several principles common through Fine’s writings:

• Performance increase comes from the Inside Out

• Performance = Capacity – Interference

• Keys to performance – Faith (what people believe), Fire (what people have passion about) and Focus (what people pay attention to)

• Use of the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Way Forward)

• Change comes when a person is performance driven, not coach driven (dependent)

Biography

Alan Fine was born on June 12, 1953. He moved to the United States in 1993. He resides with his wife Penny and two children, Kristin and Tim, in Sandy, Utah.

References

Alan Fine profile at IE Consulting

Players Champion Credits InsideOut Founder GolfersMag.com

Nicholson, Ewan, The Truth about Stephen Ames, ScoreGolf Magazine, June 2008, pgs. 19, 22, 24-25

Fine, Alan (1999). InsideOut Golf: How to Achieve Peak Performance, ISBN: 0967253004

External Links

Website of InsideOut Development

ASTD June 2008 Keynote speech: Understanding and Influencing Breakthrough Performance

Hey there, I saw you participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamesontai 2, so I concluded you are online at the moment. I !voted neutral just before you, citing a deleted page ( Creating new wikipedia article) that the candidate tagged CSD#A7. He replied that the page might have been updated after his tagging, so I'd like to ask if you could provide me a copy of the specific revision which he tagged as {{ db-a7}}. Regards So Why 10:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He tagged the article as {{ db-bio}}, two minutes after it was created. It was not edited any further and was deleted after a further 26 minutes. The article was about a motivational speaker and I would not have deleted or tagged it as A7 myself. Hope this helps. Stifle ( talk) 10:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither would I. I cited this as a reason for poor judgement with CSD (on his side as well as on the deleting admin's side). He just said it could have been edited after tagging and I wanted to make sure that the deleted version was the same as the tagged one, so my !vote was not reasoned incorrectly. Thank you very much for your help! :-) So Why 10:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put Korelko up on the translation board instead, if it's still a advert we can just speedy it later. Whispe ring 09:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I could gather from the links, it looked very spammy, but your reasoning is correct. Good idea to post it there. I left a note there, so that whoever works on it knows why I tagged it for speedy and can re-tag it if they conclude it's correct (without having to translate it first). Regards So Why 09:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I guess I don't really feel like anything has changed after my RfA. The only difference is that now I use block, protect, and delete rather than AIV, RFPP, and CSD. Cheers! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting me, lets be friends, by the way i saw you were a socialist that is pretty funny. :) No Hollaback Girl ( talk) 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I gathered as much from the heading you chose, although I do not see what is funny about that. I guess you are underage, so I advise you really try and hide your true age by acting more mature around here. People will not take you seriously if you act like a child, no matter if you really are one. Also, some people will definitely take it personally if you call their political, social or religious conviction "funny", which they will gather as not very WP:CIVIL. You should take care to avoid such things with other people here.

But I will see past this for now and be glad to adopt you, trying to show you how to behave and work here. Your first task is to replace the {{adoptoffer|SoWhy}} on your user page with {{adoptee|SoWhy}}. Come back here, if you have any questions about the project and working here. Regards So Why 10:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope i didn't offend you with that counter revolutionary comment i was only joking, by the way i am a kid i hope that is okay with you. My question is how can i stop those bourgeois vandals you use a thing called huggle can i get that. No Hollaback Girl ( talk) 11:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, you do not need to create a new section for every comment, just edit the current one and add the new comment below it (preferably indented with one or multiple ":", depending on how many the person before you used). Second, I am not offended, I just wanted to point out that others might be. Try to heed WP:CIVIL and be extra nice.

Third, I know I was correct regarding your age. You should hide it better though, as I said above, to avoid that it becomes a factor in discussions. It will do so if you show it readily.

Then, for your question: Huggle is a tool for Windows that can be found at WP:HG. You should not use it though until you have made yourself familiar with our policies regarding what constitutes as vandalism (see WP:VAN). It also needs a special flag called rollback which has to be requested independently. You have no edit history to speak of and thus you will certainly fail when trying to request it. You should try and revert vandalism without it for now, using the undo-feature (see the link). You can most likely find such vandalism when looking at Special:Recentchanges. Regards So Why 11:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noted the reason I posted on AN/I instead of RFPP. I was an admin once also, and amongst other things I actually started WP:AN. :-) Tbsdy lives ( talk) 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were? Well, that makes one of us then ;-)

But okay, thanks for the message, I appreciate telling me. I just assumed you were an user who does not know the way and I tried to be helpful. Well, we both learnt something from it so it was not that bad. Have a nice day! :-) So Why 11:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's cool - I was actually surprised and happy that there are helpful people on Wikipedia! - Tbsdy lives ( talk) 10:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, SoWhy, I have a bit of a convoluted question for you!

I've noticed while reading about the United States Constitution that most articles on amendments to the Constitution are considered proper and capitalised as such, including the word Amendment itself. For example, Child Labor Amendment. There are several amendments in one place at List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, and scanning through that I see that each page on a specific amendment has been capitalised.

At United States Constitution#Unratified amendments I noticed that the article Titles of Nobility amendment does not capitalise the word amendment, which is different from the way that the others have been done. There is a redirect at Titles of Nobility Amendment and I checked its move log–there is nothing there to suggest that it used to be capitalised and was then changed. I also checked the history of the current article and see that it was created in 2003, and that the redirect was created a whole year later.

I've read the guidelines on WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and have followed lots of the links to other related guidelines, and don't see anything specific on amendments. My best guess is that consistency is the ideal, and that as the majority of amendments have been capitalised, that this one should be, too. I'm a little bit wary, though, of making the move, or even suggesting it on the talk page. Do you think I should be bold and move "Titles of Nobility amendment" to "Titles of Nobility Amendment", putting the redirect at the former article instead, or should I propose it on the talk page first, or do you think I should keep my nose out of it and leave it all as is?

