User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Archive 1

• Archive 1
• 2

Unblock request

(I sort of prefer to post this in public, rather than mailing it, for community feedback)

If possible, I'd like to be considered for an unblock. I was banned indefinitely on October 2006 by the Arbitration Committee, one of only I think two indefinite blocks by them. I got into a series of stupid rolling conflicts with MONGO, which ended in that, which I should have far, far earlier just let it go. I then socked afterwards, and Jimbo Wales and Fred Bauder both incredibly graciously granted me a RTV afterwards. I honestly swear that all the other supposed "me" socks afterwards that randomly trolled MONGO and Hipocrite weren't me. I disagree with a lot of what happens sometimes here, for what little it is worth, but I wouldn't piss away a Right to Vanish granted at such a high level.

Yes, I've been active on Wikipedia Review in spurts (but aside from occassionally losing my temper there, I like to think I've been squarely in the "Wikipedia can be fixed category"). Yes, I started early last year the stupid Wikiabuse site idea, which was co-opted and ruined by a variety of outside influences. That idea is long terminated, the MySQL database deleted, and the domain name will go up for whomever wants to buy it when it expires.

I decided to ask for this consideration after becoming aware of the current ED AFD, but it has nothing to do with it--no opinion on it, and I want nothing to do with it. On a lark I began working on Commons on my inactive account there afterwards, and remembered how much I enjoyed it. I have no desire to delve into the 9/11 related nonsense again or anything in any way, shape, or form to do with MONGO ever again. What I would like is to be able to freely work on some articles when I have time.

My article interests are I guess a fairly odd collection, and I imagine that is how my previous sock account from 2006 was found: Seattle, Connecticut, Linux, animation, photography, bluegrass bands, comic books. That's what I'd like to work on, if I had the chance again. Probably 1/4 of my previous contributions (Rootology (talk · contribs)) were tagging city and municipality articles with whatever their missing {{state}} tag they needed. I'd be curious to build a bot that can do this, if I were allowed back, since I (hope) I have the technical skill to operate a useful bot. I’d also like to work on Commons to bring in images from free-to-reuse sources and populating them through English Wikipedia. That is what I'd like to work on, given the chance to return. I have zero interest in any sort of political nonsense or power games. I just want to be able to work on stuff that I enjoy reading about.

If my return would require any sort of sanction or probation, or restriction, that is perfectly fine and I wouldn’t even try to object or lawyer it. If someone suggests any sort of Wikipedia space limit, please let me just do Featured Articles, AIV reports, and all that stuff.

I just want to apologize again for my role in the stupid problems with the ED article, and for the personal attacks I lobbed like grenades in my final week—I’d apologized previously on Wikipedia Review, and want to do so again here. I am sorry, and thanks for any possible consideration.

If someone could copy this over to RFAR, reply here, or however it should be done, I’d appreciate it. rootology (T) 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've disabled the unblock request because unfortunately only arbcom has the power to undo the their decision. We therefore can't review our blocks ourselves. Can you please send your unblock request to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org? Thanks and good luck! (I'm asking that because they might wish to review it privately, and that way all their members are aware of the request) -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll mail them too. rootology (T) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If by some miracle it happens, could whomever does it not undelete my old user page but mail me it instead? I don't remember if any personal information was on there, it's been so long. rootology (T) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rootology: do you still need this done? It is a fair bit of work to mail a page, because to be thorough you need to mail each and every revision. Someone could undelete it, you could go check, and then we can redelete it, but of course if there was sensitive info, that exposes it, however briefly... I count 147 deleted revisions in your user page, do you have any idea of about when or anything like that? Just mailing you ONE revision is not very hard, I would be happy to mail you the last one. Just don't want to sign up for mailing all 147 :) ... LMK. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no--I should have taken down the message, I have it now. Thanks though, Lar. rootology (T) 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to whichever Arb reads this; as only Arbcom & Jimbo can undo the block, I'm certainly not going to unilaterally unblock, but I concur that Rootology deserves a second chance as long as he promises to behave himself. (Rootology, feel free to delete this if you don't want it on your page) — iridescent 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm always in favour of second chances for editors that are not likely to be a continued risk to the Wiki. Given the willingness to abide by a topic restriction and the good work done elsewhere this seems like it might be worth a shot. (Rootology, feel free to delete this if you don't want it on your page) ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It probably means nothing coming from an editor such as myself, but I also support giving Rootology a second chance. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there's a bit of history between Rootology and MONGO. If there's to be any unblocking here, I'd like to see an explicit undertaking that Rootology never purposefully go near MONGO again. Failing to do so would result in an immediate re-instatement of the indef block. But other than that, yes - give the man a second chance, by all means. I've never had dealings with the guy on-wiki but when he was owner/sysop on WikiAbuse, I found him to be a civil and decent man. Over to ArbCom, I guess - Alison ^❤ 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The no-MONGO bit goes without saying. I'd mailed him a long time ago to apologize, after Wikiabuse collapsed and I pulled it, and I mailed him an apology again today and to let him know about this request. I can assure everyone that the absolutely and utterly last thing I want to do is cross swords with MONGO again. He and I are and probably unfortunately always be oil and vinegar. I will go absolutely out of my way to avoid him from my end. rootology (T) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. rootology (T) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted and will bring these comments to the Arbitration Committee's attention. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MONGO reply

I am opposed to seeing Rootology ever unbanned and all this is silly since he has already previously evaded his original banning and returned both times to harass me again. He showed up as XP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do all he could to ensure I was desysopped during the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Rootology can create another account any time he wants...he knows this and so does the arbcom. If the project itself matters to him rather than having his old harassment based (look at the evidence provided at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO...here) account, then he can create a new account.--MONGO 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my email to you, I am sorry for everything that has happened. My account here certainly is not "based in harassment" on this name. I made a mistake, and didn't disengage soon enough. I've got no desire to sockpuppet around, or to tangle with you. Our editing interests are night and day different, and we will almost never encounter each other on here. If I just make up a new account, and do what you suggest, it will get blocked--and my articles that I liked to work on were a fair dead giveaway like I wrote above, just as XP was. That was a long time ago, all of it, and I'm asking the editors here for a second chance. Exactly what damage or harm can I do by editing articles on bands, comic books, and Seattle? I don't know what else to say. rootology (T) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again...IF the project itself matters to you...then you surely can create another account...you have in the past however nothing came from them but further harassment. Your edits (though we can't control that of course) offsite were nothing short of egregious. Your creation of the account XP was done deliberately to further your harassment. IF, as you say, you're a good wiki citizen now, then move on and create a new account and no one will be the wiser.--MONGO 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And how long will it take for that second sock account to be blocked? I was mailed by at least one person involved in the previous ED drama to let me know that all "my" articles were watchlisted by him so that anyone working on all of them would stick out. I've got a pretty limited set of interests I'd like to work on. Are you honestly saying its better for wikipedia for me to sock? And I'm sorry, man... I reject that I made XP to harass you. I did perfectly normal editing[1] and then just did a stupid thing when I struck back at you in that Arbcom. I want to do good work here[2] like I did before in my name. Thats all. I'm going to apologize to you again now, a fourth time: I'm sorry, MONGO, for all that happened. I want to edit here in good faith, not skulk around to... and I'm sorry, give anyone satisfaction, especially if it will just leave me blocked another year or years or forever. I'm asking the community for a second chance, and thats all I'm asking for. I'm not asking for your or their forgiveness. I have no right to that now. rootology (T) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just silly. IF the project matters to you, then a new account would allow you to go about your business and prove to all what a fine editor and contributor you are and no one would know or care....since they wouldn't KNOW. This is just pointy drama and I have said my piece.--MONGO 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would like my indefinite block removed so that I could edit. Maybe it would be on another name, that I would let just the Arbcom know about. The problem is that if I just go and do it, MONGO, I can be blocked again for sockpuppetry. The point is that I would like to be able to edit without having a cloud of a block button hanging over my head. Again: I am sorry. I've now said my peace, to you. I appreciate your upset, but I would just like the same chance as anyone else does... :( rootology (T) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

←This seems to be to be a very fair observation that Rootology has made above. If he goes ahead and opens another account, he'll very quickly get caught again as his interests are so obvious. Furthermore, there is likely an entire team which will watch his every move, poised to catch him like certain other banned editors. He will never have peace. Furthermore, checkuser will likely confirm any socks from here on in as he's been editing (presumably) from his own ISP under the Rootology name. That will mean that checkuser requests will be decidedly  Confirmed when they're filed, as they likely will be due to his recent editing of this very talk page. I'm trying to stay neutral on this entire matter as my own history with MONGO is a little chequered, but I cannot let this point go by - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh...point is, I have better things to do than wonder where Rootology is...why does he deserve peace I wonder...his edits at ED still stand...his harassment there is still posted...he misused this and the XP account to settle scores regarding ED. We wouldn't be discussing this had he, long ago, just created a new account...I highly doubt myself or anyone else would have noticed him if he behaved...but surely, if he resumed his usual pattern of harassment, I would have spotted him just as I did SevenOfDiamonds...I don't need checkuser to deal with socks that are abusive...he had a choice to not be abusive, yet failed in that endeavour with the creation of the XP account. My recommendation to arbcom is to do what they think is best...my editing is way off and I have not returned to regular editing, so whatever happens, happens. anyway, frankly. I suppose they have their own reasons for why they may feel that unbanning Rootology is a wise decision.--MONGO 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly... If I was trying to sneak back in, why would I be posting under this name? It had been CU stale for nearly two years. I'm sure it's all been checkusered already like mad by someone, which is to be expected and fine. I honestly just want to do this honestly, so that I can just go and edit articles primarily related to local things here, and the odd arts-related stuff I enjoy. I'm not looking for anything more or less... just another chance, which I've never asked for in all this time... rootology (T) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for even more transparency, here: commons:User:Rootology/Images. Thats what I want to work on, to start. Maybe a bot someday, since I think I have the technical skill to manage one, and there was something I highly enjoyed doing previously, tagging municipality articles with the relevant state tags. Silly and stupid, but thats the sort of things I worked on before I let myself get sucked into two stupid fights with MONGO. Thats all I want to do again. rootology (T) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, if you were to be unblocked, would you stay away from the ED article except for reverting obvious vandalism? Kwsn (Ni!) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll go farther. Will you stay away from the ED article, full stop... ?? That might be for the best. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch the ED article OR the 9/11 articles if you paid me ever again. That includes reversions. I want nothing to do with those corners of wikipedia. If I'm unblocked, and I did something that pointlessly stupid I'd deserve to be canned again just for being a moron. rootology (T) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for this agreement and best of luck with your now unblocked account! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Rootology. Please do not hesitate to ask for advice or assistance if you need it. While there may be some who wish to see you fail, there are others who wish to help you, should you need it, so that you can succeed. Will you? That is up to you. Take it slow, avoid controversy, stick to your agreements, and have fun... Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unban notice

The Committee has decided to grant your ban appeal. You are unblocked subject to the two conditions that you proposed earlier, namely:

• a topic ban with respect to September 11, 2001 attacks and related articles, and Encyclopedia Dramatica and related articles; and
• a ban on interacting with MONGO (talk · contribs).

