User talk:OhanaUnited/Archive 8

You are now an administrator

Enjoy the mop! Dlohcierekim Deleted? 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous support, congratulations Ohana. :) If you ever need help with anything, I'll be a question away. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why has no one else come here to congratulate you? :) Their bad. Congratulations. I know you'll do well. Regards, Rudget. 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, OU, and good luck with your new responsibilities. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, I think :-) You admitted the errors of your ways. That's half the battle at RfA. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats mate! Looking forward to seeing you around the backlogs. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ohana. I told you that you'd get it with a little time. :) Drop me a yahoo message when you get a chance. Lara❤Love 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We're happy for you! Congrats and enjoy the shiny buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why! Thanks. And yeah, sure thing. Rudget. 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the best statements I have seen after an RFA. Keep working, and don't rush into the role. bibliomaniac15 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your RfA! And thank you for the RfA card! Cheers! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope you enjoy your new buttons, they are quite shiny. Best of luck as an admin, don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. (Well, on anything but autoblocks, I don't understand the pesky beasts.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pile on congrat's! Enjoy your new mop. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Ohana! --Chetblong^{T C} 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope the toolset treats you well. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! Happyme22 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me as another deep hole in the ground! Happy mopping :) --Ouro (blah blah) 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

D'OH!

Sorry I missed your RfA, mate. I would have supported without hesitation, if I'd seen it. I've been a bit zoned out of WP these last few weeks for reasons I think you'll understand, combined with drawing the short straw for this term's timetable. Many congratulations! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history service award
		For tagging and assessing 1000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Building a bot

I haven't actually built a bot. I just use awb the way I assume everyone does. All I did was ask at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval for a bot flag so that I could run awb automated, which means I don't have to approve every edit. You should be able to deliver a newsletter using awb without a bot flag. You need to append your newsletter to the relevant user talk pages, I would guess. It's probably best to ask at the Signpost, they have more experience at delivering newsletteres than me. Hiding T 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Hi there, I'd be interested in participating in the GA Sweeps if you could use an extra pair of hands, I've reviewed quite a few articles over the last year or so and I've also written at least a dozen myself, so I feel I have a fairly good handle on the GA criteria. Some examples of the articles I have reviewed can be seen at User:jackyd101/GA article reviews, hopefully they're what you are looking for. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. Reviews already underway.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nomination

Hello Ohana. First off, Congratulations on your recent successful RFA! I was glad to support. Actually, I had plans to run near the end of March. I have a nominator, and around 4-5 co-nominators, but I would always appreciate another co-nom from you! Tell me if this is possible. Best Regards, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 12:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edison Chen photo scandal‎

Thank you for your message. Let's hope that doesn't happen. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian Chinese

hi? I strongly recommend you that you should go to the article Indonesian Chinese and take a look. These two users user:Caniago and user:Merbabu who joined hand in hand & keep reverting what I edited on this topic. These two editors allowed those who degraded Chinese people without reference editing, like Criminal Activity(in which there is no reference at all)[1] in which I objected and wrote down my reasons on the talk page of that article. What I edited about Chinese were raped and robbed in 1998 was totally considered as vandalism and reverted. [2] [3] [4] I believe that they are either sockpuppets WP:SOCK or meat sockpuppet WP:MEAT (i.e. one hired the other one to edit). The editor user:Caniago didn't edit any Chinese topic at all, but when the article Macau was nominated on FAC [5]/GAC [6] page 2007 and 2008, he always came there and objected and gave almost useless comments in order to make sure that article would not be successfully promoted. Please refer to that article's history (i.e. Indonesian Chinese) and see if I did the right thing. I would like to hear your advice before submitting this matter to WP:ANI I am looking forwards to hearing from you. Thanks a lot!!! Coloane (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote down my message on his talk page, mostly user:Caniago disregarded and erased it. Check his talk page. Here I can provided one more evidence that user:Caniago that he always deliberately degraded other Chinese topics like this: [7] in which regarded as so-called de-peackockify from [8]. I sincerely urge you to pay attention to this and give me some advices before submitting this matter to WP:ANI. Coloane (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take anything Coloane says with a grain of salt. He/she is a very disruptive POV warrior who has been blocked multiple times, and banned by the community from participating in anything to do with FA or GA processes (see [[9]]). Presently he is rewriting the Indonesian Chinese article according to his own very biased POV, contrary to the facts provided by the citations in the article. (Caniago (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I can see the reference they provided, however it didn't make a conflict with what I edited over there, did it? Coloane (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Do you have any opinion for me to submit this case (meatpuppets: user:Caniago and user:Merbabu) to WP:SSP? as the page states from SSP:

“ Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. ”

If you think it is not situable for me to submit this case to SSP at the moment as evidence is not enough or they will act against me with irrelvant matter like above, please let me know and I will do that later if someone else complain as you mentioned. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the consensus of so-called topic ban on WP:ANI has not been made as the user:Orderinchaos hijacked and terminated the discussion and proposal unmaturely. The ridiculous reason he gave was that he might see I may have more supporters after the question(s) asking by the user:Josuechan. No evidence or diffs was provided on disruptive edits on FAC/R or GAC/R over there. I never heard about this reason before. For the matter of sockpuppet/meatpuppet, I didn't formally accuse of the user:Caniago and user:Merbabu being as sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I only suspected the likelihood of being esp. meatpuppet from these two users could be well-established. That is why I discussed this matter with you personally. I didn't expect that they intruded my personal discussion with you and wrote down nonsense (i.e.topic ban which is completely unrelated to the issue I discussed with you) on your talk page. I think they are smart enough to know it is a straw man argument. The main purpose for them including the Admin. user:Orderinchaos to write down this nonsense is to distract my discussion of meatpuppet with you. Coloane (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What the messages you left on the page of user:Merbabu and user:Caniago have been erased and disregarded immediately [10] [11]. They joined hand in hand to revert what I edited; joined hand in hand to make a comment here and attack me and now they joined hand in hand to erase your comment. Do you think it is still a co-incidence or WP:MEAT? I am 100% sure that they will keep going on to do what they would like to do and deliberately make confusion if necessary (i.e. WP:STALK, WP:GAME and WP:SOCK & WP:MEAT). Now you should believe me what I discussed with you on this page for the matter of "meatpuppet" is not entirely groundless. Coloane (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban issue