Hope that wasn't too confusing.  :-/ Thanks! Maedin\ ^talk 12:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, nice play on words with the heading ;-)

Then, about your question: I'd say it falls into the "proper name" category, i.e. the word "amendment" is usually written with a capitalized "A" and is even done so in the article itself (and has not been challenged). Moving it should not cause any problems but just confirm that. You should be bold more often. In such cases, just move it over the redirect or if that does not work, request it at WP:RM. All that can happen is that someone moves it back or denies the request. Then you can always discuss it at the talk page. If you don't want to be that bold, just post at the talk page. Maybe there is a good reason noone added yet. Or maybe noone bothered to fix it until now. You cannot learn without being willing to risk to make mistakes. Be glad that no mistakes at Wikipedia are permanent :-) So Why 12:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will try to be bold about it. Now I have to decide if I can move it myself or if I should go to WP:RM. I followed your link and it looks scary! :)))))

Glad you enjoyed the play on words. It gets better.

So, why the username?

Thank you for your reply! Oh, and congrats on the new adoptee! Maedin\ ^talk 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do that. Try to move it yourself, I am uncertain whether you can move stuff over a redirect without being an admin or you need to request a move. You will see :-)

Why the username? Well, that's quite simple: "So, why?" is my usual reaction to many things I do not understand. I always strive to understand them and thus I ask "why" they are that way ;-)

Well, thanks for the congrats. We will see if she is one to stay. My other two adoptees are inactive, you prove to be a rare find. As I said before, you are destined for more in the future :-) So Why 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to move it, but it didn't work straight away so I listed it at WP:RM under the Uncontroversial moves section. An admin moved it shortly after that, hurray! No complaints so far. Thank you for your help and encouragement :)

I wondered if "So, why?" was the reason, I like it. Intelligent curiosity is one of those key things, in my opinion, that helps to make "the difference".

I hope she sticks around, too, but retention is notoriously poor. It's a potluck, so you just keep fishing, :-) Have a great Friday, nearly the weekend! Cheers, Maedin\ ^talk 08:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See, I told you it's no big deal. Most things aren't and if they really are, you can usually talk about it. I like the way you phrased the request too, very good reasoning :-)

Glad we agree on that. It's correct as well, because if you are not curious, how can you learn? It's my core being curious on why things are the way they are. That and being really rational to the point that people sometimes call me cold-hearted. But that's a price I gladly pay ;-) But that's the reason of my nickname (that and because "RationalGuy" just sounds lame^^)

Well, we can't all love Wikipedia, there must be people around to do other things or else all hell will break loose. ;-) You too have a great day, I for myself will try to despite sitting in a library, trying to read some boring essay... So Why 08:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy, matey! Shiver me timbers, if ye ain't right, no big deal a'tall! I spy meself boldness on the horizon, full sail, ho!

Aye & avast, 'tis truth. Curiosity & SoWhy be a good thing, I'll warrant, and "RationalGuy" be buried in Davy Jones' Locker!

I reckon me unfit to answer ye third paragraph, us pirates ain't so literate as to know all them clever learnin' words. Which is to say, that I can't figure out how to say anything else in pirate. I give up!

Anchors aweigh! Maedin\ ^talk 12:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Avast, ye saucy wench. A wench of me likin ye be, yarr. Tis be good seas to sail on, me lass! Arrrr, let us be sailin for tis horizon, yarr!

Arrrr, me be happy with tis words ye be speakin, arrr! Tis be fillin me heart with joy! And rum, yarrr!

Me be hopin ye be hostin the colors an' sailin off to be plunderin! Keel-haul those lubbers, arrr! So Arrr! Why 12:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you so much!! You just made my day! :-))))

And a pirate after me own heart, ye be! Hoist the jolly roger, rig the sails, uncork the bottle, ahoy! Maedin\ ^talk 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you right away. I intended to, then got bogged down with on and off wiki stuff. My activity is actually waning as of late due to personal issues, so I won't be able to adopt User:Leahtwosaints. By all means, if you have the time, adopt him/her : ) Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I will see if I decide to. Got 4 of them already, luckily two are inactive, but nonetheless. Cheers me matey ;-) So Arrr! Why 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

...didn't you tell me you did this? Syn ergy 06:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not think it very important, more of a housecleaning task. I just figured that noone can use an infobox that is not in it's own article and so I thought it best to move it there. I thought you are watching the essay anyway and will notice it in the history. Sorry if you haven't, I will take care to tell you such things in the future. Thanks for telling me. Regards. So Why 07:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

hello how are you. I got an antivandal tool which is pretty awesome. Any advice, Bye. by the way i found these things called barn stars and think you should get one

		The Guidance Barnstar
		message No Hollaback Girl ( talk) 06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, good for you. You should read up on barnstars though, you need to replaced the "message" part with a personal message as to why you give this user a barnstar. Once you figured that out, you should give them out freely but do not overdo it. Otherwise people will not think they are a real sign of appreciation and that would not be a good thing. Have a nice day So Why 07:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I am using the {{ talkback}} (or {{ tb}}) template to notify you of my replies here. It's just a short reminder and you should remove them from your talkpage by removing the {{tb|SoWhy}} at the top. So Why 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the approach for handling the underlying issue ("present" vs. numeric dates) is dispute resolution, but when did dispute resolution become the appropriate avenue to pursue NPA violations. Once he started with the names, they haven't stopped ... started with lazy, went to army brat, and proceeded to pain in the ass without a sense of humor on WP:ANI. There is admin intervention required ... an admonition to Mr. Cupertino that WP:NPA is policy, and warning him that he will be blocked even if others decide that he is right in the underlying dispute. Kww ( talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA fully. It also says that the first step to respond such attacks should be seeking dispute resolution ( Wikipedia:NPA#Initial options). Reports to WP:AN or especially WP:ANI should be avoided in all cases that are not completely severe. Regards So Why 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks again for helping me, would it be ok to remove that section now? Ill leave it up to you   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, glad I could be of help. You may remove it of course if you think it wise. Thank you for asking though. So Why 10:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