--bainer (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, and everyone, thank you. I won't disappointment all of you. rootology (T) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed! :) If you need any help or admin stuff, just ask. You know where I am. And congratulations again, it's nice to see second chances can happen :) - Alison ^❤ 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. By the way, I used to HATE HATE HATE doing AFDs or CSDs or any of that. This twinkle thing really is awesome, I wish we'd had it back during my first time... can I kiss its author? rootology (T) 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. There's a lot to be said for the idea that people can change, and you have shown a genuine desire to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, while at the same time acknowledging areas that just end up being unconstructive. Happy editing. FCYTravis (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Grandmasterka 21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Newhavenstructure2-statue.jpg

Are you sure about this location? Qqqqqq (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Newhavenstructure2-statue.jpg -- did I do something wrong on that one transfer? rootology (T) 03:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean the location IN New Haven. Yes, if you approach the back side of Woolsey from the quad with the big fountain way behind you, and are facing the I believe east side of Woolsey, it's in that big courtyard. If you are standing where I took the picture from, the rare book library (I believe that was it) is in the depressed/lowered section off to your immediate left. rootology (T) 03:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this Google map, if it helps, its dead center in that view, in that courtyard I've zoomed in, behind the hall on College street. rootology (T) 03:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes, I meant the physical location of the statue that you photographed. I think you might be thinking of a different statue, though, since there's no statue of a person on Beinicke Plaza (the courtyard). The columns behind the statue give an additional clue - those of Commons and Woolsey Hall are ribbed, unlike those in the photo, which match the smooth columns of the courthouse. The "big fountain" you mention is actually on the New Haven Green, right across the street from the courthouse, rather than on the Yale campus, so I think you might have the location confused. Qqqqqq (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd forgotten the name of that courtyard behind the hall--if you're standing with your back to woolsey, facing OUT at that courtyard, you will see past the courtyard a small side street, and beyond that a long green quad that eventually goes off into the distance and more Yale Buildings, with I believe Harkness tower off to your semi-right. If you were able to see through the buildings, straight ahead of you, you'd eventually look at Toad's Place. In that spot of the courtyard, am I thinking of a flat obelisk type structure, that almost looks like it should have a statue on it...? rootology (T) 03:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say it's great to see you at GAN so soon after your unban. I think the Arbs got this one right. I'll try to review The Paperboys ASAP (though the easiest way to get a quick review is to do one yourself ;) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help out on that when I have time (but I want to get my feet wet more first again). Thanks for the help... the only thing driving me nuts is how damn many of the news articles are restricted. I wish I had Lexis Nexus. rootology (T) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Rootology, I had a look through your recent contributions, and was wondering if you would like rollback rights granted to your account. Rollback is for reverting vandalism/blatant spam only, and not for reverting good-faith edits, and certainly not for revert-warring either. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd be honored to have Rollback for that (and just that, of course) purpose. rootology (T) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. If you're interested in practice first, you may want to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 03:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check it out. rootology (T) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

6/1 DYK

On 1 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Paperboys, 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.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! rootology (T) 02:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Congratulations, indeed :) - Alison ^❤ 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) My next bun is in the oven. rootology (T) 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yes!

I just got them. I might have done more on my first edit than I needed to, when I added the separate backgrounds to each cell. Turns out your format was wrong in the "style" tag: A) each pair uses a colon; an equal sign will NOT work! B)You have to put a semicolon after each one, or the browser won't understand where the declarations are separated. One other thing I just stumbled on- your inner table appears to be fixed width, and if you make your browser window too narrow, it makes a goofy overlap (at least in Firefox). Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you... which width value is fixed? I'm not seeing it... rootology (T) 05:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, and I don't know that you CAN easily fix it. It's not that it's fixed width, but the table defaults to as wide as it needs to be to contain the images. Problem is, your header/footer code is wrapping to the browser window width, and ignoring what's being contained inside it. I'm not sure how to fix that, somebody might know at village pump. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you! I'll run it by there in a bit, I've got my head stuck in an article on my subpage. Thank you so much! rootology (T) 05:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pike Place Fish Market

On 2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pike Place Fish Market, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! rootology (T) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BattlestarGalactica -- 1x01 - 33.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BattlestarGalactica -- 1x01 - 33.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Going to speedy tag it myself; it's not needed. rootology (T) 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards

On 7 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Greencards, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! rootology (T) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User rights log

Hi, I understand your having some difficult navigating the user rights log since rollback has been made separately assignable - you're not the only one, I asked at the time if it could separately logged but to no avail. There are a couple of pages that may help more easily track this information. New administrators appointed through RfA are listed at Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies. There are also statistics at WP:CRATSTATS, which include a list (in the drop down table at the bottom of that section) of admin rights granted other than through RfA - usually the return of rights to former admins. Hope those help. WjBscribe 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It does, thanks. It'd just occurred to me that I hadn't actually even looked at the log in some time, and was like, wow, this got crowded. I'm surprised there isn't a simple search function in there to let you just search for whatever text string, as opposed to by user name. rootology (T) 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that would be helpful. Of course software development suffers from a familiar problem - because pretty much all the developers are volunteers, someone has to be interested in implementing a change for it to actually happen. I suspect most are employed doing similar work, so they are looking for tasks they will find enjoyable and I guess there are far more exciting things to code than a search function for the rights log. WjBscribe 11:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I know some PHP and have search functions on Mediawiki have always bothered me. I've been tempted to brush off my skills and take a poke at things like this. And agreed, in thats the problem with it being volunteer work. :) Unless someone wants to do it, and knows how, it's not happening. rootology (T) 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Sun (sculpture)

Sure, no problem. :) The entire list of references were:

• http://www.noguchi.org/pp_date.html
• http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1566
• http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS215US215&q=Noguchi+%22Black+Sun%22+%22Space+Needle%22&btnG=Search+Images

Hope that helps. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) rootology (T) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick on WP:RFPP

Declined. Copyvio in need of quick fixing or stubification. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me that put up the copyvio tag earlier today--the request was for semi, since I didn't have time to deal with the copyvio, and there was major vandalism/attacks on a BLP article. It should have been semi-protected first, rather than declined. Another admin protected it afterwards. rootology (T) 01:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The Greencards

I have nominated Category:The Greencards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards again

I can't see any immediate problems now. I've CFDed the category Category:The Greencards as it's not necessary (singer/band categories are almost never necessary). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Really, on the category though? Category:Categories named after musicians? There are a ton in use... rootology (T) 03:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, those need to go too. But if I CfDed that whole category I think Twinkle would crash... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards

(Sorry for not responding to your earlier message, I was offline for a week and when I returned, my talk was packed...) The music section is looking good (I'm puzzled why I called it "sparse" in the FAC actually...) and I guess it covers all the bases and is comprehensive enough (not sure).

One thing I would like to press for is chronological ordering (read R.E.M., yesterday's Main Page article). While talking about band members before they were The Greencards, it would be better not to use the term "Greencards" at all until the members got together and decided to call themselves that. I think there's a little too much detail in that "Early years" section that would be better off in the bandmembers' articles (esp. that para about McLoughlin's life). Statements like "to finance the recording of what would become their debut album" also break chronological flow by talking about something that happens in the future ... Further, why do mention that Movin on was award-winning even the reader isn't even introduced to what Movin On is? I also think the Early career/Recording career sections are a little too restrictive, its kinda standard section the history on a year to year basis.

The stuff in the reception section should be distributed along the history. After you discuss the release of an album, discuss how the critics received it. That's the most general stuff I find I guess; read on excellent band FAs like Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Metallica to get better idea of what I'm talking about. indopug (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw you withdrew the FAC - shame... good luck when you next go for it. It deserves FA after the work you've done on it. Keep it up. —Giggy 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gibbons image

If you had given me a chance, I would have added the image to the article. Having spent half an hour downloading and uploading it would have been nice to be the one to do so, but that's life. Also, if you do add an image to an article can you please amend the talk page accordingly. Sorry to sound grouchy, it's just frustrating to have your thunder stolen. Anyway, thanks, Hiding T 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to just jump in after I saw it added at Commons--I have a very fast home connection and just whipped up the other crop and pushed it right back out. I didn't mean to step on your toes with the fast upload. :( rootology (T) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's cool. I'm just being grouchy. The main point I want to get across is to remove the image requests from the talk page, like here. Also, all I do when I'm looking for images is to pick a name out of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators and run a search on flickr. If the person is living you have to run an advanced search and tick the creative commons seacrh and free to use commercially, and then hope you get lucky. In my experience on the Commons, they like you to upload the original and then upload a better crop under a different name, but I'm not up on Commons procedures and how it all works, so there could be other considerations. Hiding T 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Community recall idea

I added a section for you on the sandbox page if you want to further work out your process there:[3]. Best regards, Amerique^dialectics 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Stargate

Hello, GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Archive 1! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Stargate, has been moved to the inactive members list, as part of a process for update the activity of the wikiproject. If you would like to continue to be an active member, please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list. Thanks! – sgeureka t•c 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't even recall signing up! rootology (T) 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deep thoughts

Would it violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL to tell someone to ignore User:All Rules? rootology (T) 04:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Would you like to collaborate to get SR to GA status? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I'll have some time this week to make some passes at it. Replying on your page too. I'd been meaning to for a while... rootology (T) 15:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll expand the lead, per the PR. ;) If you reply on your talkpage, I'll respond back, I'll put your talkpage on my watchlist. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD revisit

Greetings, I see that you have provided input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThefucKINGFUCKS, which I nominated, in favor of deletion. Since you cast your vote, the article has been improved quite a bit and no longer seems to fail notability under WP:BAND or any other relevant guideline. I'd like to ask you to revisit the article and reassess your position, and as the orignal nominator, I have changed my own position regarding the article's deletion. If you do find that the article now establishes notability, please consider changing your position on the article's deletion discussion. Thanks.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, GoneAwayNowAndRetired!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So great to see you again Root!

I notice your edit on the AfD! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Wars_vs._Star_Trek Remember me?

You maybe interested in becoming a member of:

• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and the
• meta:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians.

Inclusionist (talk)

Thanks! Good to see you again too, but I'd rather not have that on my page. :) rootology (T) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Well done! - I've seen your work on commons & you've been only awesome :) - Alison ^❤ 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) rootology (T) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Joyce McKinney

I deleted it after the subject contacted us via OTRS. After looking at the article, there were many unsourced statements that were completely unacceptable in a BLP. Somebody else recently asked me to unprotect it, however, they were informed to create the article on a subpage of theirs. I'd be willing to have the protection removed if some other people will be willing to monitor the page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No good sources, really. The ticket # was 2008070210015435. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Crossing the line

You are crossing the line here:

• The material was not copied to the mainspace, but to talk space and there is nothing wrong with that
• I had a copy of the material on-disk, before the AfD (I was the author).
• Don't ever move pages into my user page withour asking first''

* Please stop the witch hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please retract the allegation of stalking, as you might be seen to be harassing me in retaliation for posting evidence against you in RFAR. We've never, ever had any interatction before all of this. I nominated an article for deletion, which I am allowed to do, as it had virtually no sourcing, and there was--except for one person and a few SPA accounts, nearly unanimous consensus to delete it. I noticed it recreated in a portion of article space several hours later--I had clicked on your contributions after noticing the deletion to see if it had been perhaps DRV'd, which I am allowed to do. I noticed you had recreated it, and on top of that, using your own admin tools out of line as an involved editor, AND you may have violated copyright and GFDL attribution by falsely claiming sole authorship of the article. As a courtesy I moved it to your userspace--I could have G4'd it as someone said and validly had it blown immediately away as a speedy delete, but I didn't as a courtesy and because I'm not a dick. Once I realized this was a little over my head, I asked on AN. Everyone said, "No big, lets move on," until you come here with a false and malicious accusation of stalking. You are out of line, and this is a very sensitive area for me, having been falsely accused of this in the past. You will retract this, and if you don't, I'll ask you to not again post on this page in any capacity. rootology (C)(T) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking to additional harassment of me if anyone comes looking at my page from watchlist, and this is out of context. rootology (C)(T) 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Through several days of review on WP:AE, there was accepted consensus that Jossi's accusation of harassment or stalking was debunked, and that I was actually the victim of some light personal attacks. I did nothing wrong here. rootology (C)(T) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Worked up