It is a confusing one! The whole thing was something of a mess at the time, with numerous people coming up with all sorts of things including permabans and so on, which seemed inappropriate and didn't reach consensus anyway. The simplistic view would be - he was disrupting certain content (featured content candidates and reviews, and GA candidates and reviews) and the intent of the topic ban was to bring that to an end. There was no limit set as noone could agree on a limit - the closest to an agreement was 6 months, but there was some confusion over whether he had retired or not. As I said to Josuechan, the most likely course of action is that someone will ask for a review of it at some point, and if his behaviour has improved and he looks unlikely to disrupt, the restriction would be lifted by the community. It would implicitly extend to featured portal candidates/reviews as portals were one area he was disrupting, but if it's anywhere else, it comes down to whether he's behaving disruptively or not. *sigh* Don't you love inconclusive community processes? :) Orderinchaos 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted too that Caniago and Merbabu were the other side of an earlier dispute with Coloane. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1 (a process initiated by Coloane). Orderinchaos 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Orderinchaos, it is confusing because you and user:Caniago mentioned Toipc ban issue and other groundless accusation which are completely irrelvant. What I am talking about is the article Indonesian Chinese. What I did in the past seems not related to this discussion at all. And I don't want to mess up with you. I wish you could treat them one by one accordingly. I suppose retired but Jousechan wanted me to come back temporaily so that he can re-nominate Macau a bit later in case he doesn't have much time to follow. Why groundless accusation? for example, you say GAC is disruptive, what is your evidence? to remove Singapore from the GA list was done by voters. It is very clear that I can either remove the topic from the GA list WP:BOLD or take this to GAR. For the FAC, it was more ridiculous, what part can show me it was disruptive? any diffs? show me please! for the message I left on Miyokan's talk page, at most you could give me warning. Well, but I just don't care these groundless discussion/accusation and let you do (i.e. topic ban)whatever you want. It wasted me too much time if I discuss this nonsense with you. For the FAR you above mentioned is quite laughable. What/which regulaion in wikipedia keep(s) me from taking any article on FAR? can you show me by the way? Coloane (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that (a) I was asked specifically to comment on the topic ban, I only found out about the other issue after I got here; (b) I was enforcing a community decision, although had to use discretion in doing so, and (c) my interpretation of it was at the low end of the scale - a topic ban in a purely administrative area that didn't impinge upon content. It appears to me, though, that you were angry that Caniago opposed your FAC (Macau), sought to retaliate by nominating Indonesia for FAR - which was speedy closed as seen above after not one ground raised against it stood - and that that dispute has rumbled on regardless. The sock/meat allegations raised above by yourself would likely be closed as quickly as the FAR was - they're both long term, well known contributors with a good record. In the Indonesian Chinese case it appears you have some possibly valid content concerns (I don't know enough about the subject to assess, but can see the potential for an issue such as the one you raised), but that this other dispute has played into it as those people are on one side and you are on the other. Orderinchaos 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I admire you that you still have a shameless face to talk to me at this point. Your interpretation is/was not reliable. What you realised that they are good editors is not really the case. For what you left the message on the file of checkuser of user:Alice like this [12] is groundless by your wishful thinking and the result of confirmation already smacked on your shameless face. For the retailation you mentioned is controversial and groundless (i.e. "it appears to"). Which regulation in wikipedia keeps me from nominating any article on FAR? For the Macau on FAC at that time, I was NOT a nominator and this so-called retaliation couldn't be well established. Please refer to WP:COI. Coloane (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have been heavily involved in Macau, I did look at the history of the article at the time and also your contribution record. As any user can do, I expressed an opinion at the checkuser - this was based on contributions to Singapore Airlines (which is on my watchlist), North Korea and a number of other subjects which had been very positive. Looking at their contributions did not suggest an ongoing campaign over a set of articles about Ireland. I would strongly suggest that you moderate your language here, as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply to talk page communication and are taken quite seriously by the community. Orderinchaos 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, my language didn't break the code of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There is no Bright-line rule as you claimed over here for foul/offensive languages didn't clearly use. I don't care what you based on other edit history in order to make your own subjective decision as this is none of my business, but the comment you made over there is groundless and thus your interpretation is not reliable (see above). I was heavily involved in Macau, so what? it doesn't mean that I couldn't take any article on FAR for review as specific reasons I had already given. You hijacked the consensus of topic ban as it stated by the user:josuechan [13] and mess up with me and my discussion here with OhanaUnited are totally not acceptable at all. And so far you didn't provide any evidence for my disruption of FAC/R and GAC/R. Actually what are you doing here? I am not intented to discuss topic ban or other nonsense with you here, so please go away. Coloane (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"What are you doing here?" I was approached to offer comment. I did so under a new topic heading, which you've chosen to discuss. Most of the discussion below the second post on this topic has been entirely incidental to the point and is not achieving anything. Anyway, I have a uni assignment to do. Orderinchaos 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

if so, then why did you open a new section here but not simply follow the section above? no offence or personal attack honestly, I suggest that you had better focus on your uni assignment or you can't graduate from university after 30 in which I already got my first doctoral degree at that time. This is my last comment here! Coloane (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies re wording - "incidental to the point" means "has nothing or very little to do with the point". I would suggest that without knowing me, making uninformed comments on my educational background only reduces your credibility - I've already got a double degree, a graduate diploma and several trade certs, have gone back to uni after several years "out there" in full time work to change my career. Anyway, with those two clarifications out of the way I do not intend to reply further - I entirely agree with Ohana's suggestions on our talk pages and intend to abide by them. Orderinchaos 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for writing unrelated statement here, what a pity!! who cares your Australian degrees and diplomas in which they're barely superior to high school diploma in Canada or the US. You would appear in Ivy League if you are a smart guy with high grades of GRE and strong letters of recommendation. Medical doctor or barrister and other professionals do not need to change career. Good Luck! Coloane (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, this comment is hitting below the belt and is a direct personal attack. Coloane, please retract what you said and apologize. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

well, sorry about this. I don't mind giving apology for this matter. However, in reality, employers in the US and Canada looking down on these credentials can't be changed as plagiarism in Australia is extremely common. I am just talking about the fact and I know this conservation is out of the topic. I think that I have to stop over here. Coloane (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an old saying in English - when you are in a hole, stop digging. Also note that racism is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia - it's a clear violation of WP:NPA. Orderinchaos 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

