User talk:Ze miguel/Archive 1

isn't it ironic that...

... despite your membership in the Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club you are caught up in the same net as the most polemic editors of the Bogdanov Affair as far as has been suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Workshop ?

well, no good deed is left unpunished. welcome, Z. r b-j 04:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rbj. The funny thing is that you and me will not be creating new accounts to keep updating the article, while the Bogdanovs and their Royal Court will probably have created 10 new accounts one hour after the ban. I don't mind, and I fully agree with what you wrote on the Committee Workshop: others will take our place, and the criticism will continue. The Bogdanovs tried several times to state that the article was close to being complete; they don't realize that this thing will go on for years, and that they will never be able to squeeze the toothpaste back in the tube :) -- Ze miguel 07:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov arbitration

Did you edit under some other name also? Fred Bauder 13:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I never used another name. I did occasionally edit with an IP address before I created my account, and sometimes I forgot to log in after I had created my account. The following is the complete list of edits I did through my IP:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.233.153.195
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.233.153.195

Ze miguel 14:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ban on editors involved in Bogdanov Affair

All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affari) are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor, and Ze miguel (talk · contribs), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.

A less restrictive injunction Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Proposed_decision#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is under consideration and may replace the total bans. Fred Bauder 19:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Please disregard my comment on the Workshop page. Ze miguel 20:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Fun

thanks for the note, Ze. i also hope that (what i think is) the obvious reality hits the ArbCom about who the B's are and what it is they are trying to do. i see no other solution than to protect the article from editing for long enough (could be weeks) that Igor goes away. r b-j 17:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Charpak

hey, thanks for the note, Ze. you gotta sign them things - i couldn't figure out who left it and assumed it was YBM, but since is he fully banned from WP (he edited nothing else), i didn't want to draw any attention to it. then, just now, i thought "gee, i could check the history page on my talk page, duh." well, now that the article is protected (dunno for how long), we can relax and start to do other things. r b-j 22:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

oh, i forgot to ask. i see you're into trance. have you heard of a 90's SF band called Trance Mission? just curious. r b-j 22:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hum nope. But try this and tell me your opinion: http://www.digitallyimported.com/mp3/hardtrance96k.pls and http://64.235.239.5:8006/listen.pls

Ze miguel 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Shadow the hedgehog game

Thanks for working on tagging speedy deletion candidates. However, duplication of an existing wikipedia article is not a speedy deletion criteria. In the case of a duplicated article, the content may be either merged or redirected to the appropriate article. Check out the Deletion policy for guidelines on what to do with problematic articles. Thanks again for your contributions! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Ëvilphoenix, I'll keep that policy in mind. I've changed the link to point to the actual game, instead of the character. Ze miguel 07:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethics

Hi Nicholas, it's a pity to see all the ARC breaks the case is causing. I'd suggest to bring some ethics in on a tone 40 scale to deal with the SPs :D . Ze miguel 23:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hah hah hah! Dear Ze miguel: Yes, indeed, the B. brothers are definitely being very 1.1 about this, and are clearly dramatising their own overts on this subject. They've more or less placed the article in a permanent PTS Type III condition through their persistent alter-is, and their apparent theta in their edit summaries is clearly to disguise their own missed W/Hs. The arbcom have declared them SPs already, so we've basically got to counter postulate their 1.1 pan-determinism. We editors will just have to get our ruds in and handle the PTS condition, doing some False Data Stripping on the article. By the way, are you a fellow Scientologist, or do you just know Scientologese? :-D ML, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

JS

Something you did to your monobook.js page has resulted in it showing up on Candidates for Speedy Deletion. You might want to fix that. DS 13:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey DS, thanks for the heads-up (and thanks for not deleting my monobook.js file). It's fixed now. Ze miguel 13:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

nice timing

08:47, October 25, 2005 Ze miguel m (Article is nonsense)

08:47, October 25, 2005 Syrthiss ({{nonsense}})

cheeers :), --Syrthiss 12:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, we should have an IRC channel or something for the New Pages Patrol :) -- Ze miguel 12:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sa Di

It was an accident. I saw that you put a copyvio notice in and I deleted the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 12:02

Firefox extension

Would you happen to know how to make a firefox extension using Javascript? It would be very simple and used to fight vandalism. The basic idea is to feed RC diff's into firefox, and let it determine which pages contain text (such as an obscenity) listed in a file. For pages that don't contain anything on this list, the tab is closed. The others remain open and ready to be examined. If you can't figure out how to hookup the IRC RC output into firefox, then it could be used with WP:CDVF to open new tabs in firefox to be checked. I found a guide to making extensions, but it says you need to know Javascript. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 03:49

Emmanuel de Cériz

Hi Chairboy, I just saw the successful vote for deletion that you had put up for Emmanuel de Cériz in September. However, it seems the same user has recreated the page, along with Emmanuel Cériz, Cériz, Prince Emmanuel de Cériz, Transmutalism, Transmutalist Art, at least ten works of this "artist" on commons, and possibly others. Phew. Speedy delete ? (Please reply on my talk page) Ze miguel 08:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Great catch! Yes, according to WP:CSD 1.1.4, "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy." meets criteria for speedy deletion. Go ahead and tag 'em, and I suggest including a link to the AfD in question in the db| clause to make it easy for the admin closing it out. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The images related to that deleted page were *not* previously deleted. You need to list them separately on WP:IFD—they are not candidates for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch 04:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ze Miguel and Chairboy, Could you please explain to me why are you so apparently interested in delete the articles about Transmutalism and Emmanuel de Cériz? I sincerely do not understand why did I spend so many hours writing and working on great part of the articles that you want to delete?!... At least explain to me what is the problem concerning it. Regarding the images without links that are voted for deletion: please give me some time as I am writing the articles where those images are going to be linked. Unfortunately, I do so many things simultaneously, that occasionally I have some lack of time. Thanks and my regards. Please reply. HagiaStall HagiaStall 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

pseudoscience tags

I realise your edits were in good faith.

but the article foo should go in category:foo and if foo is a bar, category:foo and foo should both go in category:bar. — Dunc|☺ 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

btw, user:Lumos3 agrees with me, he also reverted 1 of your edits. — Dunc|☺ 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

I, Descendall, hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar, as reward for your great efforts at categorization, one of the most tedious tasks on Wikipedia.

The amount of that you have done catergotizing left-wing parties and the such is unbelievable. Without you, the categories would still be a mess. Even more impressive is that you only recently started editing Wikipedia. Thanks for all the work that you have done. Descendall 09:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RWH: party or pre-party organization?

My understanding is that the RWH considered itself a "pre-party organization," yet you have categorized it as a Communist Party, not once, but twice. Why is this? I understand that there may be some leeway here, but do we want to change the categories to something like "Communist Parties and Organizations"? In solidarity and struggle, --Midnite Critic 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ze miguel: Thanks for responding. I think what I will do is simply put a note about "pre-party" vs. "party" in the article itself, since according to the feedback I've got on the "talk" page, these party categories are intentionally broad.--Midnite Critic 16:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation of Ciel & Espace article

say, Ze, i ran the translated article through a word processor and corrected a few mispellings, angloized (or americanized) some words (but not all). do you want it? if you want me to email it to you lemme know your address (mine is on my user page). if you want me to leave it somewhere where you can quickly get and delete it, fine. and if you don't want it, fine. say, really thanks for translating that. that effort was worth a lot, i'm sure. r b-j 04:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)