User talk:Coelacan/Archive 3

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coelacan/Archive_3.

Wikimedia Foundation

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.

• 1
• 2
• Archive 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

My talk page is a dangerous place. It's a long way down, and there's nothing but darkness ahead. Please tread gently.   — coelacan —

First World

You are correct, sources are essential. However I listed those nations as indisputable examples. Those are nations we don't urgently need to source as they are the least likely to be challenged. However, I fully support sourcing that article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you have my full support, and I will now withdraw from commenting on that edit war except to comments addressed or intended for me. PS: PLEASE archive, I'm currently on dial-up and this page is a horror. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will continue participating (after this tirade of accusations of racism is over, this is ridiculous). I have removed the examples. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't kill it exactly, it's just that it takes about 30 seconds to load which is inconvenient. :( I'm simply using dial-up until they fix my broadband (they've been saying they'll fix it soon™ ever since last september :( ) and it's killing me. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is better. We're finally getting somewhere with the First World, apparently your intervention was more successful then mine. Or Seong went to bed. Either way, good work. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic expand-a-bit

Hm. See this? [[1]] The blue list is a project list of articles not cleared. I'm not sure how I feel about this; I certainly hoped the matter was finished! Johnbod 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

please help keep my photo from being deleted

Hi,

Please vote to keep my photo on wikicommons. I was unfairly targeted based on the religious/moral beliefs of one user. If a photo is taken in a public place you do not need permission to publish it as art.

I noticed you also take many photos of people. Maybe they'll target you next? Please help me to keep artistic expression free on wikicommons. Thanks.

Graham Wellington 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for posting twice I don't know which page you check)

Yes they flagged it today. Thanks I appreciate it! Graham Wellington 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, take a look at the picture in question- an identifiable subject is being accused of criminal conduct without proof. The photo needs to be deleted for obvious legal reasons. WJBscribe 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If the photo were reuploaded with a different name and description, though? — coelacan talk — 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem then is that it just shows two people on the street. Which means it fails the commons deletion criteria: The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project . Unless you can think of why two people having a conversation could be used in any articles? WJBscribe 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. You're right; it's rather useless without the descriptor. And intuitively I understand what you're saying about implicit accusations; however, the law is not intuitive in the USA or Russia. I'm going to wait for someone on the Commons to actually answer my question. I've not voted yet. — coelacan talk — 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remove my quote

Please remove my quote from your page this is a personal attack Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Janusvulcan 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

{2nd warning}

I strongly suggest that you refrain from further claims of "covert method to gripe and your qoutes mocking editors on user page" in your discussion of user talk pages here [2]. With regards to your edits above and elsewhere, describing editors as "covert and mocking of other editors":

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Janusvulcan 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need a hand Coelacan? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, not right now I guess. Janusvulcan seems to have gone to sleep. If this keeps up, someone is going to have to explain to that user what precisely "no personal attacks" means. Either that or explain it to me, because I'm pretty sure I've made no personal attacks against this person. In any case, thanks for watching my page, Yuser. — coelacan talk — 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a little note on JanusVulcan's userpage, and also commented on the incident board discussion about this. I think the problem is that Janus is very new to Wikipedia, and doesn't really understand the policies very well. On a related note, I was surprised to see that s/he is a member of the LGBT studies project. Some of the edits I saw Janus make were surprising, given that context. Jeffpw 10:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image editing

Thanks for the advice on Image:Maserati MC12 Corsa.jpg. I saved the image, changed it to PNG then cropped it. I then uploaded it to commons under Image:Maserati MC12 Corsa cropped.PNG as you suggested. Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. James086^Talk 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I saved it from the Flickr site, not the version uploaded to Wikipedia. James086^Talk 08:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, I've only made a few ~15 contributions to commons with the same account name, but I only really use it for uploading images. My security software is a bit tempermental with cookies so it doesn't always work. Anyway, thanks for your help. James086^Talk 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

lotion-play

Hi; I wrote the original lotion play article which was deleted. I have since reposted with references: Lotion-Play. I noticed you had similiar plans: User:Coelacan/Lotion-Play (found in a google search). I hope you approve of my new version, and that you will contribute japanese material. thanks Urso 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the image

Thank you for finding a picture of Blümlisalp and adding it to the chart I was working on.  :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe this?

User:90.240.34.177 is blocked. The person's not gonna believe this, but I derived zero pleasure from the experience. It's good that I was keeping an eye on him, though, because some of the pages he visited didn't have anyone watching over them. Xiner (talk, email) 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Well, people don't seem to expect that they really will be blocked for 3RR. For most people, it only takes one block to "get it". I expect that editor will play nice from now on, or at least for a few weeks. — coelacan talk — 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Laundry

Ah yes, I forgot about the thing. Must take care not to get it confused with the other thing.I remember what happened at the monastry with the panzer commander and the haunted clock well, and I shudder to think of it.

As always I hear and obey. Artw 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've said too much! Artw 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got quotes!!!

I dont have time for you right this moment. You look like you may have as many questionable user edits your friend and good good buddy Coelacan. --Janusvulcan 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through your contribution also [93]. You may have made the same mistakes Coelacan did. Just not against me. So I will leave that up 2 some other editor to deal with. --Janusvulcan 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(quotes furnished courtesy of Jeffpw)

=P Just be careful you don't let all that praise go to your head! You'll turn into an acerbic old grump, or worse, a Paleozoic fish. — coelacan talk — 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I was so excited by JanusVulcan's expression of (interpretation of?) Wikilove that I quite forgot to sign! Yes, I, Jeffpw, fully acknowledge that I placed those quotes (about myself) on this page. Jeffpw 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. This is related to the recent Catholic-link TfD. --Stbalbach 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More User:SneakySoyMeat

I just made a report of complex BLP activity at WP:AN/I, then noticed you'd already tagged one of the involved IPs as a sockpuppet of this user. PyatPree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 67.160.129.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are showing similar edit patterns. Choess 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed by checkuser and all cleaned up by Jkelly. Choess 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And he's back as User:13.8.137.10. I've left a note on AN/I suggesting someone send a note to Xerox, as blocking all their proxies seems counterproductive. Choess 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

mac os x template

Someone came around the help desk, at Wikipedia:Help desk#Broken OS template in WikiProject for User Categorisation?, asking about this user template you deleted. Apparently the place it was advertized offers no user-subspace template replacement. Did you create one? Are we deleting userboxes again without moving them to userspace? Your help is appreciated, — coelacan talk — 07:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there was a userfied replacement, and my bot had removed all transclusions to the old template. —Mets501 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where the userspace box is? It's not advertized at Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS X, where that user was looking. — coelacan talk — 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's at User:Mkdw/OSX. —Mets501 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion: you might want to have your bot look for instances of templates being advertized, by "tl" or "nowiki", so they don't become hard for users to find in the future. — coelacan talk — 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I implemented that a couple of days after that deletion :-) —Mets501 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh - pretty userbox! <SNAG> Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for tip

Pancho.C 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WarCry Drv?

Hi, unfortunately, the WarCry (website) I cleaned up got deleted after all. How can it be drv'ed? Thanks for the help, Shrumster 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, any ideas for this? I looked over the Deletion Review page...looks a bit complicated. Do you think it should be drv'ed? Shrumster 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok! I'll go work on other articles in the meantime. Shrumster 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, I restored the WarCry article as a subpage in your userspace, as requested (User:Coelacan/Warcry). Good luck with it. A Train ^{take the} 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will try! Shrumster 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

Hey, CyberAnth is on top of the pile right now. A recent set of his edits were supported by Jimbo Wales. Prior to that, he was on AN/I for trying to remove numerous sex act related pages as being too 'offensive', and though most didn't go through, some did, and he recieved a lot of support. He's been approached by a large number of editors about his style of editng, but he generally ignored them, or replied in a way that many seem to find dismissive. He hasn't been stopped, and since being supported by Jimbo Wales, probably won't be stopping or changing anything any time soon. I recommend you find all new articles and keep clear of him. That's my plan. I don't want to be around him or his edits. ThuranX 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

have a cookie!