An ongoing saga

My summary of this disruptive episode…

Stage 1

• User:Caniago makes a critical comment on the Macau FAC (User:Coloane’s apparent hometown).
• User:Coloane suddenly posts Indonesia for FA review with very flimsy reasoning. Ie, Coloane sees that Caniago is a major contributor to the Indonesia project. Like myself, he is one of (at the very most) ½ dozen prolific and longer term contributors to the Indonesia project
• I (User:Merbabu), another contributor to the Indonesia project and knowledgeable on that page, refuted all the reasoning and complained that this was an apparent retaliatory effort on Coloane’s part. (FA review was subsequently closed but Coloane then promises to re-launch it in a few weeks with new reasons – this fortunately doesn’t happen).

Stage 2

• Now, at this time I was the main pusher of an FAC for U2 (subsequently promoted), and all of a sudden, Coloane appears with, once again, pathetic and useless reasons which were addressed by myself with the on-wiki assumption that they were not bad faith (when of course they were). Others criticise his reasoning – no-one – even other FA objectors - supports it. (both U2 and Indonesia have long been clearly identified on my user page as big wiki focuses of mine)
• Following complaints, an administrator removed Coloane’s comments from the FAC and he was subsequently banned from FA related work. (it should be noted that Indonesia and U2 were two of what to my knowledge was only 5 FA process that Coloane has contributed to – his contributions to the other 3 FACs, (Singapore, Macau, and Russia), were all surrounded by disruption).

Stage 3

• A few weeks back, he appears on Chinese Indonesian talk page and berates both Caniago and myself for the state of the article in a particularly non-civil tone, specifically for parts of the article that neither of us had nothing to do with (ironic given his later unreferenced and blatantly false additions). The history page shows that I have had only the tiniest bit of maintenance (rvv) work on this article at all – until the last few weeks where I added referenced info completely unrelated to Coloane’s comments.
• Following the discussion on the talk page I removed the section Coloane was admonishing Caniago and I about. In the discussion, I pointed out that, amongst other things, I had nothing to do with that section nor was I under any duty to make sure that every article was free of errors/problems/etc, and that Coloane himself was perfectly free to remove the section, which would have been better to have done himself rather follow to editors around picking fights with them.

Stage 4

• IN the last few days, Coloane has inserted unreferenced and completely inaccurate information into the Chinese Indonesia article, which I removed with reasoning (ie, that hundreds of thousands of Chinese were killed in 1998 – bollocks!). This was followed up (twice?) by Caniago when Coloane blindly reverted my removal.
• Coloane has now followed this up by accusations of racism (for removing his additions about almost ½ million Chinese deaths – he is apparently Chinese, and calls Indonesia a “rogue nation”), sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and threats to take it to ANI.

I have not provided any diffs because frankly the above is already a great waste of my time – there would be dozens, if not hundreds of diffs concerning the above *heavily summarized* account of disruption. The above is all accurate and if anyone wants diffs or elaboration on a specific point, then please ask me.

This user is severely disruptive and a real time waster. I am tired of having to answer his accusations and would like to see this stop now. It is not fair on good faith and dedicated wikipedians. WP:CIVIL prevents me elaborating or presenting my opinion more adequately – although it doesn’t seem to stop Coloane.

As for the accusations of meat puppetry, for Coloane’s benefit, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that Caniago and I share a common goal for a high level of accuracy in the Indonesia articles (and related project), that no information should be added without reliable references and given our Indonesia focus on wikipedia and similar high standards, I see no case to answer for in appearing on the same page.