I'm not worked up. Sometimes my writing style can be seen as worked up, but that is because I tend to be direct and insist on rather clear and full details on things. That can be seen as a little excited, but I prefer to think of it as thorough. Discussions on wikipedia are debates, not votes, and I like to encourage that--Crossmr (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

In re [4]: I attempted to indicate on Sceptre's talk page that there are no IP similarities between Sceptre and Frosty Jack. They are both in the UK but on different ISPs. It is, of course, possible for one person to have more than one ISP, but at the moment there is no technical connection whatsoever between the accounts, and speculation to the contrary is just speculuation. Cheers. Thatcher 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I shot you an email earlier (I believe it was the right address). Thanks again. rootology (T) 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not received it. Thatcher131 at gmail dot com? Thatcher 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thatcher at gmail just got a confusing email (no personal info--just probably absurdly out of context and bizarre to them!). I'll resend it right. rootology (C)(T) 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was frustrating when I tried to register. How dare someone take my name! By the way, I am almost certainly not running for Arbcom. Last year I wavered up until the last week of nominations and ultimately decided no. This year I'm not wavering at all, at least not now. But thanks for the vote of confidence. And if Kelly M. sees this, I wasn't mad, just disappointed. I also think a random or pseudo-random jury pool would be worth trying. The problem is that juries only work because they are supervised by judges who are empowered to rule on matters of legal interpretation, admissibility of evidence, and so on. I think for a jury system to work here it would have to be overseen by people with experience in arbitration-like matters to assist the jury on procedures and so forth, but who would be neutral on the cases themselves. I think it would be quite difficult to get such a system accepted. Some people would assume that the jury was being controlled by the "judge" (or facillitator, or whatever you want to call it) and would therefore think that decisions were being made by a cabal of one, instead of a cabal of fifteen. But it might be worth attempting as an experiment. Thatcher 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

As I've said now in at least three forums (including once about two inches above your most recent post), I, Matthew Bisanz, will not run for Arb Com in 2008. If nominated, I will not answer questions, if elected, I will not serve, yadda, yadda. Thanks for the thought though, at least half a dozen people have asked me to run, so I must be doing something right around here. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw, you're screwing up my handicapping here! I'll never be the next Cosell. :P

For what its worth, I think you'd be one of the good ones, like I said on the Forum of Ultimately Supreme Human Deprivation. rootology (T) 03:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You do know I saw a news thing on Artisan cheese a couple days ago, came here and was baffled we didn't have an article, and wondered how long it would take someone to write one. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was surprised when I saw it missing, too after I started that Beecher's article. Fancier cheeses up here are a lot cheaper it seems so its one of my few actual food vices beside pho. The artisan one could be a longer article by the time its done. rootology (C)(T) 15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Tread lightly, I am not a newb.

With that said, Please verify your sources to make sure they are not one citation referring to another. Veriss (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not a newb either. rootology (C)(T) 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not looking for a conflict, just don't want to be run over. I just don't want the end product to be a partisan embarrassment to Wiki....that's my only goal.

Veriss (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, I might be new to all this, but I saw what was clearly a white wash rewrite of history to appease the powers that be. I just wanted to point out the history of the article and how it was re-titled to not sound so negative, when the fact is that she is under investigation. ~Carterartist

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence at WR, but unless something with my schedule changes between now and December, I won't be running for ArbCom. For one, at my current schedule I don't have the time to devote to it, and being as I was critical last year of the very same thing, I can't in good conscience run. Secondly, I've pissed off enough people to make it largely impossible, given the likely mechanisms ArbCom elections would use, but even if that didn't happen, the level of controversy that'd inevitably follow would be detrimental to ArbCom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, time will tell. If you do find the time and jump in, I hope I do better at least than my meta prediction. :( rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No winner

Thanks for your note. I subsequently found that you'd discussed the essay on another site, where I suppose the user has an account. It just seemed odd that he'd found an (essentially) unlinked page so quickly. Nice essay, by the way. Wikipedia:Is not about winning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. rootology (C)(T) 22:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the revert. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. rootology (C)(T) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Archives for UFO Research

See User:Rootology/Archives for UFO Research. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle. rootology (C)(T) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Copyediting

Sure thing. What is your time frame for getting this done? I can work on it this week. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! And no rush at all--totally whenever you can work on it, absolutely at your convenience. I've been starting to work on the linked articles under Template:Pike Place Market in the meanwhile. rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tracking

Since you and I seem to be interested in this sorta think I set up User:MBisanz/ACE2008 to track the pre-election buzz. MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey fellow nutmegger

I didn't know that! I know your user name from seeing it on various discussions, and the "Rootology" brand makes me more likely to buy into whatever your comment is, although I'm sure I disagree on plenty of occasions. In recent months (up until a couple of days ago) I'd neglected edits to local subjects because it's just so important to get hot and bothered on Obama related pages, where I can bang my head against the wall, get steamed and watch my edits go down the tubes in partisan wrangles. It's just so much fun! I get the impression that, like me, you like fair treatment of users on this site, but I think I've seen you more on bureaucracy pages (AN/I? Arbcom? Mantanmoreland?). I've also found your comments at a certain other website don't tend to make me knash my teeth (but don't ask me now to remember any -- oh wait a minute, something about helicopters a while back? Tell that Guy that anyone can invent a helicopter -- we happen to make and develop the world's best). Every now and again I go around the area and take (generally awful) pictures of local things, and for some strange reason I've taken pics of train stations, a subject that I don't find very interesting (I guess the local angle is interesting). One day I'm going to visit that vast and intimidating National Helicopter Museum at that old train stationhouse in Stratford.

I noticed some pretty cogent comments by you on the Palin page (I know they were cogent because they were agreeing with me). Discussing these kinds of topics on the Obama pages, on the John Edwards paternity Afd, on the McCain lobbyist controversy article and now here makes me think about how the same principles need to be applied evenly, although circumstances also are going to matter in whether we decide to cover something and how we do it. I've been a big defender of the right to include information under WP:WELLKNOWN, although I'm now wondering how much other sections of WP:BLP should come into play. The problem with a lot of these discussions is that much of it is made up of judgment calls that policies and guidelines don't really address (or can't). That may be more of a strength than a problem, actually, but it means that there isn't always a lot to guide us when a very emotional issue comes up, like the nasty Palin grandmother-of-Trig rumor or the Palin-soon-to-be-a-grandmother fact. The idea that Palin's husband's 20-year-old DWI should be in this article is something I find ludicrous, but it seems just important enough to me to put into his own bio. There was just a discussion on the Talk:Barack Obama page about whether to include Obama's own drug use while in college (25-plus years ago). I think it's worth a line on the main page, and not much more on the "Early life" page, and of course, what's more important is that he says he stopped using it in '83 or so.

I think on the Palin page we're seeing a lot of inexperienced Wikipedia editors and people new to Wikipedia who have an interest in Palin. These people don't understand things like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS, and that's hardly their fault. The more I edit contentious articles, the more I want to stick to policies and guidelines, because they help anchor me to reality. I went through that same process when I got involved in AfDs -- at first being a strong inclusionist, now less so. I tend to be very inclusionist when it comes to WP:WELLKNOWN public officials, especially candidates, but I lean strongly for deletion of gray-area material that's hurtful to people who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. Palin's daughter is a bit on the edge -- I think it's worth including, but not much information. I think mentioning the discredited rumor about Trig is probably not even necessary in the article, although it probably should be in the Campaign article.

Just noticed how long my comment is. I'd better cut it short here (fast typing has its disadvantages -- mostly for readers of what I type). -- Noroton (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a long write up for this, but I'll just say thank you, and that (despite the fact that some of my posts on the Board of Divine Human Flaggelation are a little... colorful? in regards to the Conservatives) I'm never going to import stupid political crap here if I can help it. Hell, one of my best friends growing up is as conservative as I'm liberal, and we used to just laugh at how far apart we were, then have a beer and laugh some more. I think the Palin thing will sort itself out fine (as long as there's no new "Shoulda vetted her, John!" drama like today, with AIP--wtf?) over time. The helicopter thing back home is a sore point for me. The museum is OK--its fun, don't plan to make a day of it. Hit up Paradise Pizza up Main Street if you go, in Paradise Green--about 2.5 miles north of the museum. Great stuff, or it used to be 3-4 years back (I was partial to the meat pie and the greek salads). Oh, and I swear to God, I'm sick of these people denying the true Huskies with their fake fake Huskies. Jonathan would kill them all and let Geno Auriemma sort them out. rootology (C)(T) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely check those out. One of the ways you tell the classy from the non-classy editors here is whether they're capable of separating what they want politically from what they want wikipedialy. Somewhere on this site they say "write for the other side" -- try writing something that fairly describes something favorable to the other side. I actually find that enjoyable. (I was checking out an article in order to add something about Obama's law school experiences to Early life and career of Barack Obama, I read one article from New York magazine in which -- I think it was Robert Reich who said that when he was in law school at Yale, he could look around his classroom and see Michael Medved, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and, in the back, not saying much, Clarence Thomas. I love that. No, I don't even care what your politics are. It does tend to color someone's edits (sometimes in ways that hurt an article, sometimes in ways that help restore balance), but most people can be pretty successful in separating their political views from their views of what's good for an article. -- Noroton (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AN

You really don't want to know how much I despise users logging out to do the sort of thing that is going on at AN right now. The fact that policy isn't clear enough to let me block them outright, and usually isn't good enough to get a checkuser, drives me NUTS. /me ends rants. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust me when I saw that watching that stuff from the sidelines for a yearish drove me crazy. The day that everyone is forced to login and have only one account bound to one email address in some gloriously restrictive way will make me quite happy, as counter as it is to our "wiki way". Specifically to shut down a ton of games and make checkusering and all that hunting the exception and special event rather than the rule. rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

re: 3rr

I have removed the material 3 times and don't plan on doing it a fourth. However, the user in question has added the material at least 6 times.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Thanks, even though I think it's really a BLP I will leave it to others now, you are right that sometimes these things are contested. Hobartimus (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just no

Do not ever refactor my comments on WP:AN. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no authority to enforce this. Sorry. We do not vote on BLP protection if they're getting all but metaphorically raped and slandered rapid fire. rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree with me. But do not refactor my comments. A simple request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the circumstances I'm happy to honor the good faith request here. It was your initial language (coming in, as you are an admin) that concerned me. But we're copacetic now. Just don't violate consensus and abuse BLPs with misuse of the tools. A simple request. rootology (C)(T) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of sorts

File:Moosehead.png		The Sarah Palin Honorary Moosehead
		For proof that BLP can and does transcend partisanship. Thanks for your efforts. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. rootology (C)(T) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a compliment...? Anthøny ✉ 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats how I read it, but sometimes my irony-o-meter goes haywire? rootology (C)(T) 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Allegations

Christ almighty, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd be offended. I was trying to talk a situation[5] down, or at least escalate it to more definitive action. Looks like I got caught in a Big Hairy Deal.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got no idea. Even after a couple hours, a dinner and drinks away, I'm still scratching my head at the absurdity of it all. So who are you really a sockpuppet of? Is this Jimmy? :P rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HA! You know, I think thats the second time I've been accused of that, and back when I started, people thought I was a sock because I was a very... uppity and competent newbie.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at it the less it makes sense, and the more entangled it seems to get into wikipolitics almost as old as the project.--Tznkai (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave up on trying to understand the whys of it a few hours ago, myself. rootology (C)(T) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Traffic