insomnia

so will you talk to me? i only effed up that article for attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.3.195 ( talk) 11:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What exactly do you want? I am sorry to say but this is not a community site but an encyclopedia. You should try MySpace or suchlike if you want someone to talk to. So Why 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

insomnia redux

but why? trolling is so much more fun on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.3.195 ( talk) 12:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is no fun at all, destroying the work of thousands of people. It's more likely childish and immature. I advise you seek another platform for that, because you will only be banned if you continue here. So Why 13:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

sohey

aw, c'mon now, i thought we were building a relationship here! you can't just dump and ban me! we have a commitment! i want to make this wooork, don't leave me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.3.195 ( talk) 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I cannot really see that to be true. If you really want to work contructively, then you should head to WP:EDIT and learn how to edit here instead of making bad puns at my talk page. I advise you use your time by making useful contributions rather than writing on my talk page. So Why 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Having trouble with User:Pieterbotha and User:Joe40oz. These two accounts were created only 3 minutes apart from each other and are editing similar pages, Mike McCurry (referee) and Ian Paisley, so I suspect they are sockpuppets at the very least. The information they are adding is libellous and defamatory. Twice at the Mike McCurry page and once at the Ian Paisley page, User:Pieterbotha has undone my edits undoing his edits. I think it's only a matter of time before he does the same at the Ian Paisley page, and I don't want to get into an edit war, lol. So, my questions are: do I report suspected sockpuppetry or do I need more solid evidence? Do I go to Mike McCurry where MY edits have been reverted and re-revert them? If so or if not, should I take this to a noticeboard for administrator attention, even though they technically haven't received the right number of warnings? Is it an edit war if it's just vandalism? Helllpppp :)))) Maedin\ ^talk 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, for such posts, I recommend using {{ user}} (e.g. {{user|Pieterbotha}} for Pieterbotha ( talk · contribs)) to allow people to easily access the talk and contribs pages. Then, if you suspect sockpuppetery, you can report it at WP:SSP. Alternatively you can ask for a checkuser to see if both accounts are using the same IP at WP:RFCU. This would mean a clear block.

But you can warn them both for adding negative unsourced claims like you did before, reporting them to WP:AIV if it becomes more than 4 warnings or to WP:AN/3RR if they do more than three reverts to those articles. Usually it's no violation of 3RR or edit warring if you revert vandalism. But I will have those articles on my watchlist as well for now. So Why 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about the user template, I will use that in the future! This whole thing made me nervous, especially after he vandalised my user page :(((( So I forgot to subst: a template (oh god, how embarrassing!) and added an empty section when I filled in this 3RR report. I hope I haven't made any other really stupid mistakes, lol, otherwise the comments he added to my user page can be considered true! Maedin\ ^talk 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. There is also {{ admin}} and {{ crat}} for admins and crats respectively (adding more specific links). Good to see that on of those editors was blocked now, it should tell you that you were acting correctly. Also, it's no big deal if you forget to subst: a template, there is a bot running to make such changes if necessary. Don't forget, your mistakes are only stupid if you fail to learn from them. ;-) So Why 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA nomination, SoWhy. I appreciate the confidence. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm considering nominating you for RfA.

Please could you list below your last 10 significant AfD contributions. I'm especially interested in seeing AfDs you've nommed, responded to first, or "swam against the tide", so if there's none of them in the last 10, feel free to make the list longer. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all: Cool :-)

Second, I am afraid I am not much of a AfD person, I think (and SQL's tool agrees) I never nominated an article for AfD, I usually patrol new pages and do CSD work and PRODs. Being an inclusionist at heart, I usually do not bother with AfDing articles because I feel that what cannot be speedy-deleted or PRODed might be worth keeping.

Here's some AfDs I voted in in the last weeks:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Smith (2nd nomination) - you know that one, you nommed it ;-)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Smith and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Hartigan - per nom, but with cmt
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 25#Template:Ongoing legal case
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 24 DRV for "European English"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Europe

As I said, it's not much, I am more a vandal-fighting, new-page-patrolling, ANI/AN-watching kind of guy. Thanks again though whatever you decide to do! Regards So Why 09:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and helpful.

Q2 - answer/don't answer as you wish - what prompted the massive surge of editing in the last couple of months? What kind of level do you think you'd plateau at, medium term, say over the next six months or so? -- Dweller ( talk) 10:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a user of Wikipedia for four years now. In the past I was doing some fixes as I saw them (I created Al Bundy as a redirect for example which was that way for over a year) but I usually thought it more of a taking than a giving. The last months I decided to have a better look at the processes, mainly sparked by my newfound interest in Doctor Who, which lead me to WP:DW and from there to working with those articles. I knew most basic policies and guidelines already but never ventured too far into the "dark", so to speak. But somehow I felt a need to help others which prompted me to revamp my outlook on Wikipedia. And from the DW-related articles I went to other areas, started watching AN/ANI, went patrolling new pages, got rollback and started Huggling, adopted other newbies (as I never thought myself a newbie^^) and generally tried to help out as best as I could.

I think I will keep it up this way, maybe even more edits due to admin related things, if I pass a RfA. The 2500 edits spark in July, in case you were wondering, was mainly due to my work re-assessing Doctor Who related articles, I think I reviewed a thousand of them with the newly-introduced C-class. I think I will aim for 1000-1500 edits a month in the future and I think I can maintain that easily. :-) So Why 10:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

<e/c - I'll read the above in a mo'> Q3 Re: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_24. I'd be interested to know what you now think about the debate surrounding your contributions at this DRV. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it afterwards, I think I should have phrased some things better. But I read it after it was closed and I still think my contribution was correct. I tend to vote for re-list if there can be any doubt there was an error in judgment with the closing admin and I still think that happy-melon at least sounded POV in that closing statement. After all, a new TfD will not hurt anyone but with a bunch of now interested users, it would have been much easier to reach enough discussion for consensus.