Thank you! I was at my wits' end and you have shown me a little light! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did see it, but I was in the middle of typing out a very long email to The Advocate and didn't want the computer to crash! Thanks for your efforts though, the quilt has come out as I had dreamed because of you. One thing though. Can we delink the names? I thought the stark bolded black on white was very beautiful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I asked on WT:LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No not really

I created this all I need to do is add user links which will direct any user that clicks on it to their userspace. The only place I would have it is on my user space. OR i could have it link to some other dumb page. I just wanted to recreate it. Also there is a link for every single other thing, log out, mytalk... Try the links they all work.

• my userpage • my talk • my watchlist • log in • log out

• user page [alt-.] my talk page [alt-n] pref [alt--] watchlist [alt-l] contribs [alt-y] But typig this will not work.

--D.H. • (A)•(E)•(I)•(O)•(U)•(Y) 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

Thanks:--D.H. • (A)•(E)•(I)•(O)•(U)•(Y) 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

No problem. =) — coelacan talk — 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See! • my userpage • my talk • my watchlist • log in • log out --D.H. • (A)•(E)•(I)•(O)•(U)•(Y) 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to add it to your user space. It looks really good. Type {{pt-userpage}}.

--D.H. • (A)•(E)•(I)•(O)•(U)•(Y) 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:William Edgar Stafford - poet - lclark.edu collection.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:William Edgar Stafford - poet - lclark.edu collection.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, presumably the bot has trouble finding fair use rationales if not under a separate heading? I've move your rationale to its own section so OrphanBot is satisfied. Sigh, these Bots are getting bossy- they'll take over one day... WJBscribe 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How the heck is this thing supposed to know what a fair use rationale looks like anyway? Can one just write "fair use gabba gabba wheee gabba gabba heyy"? — coelacan talk — 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The story of OrphanBot, reposted

File:OrphanBot.JPG

Photograph showing OrphanBot being strangled in front of the children’s orphanage.

The true rulers of Wikipedia, otherwise known as the New Wikipedia Order (NWO), are the Wikipedia bots. These are vicious, evil, power hungry androids which run in the background and when nobody is watching, BAM! They strike with remorseless brutality. All the Wikipedia bots are thugs.

The most notorious Wikipedia bot is the brutal psychopath who goes by the name of OrphanBot. This heartless lunatic purposely targets husband and wife couples in an attempt to orphan an innocent child. He claims to be doing this because the parents don’t have their source and copyright status indicated. On Wikipedia, copyright is guarded religiously and therefore the authorities have no legal recourse and OrphanBot always evades prosecution for the murderous actions.

In 2006 the children who had been orphaned finally captured OrphanBot, brought him to the orphanage and hung him using a traditional strangulation hanging. The picture taken from the newspaper Jyllands-Posten is shown to the right.

Note: this post is intended as comedy, so treat it as such. --Turbinator 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this at User talk:OrphanBot.[3] Such a tragic story! Didn't The Second Renaissance teach us anything? — coelacan talk — 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another quote for you

From User:Rbj's talk page: The above quotes contain outright lies. colecan is an exceptionally vicious editor, selectively edits a quote to defame, and is a real passive-aggressive thug. Nkras 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Warning given. Jeffpw 06:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I'm afraid that's a little too earthy for my tastes. — coelacan talk — 09:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This, however, is quite nice.[4] I have always hoped to one day earn the title of "The One Who Shall Not Be Named", properly capitalized and all. I feel like a Lovecraftian Horror! =) I haven't decided where to put that yet, so for the moment it's just going into my shoebox: User:Coelacan/other delightful quotes. — coelacan talk — 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"These guys just don't like their authority or their open-minded beliefs questioned." Fantastic! WJBscribe 15:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that I am open-minded (not everyone who knows me would say this), isn't "openness to being questioned" part of the very definition? The One Who Shall Not Be Named can smell a delicious paradox here... the savory stuff of nightmares (or of leg cramps, as least). — coelacan talk — 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, you have become my hero. Even though it makes me feel like a voyeur I often review your talk page. The power that others attribute to you makes me green with envy. Some now are even hesitant to use your name. I wonder if it ever occurs to those who consider you the “enemy” that you rarely edit controversial pages. They seem to accuse you of pushing a point of view without ever editing—that is what I call real Wikipedian power.--Riferimento 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Riferimento! =) Thanks for the good words. I think I know what it is: some people just don't like getting caught red handed. It's a very controversial POV that I have: user consensus is reliable and Wikipedia policy is usually well-crafted and worth following. It catches me a bit of heat. =P — coelacan talk — 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The multi-nominations

Hi. Thanks for alerting me to the debate on CFD since I cast my vote. I need time to think about it and give you a considered response. I think you got it right in your comments about why people might be uncomfortable about the nominations, regardless of the appropriateness of the categories themselves. Xiner (talk, email) 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: bot edit conflict

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the edit conflict with my bot, and I'll see what I can do about it. At the moment there is a delay in the bot between fetching the user talk page and submitting it with the notification which caused the edit conflict. I'm not entirely sure why MediaWiki didn't return an error, but I will investigate. Thank you for your input! Cheers, Jayden54 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation and checking the bot's logs I think I've found and fixed the problem. The bot fetched the talk page two times: once before your edit and once after your edit. When the bot added the notification it sent the edit/start time of the second retrieval (which is after your edit), which meant that MediaWiki didn't recognize the edit conflict. I've now fixed it so that the earlier edit/start time will be sent, which will mean that MediaWiki will recognize the edit conflict. Cheers, Jayden54 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the tip Coelecan! ^^ Here's some bamboo! http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/selection/pandas/panda_thumb.jpg --Candy-Panda 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

T. A was in fact making a point with this nomination

I'm not trying to get T. A in trouble, so I'm not interested in continuing this point on the CFD. But it's apparent from the history of CFDs that he's making a point about the religious intersections, and he acknowledged as much on his own talk page when I queried him about this matter. I don't know what arrangement you two had about these categories, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect all of T. A's interests in them. --lquilter 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Knowpedia

Your nomination of Knowpedia's redirect was absolutely right--it badly needed to be removed. However, I'd really like to settle him down if I could--next time something comes up, could you just drop me a line or bring it up at WP:AN? I'd appreciate it--thanks. Chick Bowen 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. — coelacan talk — 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my talk page

I'd completely forgotten about the multiple nomination. I've changed my mind a bit, and welcome further comments from you. Xiner (talk, email) 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I think you should start thinking about RFA. I can write up a nice nomination. I trust you'll be calmer than most with people. Xiner (talk, email) 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Take your time. You know how to reach me. Xiner (talk, email) 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I really like the aurora (Image:Polarlicht_2.jpg), but haven't had time to sit through those images. I want to work on my mainspace editing, which I've ignored for a while. How long would you say you spent on that voting thing? Xiner (talk, email) 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's not too bad. I spend much more than that on Wikipedia...hmm... Xiner (talk, email) 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I admire you for your consistent stance. Xiner (talk, email) 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The UCFD debates. Don't worry, it's a real compliment. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: multi-user IPs

Thanks! The page I was reading on how to go about reporting someone to be blocked asked to help identify multi-user IPs, but I guess that must have been meant for admins.--H-ko (Talk) 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoe

I saw the change on your user page. Had you just seen that Zoe was gone? --Jeffpw

Yes, I wasn't following ANI or Jimbo's page at the time. I'm dismayed by this. Whatever disagreements we've had, I regard her as a good admin overall and a good editor. I don't think she was in the wrong here, and I certainly don't think she should have taken the fall for this incident. — coelacan talk — 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I followed the discussions at the time. I think Jimbo could have been kinder- its not as if she had any way of knowing he'd already resolved the issue. And she was doing what she thought was in the best interest of Wikipedia. Its a shame she felt the need to leave over it- she could be abrupt but was a good admin, willing to make tough decisions. WjBscribe 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't blame her for feeling insulted and attacked. I just hope she'll come back anyway. And my giant picture of Thomas Jefferson misses her. — coelacan talk — 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Jeffpw 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln sexuality

He's facing an uphill struggle. AfD confirms this article should exist and I see little point in stubbing it. But it reads like "evidence Lincoln was gay" rather than an actual discussion of the issue giving fair representation to both sides. I'm just not sure where to sources information about his love of women, marriage being happy etc. WjBscribe 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

These sorts of edit summaries: [5], [6] in response to the addition of legitimate tag hasn't helped either. WjBscribe 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Otupa Flow

Thanks - I did miss that one - I'll add it to the nomination. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you tell me! :) Oh, well - we'll see how it goes. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure - thanks for your help. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just arrived from Core shamanism

where you had added a to a statement that I'd added to the article about the "light' and the "dark" side of life. What you asked for was " need more info on these criticisms, please " and I'm here, rather than there, to do it. The statement came from a group of Harner trained shamanic healers who had discovered after a decade or so of practicing healing that his methods had not prepared them for what they discovered "in the real world." I will freely admit that this falls under the dreaded original research heading, but there you have it. I would not at all be offended if you were to remove it, but I shall not. I have a difficult time sometimes being compelled to deny what I see and know and feel to be true (check out In architecture in Talk:Phallus for another example - or Talk:2007 Catania football violence for yet another), but I have no problem with being DELETED by someone else who has to deal not with whether the statement is true or not, but rather whether it can be >ref< or not. Life is supposed to be interesting, and....... it sure is.(opinion) Carptrash 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I shall be on the lookout for something that either confirms and rejects my posting. Actually, and anything else that can help expand the article. Carptrash 17:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. Puff

Please see my reply on talk page, you're welcome to make further comments on the issue. Regards PeaceNT 11:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category

Well all I meant by this discussion was that it is a good category and generally worth keeping, I don't really know what else to say except that I believe the category is worth keeping.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD changed

I changed the tone of the nom to make it sound more civil. Thanks for the tip. Diez2 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

women & feminists

hey coelacan - i'm sure you do know women != feminists, but my lawyering tendencies sometimes get the best of me when i see stuff in the CFDs that i feel certain will be later reviewed & misinterpreted & cited for some bad precedent. so i like to get clarifying statements in the record ... cheers, lquilter 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken, I think you're quite right to be wary of that. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young DRV

Thanks for alerting me. The references seem pretty good, and I've changed my !vote accordingly. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Source Canvassing

I've started a discussion about the phenomenon of "Source Canvassing" at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Source_Canvassing with the idea of coming to a common consensus about the larger issue and documenting it on that page. Any input or ideas you want to contribute would be helpful, thanks. -- Stbalbach 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AGF

This was largely in response to your invocation of WP:POINT earlier in the nomination. I'd genuinely like to know what you wish to achieve with these nominations, and whether you think Wikipedia would be improved if your subjective interpretation of the guidelines was applied consistently across song and single articles. AdorableRuffian 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. I did think your invocation of WP:POINT here, given the context, was somewhat incivil in itself - had you not done so, I would not have brought it up. I appreciate that your nominations were in good faith, though I still strongly disagree that these articles should be deleted. Regarding the merging of articles - that is a fair point, but I prefer to split songs that are/were hit singles into separate articles (as with albums), so that the relevant categories, infobox, and any additional information can be added without cluttering up the main article. That is primarily an argument over how information should be sorted rather than a contention that a no.1 hit single by a major artist is somehow "not notable". AdorableRuffian 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Scope

I think it's fine. As you pointed out, it's unwieldy, but as you also pointed out, that's hard to avoid. I still see no particular reason that this description even needs to exist, so I'm not going to worry too much about its wording anyway. —Celithemis 00:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well then, we could just say "We are not here to gay up Wikipedia. Mostly because we can't be bothered. Offer us a toaster oven and we'll consider it." ;) —Celithemis 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, liked your comments on the deletion pages

Hi Coelacan,

Although I disagreed with nearly everything you said in the deletion discussions I saw, I enjoyed reading your comments -- both fun and cogent (not convincing to me, but maybe I'll be convinced another time). You gave me a particularly good response at the end of the tall people discussion just before it was closed. You talked about objective criteria for tallness and how difficult that is to establish. I agree, but I think it becomes much less of a problem if the matter is approached another way: If we could demand citations for every item on such a list that would tend to keep it short and simultaneously tend to keep the right people on it. I'm not sure that a specific height is necessary: The president of the pygmies may stand tall at four feet nine inches and therefore belong on the list. If you demand that there be a citation — that is, some credible source saying "that woman is unusually tall for a governor of Saskatchewan. Heck, we've never had any gov 5 foot, 11 inches before," then why fight it? I think what's harder might be notability criteria. The county commissioner of Webop, Alabama may have a Wikipedia article but you've got to find some way of telling his wife she can't stick him on the list. I think sticking the word "famous" on the name of the article helps a lot.

I came across a lot of this when I redid the List of bow tie wearers article. (I expect to change the name of that to add the word "Famous"). I found it was relatively uncontroversial to separate inveterate bow tie wearers from people who might occasionally wear a bow tie — I just found Web citations for every single thing I could. (There are still a few on that list without them, but it's not a big problem. And there are a few famous people who are known for their bow ties despite the fact that they seldom wear them, but that hasn't been a problem with any editors, especially if there's a source I can point to.) I think if you make people cite a source, you put the onus on them and they tend to shut up. Just my long winded thoughts. Cheers. Noroton 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On Bass

I just revamped the Bass article as some of these editors had rather just lazily delete something than flesh it out, I had to add back several things that were just cavalierly deleted. Oh well She is a great artist and I just added the Georgia Women in the Arts honor. With work in many museums and publications I cannot imagine what some of these peole were thinking. Thank you for your vote of confidence on Bass. Artsojourner 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Verdict on Bass KEEP Thank you for your vote of confidence. I appreciate your thoughts and your concerns. 67.101.31.32 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My edits on PETA

How are these vandal-like edits? And how do you have the gall to even threaten to "block" me for trying to improve an article? Look at my edits again. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THEM? All you admins are all the same, you should just improve the articles by yourselves and ban everyone else, since no one else is good enough for your encyclopedia. IBeatAnorexia 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion.

Should the statements of "considered to be the one of the greatest" be deleted only unless sources are provided or in any case? There are several examples, among them Pete Sampras and John McEnroe, where references have been introduced, but I feel they are not supporting "general/wide consideration as one of the greatest" and I think such statements are generally precarious and should not be there. You see, the whole dispute began when I deleted the according statement from the McEnroe article. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for alerting me. That's the second day in a row that I've got a section on ANI devoted to my "admin rights" abuse. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment at Talk:Primal therapy

Yes, you are right, asserting that Conocer is equivalent to Discover in the text of the article would be original research.