For the record, the main page averages ~6 million hits per day. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update the evidence. rootology (C)(T) 06:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arb case

Root, just wanted to offer you props for the work on the Arb case. I had planned to put together some evidence together today, only to find that you've said everything needing saying far more thoroughly and eloquently than I ever could. Awesome work! Kelly ^hi! 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) A round of minor insomnia helped... rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here is a convenient list. Kelly ^hi! 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rootology, thanks for the evidence review on edit volume. Would it be worth also adding in some or all of the various sub-articles and related articles then existing? I had wanted to stay the heck away, but got drawn in when the mess spread to other articles. A responsible editor really also needed to be dealing with these articles at the same time. Heck, even just including Political positions of Sarah Palin would provide a more comprehensive picture, and it was probably the worst, though the mess was getting to be quite widespread. GRBerry 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I think it would be helpful, but my brain is fried after everything I pulled this morning. I might add more later, but I think I'm going to leave the subjective digging on good vs. bad edits for everyone else. I might be too close at this point to do it objectively for that. The side articles would be helpful, especially that one. I mean, God, we're going to be up to 3.00 a minute if we factor that in... rootology (C)(T) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  Since you left the "anyone can add more evidence to this section" in the bit about edit warring, I've done so. Feel free to purge it, reduce it, or just go back to your last, since it is after all your evidence. GRBerry 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, thats fine, keep at it. Since that stuff is partially subjective it made more sense for us to work on together. rootology (C)(T) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll agree that it is subjective - one of my edit summaries noted that I wasn't sure about all of your entries. I will also say that I made no attempt to look and see what edits in that period might have been reverting by hand edits from before that period. The revert count would undoubtedly go up, as well as the largest N for NRR - which I think was about 8 just within the period. Not to mention that missing a revert would be easy to do when everything was being done by hand. GRBerry 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. I set out to just simply demonstrate there was an edit war that warranted protection, because I honest to goodness believe that to be true. As sad as it was, I think the BLP concerns were just the icing on the war cake. 56 likely to definite reverts in just 220 minutes is insane, I've seen articles locked down for 1/5th that much with no objection. But that's why I wanted to let anyone tweak it, I was sure I'd missed some. I honestly don't want to go edit by edit again through all 178 to try to parse it all out. I'd guess it would be plus or minus five to ten either way. BLP wise, I just really looked closely for that over the last half hour, earlier. If anyone wants to take on that analytical beast, more power to them. I'm prety satisfied you, I, and MBisanz have pretty conclusively demonstrated an epic edit war plus a host of BLP violations and concerns. I know Jossi is going to keep objecting, but he's also objecting that there was no consensus to protect to begin with, despite his being outnumbered a clear as day 24 to 1 there... what are you going to do? rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cook vandalism

How dare you revert my restoration of that important appraisal of the subject! While it may not have been sourced, it's commmon knowledge obvious to anyone who simply looks at the subject's photograph. (But seriously - I don't know how that revert happened - my mouse must have slipped - thanks for catching the error.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you for reminding me of the sheer manliness of the bold mustache this guy was sporting. All men should grow these again, just to say: we're dudes. rootology (C)(T) 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee - with all the political stuff lately, this gave me a mental image of McCain and Obama at the debates, both of them sporting gigantic moustaches. Somebody should do a photoshop. Kelly ^hi! 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of, when the hell are we getting a Jib Jab about Obama and McCain! I demand satisifaction. rootology (C)(T) 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Six weeks ago... Dragons flight (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

lol! Wow, I suck. rootology (C)(T) 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards

Passed.--andreasegde (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! rootology (C)(T) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NY, NY

The New York nomenclature is complicated. That's one reason why naming conventions are just guidelines - it's important to have some leeway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree... doesn't it make sense though that major locations like Boston, Seattle, Rome, and Paris which have no real other notable name counterpart be just the name? I'm just not getting why some US cities would be exempt, but not others. On the national level, shouldn't it then be Paris, Île-de-France or Rome, Lazio? rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes the U.S. different from European countries is the relatively large number of places with the same name. There are so many Portlands, Springfields, and Lancasters, etc., that many articles have to be disambiguated. To make it more consistent the convention calls for all U.S. places to use a standard format. Also, in the history of many European countries provinces have been redrawn or renamed from time to time, while states in the U.S. have been very stable. It's not a perfect solution, but it generally works. I don't know how many articles we have on settlements in the U.S., but I suspect there are at least several thousand. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to make cities with no other US named-municipalities their own one, though? Maybe it's my Seattle bias, but we're the only one. rootology (C)(T) 20:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventiosn are most effective when they're used consistently. For example, when I look at a link and wonder what kind of thing it is, when I see it in the "city, state" format I know it's a place right away. As I mentioned in the other discussion, naming conventions sometimes mean that articles aren't at unique names even if they could be. There are no articles at Princess Diana, Spruce Goose, or Prius, even though those are arguably the most common names for those topics, because of naming conventions. Anyway, it's a long-standing debate on Wikipedia, and I'm sure editors will be discussing it for as long as the project is active. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Seat on ArbCom

I shouldn't ask for things you don't want, you might just get them ;) Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! The day you see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 20xx/Candidate statements/Rootology is the day Bacon is healthy for you. rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very sensible. I finished the move. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

9/12/08 DYK

On 12 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beecher's Handmade Cheese, 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.

Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) rootology (C)(T) 13:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Rootology, thank you very much for your "strong support" of me both in your comment and throughout the RfA. Your unexpected supportive participation throughout was most appreciated and I am honored by it. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I weighed in there. rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

All user talk: was de-indexed last week, but it just hasn't populated through to google, a debate on de-indexing Help talk: Template talk: Image talk: Portal talk: and Category talk: is indicating a preference for keeping them googleable, I do not think there has been a debate on User: yet. MBisanz ^talk 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User definitely needs to be covered. Categories should be indexed, but talk? I can't see a compelling reason for any talk page except possibly Wikipedia: rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who proposed deindexing the other talk pages, and people felt it wasnt a significant enough issue to warrant hiding them from google. User should be done, but I suspect if people can't agree on de-indexing Help talk:, they will never agree on User:. MBisanz ^talk 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it just will need to come up until people catch on, about how much work and possible harm would be saved by doing it. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Rootology. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards

I had a half-hour before heading out to dinner, so I went ahead and looked this over. I fixed a couple of hyphens in date ranges that should have been endashes, but really that was about it as far as MOS was concerned. I did drop a few extra words and minorly rephrase several sentences. A few lingering issues:

• I added one hidden comment asking for clarification for a sentence that didn't quite make sense.
• The date formatting needs to be cleaned up. I don't think there are any full dates in the article, but in the references, I see both unlinked monthdayyear dates and linked ISO dates. When using the cite templates, you can achieve unlinked monthdayyear dates by using the accessyear= and accessmonthday= parameters instead of accessdate=.
• The See also section should come before the References (the whole principle of internal links before external ones, etc).
• We don't use italics to emphasize quotes (like the McLoughlin one in the Early history section), but I'm fuzzy on the current guidelines for block quotes, etc. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Quotations and WP:MOS#Quotations would be the places to start puzzling that out.

Must run. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The date formatting on references always screws me up, since it seems to always vary! I got your hidden note and (I hope) fixed that passage. I'll get the sections moved around now--I'm thinking I should fork off some more from the Early History as well to slim that down, and it may be time to break out the individual artist sub pages... rootology (C)(T) 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just completed a copyedit. I think you should put the "External links" into the web citation format (look at some of FA's listed on my userpage to find what that looks like if you need to) and then I think it will be ready for FA nomination. Please let me know when you nominate it. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla! I'm going to be working more on it tweaking a couple of things this week. I think it'll go up on FA Saturday or Sunday US time, I'll let you know. rootology (C)(T) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The MySpace link in the External Links section appears to be a dead link. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.myspace.com/thegreencards works fine for me. Giggy (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that site may be blocked on the public computer I was trying to access it from. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I've had a shot at a review. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! I'm going to go through all those suggestions this week/this weekend. rootology (C)(T) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RE : deleted image

Hi, drop me an email. Thanks. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sent, thanks MD. :) rootology (C)(T) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards#Musical style and influences

This section is somewhat of a mess and is mostly a bunch of quotes thrown in without that much flow or context. I don't wanna clog up the FAC too much, and this might take a while to fix (depends how fast you work). I probably went a bit overboard in writing Augie March#Musical style, but it tends to work pretty well when giving an example of the basic structure you want to work towards (also assuming there's enough info available). So yeah, good luck. Poke me if you want some help with it. Giggy (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to take a crack at it... this is getting into those areas I'm not as good at yet. Do you think it would suffer or risk losing the FA if it sat till Wednesday? That's when I'm going to have the next long block of time to really dig in. Your section on that other article is fantastic. rootology (C)(T) 14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Until Wednesday? Should be OK. My last FAC went for nearly a month, I think (maybe it just felt like that), so you should probably be fine. I'll be sure to say something witty and constructive about the band history sections before then. Giggy (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giggy. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I ended up with more time on my hands today than I expected, but I think I'm hitting a wall--take a look at what I did with it? Of the sources I have access to (i.e. non-pay ones) and the large clutch of stuff at this page on The Greencards' site I've gone back through all of them again, and I'm not finding anything beyond what I've already gotten in there--it starts to repeat. I could have missed something of course, from having read these articles so many times now. I redid the section a bit structurally and order-wise, and added a couple bits I'd overlooked. Let me know what you think. rootology (C)(T) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's definitely looking better at a glance. *starts to read* I hope you don't mind me throwing all my thoughts here. (I'll do it anyway! Feel free to move them.)

• "Despite the wide array of influences that shape their sound, The Greencards have always maintained a distinctively Americana sound.[26] Despite..." - repetition
• "Despite their diverse musical influences, the various sounds are always detectable, but none ever dominate the band's music" - I don't feel this adds much. Removing the first part of the sentence and maybe integrating the second part (about domination) in with other stuff might work better, in my opinion.
• "bluegrass purists may miss the vocal idiosyncrasies that can be found on other bluegrass" - I really am quite picky on repetition :P
• "own musical work to expand bluegrass" - I think it would keep its meaning even if you removed this (it mentions progressiveness, and all).
• Damn, you have plenty to work with on the last album, eh? You shouldn't write 3 paragraphs about it and 1 about the other two together, but if you have plenty to work with, I think you should try to say a bit more if possible.
• "Their early work from Movin' On" - literally, this is saying the first few songs on the album, or the first few songs they wrote. I don't that's what you're trying to say. Maybe use "Their work on Movin' On" or something like that.
• "observed that The Greencards play traditional American music better than some Americans do" - I don't like the use of "observed" because it gives it a bit too much weight as a statement of fact, if you get my drift. I'd make it clear that's his opinion.
• "because of their deep respect for the material" - not sure what you refer to by "the material"

Giggy (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, going through all this. And possible jackpot, as I've now used my brain. rootology (C)(T) 04:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through all the copyediting points, and begun expanding it out with some of the newer sources I found by digging more. To be honest, I'm going to be able to expand the article overall as well afterwards, even more, I think. But yeah, there is a ton more for the music section. Looking through these, it's starting to read like each reviewer (with few exceptions) takes what the others all saw as influences, plus an extra bit (I never heard Gospel in there, except on one lone track, but NPOV & NOR...) rootology (C)(T) 05:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A note