I am not really sure there was much debate about my viewpoint, Black Kite argued that he thought the keep votes were poor and he might have been correct. But he also conceded that a new TfD would not hurt anyone. Unfortunate to see was, as most DRVs go, that some people discussed the subject rather than the process. I was not in favor of keeping the template, it was useless. But I thought it weird that noone except Black Kite considered the DRV-starter's notion that the closing admin's statement sounded POV. I'd have wished that people discussed the DRV as nominated, not only looked at the TfD and then endorsed the close.

As said above, I am unsure whether I understood your question correctly, so please tell me, if I didn't. TIA So Why 11:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, but I think BlackKite and WilyD's comments to you are important. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WilyD's comment is correct. As I said above, I should have phrased it better. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy but somehow I must have sounded like I thought it was. I am trying now to be more careful with my words to avoid such mistakes. We all have to learn after all. My point was that I personally did not think the delete-reasoning much more convincing than the keep-reasoning and that there was no real support for either reasoning that could be called consensus.

As for Black Kite, I respect this admin very much and I guess the points he/she made were not bad. I must have failed to point out that I was not really in favor of keeping the template, just in favor of re-TfDing it to create a stronger consensus. I learnt from this discussion to phrase my actual reasoning better. It can always happen that someone judges an argument stronger or weaker and Black Kite was kind enough to point this out. :-) So Why 11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy that you consider me a good candidate. I will take care of the process when I get home this evening, because my g/f will kill me, if I do it now ;-)

Thanks again for your help and trust! :-) Regards So Why 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, good luck. Please let me know on my talk page when you choose to transclude it. Remember to reset the closing time accurately, using UTC or drop a note to WP:BN asking a Crat to do it if you're not sure how. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey SoWhy. Your RfA page was in my watchlist so I saw it anyway and decided to support straight off thinking it was live, but I had to revert that upon finding it wasn't. Anyway, I've been a bit bold and co-nommed you. Hope you don't mind. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't, I head to go out for a while, otherwise my g/f would have killed me. I am happy about your co-nom, it means a lot to me. I transcluded it now, wish me luck :-) So Why 18:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck and good start, straight supports! — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God (sorry I know you're an atheist), Congradulations SoWhy you're going to be an Administrator I'm so proud of you. If you need my support like in a vote or however you get elected just ask me. By the way I need some help, using my anti vandal software (Pretty Awesome) I find vandalised pages and I revert the edit but what do I if the vandal has made numerous edits when I revert the fist one the rest of the vandalisations are still there and when i revert the last one it says there has been a conflict of edits or something, help. No Hollaback Girl ( talk) 05:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks. We will see. Then, you are a user of Wikipedia and such entitled to vote in RfAs as you like. I advise you do that as often as you can, as it allows the community to shape consensus better if more people vote in them. I will not ask for support, not only because canvassing is rather bad for everything but also because you must know yourself if you do support someone or not. And if you support someone, you should give a reason. " I like them!" is usually not very convincing on its own.

If you need to revert multiple edits, go to the edit history ("history" tab) and select the last un-vandalized version (i.e. not by the person you want to remove) on the left button and the last vandalized with the right button. Then click "Compare selected versions" and you will get a diff. And you can click " undo" to revert all those changes back (remember to note what you did in the edit summary). If it tells you, it cannot be undone, you have to manually review the changes afterwards and remove the vandalism per hand.

An edit conflict happens when someone started editing after you did and saved it before you could or if you start editing and someone saves a new version while you are working at it. You will have to manually compare and rework your edits to the new text. Seee also Help:Edit conflict for a full explanation. Regards So Why 08:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and what ever you do don't change your userbox you have a right to express youself. p.s i voted for you :) No Hollaback Girl ( talk) 08:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. And I won't. It would look like trying to appease to those voters, which is not the way to go. While I respect other's opinions, it is no use to give the impression that such arguments work. Our goal should be that everyone only judges the other's contributions, not their philosophical point of view. Otherwise we will all go around, assuming bad faith and starting personal attack instead of working together on creating an encyclopedia. So Why 08:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to elaborate on that. Would you like me to explain my reasoning here, or on the RfA page? Cheers, – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wherever you think it best. I am just curious after all :-) So Why 12:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I just asked at your talk and for after the RfA because I thought you did not want to elaborate as you had not specified which Q&A prompted the change of vote. So Why 12:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Don't let my strictness discourage you. :) You're a good editor, and I very well might change back to support. Cheers, – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I did comment on your comment on the RfA, if you do not mind (else I will remove it). Not trying to convince you but I fear I must have misphrased my answers and I wanted to make my reasoning clear. Thanks again for your effort :-) So Why 13:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I built an article about Princess Marie (1874-1878), a granddaughter of Queen Victoria (1819-1901) and posted it there. 24 later it was removed, because it was "not relevated for the German Wikipedia".

Here is an article about Marie, that's very well.

That's my problem in the German Wikipedia. I built articles and they were deleted.

The people here are yery nice. Better than in the German Wikipedia. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the German Wikipedia has a very strict definition of WP:N, which is why I came here. The users there are, well, Germans...and I don't like that even though I am one myself ;-)

On the plus side, if you work with us here, you will be able to learn some English, which is not bad as well. You should really heed my advice about the edit summaries and the preview button though. People will label you as a newbie for as long as you don't change that, which will weaken your position in discussions. Have a nice evening :-) So Why 18:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: You should also add the userbox I told you about on your talk page.

P.P.S.: I used the {{ talkback}} ({{ tb}} for short) template to notify you of these replies. Those templates serve only to notify you of replies and can be removed as soon as you see them. So Why 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

@SoWhy

How are you ?