What is the best way to end this ongoing and disruptive episode once and for all? --Merbabu (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Coloane is rapidly approach the point where his ongoing disruption merits a permanent ban from Wikipedia by the community. He has shown that he has learnt nothing since being last admonished, and his pattern of retribution and uncivil behavior against certain editors is undiminished. (Caniago (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

I already stopped making my comment here. But you two users don't know what shame is. Stop wiki-stalking (refer to WP:STALK) and interfering my discussion with OhanaUnited. These two users are currently using different IPs (most likely), but it doesn't mean these two users are free of accusation of WP:SOCK. So please OhanaUnited, take a look and determine if my above section is correct. Are you going to let them go by this way?? They are just trying to divert your vision by using so-called disruptive edition (actually it is not) and retrieving my history which are not related to this issue. Don't be so easily deceived by them. You can check the history and determine if I have disruptive edition in the article of Indonesian Chinese. If these two users keep going on to disturb your talk page, I strongly recommend you that you had better protect your page right away. And, you can simply leave your message on my talk page. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A close and complete read of the section at WP:STALK shows that this is exactly what is at the centre of the issues listed in my complaint summary above. Ie, I’m not sure it is I (or Caniago) with the disruptive stalking problem. I see you have not listed any *specific* dispute with my summary of events, or any specific defence of yourself. --Merbabu (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What I added is not bullock. Please refer to: [14] It states like this: The Indonesian case referred to is the riots in Jakarta and other major cities, which took place in mid-May 1998. Over one THOUSAND people died and over one HUNDRED women were raped and gang-raped. Your English is not that good even you are a native English speaker. Hundred and thousand is different from hundredS and thousandS. Refer to my edit (diffs provided above), what I wrote is in a singular form. Dear Merbabu/Caniago, please open another section if you want to distort your own story and accuse me of so-called disruptive edition which it is not. I am not interested in discussing with you in a rambling and illogical way. Coloane (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking with you is just like sweeping my IQ to the ground, isn't it? only this message you wrote over here after my edit and personal discussion with OhanaUnited is an obvious evidence to prove it is wiki-stalking. Coloane (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That error in your English I mistook for 100,000s. When you meant 100s or 1000s I presume. It shows that it is not me with a deficiency in English in this case. Your error in language contributed to a misunderstanding. However, it is still the case that your addition was unreferenced, and unclear to the point of misleading. Despite the clarification of your addition, the info is still problematic – raising this on the talk page would be the best solution for you. The problems of disruption and personal attacks which I listed above overwhelmingly remain, including the clear fact evidenced by your first edits this page that you didn’t stumble upon it by coincidence, and that it was just the latest in a series of fights you are picking on wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

well, then why didn't you accuse someone who edited the criminal activity (in which you removed later on surreptitiously) without giving sources, huh? why did you only accuse my edit without giving reference is misleading, disruptive and "unclear"? it seems to me that the whole article is quite under-referenced, don't you think so? only 7 sources can be found and note of citation/footnote is still there, take a look! Why did you specifically realise that my edit and reference should be provided together immediately?? to write and articulate my point on which talk page is my own discretion. Again, you didn't pay attention. I am not talking about what I edited over there. I am not talking about personal attacks and disruption that you tried to divert his vision. I am talking about meatpuppet that you two users involved, i.e. you Merbabu and Caniago. That is very simple! Coloane (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the low quality of referencing in that article, nor am I obliged to fix it. I've made it clear though that I will remove any unreferenced and inaccurate additions. The record shows that you brought up the issue by attacking non-related editors. You are increasingly making no sense to me and I am sick of discussing it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

then you are responsible for wikistalking me and accusing me of providing unreferenced statement(s) and giving disruptive edits? the article, again, is basically under-referenced. why didn't you remove every thing over there? If you are a non-related editors over there as you claimed, then why did you waste your time and remove what I edited? you are sick of discussing with me over here, did anyone or I personally invite you to come here and discuss with me? it seems to me that you came here with Caniago voluntarily and suddenly? am I wrong? Coloane (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been troubled