Just wanted to drop a note to let you know that in the past 3 weeks, every time I've seen a comment of yours on places like AN, or policy discussions, or Wikipedia Review, I've thought they were extremely clueful, well thought out, and 99% of it I agree with (I'm reserving the 1% even though I can't think of anything as of yet, except maybe the Nielsen OTRS stuff). Wikipedia would be a better place if more people displayed the depth of thought you display here. I've probably just screwed you over with the Wikipedia Review community by saying I approve of your comments, but meh, whatever ;) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Swat. rootology (C)(T) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And hey, Root, I just read your comments over on WR about departing that place. Well ... I'm kinda saddened. You're one of the good guys & I really like what you have to say, but at the same time, I can understand why you need to leave. Still .... I'll miss ya there :( - Alison ^❤ 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's permanent, or just an absurdly long vacation. The level of pointless crazy and nastiness that has gone up dramatically since Wikipedia Review actually become more relevant and useful than places like wikien-l, and became a force for changing things here, has driven me crazy. Whenever a tired old meme gets drawn down by things getting fixed, a new one gets made up--the giant revenge platform thing, for example. Moulton is just the icing on the cake. I'm almost thinking I'm going to take break from a lot of the backside stuff. The absurd commentary on WT:RFAR two odd months ago, where I'm refered to as someone under state supervision or something (totally false and entirely fictional, and the spreader of that fake meme who I won't mention was decently-for-me slapped down a bit for it by Arbiters and Stewards) and the fact that the sad bitter pills there on WR are willing to go after anyone--even an old timer like me that paid my dues at the little virtual Shawshank Prison--is just depressing. They're only in it for their own glorification. I have no time or patience for that crap. rootology (C)(T) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Glorification is the wrong choice of wording. I would offer something similar to "obsession" as being more appropriate. However, I think I made it clear how I feel about the moderators there. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not getting into it too deeply since I've got more interesting things to think about when I have the spare time. But the Mods there aren't the problem, except in that the style of moderating allows people to go berserk too often. But that kind of thing takes time to change. Unless certain people there are put on choke collars, they're going to drag the entire place down with their extremely and utterly petty "get even" schemes. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Seattle FA

Replied on my talk page. Let's keep the conversation there, if it's OK with you. - Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! rootology (C)(T) 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Testing a new section for my fake block test

Hello. Another to come. rootology (C)(T) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked! Hah, you had it coming, you Democrat you! That will teach you! :) Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My blue states will get you and your little red dog too. rootology (C)(T) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurray, my block log got a buffing and polishing for a good cause! rootology (C)(T) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time you fake block, can I fake unblock you? I was thinking of this as an unblock reason: "please please please please please". I never tried it, but it could work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It may work better if you click the heels together. rootology (C)(T) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greencards

Well done, and congratulations.--andreasegde (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'm on my 2nd one now. rootology (C)(T) 03:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool!! Well done, indeed. Nice one :) - Alison ^❤ 03:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) rootology (C)(T) 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi. I did a short copyedit of the lead of Beecher's Cheese Company, and the diff is here. I usually hate it when others change the wording of my projects, so I just thought I'd tell you. :) I'll probably get around to looking over the rest of the article soon, and I'll put the diffs here. Lets get this good article to FA status! Cheers, Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I also left a question on the talk page. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Rootology for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on The Greencards - I see you addressed many different points during the FAC, nice job. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) rootology (C)(T) 16:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear Rootology, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Rootology, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Making not-logged-in obvious

Hi. You edited Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 32, I assume accidentally. My link didn't specify that it had been archived and the archive didn't have __NOEDITSECTION__, but I've fixed both of these issues. I'm leaving this note so you're aware that the discussion isn't live. Flatscan (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I totally missed that. Shouting into the past isn't so productive. :) rootology (C)(T) 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

PeanutButterWiki

Hi Rootology. You nominated the PeanutButterWiki article for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeanutButterWiki. I believe the topic is notable, but the article was rubbish at the time. I have created a new draft, which you can see at User:Fish and karate/pbwiki. Would you have any objection to my moving this into article space? Thanks. I've also left a message with the deleting admin (User:Punkmorten). fish&karate 10:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, that's much better. rootology (C)(T) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. I've moved it into mainspace. fish&karate 12:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

Thanks for the heads up. I do not oppose these deletions. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Rootology. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with no objections. I am honored to have your support, as I do admire your work on the encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

PPM

I think I've done most of my major work for Pike Place Market (but that's subject to change!). I'm currently looking for more PD images to put on Commons, and I'll try to find citations for what little in the article is uncited. I assume that you still intend to do a bunch of work on the history section. Ping me when you have done enough to be worth a copyediting pass. - Jmabel | Talk 03:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sure am. I'm about to go off for my usual early in the week lack of free time, but will pick it up again midweek again. rootology (C)(T) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, check out what I've been turning up by way of old PD images: Commons:Pike Place Market#The early years. I've found more, will upload over the next few days. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Where did you find them? rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The centennial history site that the city archivist put together. And there are also some that should be PD in the UW Libraries collection, which I'll go after next. (Did one already, the 1907 or '08 view of a busy market day, which was from a postcard postmarked in '1908, so unquestionably PD.) - Jmabel | Talk 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Un-broken redirects + trivial edits with AWB

Please try to avoid making inconsequential edits using AWB as you did here. If you are not familiar with AWB's rules of use, I encourage you to note the admonition on trivial edits and the rationale. Also, if you are not familiar with the guideline on "fixing" unbroken redirects, I would also encourage you to familiarize yourself with that as well. I personally don't care whether Seattle is located there or at "Seattle, Washington"; as long as the redirect works, there is no need to change it. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold off for now on doing more of that with AWB until I can review that more and get some consensus, since it didn't seem like a trivial edit but rather improvements to the articles, as I was actually removing hidden text, rather than adding it, as the redirect page chides people for. My AWB changes are, which checking for backlinks in mainspace only for Seattle, Washington:

• \[\[Seattle\, Washington\]\] > [[Seattle]], [[Washington]]
• \[\[Seattle\, Washington\|Seattle\]\] > [[Seattle]]

Web-visible content wise, nothing at all changes except the addition in the first change of one wikilink, print wise it's the same, and the depiping seems an improvement overall, doesn't it? The redirect page says, "There should almost never be a reason to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. This kind of change is almost never an improvement, and it can actually be detrimental," which isn't what I'm doing as my primary work--I'm doing the exact opposite, right?--but I figured I'd get two birds with one stone while I was doing the same edits to clean up \[\[Seattle\, Washington\|Seattle\]\] instances. I'll ask around a bit, since I think the piped cleanup is fine, but don't want to cause trouble. rootology (C)(T) 12:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence supports my contention that it is a minor edit, since nothing changes web-content-wise or print-wise. There's also a school of thought that in your first example that you're overlinking by adding a link to Washington. If someone wants to know about Washington, they would know from a Seattle, Washington link that more information could be found there. That's not necessarily my point of view, but there are users active that are looking for separate city, state links and either merging them or delinking the state. Which, in the end, would result in an additional "minor" edit for what would still be no net gain to the reader. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Little of column A and a little of column B. Its retargeting around a disambig, so it is not a pure minor edit, but it is the sort of thing that would clutter up RC, so porting it to a bot account (which with regex would be easy), is probably the best idea. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, Bot Requests? There were about 4600~ to go. Unless they can flag me direct. :P rootology (C)(T) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRFA would probably be best for something that size. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not vandalising

Don't lecture me on vandalism. I am not the one steam-rollering this whole article move thing through right now. My voice is getting drowned out by you people. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, replied on your talk. I was just pointing out that you accused YOURSELF of vandalism in the edit summary you left. ;) rootology (C)(T) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be suffering from a sudden outbreak of common sense. Seeing as how my discussions were going nowhere, I've closed the Seattle discussion and reverted my reversion on the New Orleans discussion. I suspect the vote on Boston will probably come out in favor of a move, too.

I am still not happy that we're only selectively following the AP Stylebook with regard to these city names. IMHO, I think if we're going to follow it, we need to follow it for all cities mentioned, not just some. Trying to argue that we're following it for a handful of cities and not others is just ludicrous,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am totally with you. Want to joint-propose that all the AP-exempted ones be moved to just <city> instead of <city, state>? rootology (C)(T) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Dr. Cash (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a little bit to write up some wording and then I'll run it by ya. rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is a good idea. I was one of the original opponents to the City format (I much prefer City, State) but as long as we are going to have sanctioned exemptions, we should just have them all bide by the exemption rule rather than picking and choosing. Shereth 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal is up. rootology (C)(T) 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is now advertised at WP:RM, as well as on the talk pages of all city articles that would be affected. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, by the way. I had put it on Template:Cent before too. The discussion is definitely interesting, and I'm glad it's going so rationally! rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb^talk 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Klugman's death

At User talk:03md#Paul Krugman is not dead, you rightfully challenged this update of the Paul Klugman article in which 03md (talk · contribs) replaced {{Current-related}} with {{Recent Death}}. At Talk:Paul Krugman#Death?, you challenged the change, and two minutes later replied to your own challenge, saying "I see, it's based on this random opinion piece..." Were you documenting an explanation from 03md (t·c) or did you find that random opinion yourself?

I ask because we're dealing with a WP:BLP and a change to a high-enough profile article that it prompted this comment from someone at the New York Observer and even a "I'm not dead" comment from Klugman himself. I think 03md owes the community an explanation on his talk page about this. I've asked him for one, but I'm mentioning it to you because of your involvement and your commitment to the community, made evident by your Wikipedia:Editor review/Rootology request. 66.167.48.185 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Hi, thank you. I found that citation from the Review with just a quick Google News search about his dying (I can't recall the exact wording I'd used, specifically) in the search. rootology (C)(T) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom election questions

Hey there!

Do you think you could consider placing your question on the list list for all candidates? There's nothing wrong with posting them to every candidate but that'd be simpler for everyone!  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing! rootology (C)(T) 00:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And I feel slighted. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't gotten to you yet! I'm about quadruple tasking at home tonight :( rootology (C)(T) 00:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. With respect to your questions, do you think you could clarify what question 4 means? Are you discussing the role of Jimmy in deciding the results? That seems to me the only way to read it, but it's quite possible I'm reading you incorrectly. Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, correct--the notion of "no Jimmy" in the elections, so that it's handled entirely as other WMF wikis do it. That is, it could be a straight vote--5 open slots, the top 5 get in--with us deciding what the is. Percentage? Raw support? Inbetween? Etc., but where the process of selection/approval of who is trusted to be an Arb laying entirely with "us". rootology (C)(T) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Images of Florentino Floro

If I'm not mistaken, you're also an admin at commons. Maybe you could take a look at this ANI thread for background, and purge the most embarrassing pictures of Floro from commons. Pcap ping 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I just had time to read over the comments, ANI, and look at the image. Unfortunately, the image was uploaded by the owner/author, so theres not much we can do to remove it. We even lack evidence that he himself has a problem with it, so a DR on commons would fail I think. Speedy deleting it is out for the same reason. It's a mess, but I don't see how we can get around it. There's no protocol for dealing with people uploading free photos of themselves that are unfavorable, if they are notable. The fact he may or may not be confirmed as having medical issues or stability issues wouldn't really play a role in that, in a way I can envision with what we can do on Commons for content today. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them. rootology (C)(T) 22:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I discussed it with another Commons admin, and unfortunately, he agrees with my assessment. rootology (C)(T) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy, or not...