The Gestapo reference seems to me as an interesting historic foot note, as in "Francisco Franco ate breakfast in this restaurant" ot "JFK gave a speech on that square"). But well, I´ll left that out just to avoid a new dispute.

The picture of the bridge is very funny X D

Cheers. Randroide 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

fact spam

The problem is that joie de vivre has a campaign going to discredit wife to support his wish for deletion. His last edits say all that needs to be said: "Reinstating and adding more",one minute later "adding fact tags to untagged statements", another minute later "Wikipedia cannot be used as a source", the next edit "adding "disputed" templates"; only to support his wish for deletion. His POV is that wife should not have an article and he wants an ungendered Marriage article without mention of wife. Please join hereFlammingo^Parliament 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. What I wanted was fair mention of the fact that not all marriages consist of a "husband and wife". It had nothing to do with preventing "mention of wife", it was in the interest of fairness and NPOV. Terribly sorry to louse up your userpage like this, Coelacan; I'm done now. Joie de Vivre 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I may not be talking about the preceding comment, as i was informed by its author, though the "fairness" hardly applies to most sentences that were flagged. If the discussion is about anything i did, it might also be useful to be talking to me.Flammingo^Parliament 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to drag out this discussion on my talk page. I've already made clear that many of the sentences flagged were controversial and needed citation regardless of anyone's motivations. I'm not having a discussion about anyone; I'm speaking in the abstract about the article and its content. — coelacan talk — 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Joie de Vivre 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

Thanks for your help. Joie de Vivre 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: User:Flammingo is citing novels as sources at Wife, I have a feeling this doesn't take care of the need for citation... any thoughts? Thank you. Joie de Vivre 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

MJ template

Why did you want to see the MJ template deleted outright? inigmatus 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It appeared that the purpose of the template was to mimic Template:Judaism and give the appearance or implication of doctrinal coherence with Judaism or the Jewish community's acceptance of such. There was no effort during the TfD to address this concern, which was raised by several editors, and since the template wasn't being changed to something more acceptable, deletion was preferable to waiting around for those changes to appear. — coelacan talk — 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Except this is the biggest farce yet; both I and Inigmatus have said it before: if the MJ template tried to lend some false veneer of mainstream Judaic acceptance to MJ, then it has obviously failed from the very first edit! This is simply not an issue in the discussion! Noogster 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Same colors, same links. Pretty congruent if you ask me. No, clearly it did not fool me or the other editors who voted in the deletion discussion, but it may have fooled many other more casual readers. You really ought to stop taking this as a personal slight. And you're not doing yourselves any favors by playing up the hyperbole. — coelacan talk — 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal at all. If by "same colors", you mean "white", that's most templates. It has MANY of the same links as the Judaism template, because MJ happens to share many of the same elements (even verbatim, mind you) in its approach to religion. It's ridiculous to insist that we create a link for our own perspective on everything, as some have in the past. We aren't fooling anyone, because the VERY INTRODUCTION of the main MJ article states just how the main Jewish denominations consider our religion. Noogster 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just white but also precisely #edf3fe and #ccccff. As for the links, I'm sure there's much that could be said about Messianic Judaism's history with each particular topic. It's not as close an overlap as you claim. And it seems like you have been taking it pretty personally, reading your and inigmatus's talk pages, and the comments you've made in DRV about "Jewish editors".[7] [8] — coelacan talk — 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it is considered both legal and ethical in Wikipedia to use another template to save yourself work when making your own. How much, or how little MJ differs from its Rabbinic cousin literally varies from one congregation to another; the Messianic movement is anything but monolithic. And yes, we are taking it personally to some extent because, for over the past year, our work has been bullied and unnecessarily monitored like you wouldn't believe. It's strange that you are accusing us of racism; when we say "Jewish editors" we are casually referring to active members of Wikiproject: Judaism, and most of the active members of our own Wikiproject are Jewish, too. Noogster 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the template was illegal or unethical. I said it was misleading, and this is true regardless of intent. If the Messianic movement is anything but monolithic, then this is an even better argument for making your own Halakha in Messianic Judaism, Messianic Jewish eschatology, Midrash in Messianic Judaism, and similar articles, since you could discuss all the different approaches that various congregations take toward these topics. What a great opportunity for you! There wouldn't be any squabbling over whether your content belongs in those articles or not, since there is Halakha in Messianic Judaism and the title of the article makes it clear; it would be obvious that your content belongs there. And there would be plenty of room to spread out and discuss different congragations' perspectives. Sorry to hear about your troubles with other editors here. You know, we have wp:dispute resolution processes. You might try them out. In the meantime I expect you to retract your claim that I have accused you of racism, since I've done nothing of the sort. I pointed out that you aren't doing yourselves any favors by yelling about "Jewish editors", whatever that might mean to you. And in DRV, I noted that it's probably already over the line of wp:no personal attacks, which says: "some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I don't know why you think you can casually throw around insinuations like you've been doing, but it needs to stop. — coelacan talk — 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know

I would never have seen that misplaced comment otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is worthless

The idea is noble, but it's been tried before without ANY success. Just look at the multiple requests for mediation in the Jews for Jesus article. To be honest, my time is better spent developing articles rather than chasing down VfDs. If I chased down all VfDs, and disputes, and such, there wouldn't be any MJ content on wiki worth mentioning to anyone. That's how desperate this is. We need third party advocates or else we're going to sink into oblivion and the world will just have to find out about Messianic Judaism from somewhere other than wiki. If you know of any with the time to plead our cases, please send 'em our way. inigmatus 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism, Judaism and Unitarianism

Actually, I wasn't refering to Unitarian Universalism, but rather a distinct trend among certain Jews to attempt to combine Buddhism and Judaism (in fact, many Jews, even reform and Conservative Jews see Unitarianism as too Christian in nature). See our terribly badly written and poorly sourced article at Jubus. JoshuaZ 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary in Sarah Hanson-Young

You had in your edit summary add cite. But it's not really helping with verifying the article, as you aren't trying to say that fact X in the article is backed up by article Y in the biography. Thanks, Andjam 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good

To see you venturing into the tasmanian world - sorry cannot answer you most recent question - will try to keep up with you :) SatuSuro 06:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was about richard jones (?) I am not good biographical details of the tassie greens from the top of my head - even though I was one of the people at bob browns house in liffey when we started the tasmanian wilderness society  :) SatuSuro 07:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow I'm impressed you are putting on the tasmania project tags?! No outsider usually ever does that - I usually spend long hours alone at the thankless task - hey your bridge on your user page has some very considerate rungs associated with it - thanks! SatuSuro 10:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Australian environmental groups/activists do not have a very good systematic history on wikipedia (usually more afds on their stubs than other subject areas) - there were some good retrospective anecdotal materials about the wilderness society and its no dams campaign some years ago - but due to the gap in time - I have tried asking questions on the lake pedder article talk page - and one person responded in one year - fortunately the franklin dam article is a bit better - and the tie in with the politics of the state have been abysmal - the no dams campaign split the tasmanian community- as did the lake pedder campaign. I was fortnuate to live on the west coast before antipathy towards those who might question the particular trends of the franklin issue - and have heaps of materials related to the west coast tasmania not yet put into articles... - I could almost have a project to myself for that area - but some do visit and vandalise and sometimes help.... oh well could bore you silly... SatuSuro 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences - bit like a cousin once removed of your nra :) SatuSuro 11:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Apoplexy and silence while on wiki about all that sutff youre either brave, or... I tend to try to accomodate that sort of stuff when feeling robust after watching 'b'grade movies - otherwise tagging tasmanianarticles feels more comfortable... SatuSuro 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it doesnt bite ya - I can relate to the morbid fascination though - bit like all the people attracted like to the worldtraveller rubbish SatuSuro 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls read and think twice, and help in editing

Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.199.7 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy is spamming users by posting this same posting on various User:Talk pages. His "philosophy" falls under geriatrics. --Otheus 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase -- he has spammed every user that touched his Philosophy of Death and Adjustment article. --Otheus 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

"Coelacan has always been at war with Eastasia. For the record, Nkras, poking fun at your own personal failure to understand the consensus nature of Talmud is not the same as insulting Judaism. Hyperbole will get you nowhere."

