User talk:A Nobody/Archive 11

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2

You might want to wait until the RfA has started before opposing :) Oldelpaso (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When does it start? I see he already accepted and answered the questions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever he transcludes it on WP:RfA if the instructions on WP:RFA/NOM#Warnings are anything to go by. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I always thought once it's accepted and the questions are answered we can dive in. Well, even after editing for years, I learn something new about this place constantly. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought its to prevent people weighing in while the answers to the questions might only be a draft. But I get the impression the answers to the questions aren't your reason for opposing... Oldelpaso (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi,

Looks like my email account is playing up, so apologies if you received any blank messages from me. Thanks for the comments, though. I'm pretty sure the database error you were seeing has affected every editor, judging by the frozen state of my watchlist over the last ten minutes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, on all counts! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Canvassing is explained here: WP:canvass.--Sloane (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so as long you notified those who disagreed with you seem okay then, no? Personally I think all the article writers should be notified as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop mischaracterizing my comments

I have not, at any time, mischaracterized your deceptive edit summaries. It is not your right to dismiss any editor's changes, including TTN's, as beneath your notice. When you undid his redirects, you were trampling over his edit, and your edit summary needed to indicate the major impact of your edit, which was the undoing of the redirect, not the addition of a space or the correction of a punctuation mark. Your edit summaries were deceptive, and I have a very difficult time believing that you don't recognize that.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Every time you call them deceptive, you are mischaracterizing them. Given TTN was sanctioned for disruptive redirecting, I and many editors regarded these against consenus redirects as pointed (some probably would go so far as to see them as vandalism). In those edits from last year, I was not trying to deceive anyone. That is where you are wrong. Yeah, I am dismissing what I see and many others see as pointed edits by someone who was sanctioned for making pointed edits. My edit in effect was adding a space or correcting a punctuation mark to the last "good" version of the article prior to what seems to be a pointed edit by someone who doesn't edit anymore and so is someone whom you don't even have to worry about me reverting anyway, so it's kind of beating a dead horse. It's a dead non-issue and is more misplaced time and energy on something other than helping to improve this project. Okay, you don't like me. Why not ignore me as I largely try to avoid you? Or why not try reaching out as I have tried with various past opponents? It's as if you want to just keep up some kind of dispute with me when if people didn't try that I would otherwise just be focusing on grammar fixes and welcoming new users. I rarely comment in AfDs as compared to the past (the last two I even argued to delete in) and have laid off the notability pages for days now. So, it gets old being hounded over stuff that isn't even happening and especially when I am conciously trying to avoid areas and editors. I am here to build a paperless encyclopedia and I am willing to help out and work with anyone else who also is here for those purposes. I am not here to play games and really hope that others will seize upon opportunities for collegial editing or let things drop. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Smiles, everyone! Smiles!

I thank you for the smiley face in the nice blue box. That was a pleasant surprise and is much appreciated. Salut! Dr.Who (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The General Barnstar for General Good Work

		The Original Barnstar
		I award fellow Wikipedian A Nobody this barnstar for his thorough work in improving Wikipedia and in keeping it what it was always meant to be. Congratulations! Drboisclair (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Moon of Pejeng

On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moon of Pejeng, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of rescue tag

You stated in a recent edit summary that: "removing a rescue template is akin to removing the AfD template". This is completely untrue and not supported by any policy or guideline. In fact, another user argued that same point (that removal of the tag was vandalism, giving him the right to reverse more than 3 times) and was handed a 24 hour block.--Sloane (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is supported by common courtesy and common sense. His block was given by someone who also argued to delete the article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

saint patricks day!

AgentSpy101 (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cool, thanks!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the Saint Patrick’s Day wishes! SunCreator (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation required

Hello, Can you explain why you added the rescue template to the Character Deaths article that was venturing towards a WP:SNOW delete, without commenting at the AFD? --DFS454 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it could and should have been rescued. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware this conversation is slightly moot but if you felt that strongly about it then why didn't you participate in the discussion? -DFS454 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I keep an off wiki file on which I compose my AfD messages and I work on them for a few days sometimes before posting in the actual discussions (I like to do thorough research before commenting in the discussions as I cannot stand the drive by copy and paste "per nom" votes those discussions typically get). In that case, it struck me as a rescuable topic, so I tagged it as such, but did not finish my own research that I hoped to present in the discussion prior to its closing. Plus, my focus around the time was on real life school related matters. You will notice from around the 10th or so through around the 17th I did not edit at all. This has been a busy month school wise, which of course has to take precedent. By the way, as a general suggestion, if you have questions, I encourage you to say, "Request for explanation" or "Quick question" or "Please explain" as "Explanation required" to be honest comes off a bit aggressive as Wikipedia is a volunteer site and as such there is little anyone is "required" to do. Others might react incredibly defensively if not feel insulted seeing such a headline, so please keep that in mind should you wish to ask anyone anything in the future. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a smile...