Either way, irony abounds. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't so bizarre and oddly based in some truth I'd be annoyed at this pulling me out of my little mini vacation with a relative flood of e-mail, PMs and IMs. Disclaimer to everyone: I'm not some investigative journalist with this crap, I'm at best a poor Dan Dierdorf to a quality Al Michaels, tossing around color commentary. Which I barely even bother with, anymore, because life's too damn short. Woodward and Bernstein, I'm not. By the way, Tom, sorry again about the bird shooter crack way back then, man. rootology (C)(T) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've forgotten it, and so should you. Like you say, life's too short. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Britain's Josef Fritzl

Plase take another look at the article, and let me know what you think on the AfD page.:) Sticky Parkin 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, nice sourcing rescue. Updating... rootology (C)(T) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it lol, it truly is 'crazy' like you said. Somewhat sad use of an evening I have to say. What a morbid thing to write about! Still, the victims deserve an article (here's hoping they don't hate it). Sticky Parkin 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:141

Tagged and bagged.--Tznkai (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pfft. What'll really piss 'em off is this: the analysis of early American legal theory and Hammurabi's code is so critically flawed that your average fourth grader could pick it apart. In all seriousness, thanks for the help.--Tznkai (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Rootology I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rootology Bot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Moulton

Any particular reason why he is targeting you, and not, say, me, one of his number one enemies? What happened? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I made him look foolish a couple times and he doesn't like me...? rootology (C)(T) 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad for him. I was his friend, and I still think he is decency. I just don't like the mad man ramblings about oppression and the eclectic attempt to legitimize his struggles by integrating them into a larger historical network. By that, I mean, his responses tend to make me want to drink at 8 am. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are around on irc, we need to talk - Moulton, diffs, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't be for a while, but what about him? I prefer to do anything "official" here on-wiki. And whats to discuss? He bores me and I'll revert him if he tries to bore me. rootology (C)(T) 05:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget that I am an admin at Wikiversity and you put in a request? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Basically, all the revisions of his talk page there from... I think November 10th? Had lots of personally out-y stuff on it. It all needs to go, I'll go look at WV now. rootology (C)(T) 05:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just needed to know specific dates. That way I could process an oversite request if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to dig through all those diffs, but they were definitely in there from around that time frame. I don't get why you guys don't just delete/protect the page. rootology (C)(T) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Its complicated. I don't know. I'm just thankful when I wake up in the morning and Moulton hasn't used 80 million IPs and attacked various pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And replied. Your guess was only several time zones off! ;) rootology (C)(T) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day root :-)

I saw your reply on the admin.s noticeboard about that pic of a naked dude playing with himself, and thought I'd nominate it for deletion because there's no information about his age, and the copyright status and model release seems dubious to me from a flyby contributor.. I thought I'd take you up on your offer to check that the deletion process worked ok - my reading is that it was nominated for deletion a few days ago, but closed as keep with only 3 / 4 votes? - I had another deletion discussion (involving a woman with cum on her neck, again whose age is indeterminate) sort of disappear recently, and I guess I'm asking for advice about how to navigate this process :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

re:thanks

You're welcome - I hope it works.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment...

... has a reply :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Regina Trench

Thank you for creating Regina Trench! Happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I saw it pop up on recent changes, and thought it was something nautical, but then it was too interesting not to start. :) rootology (C)(T) 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Market

I've summed up the state of the article as I see it at Talk:Pike Place Market/Archive 1#State of the rewrite, redux. Seems to me that the one big undone task is the one you took on (the history). I may still putter around the article (I indicate several small things I plan to do), but you were the one who set the goal of making this a featured article, and I think I've basically done my part of the substantive work. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You planning to get back to this at all? It's been a couple of weeks without an edit from you in the article or a comment on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 23:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am this month, sorry. I've been distracted by some IRL things and have been spending time doing stuff related to whats coming up on Nov 4th. I'll be back at full speed soon. :) rootology (C)(T) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music

This project is really dead is it not? Any idea how we can get it going again? None of us seems to be particularly stellar article writers, and as a result, we have virtually no country music articles that are even B-class. I see you have my own little sub-project on your to-do list, but do you think we could recruit some other people to help? Even two writers working together will never plow through the utter pile of crap that most of the country music articles have become. And yet things like Metallica get effortlessly to FA because everybody loves heavy metal. </sarcasm> Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I'm in the Five-Digit Club now. Editcountitis rulez!

• Edits before I left:[6][7] 2840+903=3743, 36.9% of total
• Edits since I came back: 6398, 63.1% of total
• Total: 10141 before this edit, yay (bargain basement stats nerdery is fun)! rootology (C)(T) 18:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not normally one for the hokey, but

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		When the rest of us sat on our bums, recognised a problem but did nothing, one person took action. That person deserves some recognition. WilyD 22:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :D I hope it works out... rootology (C)(T) 22:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My IP edit

Hi,

Recently you flagged a unconstructive edit to a wiki page about a television show. The edit supposedly came from my IP. I got a message when I went on wikipedia today about it. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:173.89.4.193&redirect=no The thing is, no one in my household made the edit, and now I am worried about the security on my network. I was wondering if you know if there is a known issue that would explain this. I know it wasn't just my IP changing because I host a website and if my IP changed it would disrupt my services. I'm not used to talking over wiki so if you could respond by email that would be great, unless you know that I will get a new message notification through wikipedia when it reads my ip. Anyways, my email is matt att halenka dotcom. I deliberitely wrote my email strangely to fool spambots. Hope it works! Thanks.

173.89.4.193 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your IP talk page; if I don't hear back from you in a couple days I'll mail you. rootology (C)(T) 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Soup and flagged blp revisions

That is delicious looking soup - I demand the recipe. Secondly, extra points for biting the bullet and organizing the survey - sometimes its just important that things get done. Great work.--Tznkai (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a corn chowder that I mainly made up myself, cribbing a tiny bit from a few other chowder recipes--I used to be able to make various chowders from wholly from scratch, but am way out of practice. I have the recipe saved in my main home PC's My Documents, but that folder is like a trash heap. I'll dig it up after I go shopping in advance of this nasty bastard. rootology (C)(T) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Valiant Return Triple Crown

It gives me great pleasure to bestow the highest of all triple crown awards upon Rootology. Thank you for making a brilliant turnaround and becoming a fine editor to the encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Valiant Majesty, I noticed that you accidentally received a lesser award than you actually deserve. Please accept the correction. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! I didn't even realized I counted for that one... but I'm slow on the uptake sometimes. rootology (C)(T) 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodward Effect

I saw your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward effect, saying "not notable". Did you see the references I added (the last four)? They seem to be authoritative sources, and I think establish notability. My very hazy understanding of the subject is that the effect may possibly exist without violating the basic laws of physics, and if so could be very important, which is why NASA, American Institute of Physics, Harvard etc. are interested. Even if the theory is wrong, the fact that these learned bodies are publishing papers about it establishes notability. I strongly disagree with creationism but would never support removing the article on the subject, which is clearly notable, as I think this one is. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. It seems like an awful lack of sources for something that may or may not be notable--lots of ideas and scientific theories can get a handful of papers on them, but that doesn't make them notable. I think for now, barring more sources turning up, I'm disinclined to change my opinion. rootology (C)(T) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Call me stubborn. I added some more refs to Woodward effect#External links including four news items & some more papers. The theory does seem a bit controversial, but who knows? I think this number of refs must establish notability. Google shows 1050 results for "woodward effect", mostly related to the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Stubborn is good sometimes, and good digging. :) I updated myself with a couple of caveats on the AFD. rootology (C)(T) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward effect

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward effect: I changed my opinion .--Tamás Kádár (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Garratt Lane

The initial entry was intended to be enlarged and I am working this. There are three areas at the moment; the Wandsworth museum, the cementaries, and an example of the developement of London's public transport. I have stopped the re-edit pending a visit to London in the spring (I live now in Canada) when I hope to be able to make further additions.

I have stated my objection to the proposed deletion as requested.

DonJay (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above. I have decided to add, within the next week, the Transportation section to this page, as I possess all the neccessary references. The two other sections I am working on (Buildings & Green Spaces) I will delay pending my visit.

DonJay (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi DonJay, I replied on your talk. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rootology I have added the paragraphs on Transportation & Listed Properties, and have draft that of Green Spaces but need to tidy it before posting it. The final para on the developement of the areas, I have put on hold pending further investigation. Using Google Earth, I find that the 'cityscape' has changed in several place, so I will await my visit. What is the procedure for removing the AfD tag? DonJay (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I took care of removing it... FYI, if you ever see an AFD closed as Keep or Withdrawn, but someone forgot to remove the tag, you can go right ahead and do it. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit on BLP feeler survey

Thanks. Gurch was probably trying to help, but it changed the meaning. I meant what I said. Lots of users wrote that semiprotection/flagged revisions would be destructive because anons wouldn't be able to fix violations. Based on our data so far, they're an order of magnitude more likely to add violations than take them out. Cool Hand Luke 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian

Oops, he'd linked to an old version, which I edited just to add a date. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

beta/offwiki

Hi, uh.. I wasn't trying to reach any consensus offwiki. I was trying to get Betacommand to calm down a bit and help him act in a way that wouldn't get him blocked. That's all. // roux   17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the clarification--sorry for the confusion. rootology (C)(T) 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can certainly understand where you were coming from. // roux   18:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of [8]

Could you re-protect this image on the commmons, as it's still on the main page as the featured picture? Thanks. John254 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All set, I fixed the times on all of them. You see that bot proposal? rootology (C)(T) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Controversial BLPs

If this thing catches on, I suggest we form a team and get this thing off the ground. Cheers, Jonathan321 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, it won't be a tennis partners game. It'll be college football with walk-ons and more scholarships than you can shake a stick at. :) rootology (C)(T) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I know. Jonathan321 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

I don't endorse the tagging. Please remove it. THF (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed it, and will find out what the policy is. rootology (C)(T) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you delete the talk-page discussion, which is identical to having a tag? Thanks. THF (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. rootology (C)(T) 01:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy and content committees

I think there's definitely a need for some way for ArbCom to deal effectively with policy and content disputes that wind up in front of it, but I'm not convinced that a pair of committees is the best approach, or even viable (or, for that matter, that we need identical approaches to the two types of disputes). A more directly community-driven model would be more useful and easier to set up, I think.