You are right. Its very good to be here. I passed the A-Level with the mark "C" , but thats many years ago. I read some books in english and unterstand a lot of the sentences, not all.

In the German Wikipedia there are Austrians - like me - too. German and Austrian are different languages. ;)

I wish you a nice day. And hope I can come back there in the evening. Don't worry, all is well, for example my health.

But I have to do so many things, not here. :( They are a little bit important then the Wikipedia. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 12:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I passed it with an "A", because I learned English on the web for years. It's just a process of training and writing it all the time, it improves your skills. I will correct you once in a while, if you don't mind.

You do not have to tell me that German and Austrian are different languages. If you look at my user page, you'll notice that I am an Austrian citizen as well, my mother is from Salzburg, too. ;-)

Hope you have a good day as well. Have fun doing whatever you have to do ;-)

PS: The correct grammar for that last part is "They are a little bit more important than the Wikipedia."

On a Wikipedia note, I really wished you'd use edit summaries all the time like I told you to and added the "adoption"-userbox to your userpage. Also, you can remove the {{tb|SoWhy}} from your talk page once you noticed it. So Why 13:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I study in Salzburg, but I live in Oberösterreich (you know, what Oberösterreich is ?) . It's the nearst university. I go by bus to Salzburg in the morning and returne in the evening. The next term starts on October 6.

I'm very sorry, that I think you are from Germany. Its a very bad mistake.

I hope, I'll see you this weekend. Tomorrow I have no time for the Wikipedia. But on the weekend.

My next projects are articles about: Rosemarie von Trapp (1929), Eleonore von Trapp Campbell (1931) and Johannes von Trapp (1939). There are less ressources and pictures too. But I try to give my best. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 18:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, you were correct. I am German as well and I am living in Munich. I just wanted to point out that I have family ties in Austria and thus know my fair bit about the country. Thinking about it, I already voted for the Nationalrat election this sunday via mail (as there are elections here as well on that day). Got both citizenships, you see? :-)

Well, real life is more important. So do not worry :-)

I hope you have fun with those articles, if you need someone looking through them and checking for grammar mistakes, I will try to help if you want me to :-)

Wikipedia related: The things I told you about the userbox for adoption and the talkback templates, you should really heed my comments! ;-) So Why 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The elections are in Austria on Sunday. Let's see, what happens. ;)

I want to have the Kings and Queens back. :( In Austria and in Germany. There are so many people, who have a King or/and a Queen in the family for example Georg Ferdinand of Hohenzollern (born 1976). He has neither a wife, not children.

He is free for me. ;)

Its a very hard work to find ressources about this members of the Trapp Family and pictures too. Johannes was in Austria in July of this year together with his halfsister Maria Franziska von Trapp. He speaks German, but he was born in Amerika. Rosemary works as a missionar and Eleonore, who was nicknamed "Lorli", is married to Hugh David Campbell (since 1954), has seven daugthers and a lot of grandchildren.

Ressource: William Anderson/David Wade, "The World of the Trapp Family", 1998. I have this book at home. It's easy to read.

I wish you a nice weekend. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's. I hope I voted for the winner ;-)

Kings and queens, eeek. I am with Sam Vimes on that...monarchy is nothing good for the people. I prefer the current system :-)

Well, if you have a book, you got a source. You can use the {{ cite book}} template to cite from it in the articles :-)

Have a nice weekend! So Why 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do I get the horrible, horrible feeling that your RfA is just going to become a battleground for and against religion? *sigh* — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because some people like to make it so. I hate such discussions, it so far away from WP:CIV as possible. It's not about the contributions anymore, it's about the user. I never ever imagined that this could happen, I have contemplated many reasons for opposing, but not that. I sincerely hope that they have stopped with it now. Such discussions bring out the worst in people and I do not want to be the reason for it. I hope it will stop soon and we can concentrate on the things we want to do, i.e. create an encyclopedia. I understand your feelings exactly though... So Why 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy, I appreciate that you're concerned about what's going down on your RfA at the moment, I am too. I supported you after reviewing your contributions, not because a religious editor opposed you, nor because others objected to that religious editor. I remain confident that my reasons for supporting your candidacy will prevail, ie that your contributions to the 'pedia are sound and that we will all benefit from you having access to the tools. X MarX the Spot ( talk) 11:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my userbox, too :) — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@Xdenizen: We cannot do much more than wait and see. I am very glad that you are this optimistic about it. I really hope your judgment is correct :-)

@Cyclonim: You are welcome. I noticed that some people copied my UBX-tables, which makes me somewhat proud ;-)

So Why 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh the joys of GFDL :D — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one waiting for you. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 06:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I have cleaned up your RFA. fish& karate 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on that, I really appreciate it. :-) So Why 16:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words :-) So Why 16:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For constantly reverting vandalism from Wikipedia. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ( talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate this sign of appreciation. :-) So Why 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good answer to my question on trivia, you have my support. Good luck! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and the support of course. You do a good job cleaning up those sections without deleting the content, keep it up! :-) So Why 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Heyyy, thanks for the change to my userpage :)

I wanted to ask you, why do people put an exclamation mark in front of the word vote? !Vote seems a very silly euphemism to me for something that obviously means vote anyway, so . . . it can't be that, surely?

I also have a hypothetical question. Not hypothetical because I haven't come across the situation, but hypothetical because it was a while ago now and too late to actually do anything about it. An experienced user (recently became an admin, actually) reverted (using Huggle, I think) a good edit which had deleted some content within a section. The diff, however, made it fairly clear that it wasn't just a mass delete – select sentences were retained and sentence structures changed, and because I'm familiar with the article, I know that there has been on-going discussions regarding the need to drastically reduce the size of the article, so the edit was definitely on the right track. It was done by an IP though, and apart from the section heading, there was no edit summary. So, the person who reverted it made a booboo, in my opinion, and I seem to have been the only one to spot it. It's too late to just undo, so I plan to go back and edit the text to reflect the IP's original edit. So, having said all of that, the question is: should I have told the admin about his revert (not just an undo) to a perfectly acceptable edit? Should I go to the IP's talk page and delete the vandalism warning? Or do I go there and just leave a comment, saying that the warning was left in error? Or do I just let it go? Presumably, it isn't a mistake which is likely to happen again or very often.