First, I’ve seen you around and have nothing but respect for your work on Wikipedia and at GA. However, I’ve been troubled for a few days. I found your comment at Epbr123’s RFA after my oppose to be highly inappropriate. Ask why I oppose is fine, but questioning integrity such as “To closing burecrat, Aboutmovies is directly engaged in Epbr123's RfC discussion...” is pushing good faith and I feel it was inappropriate. First, it should have been obvious that I was involved in the RFC, as I mentioned said RFC in my oppose comment. Second, a similar disclaimer was not done to all the supporters noting any possible COI to the closing bureaucrat, as that is how that message was taken. For instance if Epbr voted for them/nominated them for Admin, or they worked closely together at GA/FA, etc.. Otherwise, I consider this is a bit of an example of: Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another. Take it for what’s it worth, I hope to see you continuing your good work at GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

I see that in the month that I was retired, you applied for adminship again and successfully got the tools. Congrats on that, I wish I could've been there to support your nomination. If you need anything, I'm certainly available. Wizardman 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Check request

Hi, since you are an admin can you do some kind of edit-history check on User:Zenwhat? He just added a language request over at Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters#Redundant revisions with an unusually opinionated comment. But his edit history isn't at all serious regarding subjects of this type. I think he's trolling or trying to raise drama on every article with some kind of tag. If he does any real edit is usually at pages like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing‎. Is he some kind of hard-working vandal?! Can I get an opinion from you or another admin?? Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

Featured portal nominations

I've just closed a recent FPOC nomination, and just realised that the nominator has supported the move. I can't find it listed anywhere, but are nominators allowed to support in their nominations? Regards, Rudget. 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It can pretty much sway opinion, which is especially not needed in consideration of the fact that they've already given their opinion in the nomination statement of why it should be promoted. It's also quite a hindrance when closing also, determining who's supporting or objecting whilst editing the page and then separating it from the nominator can cause unnecessary confusion in my opinion. Do we need to set this straight on the nomination procedure on the FPOC mainpage? It doesn't matter if we don't, I can always leave it out when it comes to informing the user the user that their candidate has been promoted. Rudget. 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Newsletter article

I like to put some type of article up there, though I'm not sure what to write about this time. Hopefully, I'll think of something by tomorrow,... Any ideas? (congrats on the RfA, BTW) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hulk (comics)

Please do not interfere on the talk page. The article failed its GA qualitifications based on a later reassessment. As such, it had to be delisted. That's all that was going on there, and there's no need for consensus on the matter, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the OKCB article. I merged the references and notes sections and left the further reading section as it is. The references were books that were actually used for information in the article, and although there is only one book in the further reading section, it is open to other possible additions down the line. Let me know if you still think it should be merged together. Regarding the message above, sorry for sending you the update, I know you look at all of the figures from month-to-month, especially for the newsletter. I just wanted to make sure everybody had a progress report and hopefully drive more interest to future reviewers who may see the message on current reviewers' talk pages. I hope that the progress continues. I plan on reviewing 280-300 articles or about 10% of the total, and then I'll go back to doing GAN and writing my own GAs. By the way, I saw that you thanked me in the newsletter, and just want to say it's been great working with you and I'm glad you've been actively involved with the GA process along with the newsletter, GAN, and GA sweeps. Keep up the good work and thank you again for looking over the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps referencing

Hi, I have two questions concerning the standard of referencing in GA sweeps. When reviewing an article, especially a controversial one, I would generally expect an inline citation at least once paragraph and more frequently where exceptionally controversial issues are being discussed. However, I have been given a number of comments indicating that this is excessive. What is the guideline here, because I have seen articles failed without this requirement and others passed with far less and the criteria is widely interpreted. Secondly, two articles I have just come across are otherwise fine but their sources are all to books with no page or even chapter numbers. Such references are not very useful, but I was wondering whether (if all else is OK) this should be considered enough to hold and potentially delist an article? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FFA link

Sorted, not sure what happened.[15] If that comes up again, you can ping Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Criminal justice

I responded to your comment at the WP:FPORTC page, let me know if there is anything else I could do to address that further, and thanks for the comment. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else I could do to address any other potential points you may have, or do you think that this portal is now of a WP:FPORT quality? Cirt (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New! BCAD drive from Milhist