Your arrogance and ego - as well as your ability to avoid censure for violation of Wikipedia policies are unparalled. You are to be congratulated. (the preceding will be edited for your self-promotion.) You could actually be a human being and remove your intellectually dishonest swipe at my religion. I, btw, understand what "consensus" is. Wikipedia, however, is rigged in favor of protected groups and editors.

Remove your slur and both quotes, and I shall part company with the sewer that is Wikipedia. 63.228.46.233 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Another IP address for the list, excellent. WjBscribe 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I beat you to it... already added it to the category. Nyaaa! — coelacan talk — 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "slur" against your religion, Nkras. The slur is against you personally. Justin Eiler 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Block the editor, then. 63.228.46.233 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can call it a "slur". I don't, and wouldn't, and would remove it myself if I thought it was. — coelacan talk — 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Nkras, as for your hostage-taking and demands, sorry, I won't negotiate with you. When you are banned it may become irrelevent to keep your quotes on my userpage, but until then, I like them just the way they are. — coelacan talk — 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've earnt this purple star. :)

There is a Jewish proverb which says "If G-d lived on earth, people would break His windows." - unfortunately, we who do live on earth have to suffer them instead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! Thank you very much, Dev. =) Of course,it's only a flesh wound... — coelacan talk — 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nkras quotes

Greetings, Coelacan.

My name is Justin Eiler. As you may have seen from my involvement in the latest brouhaha with Nkras, I'm not exactly a fan of him or of his behavior. However, I also have to note that the "quote" on your user page is, technically, a false quote. Could I request that you remove the "quote" from Nkras--not so he'll win the argument and go away, but for the sake of clarity and accuracy?

Thank you for considering my request. :) Justin Eiler 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree. The problem is, considering this particular troll/vandal's record, I think he'll just see it as "blackmail = victory" and it'll reinforce this tactic the next time he decides his particular flavor of morality is greater than the laws of various nation-states, and, while it maybe should have gone away before, and probably would have shortly if nkras wasn't accomplishing the opposite by playing the martyr (which I am sure is the main point here), now it rather should stay. besides, it links to sources. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They're "GFDL-edited" anyway, doublepluswikigood. — coelacan talk — 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote beneath it registers Nkras's dissatisfaction with it and makes clear that it's edited. The quote is followed by a link directly to what Nkras actually said. It grew out of a very peculiar and ill-argued situation, laden with understated threats and over-the-top soapboxing, and I found the edit to be a deliciously appropriate capture of the situation. As it's doubly clear that it's edited, I don't believe there's any problem. — coelacan talk — 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that. And ... well, as bad as I hate to contribute to bad faith, it's not like he didn't deserve it. (Bad Justin, bad Justin, no biscuit.) ;) Justin Eiler 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not into the Martyrdom schtick, thanks. You are just a mob of cyberbureaucratic authoritarians. The only reasons you have left to not remove the misquotes are your arrogance and your bigotry. 63.228.46.233 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, you've been playing up the Winston Smith pretty heavily. If you're really not into martyrdom, then... say you love Big Brother. — coelacan talk — 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, O'Brien - though you also play your part well. 63.228.46.233 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the quote stays. The rat, although a rodent, is carnivorous. — coelacan talk — 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As all virtual authoritarians and petty cyberbureaucrats, you are - at the very least - annoying. That, apparently, is quite an honor in your world. Your vindictive behavior obliterates any sense of humanity that you may have had - in theory - in your virtual reality on Wikipedia. I pity you. Remember, coelacan, what goes around comes around, and there will be a day when you and the other arrogant, ego-centered and authoritarian personalities who rule over their domains here will be put in their respective places, defeated, or simply cast off into that stinking trench of the virtual Inferno. 63.228.46.233 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is a Jew using Catholic imagery? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious converts cannot fully divest themselves of their former worldviews? — coelacan talk — 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tim Hardaway

Sorry about merging the two CBA references. I should have paid closer attention. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries! The URLs were very similar. — coelacan talk — 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Marriage

I did not really take that comment by Nkras to be a threat. I'm not in light of the whole situation, but I thought he was saying if more people like him edited these articles, then it will teach people the meaning of consensus. I'll talk to the user, though. Nishkid64 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did read them. I think his edit summaries were suggesting that he might use meatpuppets, but what I was referring to was the comment made by Nkras that he kept adding to the page. I might be misinterpreting what Nkras' IP said. Nishkid64 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of threats: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenneth_Fisher&diff=prev&oldid=109346661 --John Kenneth Fisher 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to post that at WP:CN. — coelacan talk — 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that. Done, thank you.

Vote

Yep, that's my vote. Darkson - BANG! 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I've done it (someone has added a link to "how to diff"). If it's not correct, let me know. Darkson - BANG! 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Award

Heya, can I ask you for a little coding help? I've just designed a personal award, but I can't get the picture on the right to get in line with the one on the left. Can you tell me where I am going wrong? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. — coelacan talk — 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that right? I moved the second image to the first row and gave it a rowspan of 2. Also you had an empty column which I deleted (I don't think that affected anything though). — coelacan talk — 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

...I have no idea how that works, but I thank you most heartily! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. =) — coelacan talk — 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sock puppets

I kind of thought so, but I didn't really want to jump into someone else's battle without knowing what was going on. And I figured the npa warning wouldn't hurt. Natalie 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

some article

Saw that you had removed the remark by Enzedbrit. I posted a response at the same time. I undid your edit to post my response. I was unsure what the correct procedure was on edit conflicts like that. Feel free to do what you want, if you'd like to remove it all. This ongoing sort of thing is really souring me and I may need a break(so soon!). Thank you for your help. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Forbidden Planet poster.jpg One Cyberauthoritarian robot coming up for you, my dear. I didn't know you needed cyber domination! :-) Jeffpw 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This user has been thoroughly cowed by the Wiki Fun Police.

Small favour

Coelacan, would you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR when you have a second (I know you're busy chasing Nkras). I've been reported for revert warring at United Kingdom. Would have a look at it and make sure I'm right? Obviously the relevant pages are the board itself, the article history and User talk:88.110.12.67. If anything I think I've been overindulgent of this editor but let me know what you think. WjBscribe 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Five, six minutes and I'll have a response. — coelacan talk — 02:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just reversion of vandalism. Don't touch the page again for a little bit. Has this IP been reported to AIV yet? If not, let me do it. — coelacan talk — 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I reported to AIV but included a mention of the 3RR accusation against me so the reviewing admin could take it into consideration. 3 other uses have now also reverted him so I'm not too worried. WjBscribe 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I made notes at AIV and AN3, certainly enough to ensure that the admins take a close look at what's going on here. You're fine. I'll take over reverting on Talk:UK now. — coelacan talk — 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked now for 8 hours. Seems way too short, but whatever. — coelacan talk — 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OMFG. I didn't notice that the semi-protection was only done for an hour. Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the article after that. — coelacan talk — 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, after Newyorkbrad closed the 3RR complaint (and once I remembered that El C was an admin, and was making the same revert as me) there didn't seem to be much of a problem anymore. WjBscribe 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I wish I knew what his problem with that content was. I kept trying to ask the sockpuppets but they wouldn't tell me... I'm kinda curious about it. WjBscribe 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was really weird, wasn't it? And they acted like it was really important. — coelacan talk — 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another weird element. Check out this edit by one his sleeper accounts to England [9]. The picture it adds to the gallery is one I uploaded to Wikipedia. Strange coincidence. WjBscribe 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! I saw that. And it didn't appear to be a particularly shady edit (though it deleted another... but one could say it was simple aesthetics). I really don't understand this one. So, of course, I fear it. =P *flails robot arms* — coelacan talk — 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

This issue is debated over and over, but nothing seems to change. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Flanagan image

Hello Coelacan, I thought I ought to thank you for adding an image to the William Flanagan article I started. It was a pleasant surprise, as I had never seen an image of him before. Algabal 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

user 71.34.20.31

Thanks for your help. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

you tried to feed him...