And one other thing: did you get my email? It was ages ago now. And I sincerely apologise to you for getting involved, too, I had been trying to stay away! It seems like the more one tries to stay away, the more one is likely to then come charging in, guns blazing or sword raised or axe swinging or...ok, I've run out of weapons. Enjoy your Sunday! :) Maedin\ ^talk 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.

The !vote indicates that things like RfAs are no votes (in the " Wikipedia is not a democracy"-sense of the way) but discussion points. The ! comes from programming languages, where it usually indicates that something it NOT to be done (i.e. if (! $i = "hello" ) in PERL will only execute if $i is NOT "hello").

If someone makes a mistake, you should always tell them. They might really have done so or maybe they knew more than you did about it. Talking about it will usually not hurt anyone. If not really needed (to prevent a block for example), you should not remove other people's warnings. If you tell the admin in question that it was placed in error, I am sure he will remove it him-/herself. But I think it's nice of you to try and work the edits back in the text, remember to indicate it in your ES though :-)

No, I did not get any email from you. There is also none in my junk mail folder. What was it about, that you are apologising for? So Why 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand about the programming language and wikipedia not being a democracy – still find its usage slightly strange. I'll make sure not use vote without the !, I wouldn't want to be accused of thinking a vote is actually being taken. I can clear up that misunderstanding just by using the "secret code", so !vote it is. Sorry for the sarcasm, lol, I had to giggle about it. It is a euphemism, and most euphemisms are funny, :)

Good points, thank you. It hadn't even occurred to me that if I informed him of his mistake, he would probably remove the warning himself, thereby saving me that whole dilemma. I always make things too complicated, lol.

Ummm, I wonder why you didn't get the email. Are you sure that the email address you have set up with Wikipedia is correct? I know, stupid question, but I don't know what else might have caused you to not get it. It must have worked, because I asked for a copy to be sent to myself, and I received that.

The apology is for the comments I made at your RfA; I had fully intended to be an uninvolved party with a simple support !vote (see? lol), as my status as an adoptee is suspicious enough to begin with (and because I remember Jamie & Majorly). But then, you know, I just...well, I gave in and defended and I don't think I should have. So, the cause of the apology was that: my comments, but the reason to apologise for it is on a few different levels. Adios, señor. Maedin\ ^talk 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just something people use here. I do not think anyone will think otherwise if you forget it and I forget it sometimes too. ;-)

I got my e-mail set up correctly, as I just yesterday received mail fine. Weird thing but if you don't mind, you could send it again :-)

Ah well, RfAs, the drama of Wikipedia. I noticed that you tried to hold back but I also know that some !votes must have seemed very weird and needed some clarification. Still, as all those you responded too did not return to discuss it further, there is nothing for you to apologise for. I have faith that you will try your very best to sound as neutral as possible. I appreciate your help there of course and I do not think it was wrong to do. If you hadn't, someone else would have pointed those things out. I think the drama calmed down now and I hope it's over for good. Still, three days to go to find out if that's so. :-) So Why 14:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent it again. Hope it works this time!

Thank you for understanding, I was worried I might have upset you, :) Maedin\ ^talk 15:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I knowwwwwww, it's me again.

Here just to ask: what does (e/c) mean?

I see it the beginning of a line when someone responds to a comment which isn't the comment directly above theirs, so they usually un-indent to the appropriate margin, too. I tried googling it but I just got stuff on E=mc squared. Maedin\ ^talk 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind, I like you, you know that ;-)

(e/c) stands for edit conflict. It means that someone wrote a reply to the original statement but someone else wrote their reply faster. So the original statement was replied to already, but sometimes (if not answering a question for help) people like to add their reply as well. (e/c) is added to indicate that the poster tried to reply but got into an edit conflict when doing so and to indicate that have not just indented their reply in a wrong way (and that the reply is not to the other reply but to the original statement). I hope that was clear :-) So Why 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhhh. Ok! Perfect sense, thank you! Maedin\ ^talk 08:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Have a nice day! :-) So Why 08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying that up :) Much needed, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It was something I could do while eating my lunch. ;-) So Why 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle! I normally have the dog climbing all over me while I'm eating mine so I need both hands to fend her off! -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, "luckily" I'm at work, so there is just me, my lunch and my PC. ;-) So Why 11:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you wery much for helping me in the begining I have learned a lot. No Hollaback Girl ( talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh...sure, no problem. Are you leaving Wikipedia or do you just want to end the adoptionship? So Why 12:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've add a follow-up to an optional question you've already answered:

• Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical approach is compelling; and for me, what you've already explained is on-point. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?"

It seems reasonable to press for a more fully-developed comment and analysis. In my view, this is a hard, fast pitch, but it is not at all inappropriate in this context. Your answer will be read by a number of editors who would not necessarily pay much attention to what you do or say in other venues. This becomes a unique opportunity to affect the evolving consensus on a key point which comes up again and again in all sorts of circumstances.

Now that your elevation to the ranks of administrators is virtually assured, you have an opportunity to introduce a salutatory comment. In effect, my question becomes an invitation to convert this confirmation exercise into something constructive.C)

Asenine presented a lady or the tiger conundrum -- excellent, unavoidable, illuminating. The only correct answer is the one which illuminates the way in which the alternatives and consequences are evaluated. The question goes to the heart of the reasoning processes which inform good judgment. It also creates an opportunity to grapple with the most difficult challenge which the most highly-valued administrators face with grace and tact -- expressing themselves persuasively and constructively.