Can I invite you to particpate in our new assessment drive? It's strictly for experienced wiki-gnomes and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match our new criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Chevrons (1000 articles) Golden Wiki First place

My Rfa

Hey OhanaUnited, I've finally replied to your questions on my Rfa, after I just noticed them (they were added relatively late, sorry for overseeing it). Hope you are satisfied with the answers, Poeloq (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I've thought about it, and I would like you to show me what a good GA review should look like. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Sorry for the late reply but i kinda forgot about your message. I would love to be adopted by you, if the offer still stands!? Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if you can help ...

First, I must apologise for dropping your {{WP:MHA|Tag & Assess]] award onto an archive page. All I can do is trot out the usual lame excuses: it was late at night, my concentration was drooping etc. The fact is I went there to see if I'd already given you any and forgot I was on an archive page. I still blush at the absent-mindedness of it!

Second, to cut to the chase, as you may know, we've set up a logistics dept at Milhist. We need linguists to help with translations of snippets, not full articles, snippets. Can you help with Chinese? If so, the details are here. If you find yourself overwhelmed you can always drop out. It would ever so much appreciated ... All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on Vickers Vimy - Chinese translation needed

There is an unreferenced section in the article on the Vickers Vimy about use of some of the Vimy Commercials delivered as airliners to China as bombers in the Second Zhili-Fengtian War. After extensive Googleing, I have managed to find this link http://cwlam2000hk.sinaman.com/caf05.htm, which appears to say something about Chinese military use of the Vimy - could you have a look at the link and see if it backs up what the Vimy Article says about Chinese military use. Thanks Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Y Done. Enjoy! STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 23:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:AIV

The UUA is classed as a "report" in huggle. I auto-revert people with level 4 or above warnings, because they really should not get that far. Will ^(talk) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost "Features and Admins"

There seems to be an error in that you listed Scott5114 as one of the noms that succeeded, but the nomination page says it did not succeed. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

ASIMO I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sister projects interviews

I could run a notice, but I think it might be better (although probably a bit more time-consuming) for you to personally solicit a few users from the different projects, via their Special:Listusers/sysop list. That would allow for a better sampling of users, particularly those who avoid the English Wikipedia (who might be very interesting to interview). What do you think? Ral315 (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for the welcome. I found all sorts of problems with the U.S. and Canadian plate pages so I tried to fix them. --Plate King (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

*blinks*

Woah. In the two months I'm off, you make so much ground, Admin, Crat... o.O You have me scared now. :P ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my laptop crashed to the ground during exams, and I just got it back on Friday. Was forced to use one that I wasn't comfortable with, so I didn't login... and since my school board's IP is a constant vandaliser, its out for one year... and as you likely know, I rarely edit at home (the edits where I mentioned my offical Semi-Retire excluded)... yeah. Not an easy two months by any means. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not what I meant. I meant that I couldn't anon. edit, and I felt that the one I was using might have had some security flaws (occasionally found viruses on the checker) ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. That possibly did slip my mind. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and how did I forget; I'm still kicking myself for not being there for you RfA. How I would have loved to make it an even 80. Darn. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark Google page reply

I use the UK Google homepage and also tried Google's link to their .com page and they are white. I did this before midnight too. Is there anyway that your page may actually be different to mine?

Also is it still dark now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjt04 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the signing, I did read it but did something else before hand. Anyway, I've just realised it is 10:05pm Saturday in Canada where as the UK and USA are into Sunday now. So that explains it. I must have viewed the Google page just after midnight then so that article is correct. Sjt04 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Sjt04

Oh right sorry! First time I've done this. Thanks for the help! Sjt04 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Sjt04

Ping

You left me a not on wv about commons... what's the scoop? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Runescape - External Links

I read the discussion and I can see no evidence to remove Zybez from the list of fansites. Also, since when was Rscaperguide ever mentioned? ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter

Could you please update the GA Sweeps information on the GA Newsletter draft for the April 1 issue. Also, if you know of any April Fools jokes to put into the newsletter, please do,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)