...And he bit you. kinda hard, too. face it, Coelacan: he's NUTS. Cashews, pecans and peanuts combined. Maybe Brazil nuts on the side. I'm thinking of sending him a picture of a "baby realistic' and asking him to point out on the doll where the bad man touched him. Yours in frustration (but shared frustration is half frustration). Jeffpw 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I think it's time for step two of WP:DR. — coelacan talk — 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Call me precocious, but can't we just skip to step 8? Jeffpw 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe he has my stapler.

Burn down the building? — coelacan talk — 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking arbitration, but burning down the building works for me, too. :-)Jeffpw 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

request from rbj

as i told nkras, i wouldn't have used the word "vicious", but you're doing a good job of making his case for him. at least Jimbo was able to see your wikilawyering for what it is. i realize the antipathy you have, i will reiterate that although you don't think so, your shit stinks. please stay away from my user space and i will stay away from yours from this moment forward. r b-j 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Odd request

I semi protected the page and I also let the user know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

IPsocks

Posted to WP:SOCK. What category are you talking about? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add on option for adding it to the categories, since sometimes it's not necessary to create two extra pages just to tag the IP address page. I can also create a new category for blocked IPs. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, it will also add it to the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages since an IP address is usually not tied permanantly to one user. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated {{IPvandal}} so clicking the IP address will take you to the user page (if there is one), not it's contributions since the template already has a link to that. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Dear COELACAN, Please forgive me for disturbing you, though I never intented so. Samir 203.112.197.211 10:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's okay. You could have used different methods; I would suggest WP:AMA, actually. But you didn't know that. I hope I didn't cause you insult. — coelacan talk — 10:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm still optimistic about this, but I will consider your advice. I've left a longer response back at my talk page.--Thomas Basboll 10:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. If you have time to comment on my sense of the dispute resolution process, that'd be appreciated. I've posted them to my own page. Cheers.--Thomas Basboll 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. BTW, the Jefferson is a nice touch. Cheers.--Thomas Basboll 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your continued efforts against banned user Nkras and his multiple sockpuppets that try to disrupt our community. :-) Cheers! Raystorm 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raystorm! It's been almost fun, at times. I think User:Justin Eiler deserves some recognition too, as he's done a lot of mole-whacking in the last couple days. — coelacan talk — 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold then! ;-) Raystorm 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirded! Justin's been a brick the last day or so. Jeffpw 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

=D I hope he gets the joke...[10] — coelacan talk — 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did ... and thanks, folks. :D Justin Eiler 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I am new here and I was trying to learn how to do this please forgive me for doing it wrong. I thought I was following the guidelines can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Signaturelink (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

From at least one IP, you were adding external links to your commercial website, signaturelink dot com, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your advertising. The policies that are relevant here are WP:SPAM and WP:COI, and I believe that after reading them, you will see that Wikipedia is simply not the place for your links. I suggest you try using Google Adwords instead. — coelacan talk — 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tales of the Questor

Um... Tales of the Questor isn't my comic, it's just that of a friend of mine. I do try to avoid conflicts of interest, though, hence why I carefully said I knew the creator, and probably wouldn't edit it if it did get undeleted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My reading comprehesion skills are terrible today. I'll go make an addendum at the DRV. — coelacan talk — 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you haven't seen anything to complain about since... the incident. If you do, however, see something that's not quite right, please do let me know. – riana_dzasta 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UK vandalism the other day

After mulling it over for a bit, I decided to take action about that annoying vandal and the United Kingdom article the other day. The result can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother. It will be interesting to see if that turns up anything. WjBscribe 09:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Essjay confirmed but no other sleeper counts were noted. Nevertheless, feel free to add another section to User:Coelacan/socks, as I don't doubt that this one will come back. — coelacan talk — 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proxy vandalism and block evasion should get the block on his main account extended. And I note Gsd2000 thinks a new account is another sockpuppet. I've asked him for the basis for his view. Can always add it to the checkuser request. WjBscribe 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The AfD

Its a tricky one. The only notability claims that might be valid are those press reports are about Jeff Weise (i.e. CNN and The Guardian). The Guardian in particular gives a lot of attention to the website. In my view both are still trivial mentions but you might have trouble persuading on this point. As you say its just a parroted press release, but if CNN and The Guardian were fooled by this organisation, it will be argued that leads to notability in itself. I don't think the close was wrong, just over-cautious. A bolder admin might have deleted and i'm sure DRV would have endorsed him/her. But closing admins on AfDs is a bit of a dice-roll.

I don't think you'll do better than a relist at DRV and then I suspect the next AfD will be very similar. So I guess the question is whether you have the patience to keep dragging this one round and round the delete process until an admin with balls deletes it?

If you do DRV it, emphasise NeoFreak's change of mind, as its not obvious on a casual reading and may have been missed by the closing admin. WjBscribe 10:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

bot removal of interwiki links

Hi, what was the reason for this edit? Those categories are the closest parallel of en:category:LGBT, even if they don't have "LGBT" in the title. Naming has been non-standard across the wikis, but these links are still most helpful. Coelacan 23 février 2007 à 22:51 (CET)

Hello,

The reason was to have consistent sets of interwikis. Some languages have two distinct categories, e.g. fr:Catégorie:Homosexualité and fr:Catégorie:LGBT.

If in one languages that have only one you link both, the interwikis cannot be updated by bot.

Regards,

Vargenau 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

anarchism news

Thanks for participating in the Anarchism portal! Your edits to the news section are a bit unclear to me and they now don't let the text wrap around the picture. Could you clarify / improve this? Thanks Marc Mywords 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The words were still not wrapping around the image. I tried moving the picture next to the specific news topic it related to and it looks good to me. Does this work for you. Thanks, Marc Mywords 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you've did anything else yet, but it still looks fine to me. Marc Mywords 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

SPCK

Hi,

I've replied on Talk:SPCK Drmaik 05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ip toolbox

Thanks for letting me know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the Zodiac speaking....