Diplomacy is sometimes the art of avoiding saying anything which might possibly cause a ripple of a problem to arise; and many appear to have been persuaded that this kind of non-specific diplomatic prose will serve Wikipedia's broader, long-term objectives. I see the merit in that cautious, restrained attitude; however, in my view, in this very limited setting, that approach is misplaced. This is a unique opportunity and a more revealing answer to a difficult question should be seen as appropriate, seemly, and welcome. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I will answer here the same as on the RfA: There is nothing more to elaborate on. The example provided is sufficiently short and basic - it does not allow further answering. You can answer what is to be done - discuss the edits, try to change consensus, using the various dispute resolution tools available to the community. One cannot give a more thoughtful response if the question does not give away more details. So I am uncertain as to how you think I could give a different response to this question and I would like you to tell me how you think this can be done or why you feel this could be necessary. Regards So Why 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've already acknowledged, "your rhetorical approach is compelling; and for me, what you've already explained is on-point." Nothing needs to be added; and indeed, you may know that you already have my support in this RfA.

In this context, I am sorry to admit that the conceptual approach you favor is by no means universally accepted or applied. Perhaps your experiences have been different than mine, but the fact-of-the-matter is that I have encountered only a few who would have responded to Asenine's question as you have done. I could go further -- I suspect that Buckshot06 perceives no issues as lady or the tiger conundrums -- not that this should be a reason to deny his desire to become an administrator ... but the conceptual gap, if valid, becomes noteworthy and dispriting.

I'm concerned that your pragmatic step-by-step plan for addressing prospective, impossible-to-parse conflicts between WP:Consensus and WP:Verifiabilty is not as commonplace as I would have hoped. Just take a minute or two to scan the corollary responses to Asenine's question in the few active RfA threads. There is something unsettling, in this, because I doubt that you see your own outreach skills as standing out starkly.

It occurred to me that RfA creates a unique venue. The invitation for an open-ended response to Asenine's question was a genuine gesture, an informed attempt to encourage you to present a restatement. It seemed remotely plausible that this narrowly-focused venue might be converted into an opportunity for something more constructive to develop. I simply thought I'd give it a try; and obviously, you are letting me know that this tentative strategy needs much more work and further refinement. -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your RfA closed as successful! Congrats! Nice userbox, by the way :) Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you just got promoted. Good luck. I am sure someone else will come along shorty to give you your shirt. Now, get to work!- Icewedge ( talk) 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Your so popular people are getting in edit conflicts and double posting just to congratulate you ;) - Icewedge ( talk) 01:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Just in case you are wondering what this is about, here is the context - Icewedge ( talk) 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fucking internet connexion. Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with a large majority of editors supporting your RfA! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You may notice that the closure is a few hours ahead of time - my mistake. If anyone complains, point them my way. Warofdreams talk 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have, hence I was a bit confused. But I assume that you know what you are doing ;-) So Why 06:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad that you've proven me wrong in !voting neutral, and I wish you the best of luck as an administrator. Welcome to the club. :-) – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion. I have no doubt that you'll be an excellent admin. Also I was very impressed with the grace and dignity you showed during the RfA process. Be well, X MarX the Spot ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I second the comment by X MarX the Spot. Cirt ( talk) 05:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks everyone, I am really really surprised as to how many people supported my RfA. I will not send out RfA-thank-spam but thank you all for !voting on it here. Have a wonderful day! :-) So Why 06:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurray, SoWhy, congratulations!! I'm so happyyyyy!

Because it closed early I didn't have a chance to voice support, which is what I get for leaving it until the very last minute. Comments above me have said it well; your response to the entire thing was always level and thoughtful and polite. I got more worked up than you did! You'll do such a fine job as an admin, :-) Maedin\ ^talk 06:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maedin. As you can see, it was not needed but I am happy to know that you intended it. As for your behaviour there, it was quite good, given the circumstances. I think you will be able to learn the patience I got when you stay with us for some time and I think you may pass an RfA easily in a few months if you keep up your work here. So Why 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't seem to have done any damage, so that's a relief! But could have done much better, :-)

So pleased you made it! Maedin\ ^talk 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Now get to work..... :) Pedro :  Chat  07:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. I will...later on. I planned with the RfA running until I come home tonight and then starting with it. Now my planning is obsolete, but I really have to finish a paper of 25 pages within the next 5 days and so I will now, sitting in the library, hopefully get my ass to work on it ;-) So Why 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell yea! Just don't go rouge... that's the last thing we need right now. ;) — Sunday · (Testify!) 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I have yet to decide which way to go. But I doubt I will go rogue - I don't want to choose a style that already got it's own article and a bunch of followers. That's kind of like those "alternative" kids who buy their spiky wristbands and skull-necklaces in the department store next door. So, now that I got myself some enemies, who wants to beat me first? ;-) So Why 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new mop and bucket! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MD =) So Why

Indeed, congrats! Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you are taking to be a claim of notability? I only see an assertion that he is a writer, a few notes about what he has written, and an assertion that he is working as an archivist. — Largo Plazo ( talk) 07:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that he has published several books and articles in his field of study, which is enough to imply a certain notability. He might not be notable after all and I advise you start an article for deletion process to determine it. Here the article's took great care to even add references which I think this can be seen as a try to assert notability. I really suggest you take it to WP:AFD which will also allow the creator to expand the article if needed. Regards So Why 07:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Largo Plazo ( talk) 07:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, congrats on your RfA! Just a note about RfPP requests; it's probably not necessary to remove requests shortly after fulfilment, as they eventually get removed by a bot. I don't know about you, but I generally preferred to leave the requests there in case anyone queried it shortly after occurrence. Just some food for thought. :) Congrats again! PeterSymonds (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks. Then, actually, I just removed that particular request because protection for this page has been requested already below. I think it's a good thing to leave them but I think if the user returns and looks up "Texas", it will find the other request and see its outcome, so there is no need to have an article listed twice.

