Thygard

Hey

Just curious. How'd you come across my page on The Plot To Save Socrates?

I was patrolling recent changes and it came up. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the Barnsensu. It's always nice to be appreciated. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget to update the record. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your very welcome, and thanks for reminding me about the record, I have updated it to show that. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA reform

Since you asked, I would caution you against placing too much effort into dramatic reform of the RfA process -- as I said under that topic, the fact that RfA is working alright reduces the likelihood that a major reform will be adopted almost to zero. A previous, much less radical proposal was doused by this same phenomenon. I think the experience of crafting a new proposal would probably be pretty educational and possibly useful elsewhere, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, the fact that previous attempts failed by a longshot to reach implementation is why I requested comments before I put the effort into drafting a proposal out of it, my post there was more brainstorming actually than anything else. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 07:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel tower

Hi. I've replaced that Eiffel tower section in the 'suspended nominations' until copyright questions are sorted out - as it is not even being judged, it is not even question of declaring "not accepted" before any conclusion has been reached. This also does not show much consideration for those looking into the problem.

Also, if you care to read my answer to your question once again, you'd see that to date there is no need for any 'fair use' license, as no such copyright (as that claimed on the tower's lighting) is covered under US law. The majority of advice on this until now is "no way this copyright is covered under US law", but I (for one) am presently re-reading every passage of copyright law of even a nuance of such coverage just to be 100% sure.

I don't know under what context or authority you made the decision to remove the article from the suspended nominations section, but it wasn't at all the right thing to do. A bit of patience and we will have an answer soon - it is not, to be sure, to remain there indefinitely. Cheers. thepromenader 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Disregard my earlier comment - true that this image has taken up a lot of space for long enough. It seemed rather unorthodox to remove it from the 'suspended nominations' section when it wasn't even in the race, that's all. Just another case of Wiki paranoia. Cheers. thepromenader 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 32	7 August 2006	About the Signpost

Guidance on publicity photos called dangerous	False death information survives for a month in baseball biographies
Wikiversity officially announced by Wales	Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
Wales, others announce new projects at Wikimania	Wikipedia satire leads to vandalism, protections
Early history of Wikipedia reviewed	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

85mm lens

Hello Thyrgard, how comes you promoted the 85mm lens image? The majority were opposing votes.10 oppose vs. 8 support. And if I recall correctly at least a 60% support rate is needed. --Dschwen 05:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I promoted using the same reasoning as I explained on WT:FPC for the Wikipe-tan nom, I use a scaled system to determine consensus which is inline with my authority to determine consensus and the fact that FPC isn't a vote. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you are stretching the interpretation of consesus a bit. I hope you won't mind me bringing this up on the FPC talk page. --Dschwen 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I actually encourge people to look at and criticize all noms both mine and other's. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I posted a note on FPC talk. Sorry I, feel all I've been doing the last few days is ranting and complaining. Is it time for a wikibreak? --Dschwen 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Drive by voting

I sahre your frustration. I've struggled with this question since March. How do you know an editor will make a good admin without reading every edit and talk? Edit countitis, in all its variants, is misleading. I voted against User:RadioKirk, (for goodness sake) becasue I did not have a tool to recognize his ability. Now I know he's a good admin. One user, with many thousands of edits, is clearly not ready because he tends to shoot first and not ask questions. If I'd not looked beyond the counts, I would have supported. I would appreciate any isight you might share with me.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked as an admitted sockpuppet of User:Jtkiefer, engaged in devious activity. For the admission of puppetry, see here. Xoloz 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thygard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes I am a sockpuppet of Jtkiefer, however I did not violate any policies as a sockpuppet and am therefore perfectly legit

Decline reason:

Use of account has resulted in FPC irregularities, violation of clauses "Forbidden uses of sock puppets" #1, 2, 3. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock denied, you have repeatedly abused sockpuppets in the past and you are hereby indefinitely limited to one account. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please see this application to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 33	14 August 2006	About the Signpost

Editing for hire leads to intervention	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Report from the Chinese Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)