Thank you so much for watching over my article. WJB and Jeff have been taking it on the correct path and have been facing much opposition from some of my more rabid fans. I see from your edit that you do care and will help revert whenever necessary. If I can ever use any of my special skills to assist you, I would be only too happy. For now, I'll just say thanks and BOO! The Zodiac 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

God, Chance and Necessity

You tagged this as an A& speedy. If you read the article about the author, you'd see it was notable, but since it contained very little text I've redirected the article. If you come across anything similar, redirecting and/or merging might be a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think every book by a notable author is itself notable, and the author's article gives no hint that this one is especially so. But a redirect is fine too. — coelacan talk — 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanton article needs photo and reply copied from my talk for continuity

Hi Mike, I see you're in Largo. Could you call Steve Stanton and try to get ten minutes of his time, to take a photo for his Wikipedia article? Just tell him that Wikipedia has weird copyright restrictions so we can't use any of the images in the newspapers and we need one of our own; that's probably easier than explaining the GFDL or the odd interpretations of "fair use" that go on here. Peace, — coelacan talk — 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for note. I imagine Mr. Stanton is pretty upset right now, and asking him for a photo would be insensitive. I'll look through my archives and see what I have. Maybe after the screaming and hollering quiets down. My emotions aren't under control yet, and I need to maintain NPOV. There are still a few choice words I mean to share with the Council on the matter. I'm glad to see the article is up though. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of Largo history

Thans for de-bunching. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nambla lunacy

Thanks for weighing in on the silliness at the LGBT talk page today. I understand your reasons for supporting the namby-pamby do gooders, though I vociferously disagree. There is quite enough mediocrity in the world without Wikipedia also caving in and catering to the lowest common intellectual denominator. It's high time people began to think with their heads, rather than a more southerly portion of their anatomy. Jeffpw 08:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're one of my friends here, Jeff. I want to fully understand your perspective, and I hope you'll try to get mine too.

This is not a content dispute. This is not about the content of the article. So it's not something that needs to be defended by our strict requirements of WP:V. There are all kinds of concerns about the content of the article, but policy should win out there. This is different. This is a talk page, behind the scenes. On the encyclopedia, verifiability should reign. Behind the scenes, the community should be as welcoming as possible. If the WikiProject is alienating part of the community, that's a problem. And I don't think it's a problem that is fixed by declaring that one's intellectual opponents are simply motivated by political correctness (which, though perhaps not your intention, is usually code for "so that opinion doesn't matter"). I'm just saying that since it's not the encyclopedia at stake, but rather the community, a hard-line stance does no good. It's not worth losing members over. It's not worth the Project losing you over. Which is why I really hope that you can see this from the others' view, instead of immediately drawing a line in the sand. It's not part of the encyclopedia, so it's not a matter of intellectual or ethical integrity. It's just a talk page. — coelacan talk — 08:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, it is much more than that. We are on a slippery slope here. First, the do gooders (and yes, I am being disparaging, condescending and hard-headed--they have made this a character referendum, where one's position on an intellectual matter becomes a reflection of one's character. Please don't forget I was called a pedophile for supporting this article being properly categorized--a fight I lost graciously, by the way) stripped it of its proper category, then tried to remove it from the list where it now sits. Now they are trying to remove it from its proper project category, all in an effort to distance themselves from an organization that used to be in the mainstream of the gay rights movement, but was marginalized due to a changing culture and political considerations. It infuriates me, not because I support NAMBLA, but because it is intellectually dishonest. Call me naive, but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an intellectual pursuit, and not some "let's sit down together, bang out a few articles, then have a group cuddle" kind of place. If that's what it's turning into, pass me the emesis basin and point me to the exit, because the shock to my system would be too great for me to remain. Jeffpw 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do remember that comment. I am aware that one person made it into a character referendum. But that is over now. Nobody else is doing that. The article categorization, the content of the list, that's all content dispute stuff that you can handle with WP:DR. That's all outside of the project. Get more uninvolved editors if you want. RFC it again. There shouldn't be a concern of wikilove on the front of the encyclopedia. (Remember my argument was that LGBT umbrella organizations have thrown them out. I'm not speaking from PC.) But this, the talk page tagging, is behind the scenes. I don't think it's there's a concern of intellectual honesty one way or the other here. It's a practical concern of whether or not the Project, just the Project, is being accurately portrayed within Wikipedia, among other behind-the-scenes editors. This is all rehearsal staging and lighting. The articles themselves are the final cut. — coelacan talk — 08:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So we're supposed to remove the tag and pretend that this article is not part of our project scope, in order to present a clean scrubbed Anderson family image to the outside world, and return the project to homeostasis? I'll have to mull that one over for a while. Jeffpw 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Humor me for a moment: would you put a template at the top of that talk page that says "The members of WikiProject LGBT studies support the objectives of NAMBLA"? — coelacan talk — 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. That wouldn't be factually correct. The tag as it stands is factually correct. Seriously, maybe we need a Mensa requirement for editing here. That might help. In any event, your response to my Chamberlain remark made me burst out laughing. Thanks for lightening the mood! Jeffpw 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just Poland. Let it go, man.

Okay, so if you wouldn't put up that template, then you'd be concerned if people were misunderstanding the current template to mean "support the objectives". I know, the template doesn't say that. Somehow, several people have nevertheless interpreted it that way. Rather than simply saying "well they're dumb", shouldn't we try to avert that misunderstanding from recurring? — coelacan talk — 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

stanton photo

Hi, Coelacan

I talked to Steve this morning. He suggested I get one of the official pictures from the City. He and the city's marketing director tell me they're pulic domain. Unfortuantely, the PD licenses don't seem to work anymore. Not sure how to get around this problem, I uploaded it as fair use with a copy of the email in the desription. He really has been through the ringer, and I hate to put him through much more. He sounded really surprised at all the attention this is getting. On the other hand, he will probably be at the next council meeting and I might be able to get a picture there. I prefer to use my own photos for Wikipedia anyway. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you like quotes.

You may enjoy this one, but please, don't print it. Taken out of context, it wouldn't be right. I may change my mind later. Xiner (talk, email) 02:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaahhaha! There is no correct context for that one, Xiner! =P — coelacan — 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo, you have to take into account the previous edit summary! (And no, I'm not putting that ugly thing on my homepage alongside the smilies and cookies. Xiner (talk, email) 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm honestly not sure what the next step would be, but it's got to stop. I'm getting very sick of seeing "asshole" every other post on that page, and you certainly don't deserve that treatment. RFC is a little busy right now, but the next time I see an attack it may well go to ANI. I hope it doesn't come to that, Rbj really has made some positive contributions, but he seems to interpret anyone's disagreement with him as arrogance and to take it personally. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think a previous suggestion made on the talk page (I don't remember by whom) was probably the best one-just ignore him until he decides to calm down and debate rationally and without needing to call names. Once he realizes no one is listening, he'll either back off the subject for a while (and hopefully cool down), or realize that moderating his tone will make people a lot more likely to listen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you best keep editing there, else I will be along to drag you back! In all seriousness though, if you wish to do an RFC, I would back you on it, I just prefer to exhaust any other possible solutions before going to that extent. One way or the other, though, it needs to stop, I'm not sure why you've so especially gotten the abuse, but from everything I've seen you've made every effort to be reasonable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yow, I see that. It seems to have settled for now, if it starts up again, RFC may be the next step. Here's hoping it doesn't come to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

banner wording

Thanks, added my OTHER two cents to the banner discussion. Purview or breadth equally work for me. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Already have :) Bakaman 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steve Stanton, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• And thanks, Coelacan for passing on the message! Well done to you, too :) - Alison^☺ 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Revert

Thank you for reverting my user page, I appreciate it! —Cliffb 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk

That was supposed to be part of an IP report. I couldn't get it to work right. Perhaps you'd care to help instead of assuming bad faith and criticizing me? Jinxmchue 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was using the directions and links the IP report page instructed me to use. I don't know why it turned out the way it did. Jinxmchue 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your messages

I'm very upset with you trying to delete my articles since nothing you are saying is true. It's very rude of you to go around making accusations which are completely false, you should try and check those out before you throw them out there. FYI-it's not a copyright vio either.

And also I've had the article up for a while now and plenty of other wikipedia helpers have viewed and you're the ONLY one with a problem with it. And obviously it's a huge problem you have to go around trying to delete all of the reference pages I wrote. How ridiculous. You're not very nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtoa (talk • contribs).

Replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella Morris — coelacan — 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBTI

RE: references, I'll try and find some - sorry, but not much on hand at the moment.