But generally I am in favor of keeping them, in fact I once suggested that there should be an archive for those requests so you can look it up within the next few days (before it gets deleted from the archive). Unfortunately, my request to the owner of the bot which cleans that page has not been answered. Regards So Why 09:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, duh! Sorry. :) I was just rushing out and it popped up on my watchlist, so I didn't investigate. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for trying to help anyway, I appreciate it :-) So Why 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to adminship :) I'll join you, someday! You're my first nomination (well, co-nom) too :) Have fun! — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure you will! :-) So Why 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why'd you delete my article? It said it didn't show significance of a real person, Andrew Bradt IS real! He's just not well known... yet. | Nitsed00 ( talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Love Always, Dan :]<3

Because whoever he is, the article you created did not assert why he should be considered notable. Please read the introduction to editing to avoid such deletions in future. Regards So Why 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hi

you have just deleted the newly created page of eMailaya because it an advertisement how come incerdimail does have a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incredimail and i can not put one of my own?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailaya ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the example you cite is not written like an advertisement (see also Wikipedia is not a soapbox for adverising). Please see the relevant criterion for speedy deletion that was applied. You are welcome to write an article but keep in mind that you are in a conflict of interest. If you choose to do so, keep in mind that articles on Wikipedia need to follow the notability and verifiability policies. Regards So Why 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

was the page deleted completely or can i somehow edit it again? im sorry but after reading the advertisement link, i still didnt find the reason why incredimail's page is not considered as advertisement but mine did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailaya ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the article you created was just a list of which features your software has and why it should be considered a good software. We at Wikipedia have to adhere to a neutral point of view though and your article has been clearly written to promote the application. I can supply you with a copy of the deleted page but I advise you not to create a new article yourself as your conflict of interest will make it unlikely for you to be neutral. Regards So Why 08:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

please send me the copy of the page so i can re-edit it. it contained much more than just the features but i will try to do my best this time. if you still wont approve it. delete it and i will say nothing. agreed? just one note with you permission: it is obvious that incredimail's (and other such applications) pages is purely advertisement. Tell me please what might be considered more as an advertisement: a LTD company with a page of its main software or someone private who develops a freeware application? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailaya ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please stop trying to discredit other articles and their subjects. As you can see on incredimail, the neutrality is disputed. But yet it's quite neutral in tone and style, not trying to hide criticism or only promoting its features. You should probably try to match Mozilla Thunderbird more, which has no disputed neutrality. I will post a copy of the deleted article on your talk page, you should probably try and create a new article within your user space (for example at User:Emailaya/Emailaya) and move it to the article space once you think it can pass notability and verifiability. If you need further help editing Wikipedia, there is always the guide to editing and the help desk. Regards So Why 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

regarding incredimail, on the contrary but this is not relevant anymore. please put the deleted page on my talk page and i will continue from there. thanks. Emailaya ( talk) 09:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you, i re-edit the content and made it more "official" and less "wishful thinking". i hope this time it will be ok with u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailaya ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Doh! My bad for trying to speedy it, I blame the lack of coffee. - TexMurphy ( talk) 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I know how it is without caffeine, fortunately my employer supplies me with endless amounts of it ;-) So Why 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When blocking educational institutes for an extended period of time (>1 month), consider using {{ schoolblock}} as the blocking reason - this way when a (potentially good faith) person tries to edit from the school they will be shown the template and given guidance on how to edit around the block. – xeno ( talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Thanks for telling me. I will do so in future. Regards :-) So Why 14:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Gratz on the successful RFA btw =) – xeno ( talk) 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh and nice job with the {{ admindashboard}}, I adapted it for my use at my userpage. That was some great coding you did there! :-) So Why 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

hehe, cheers. can't take all the credit... but...most of it ;> – xeno ( talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

hehe, regarding the above I meant actually selecting "{{ schoolblock}}" in the dropdown box on the blocking form. this way they don't even have to view the talk page to see the school block template - its shown when they try to edit. not sure if whatever tool you are using to block allows you do to this though. – xeno ( talk) 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, okay, I did not know that works. I use the EasyBlock script by Animum which makes it quite easier to block and add the template add the same time. But I will use the traditional method for school IPs in future. I am happy about any tips on which scripts to use though :-) So Why 17:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually block manually, so I can add any additional commentary in the "Other/additional" field, and then use Twinkle to add the the block warning (I have a custom twinklewarn to automatically select the "Blocking" level of warning) and then I use Friendly to add the shareip templates (which is a good thing to get into the habit of doing - just click the "whois" link at the bottom of the talk page... also set your preferences to open external links in another tab)... Just poke around in my User:Xenocidic/monobook.js and steal what you need =) – xeno ( talk) 18:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy! If the talk page of an IP contains a warning or warnings, can I revert / undo if the IP blanks the page? This removal of a warning happened only a minute after it was placed, and I checked the article's diff to make sure it was vandalism (it was). Maedin\ ^talk 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are in doubt, you should always refer to WP:VAN#Types of vandalism, where it says, amongst other things: Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve. Regards So Why 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:BLANKING. Removal of warnings is allowed, and taken as proof that they've read it. – xeno ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you, both, :-) Presumably though, if the user continues to vandalise, and continues to remove the warnings, one can "ignore" the user's right to remove them? It would take an eagle eye to spot removed warnings when you're about to template them with a level 1 warning for the 3rd time; hardly a productive way to get them on the path to WP:AIV? Maedin\ ^talk 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. If they have the right to remove them, then they still have it when you want to warn them again. Just hand them a level 2 warning if you check the history and see that they removed the level 1 warning. It's just two more clicks but ensures a smooth running and as pointed out above, restoring them will do more harm than good. So Why 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I'm glad I asked first! Maedin\ ^talk 06:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)