Papercutbiology♫ (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Sir, I wanted to sincerely thank you for your help with The Motley Moose and the overzealous "Speedy" deleter. Certainly, that AfD is already contentious enough, we don't need that on top of it. Grazi. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and yes, I agree that we are supposed to be approaching these discussions through civil and mature discussions and hopefully that will be the end result. It is crucial to no matter how aggresive anyone else is, to keep cool and maintain courtesy nonetheless. Good luck! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me more, sir. I posted this to "Benjiboi's" attention as well, but since I don't know the proper hierarchy around here, I wanted to ask your opinion. I noticed your voice of support on the AfD page, which I appreciate. But it seems now things are getting out of hand. That same user, "Sloane", has now joined several others in pouring through other pages I've done, as well as of user "PeterJukes", and I noticed they also went through and completely trashed the main page of The Motley Moose, obstensibly to make it "better" though they removed several of the citations even some of the deletion-voting people found notable. This is getting completely out of hand. It seems to have escape any semblance of people working for the better of Wikipedia, and it's getting hard for me to stay cool. I created and saved this page, or tried to, in it's first incarnation through my work at WP:BLOG, and I just don't have any clue why there are so many people bound and determined to see it gone, when I've got a backlog of 200+ blog articles I never saw them help us get worked through. For Christ's sake, the entire WP:BLOG backlog could have been done with the amount of time and energy spent on this project- but I asked some of the people to actually contribute, but they declined; apparently, they'd rather than spending hours doing all this crap editing and petty BS If you know a way to get ahold of an admin to perhaps figure out a way to mediate all of this, I don't know. Certainly, there's a better way than this. Any suggestions you can give me on this would be great. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, always maintain civility in these kinds of disputes and do your best to add reliable sources to the articles in question. I usually go through the rescue templated articles and add sources and fix grammar when I can. Anyway, hang in there!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day

Happy Saint Patrick's Day, too! --Efe (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you too! Best wishes. Acalamari 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A very happy St. Patrick's to you too, hope you're having a good one! :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay so far. :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I hope your having a great St.Patrick's too, because it's such a pretty day today...and I hope the weather is nice where you're at too! Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not too bad. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! KnightLago (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I get very few stars, awards, cookies, etc. and it was appreciated. --Boston (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to that it made you feel appreciated!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and happy St. Patrick's day to you too.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Very happy now. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, so many people have already said thanks - but thank you anyway and Happy St. Patrick's Day to you! :) The Helpful One 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the St. Patrick's greetings-- I like the idea of a Wikipedia Kindness Campaign, gets a Keep vote from me. Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, cool idea, no? This place sure does benefit from additional kindness as WP:Editors matter. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To borrow a line from St. Patrick: Go raimh maith agat! Bail ó Dhia ort! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. :)--Caspian blue 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  "  --  Chzz  ►  08:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Opt-out

If you don't mind, can I opt out of these? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will make a mental note (with apologies if I forget as I send these manually and not by bot, so if I forget and I will try not forget when the next holiday rolls around, please forgive). With that, I hope you had an enjoyable Saint Patrick's Day nonetheless!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you for your comments and continued support on my talk page. Ikip (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the St. Patrick's Day greeting

Thankyou for thinking of me yesterday. I like what I hear everywhere that on St. Patrick's Day everyone is Irish. As far as I know I am not Irish, but I have been told that I look Irish. Your spreading of goodwill on this website is marvelous and inspires fruitful interchange. I trust your green day was also happy. Erin go bragh!--Drboisclair (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your greetings on my talk page. I'm not really a barnstars-and-social-networking kind of editor, but I do appreciate the occasional note. Sort of like "thanks for noticing me"... Best regards!  Frank  |  talk  20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and I am happy it was appreciated. :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Next time..

...you notice an admin deletes only the redirect of a moved-mid-AfD article, and not the actual content !voted to be deleted, please append {{db-xfd|votepage=__}} to the top of the page. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know some of the SD templates, but wasn't aware of that (as you probably know, I don't usually template articles for SD; I have done a few, but I don't believe I've ever used that template before). Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry -I have saved and moved the content to here. You can copy and userfy if you want but no one should remove it from there. The result is done, and the article page is only 44kb anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my interjection: isn't unattributable content incompatible with WP:GFDL? I recently approached an admin concerning a similar situation (content from a deleted article, but via Google Cache), and he blanked the content in question. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notice. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ER thanks

Hi, thanks for your comment on my ER! Have some (bubble) tea!

Oli ^OR Pyfan! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

thanks again, Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How nice!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks !

Spinach Monster (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey are you an admin? If not, i'd be happy to nominate you in a week or two. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the offer; however, I think of myself more as an editor than an administrator and do not have any interests in running in the immediate or near future. Thanks though. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While I understand and respect your decision, I have to admit that kind of thinking is exactly why you deserve the honor. Administrators should be people who want to be editors first and administrators second. Spinach Monster (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, but maybe down the road. Another cocnern is that I have played a role in identifying quite a few sock farms who have a tendency to show up from time to time and there is a reasonable chance that an RfA for me would be tainted by whatever sock or meat puppets they are currently operating participating in it. It could easily turn into something ugly and unconstructive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How long ago were the sock farms found? In any case, I think if they came against you in an RFA, that'd only strengthen your argument. I understand that you don't feel comfortable, so I won't push you, but I want you to recognize that you should not feel penalized for doing the right thing. Anyone who helps the Encyclopedia in any way, particularly against those who wish to bully others, even if it seems in an odd way, deserves praise and recognition. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the most persistent of the bunch that I have had to contend with were those associated with him, him, him, him, and quite a few others, but it's the nature of the beast here. Anyway, the thought is greatly appreciated and I thank you for your kindness and genorisity. Happy editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

Hi mate, I'm totally with you about the List of Common Misconceptions; I think it's ludicrous that it's up for AfD.

But the reason I wanted to contact you is to say, I think it isn't necessary to reply to it so much, and I wonder if you'd consider slowing down on that?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. At my last count, there were over 25 "keep" arguments anyway, so if this got redlinked, it would be an obvious DRV as no unbiased admin would make such a close anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV wouldn't achieve much, mate. If there's no consensus at the AfD, then there'll be no consensus at the DRV (which leads to "no consensus to overturn"). Which means where there's no consensus during the AfD, a decision by sysop fiat will always stand.

No consensus is a genuine problem where you have sysops that see themselves as the chairman of the meeting rather than the clerk, and I'm damned if I can figure out how to challenge that. So I'd say the future of that article totally depends on who closes the AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's all the more reason to keep discounting all of the repetitive and dishonest claims of "indiscriminate". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep claiming it's discriminate when it isn't. "Common" is a subjective term; when is something common? What if I say I've never heard of something adn disagree it's common? It's not like List of U.S. presidents from Georgia, where there is a prima facie evidence of someone being from Georgia; It's just too subjective.--Patton^t/c 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is cited in multiple reliable sources as a "common misconception" than its inclusion is discrminate. We are not going with what I think is a common misconception, but with what multiple published authors have identified as common misconceptions and as such this is a discriminate inclusion criteria. Just because a handful of people haven't heard of something doesn't mean it is not a verifiable thing. Because I haven't heard about certain topics pertaining to physics or chemistry doesn't make them unworthy of coverage. My or your or anyone's personal ignorance of a subject does not diminish its relevance to millions of others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is mostly referenced, but common is a subjective term, it doens't matter what anybody says, it's indicriminate. What if someone else published a book saying they weren't common?--Patton^t/c 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why we go with multiple reliable sources, which makes it discriminate and which discounts dissenting opinions. Plus, we don't base things on "what if". If no book actually exists saying it isn't a common misconception, then we don't have to worry about hypotheticals. Because we do have multiple books that do define certain things as common misconceptions, we have a real basis for a discriminate list. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You do have to worry about the hypothetical; take for example, list of large buildings. That's obviously an indiscriminate list. What makes something large? However list of buildings over 30 stories would be discriminate as it provides an objective criterion for inclusion.--Patton^t/c 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We go with what we have in the here and now, not what might happen. We have reliable sources for what is considered common misconceptions. Now if you are suggesting we define the criteria even more narrowly, i.e. Misconceptions about Catholicism then that is fine by me and outright say in the lead "This article lists misconceptions about Catholicism that have served as the subject of multiple published works." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand what I mean. People disagree over what a "large" building is because different people have different opinions ("large" is subjective), but they cannot disagree over what a building "with over 30 stories" is (that's objective)—it either has 30+ stories or it hasn't. Similarly people can disagree over what a "common" misconception is, or just how common it is. List of misconceptions dispelled in Mythbusters would be an objective title becuase nobody can argue that it was dispelled in mythbusters. Sure I have no problem with these things being in the articles themselves as they're important, but the list is just unmaintainable. :-)--Patton^t/c 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you and I can disagree over what is common, but if multiple published books present evidence and definitions of what a "common misconception" refers to (like a "common cold"), in this case we have something that is more subjective and for what it's worth, I am totally open-minded to merges or to a more narrow definition like a List of misconceptions dispelled in Mythbuster. I just want to be sure that we adequately consider every alternative per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Patton123: List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Reasonably good article on the subject. Not impossible to maintain. Quite important to the encyclopedia. Some list articles need work, but I wish people would not immediately assume "impossible to fix, delete".--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)