(Incidentally, I've started work on a vaguely similar concept at User:Kirill Lokshin/ArbCom 2.0 [although what I've put together so far is far less developed than your proposal].) Kirill 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Giuseppe Piazzi.jpg

Thanks for protecting this image on the commons. However, since Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 will not be removed from the main page until January 2, it may be advisable to update the expiration of the protection. I've planned ahead for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 2, by uploading the image locally at a different title and changing the image link before the page is cascade-protected. John254 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pleasant thoughts

		The Special Barnstar
		I may not always agree with your ideas (such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees), but I find that I am constantly sympathetic to the specific intent of the various proposals and impressed by the level of thought put into them. You obviously have the best interests of the project at heart and I want to make sure you are aware that it is appreciated. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Vassyana... happy new year! rootology (C)(T) 20:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cryptol

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptol. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KP Botany (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied. The sources need to be detailed, really. rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

about the Brian Hassel AfD. sorry if I sounded a little sharp. The AfD environment brings it out :). DGG (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For how much time you spend there, I'm surprised you haven't reached through a monitor and severed heads, to be honest. ;) rootology (C)(T) 03:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FRs

You may find the text of {{Freq}} in describing the vote/notavote nature of the poll. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's so funny, how people get wound up about voting, when that's what it really is for 90% of what we do--unless there's ever a firm rule that you have to answer challenges to comments left in any discussion, or that drive-by comments have less weight (they don't and it would be preposterous to suggest that), we in "practice" vote. I dunno why people get so antsy about calling it what it is. Dogma is great--I'm religious, I know how it goes--but its silly to not call it what it is in practice. :)

Consensus does decide most of our stuff, but that's the trick--to discount all voting in anything but "name" would be to discount a whole lot of our practices. It's not a headcount, and shouldn't be xFds, and content decisions, or banning decisions, but an overwhelming consensus is sometimes just an overwhelming consensus. There are times when even the generally unilateral admin decision making process has to stop and obey consensus, like we've seen before. Practice goes both ways, these days, it seems. I just find it funny that people get so wound up about conceding the point, like it would be some catastrophic cosmic tipping point that would send Wikipedia down in spiraling electoral flames, or something. Totally odd. rootology (C)(T)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for History of the Pike Place Market

On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of the Pike Place Market, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptol

The reason the article was deleted was because of concerns about sourcing. It was said that there would be no prejudice against recreation if sources were found. There are, as mentioned on the talkpage, now five reliable sources in the article. This does not have to go through a review process. If you feel that the article still does not stand up to scrutiny, I strongly suggest you take it to AfD. I am returning it to mainspace, as this is well within our process, and the decision made at DRV. SilkTork *^YES! 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the sourcing may still be insufficient, and I don't want to AFD it again as I did the first AFD, but I really strongly prefer it come back into main space via a DRV, just so that no one comes along afterwards and restarts the process again based on a perceived lack of sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you have now removed sources that indicate that Cryptol is used as part of studies and research at universities. I really thought this was a non-contentious move, and simply wanted to clear this off my talkpage as I'm archiving. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just honestly not convinced they show notability, because a couple of random professors and grad students mentioned they "plan" to use it in passing, or because the word itself is popped up a couple times in a presentation with no context about the product. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this one was on DRV kept delete/endorse. I kind of want to see it brought back in via DRV. I think the sourcing is too light still.[9] rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, having reviewed the sources, I've found they don't show notability. I don't want to just put a CSD tag on it (which would be justified but pointless). Would you be willing to move it back to KP's user space or initiate a DRV? I would be willing to start a fresh DRV for you, if you prefer. Please let me know. I'd like the article to live, but not be targetted by others later for sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That there were sources on the article when restored to mainspace means it does not qualify for a Speedy. And the AfD has already been through a review and there was no consensus to overturn, but the decision was made that if additional sources were put in the article it could be restored. That has been done. If you're still not happy, then the appropriate route is AfD. A redirect, as you did, is hardly appropriate, especially given the speed at which you did it. This topic is well outside my area of knowledge and interest, so I don't know how to work in the sources which indicate that Cryptol is a serious topic at university level. But removing such sources seems unhelpful. At the very least we have here a topic for which notability issues can be discussed. At best we have an article for which the sources indicate notability has been established. We don't really have a candidate for Speedy deletion or redirecting back to userspace. When you proposed the article for AfD there was only one source, and that was to the company who owned the programme. That was fair enough. But since then more sources have been found. Let it stand, or take it back to AfD and let the community decide. SilkTork *^YES! 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't object, I'll take it back as a procedural sort of AFD, then. rootology (C)(T) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on Jimbo's page

Well said, but what does "People with a good enough attitude with BLPs shouldn't be editing BLPs" mean? dougweller (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Literally that. If someone's attitude towards the quality, responsibility, and scholarship required to always comply with BLP is that a "good enough" attitude is sufficient, they shouldn't be touching them or having a say in what happens to them. Just my personal opinion, of course, and unlikely to ever happen, but I figured the silly "ZOMG JIMBO BLP CULTIST!!1!!" hyperbole nonsense could do with a teeny dash or at least rationale sounding hyperbolic in tone answers in response. But I do believe it, for what little it's worth as just one non-admin cog in the machine. rootology (C)(T) 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre's RFAR

I actually think you're right. That's why I struck the entire first part of my comment. Since I think you're right that we do have jurisdiction, I should recuse. There's no way in hell I wouldn't affirm Jimbo's decision. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In some alternate universe where I sit in the AC, I'd be out too here. rootology (C)(T) 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone who has an opinion recuses, who are we left with? I don't think CHL should recuse. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OBAMA

I'd like to organize the article page now if you don't have anything to do to it at the moment. Grsz¹¹ 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, all you and go for it. The ordering method I used was mainly based on my subjective take on the relative importance of each page. :) rootology (C)(T) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like something needs to be added at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Also, it looks like WP:OBAMA redirects to a project proposal right now. Grsz¹¹ 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'll check it out. I had no idea there was some group that claimed control of these things. rootology (C)(T) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither looked very active, so I don't think it will be a problem. Grsz¹¹ 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the vibe I got. I suggested they merge in. One of them had a slightly different goal, but joint firepower can help on lots of stuff. You see the early goals I just posted? Not too bold, you think? rootology (C)(T) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I initiated the earlier group and am all for a common wikiproject. If you want to jettison the current work, or use the current content on the pages, feel free. Mike Serfas may have another opinion, but I am 110% behind getting some active membership focussed on increasing the quality of articles of particular relevance to the Obama administration. I don't monitor my barackobama site mail anymore, so it's best to contact me at my WP talk page. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you, guys... rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you hold your breath for 7 days? :) Synergy 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If my nerves don't rip from my body and eat me live first, maybe... rootology (C)(T) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent idea. Best of luck with it root. Ceoil (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban?

I saw your RFA and mention of your ban. It is very easy to say "the ban was right", "I was wrong" when you are running for RFA. It is very difficult unless you have a death wish and want to lose the RFA to say "the ban process is not so good because of .....". Is the ban process and effect perfect? If not, what are the problems? If you wish to discuss this privately, you may. I have a beef about the block process because I've seen it used as a weapon and unfairly used. It happened to me 2 years ago. Adminstrators that I wrote to 2 years ago either ignored me or said the equivalent of "fuck you". So I can identify several problems without even thinking, one being incivility. Chergles (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussing it here is fine. The whole ban/block process is a social system, and like any system like that its not perfect, never can be, and never will be. Was my ban good? I'm human so part of me (same as anyone) will want to say no, but at the time it was a good block. Maybe not the duration I would have liked, but once the chips were set for better or worse in that RFA I made no secret of saying "I was done with it", which wasn't exactly helpful or my finest hour in mid-2006. I think the wording in the subject of the edit when I decided was pretty obvious. I went from being 'me' to saying something like "the hell with it" and launching hand grenades as fast as I could to get myself blocked. Which worked quite well, at the time, as we saw.

Does that mean the entire system is FUBAR? Not at all. The problem is just people. We make stuff work good, or fantastically great, but we're also really good at making stuff not work so good, or fantastically bad. The more that people get involved in any big system, and not just involved, but engaged in it, the better it works. It's that simple, and thats not a Wikipedia thing (we think in our bubble too much which is honestly dumb). It's like that in government, business, family, friends, or any complex social situation. The more people aware of things, and caring enough to see them done right... the better it works. Visibility is always the key thing. Visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility, visibility. One of my favorite quotes is from Louis Brandeis: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

It really is true. Be it a ban/block policy, shady business practices, government being out of touch or out of step, or finding out that your good friend has had a drinking or smack problem for years, but no one knew it since they were "functional". Unless the light shines in to let people see, no one will know that something, either a big system, or some dark tiny corner of it, isn't what it should be. If someone tries to keep that light out, then the problem probably isn't the system itself, but the person trying to keep shady. And that makes it a really easy problem to fix, then, at least in that given case. rootology (C)(T) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA..

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I sent you an e-mail. --KP Botany (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just replied to you. I would be happy to continue the discussion here, or in e-mail. rootology (C)(T) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

you're an admin

You did it!

Yes! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Durova^Charge! 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't hold back sayin', given Durova's image at right along with Trusilver's wisdom, beware the stirsome tidings of fetching editors ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 03:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Shubinator (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Ty 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats! It's deserved. --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone!! I'm totally and completely floored here. rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• So the community has not yet completely taken leave of their senses. Congratulations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Viridae^Talk 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope it's the right size for you...

A mop to wield while wearing your T-shirt

• Congratulations from me too! Chamal ^talk 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Many congratulations from me. Use the tools well. --John (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your note, Rootology. I wish you the best of luck with adminship here -- Samir 08:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• ...wait, you weren't an admin already? Congratulations, and my belated support. Apologies for not watching WP:RfA more closely. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the note to let me know, I didn't watchlist it. I have to say that your honesty is what I liked, please continue to with that. I have to admit, I haven't communicated with you before, at least that I remember, but I do remember seeing you on boards and so forth and actually thought you were already in control of the tools. I think you will do just great with your new position. Congratulations again to you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• You fall in my "What the fuck, he wasn't admin already?!?!?!111ONEONEONE" category. Congratulations (too bad I couldn't support earlier). Don't delete the main page today, keep that for later :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the thankspam; you're very welcome, Rootology, and I wish you the best of luck with your new mop. Also, as a technical question, how is the entirety of your talk page some classy font? I'd love to apply that to my talk page! --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me} 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• About damn time.--Tznkai (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats.....and on Super Bowl Sunday no less...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've been rooting for you for a long time, Rootology, since before you came back, as you know (but perhaps others do not). Way to go... Color me delighted! (...and surprised no one used the "rooting" thing before me, what a bunch of punters...) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats. If you ever need help, let me know. Dlohcierekim 14:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• awwwwwww yeah — neuro^(talk) 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again so much, everyone! I will not let you down. rootology (C)(T) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Just keep one thing in mind... In any position of power (and being an admin is a position of power, regardless of what anyone else says) it's easy to find sycophants who will tell you whatever you want to hear in the hopes that it will benefit them to do so. It's much harder (and nobler) to pay attention to those that disagree with you, those that disagreed with your appointment. I hope that now that your RfA has passed, you don't file it away and never look at it again. I hope that you keep it some place you can look on it frequently and make sure that you don't give the nay-sayers any reason to say "see! I told you he was a bad choice!" Good luck to you. Trusilver 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats is a bit late, but I've been at work finishing things up for Monday ^_^ Synergy 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mazel tov! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Normally I don't like thank-spam unless it's personalized, but your well-thought-out thank you was worth reading. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, David. rootology (C)(T) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulation my old friend, well deserved Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile. This award is given to Rootlogy. Rootlogy, you epic story is an inspiration to all wikipedians! You show that everyone has an opportunity to be an administrator, and that change is truly possible on wikipedia. Congratulations on your growth and development here. Ikip (travb/inclusionist) (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin. I am so deeply happy for you. I wish I would have known about the RfA, and I would have heartily given my strong support with all my soul. My only worry, is that I hope you did not sacrifice your principles and core values to get where you are today. There was so much overlooked value to wikipedia in that feisty Rootology of years past, I hope the Rootology of today has simply matured, and the old Rootology has not died completely.