In terms of both being studied together, Hirschfield studied both intersex and transgender people - the first SRS on a transsexual person, supervised by him, was an adaption of intersex surgery done circa 1910. John Money aslo did work with intersexed individuals, which he used in part of his psychological hypothesis of GID.

I know that Transsexuals often claim intersex status [11] and have suffered similar discriminations.

I'll have to look up some more - I'll keep you posted.

Cheers, Lwollert 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. got the correct website now. The intersex surgery was developed circa 1910, not the transsexual's surgery was done in the 1930, Cheers Lwollert 11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Danny the Street

Regarding this edit;
It's about time the transvestite streets of the world receive the recognition they're due. CovenantD 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I figure if Danny is out, then there's no reason to make his sexuality invisible. He already tends to blend into the scenery. — coelacan — 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL It is such a fun article to read. How many characters get their own Perpetual Cabaret? CovenantD 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, it's been a long time since I've read DC comics. Long enough that I was never aware of this character. I came across the article here on Wikipedia a few months ago, and I was convinced that it was some Encyclopedia Dramatica madness, some kind of elaborate vandalism, until I looked at how many contributors the page history had. Now I just think the DC writers are crazy vandals. =P — coelacan — 07:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But critically aclaimed vandals! With Hollywood movie deals! CovenantD 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message

He said he was going to expand the article to prove its notability, so I gave him 7 days to. If he takes it off, send it to AfD, and if he continues to take it off, give him a {{uw-afd1}} --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see the seven day thing on the talk page. I'll wait (and probably forget, but it's not a huge deal). — coelacan — 09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Please don't replace the page's content with the tag, add it on top so the reviewing admin can see the content in question. Thanks, John Reaves (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I only do that with attack pages. Should I avoid doing that even with G10? I ask because I have seen speedies sit around for hours and hours, and I really don't think it's a good idea to leave those attacks up (they're quite often students sitting in a computer lab, and it's got to be very embarrassing for the victim). — coelacan — 10:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cograts and the notice (I forgot to watchlist). I guess as long as it's just attack pages, it's not a big deal. I see people do it with other pages a lot, so I wanted check. John Reaves (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Righto. That's what I hoped you'd say. =) — coelacan — 10:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

works

Yup. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mm. The copyright issues are more concerning than other people realise. When I first submitted the globe logo, apparently some members of the Board hit the roof because it was tampering with "the brand", and all we did was drape a rainbow flag over the top. I can only imagine what they would do if we started plastering an LGBT stamped globe all over our articles... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:LGBT

Hey punk ;) Thanks for taking the LGBT globe image off my userpage. I went to bed right after I did it b/c I didn't want to watch the fallout. Shoulda waited 'til Dev920 posted her "immediately" message (woulda been a long night). Was wondering, isn't there (or wasn't there) an LGBT footer template someone was working on? Whatever happened to that idea? Should our templates be grouped into a subcat on the nav templates page? Well, anyway, thanks... ZueJay (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chess Informant (and related)

This article is the first one I've created here. Give me a day or two to get it worked up (and to learn the process) before you try to take it down.--JStripes 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you like it now?--JStripes 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The stress you caused was productive, as constructive criticism is most often. Now, I have a new kind of stress, however, from another editor/administrator (see Chess Assistant.

I've spent a bit of time yesterday and today cleaning up the ChessBase article, and creating and/or augmenting other articles that seem to me closely related--that's part of how the article Chess Informant came into being, but the "spam" tag on Chess Assistant is discouraging. I've been registered here about a week. If this kind of nonsense becomes a pattern, I'll go back to making anonymous edits. Can you help me?--JStripes 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. The "spam" tag has been removed by its original tagger. I'd still welcome more constructive criticism on the articles I've recently created, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JStripes (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Jewmanji

That's my mistake - I was trying to undo the article creator's edit and I must have undid the wrong edit. Ytny (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No biggie. Intentions are hard to read on the internet. And stuff. --Ytny (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

High schools, Newtownbreda High School

In general, high school articles should not be speedied. At 15:37 on 12 March 2007, NawlinWiki responded to the speedy that you placed on Newtownbreda High School with the following comment:

• decline speedy, high schools are at least notable enough to avoid speedy deletion, send to AFD if you want

I will try to find some references for the school so that an AfD should not be necessary, --Eastmain 18:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of this convention but I'll keep it in mind in the future. — coelacan — 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bamboo book

Sorry for double posting, I am still trying to figure out how this works. So: check my Flickr account for more pict of the Art of War bamboo book. This time title is clearly visible and hopefuly in right direction. Thank pals on bibliographic info. Vlasta2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.221.64 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you! — coelacan — 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Hi, I notice that you're doing flickr review on Commons these days. Hypothetically, if you reviewed this image: [12] what would you think? I'd like an impartial opinion. Cheers, WjBscribe 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost assuredly not that user's image. Why is it so small? Ganked from some other website. Extremely likely copyvio for that user to claim CC-BY-SA. Could not be used on Commons. Might be usable under free use here on the en.wiki. Hope that helps. =) — coelacan — 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could express an opinion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png. I am being accused of failing to assume good faith on the part of the flickr uploader. Sigh. WjBscribe 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I will. I'm also going to get another reviewer to actually make the evaluation. I don't want to both review it and then join the debate, and I'd rather join the debate. — coelacan — 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, just wanted to put the debate on your radar without canvassing. WjBscribe 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Husky is the most active trusted reviewer at this time so I left a request on his talk page explaining why I'm preparing to have a conflict of interest. — coelacan — 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

I am very sorry that happened. I was very preoccupied with a vandal (4 times to same article in 7 minutes) so, I might not have noticed. I am very sorry. The Evil Clown 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, can you explain how to enable the revert edit summary (reverted edits John to last version by Jane)? The Evil Clown 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You have the thing, and I don't, and I'm sick of the non-descriptive "rvv" 's. I'll see more people, because this is the third talk today I've asked about the feautre. Thanks, anyways! The Evil Clown 20:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[13] Yeah! It worked! Thanks so much! The Evil Clown 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

Could you take a look at this, would you say that it (and other biographies on this site) are reliable sources. It looks pretty dubious to me... WjBscribe 04:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad website design doesn't count against them, but there's no indication that this site has any editorial oversight. It's probably not a reliable source for anything, and certainly not potential WP:BLP issues. — coelacan — 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh but that's not BLP. It's still not a reliable source though. — coelacan — 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The site is being used for sourcing vast numbers of entries on the list of LGBT people. I intend to remove them and post at WT:LGBT. A lot of the people being referenced by it are living. And Sandy has already rightly ticked us off for referencing one of the entries from a Wiki. WjBscribe 04:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed those entries and left message at WP:LGBT. In light of [14], Dev may not be happy when she sees it. But I think a proper discussion of that source's reliability is needed before they're added back. WjBscribe 05:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, best to get rid of those for now. Presumably other sources can be found where it's likely to be true anyway. I've had a reliable sources battle of my own recently. Ugh. You should have seen that talk page before I cleaned it up. — coelacan — 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, re:your userpage. Alkivar appears to be back: [15]... WjBscribe 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

...and as for Zoe, she once took a 2 year Wikibreak so it'll be a while before all hope of her returning is lost! WjBscribe 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's cool that Alkivar's back. Appears to be nominating people's userspaces for deletion. To no avail. I haven't a clue what that's about...? As for Zoe, I know about her previous long vacation. So I'm not going to keep my page like that forever. But still for a while yet. I just noticed I was vandalized a week ago. From Tor. Because I'm such a jerk, no doubt. =D — coelacan — 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)