If you are interested, you can join the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. We have medals you can add to your user page:, like the good article and featured article medals you already have on your user page, awarded for rescuing good articles from deletion, see Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame#Award. Ikip (travb/inclusionist) (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Trav. We are what we are, and I'm still willing to poke and prod when I think it's the right thing to do (I started the Protecting BLP survey, and was in that Sarah Palin RFAR...) but I hope I've figured out the right way and time, and the right reasons. I'm glad to see you're still around, too, man. rootology (C)(T) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I sincerly hope we cross paths again. Ikip (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasbro movie images

Thank you for uploading some images for the Super Bowl spot. However, as I've explained in this and this edit summary, copyrighted pictures have to provide a wider context and support the article. Images showing a character's depiction are more appropriate to their own articles. I'm sure there's other G.I. Joe screenshots that are more worthwhile, and I wonder whether you would upload them? Alientraveller (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The one group shot I uploaded, in hindsight, isn't the best quality, and I set it to be deleted, along with the other, until it can be found for a better place to put it, or a better quality one. Those were, from that 30-second teaser, the highest quality ones, unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent RfA

You're welcome for my support, Rootology. I think you've been an excellent and sensible editor these past few months, and I believe your return has been a huge positive: you'll be a great administrator. Best wishes. Acalamari 00:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of WSVN images

You recently deleted several images from WSVN WSVN_ANCHORS2.JPG, Vivi_gonzo_Weasvn.JPG, and Donovan_campbell324.JPG from the Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_26 page. I believe this was in error. There was no clear consensus that they should be deleted. You also reference NFCC#8 but I think I gave a clear reason why these images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", that is, someone who has not seen the newscast (such as myself) will not know how the WSVN newscast looks without seeing pictures (or video, but that is less likely to be fair use). Lorax (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lorax, I noted my concerns under NFCC#8, but also that in practice we don't do this sort of thing for these articles in general. The images being fair use, we have to be careful in their use--how does seeing the sportscaster tell us about sports on the news understand that a sportscaster tells us about sports on the news? My close, ultimately, was based on the consensus I saw there of the arguments. If you'd like to see the close reviewed, I don't object if you want to WP:DRV them. Just let me know if you do. rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about Wikiproject Barack Obama

Hey. I was thinking about joining WikiProject Barack Obama (I've already created two stories, here and here, about assassination plots against Obama), but I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia altogether and have never joined a WikiProject before. I was wondering how it works exactly? Are you assigned tasks (like GAs to work toward, pages to clean up, stubs to expand) or do you just kind of work on whatever you want within the confines of the project? And is there a specific time commitment each week, or do you work at your own pace? Please let me know, I'd be very interested in contributing in the future. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Anyone can join, go right ahead. No one is ever "assigned" tasks on Wikipedia, you contribute only what you have the time and energy to do. Basically, the project is just a central hub for people interested in working on similar articles, to get together at, bounce ideas, and share resources. Like me--I'm a terrible copyeditor and proofreader, but I think I'm good at building out pages and finding information. We have other editors that are great at our Manual of style stuff, or are good copyeditors, but maybe not at writing. So, putting all three together, you can get a good, great, featured article maybe. I collect the info, write out the bulk, the copyeditor fixes it up and fixes my problems, then the MOS guy makes it shine. I build the car, the copyeditor tests it, adjusts it and fine tunes it, the MOS guy details it and makes it shine, then we all bask in the glory for a minute of having made something neat together, hopefully. You can also basically work on anything you want to--look at the Sandbox pages linked below the mountain on my userpage, Pike Place Market, and the Favreau article I just wrote. Some people like to focus on one thing till it's done, I bang around a lot because I have writer's ADD and always want to work on the New Shiny Thing, and have a couple of pots cooking at once. That just comes down to your personal style, preference, and tastes. You can sign up and only do that one edit, or you can write a Featured Article a month. It's totally up to you. rootology (C)(T) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've nominated 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver for GA; i tried to put it in the Article Alerts on the WikiProject page but don't know how to. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See the section that my Favreau article entry is in? Just try editing that, and enter yours--its ok if you break it, and I hope you do--it's the best way to learn the coding on the tables. :) We can fix it, anyone can, so it's never a worry. Not everyone has to know all the fancy code we can use. I have to struggle to do anything beyond basic tables half the time, and I've been using this software years. ;) rootology (C)(T) 17:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! I've joined the WikiProject, looking forward to working with it. Incidentally, I'm guessing there's nothing that would prohibit me from reading a GA nomination from someone else in the group? Because if not, I'd be happy to review the Jon Favreau (speechwriter) article. I've never done a GA review before, but I would be willing to try it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know--like I said, I'm a terrible copyeditor, so I only write them, then leave them for others to review. You should ask at WT:GA, since I honestly don't know if it's appropriate for people from the same Wikiproject to do that. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. They'd probably be the authority on it, since I believe they're the most active content-focused Wikiproject on Wikipedia by far. rootology (C)(T) 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unbanned?

Yes, that change was intentional. Kirill ^[pf] 04:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no; if you're banned, then you're not permitted to edit Wikipedia at all, and anyone proxying for you is liable to be sanctioned themselves, so that wording is simply redundant to existing policy. (There was some confusion about what it meant earlier, if I'm not mistaken.) Kirill ^[pf] 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Congratulations on your successful RfA!

Like I said before, this kind of breakdown rocks and makes understanding what happened even easier. rootology (C)(T) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers on your new mop Resident Mario (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! rootology (C)(T) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed the RFA, but congratulations, Root. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed it also, but congratulations! (you likely won't remember me, but I'm one of the random contributors to the old wa site. I thought it was a good idea then, I think that the community is now better at dealing with the kinds of problems that were documented) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated congratulations to you. The good guys really can win. JBsupreme (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this, but let me echo the above editors and congratulate you. Your RfA was a positive step for the project as a whole. Everyking (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Leo

I see that you have blocked Pastor Leo. I was once blocked after being falsely accused of sockpuppetry. Therefore, I am sensitive to the accusation. I prefer more black and white rationale. Clearly disruptive editing under a user name is valid grounds for blocking. Accusations of sockpuppetry can be abused and can be wrong. There is a role for that on occasion.

Keep this in mind as you exercise administrative powers. As much as possible, try to address editorial content and what the user actually edited. Note that I don't disagree with your block. I'm just asking you to look at it from a different perspective. Although I have not fully researched Pastor Leo's edits, my first impression is that disruptive editing would be a better reason for blocking. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, that's why I asked for review of the blocks on the ANI thread and also tossed out a ping on IRC asking for people to review it as well for an even wider audience. My reason for blocking as socks was the sudden appearance of "5" distinct users, 3 logged in and 2 IPs, all trying to get the same content forced into the article in short order, and all using the same or similar edit summaries. If it was just one, or probably even two, I'd have done exactly that, but it was the round-robin of it all that all but screamed one user, plus the extreme similarity in the IPs's edits to the users. rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're and admin now?

Funny to see you've become and admin, since a year or two ago you would've been the most hated person on WP. Good luck, Egebwc (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship... 3?

Hi Rootology, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response :) I'm (at least I hope) becoming more and more clueful in my AfD work as time goes by, so hopefully the incidence of these contentious AfDs will slow. I agree that an admin's role in AfD is far different, and I don't think I'd have too many problems determining consensus in a discussion. Thanks again for your response, feel free to contact me if you think of anything else. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blink-182 full protection

Hello Rootology, was wondering what the situation here was. I don't see any arguing on the talk page, and the page has been edited a relatively small number of times since its last protection. Is it really worth full protection for a week? GlassCobra 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There had been an ongoing slow edit war going on that came up on RFPP. I've got no objections to it being unprotected in any way. rootology (C)(T) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you bring the protection level down to semi-protect. The band have officially confirmed their reformation so the edit warring caused by people adding rumours and crystal balling the band's reformation should be resolved now. - kollision (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just did it, as a matter of fact. I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days. GlassCobra 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Apparantly I missed it, congrats for earning the bit. Grsz¹¹ 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Favreau

No problem. I'm confused, though - for some reason when I read the article, it was still showing the vandalized version that you reverted more than an hour ago (hence my "reverting to last good version" edit). Anyway, I might do the GA review in the next few days if I get a chance and nobody beats me to it. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Favreau GA

I might need a couple of days to finish it, so I'd say we're all good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Silk Road

Thanks for semi-protecing, or whatever you did with that article. I do not know what the deal is, but for some reason that article has been a target over time for vandals. I have had it on my watchlist for this reason for a year, at least. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I just dropped a semi-protection on it. If it picks up as badly again after 3 days, just drop it on WP:RFPP again, mention the history and previous history of protections, and it can probably get a longer one if the volume keeps up like it has the past couple days. rootology (C)(T) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Jon Favreau (speechwriter)

Hello - I have reviewed Jon Favreau (speechwriter), which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:

• The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
• In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
• The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one.

Hey Root - it's been more than a week and I haven't seen any movement on this. Are you going to get around to it soon? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep--sorry. Been distracted, and short on time except for the more mechanical stuff I can pop in and out for. I'm gonna work on it Tuesday and Wednesday. rootology (C)(T) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nainki

I've seen you have blocked this user for being a sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser. Could you put checkuser templates on the user and user talk pages for this user? Thanks. Techman224^Talk 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

Hello. The DYKAdminBot doesn't seem to be updating again; it's late and an update needs to be pushed. Could you manually do the update? None of the DYK admins are around, and Victuallers is not responding. The update should be from queue 5. Instructions for the update are at Wikipedia:DYK#Process. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I see you dropped it on AN too... I'd rather someone who's done it before do it in a pinch, since I never have yet. :( rootology (C)(T) 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the DYK admin regulars are around, so this'll be the first time for whoever does it. I can look over the update and try to catch errors. Shubinator (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I do it right? rootology (C)(T) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The clock needs to be purged. [10] Otherwise it looks good...I'll check for stray errors. The main page hasn't been deleted :) Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Timer purged. :) The first thing I saw when I read your post was, "YOU GO EDIT THE MAIN PAGE," and I was like, "shit!" :P rootology (C)(T) 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no pressure. Oh, one more thing...the picture needs to be protected. I think the DYK pics are copied to en from Commons while they're on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Got the page here local for 6 hours and Kanonakas did the Commons side already. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. One more thing: the bot's count should be updated to say 1. (I'm starting to sound like Uncle in Jackie Chan). Shubinator (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha! OK, that one's done, but I'm going AFK a bit now. ;) rootology (C)(T) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing (last one I think): Queue 5 needs to be cleared. It should look like Queue 4. No rush on this one...as long as it's within 24 hours. Thank you for all your help! Shubinator (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing (this one truly is the last): The previous image should be deleted from en...it's a copy from Commons, only on en for protection while on the main page. No rush on this either. Sorry for bugging you so much. Shubinator (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Last two items taken care of by Ruhrfisch. Shubinator (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

rfc thingy

Could you explain on the rfc page more of what you mean by what you are asking? Do you mean that we should have the equivalent of the way stewards or whatever on meta have to be confirmed for another term after a year or something? If so I agree. Sticky Parkin 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not that... lifetime or semi-lifetime appointments for some things, I'll concede make life easier all around... but it's just literally, "Why are we exempting the old CU/OS who aren't sitting Arbs from a public examination of their trust?" rootology (C)(T) 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an informal one, like we did with the page about how much confidence we have in members of arbcom, rather than a vote? What makes you think this is needed? (not that I disagree necessarily that it might be beneficial)- email me with your reasons if you prefer. I don't know if it would lead to any different result than if it was not held, as the majority of people who are open on wiki about their opinion on the matter seem to be gushingly happy with the current CUs. Perhaps the ones that aren't just don't feel able to say so publicly (though many of them do privately.) Sticky Parkin 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is fine. It well could be there is overwhelming support for the current CU/OS group--but I keep seeing and feeling all this innuendo and inference that stuff is not right, that some are overwhelmingly trusted but some are not at all even among the AC. If there's politics or personalities interfering with anything in the CU/OS work or oversight, that's just wildly inappropriatte. I think it's needed for A) either the AC to give a stamp of approval and endorsement of all the current OS/CU users, including ex-arbs, or B) for them to be counted in public as it should be if there is a conflict, since the CU/OS group is useless if we don't trust them. One bad apple can taint the perception of all the results, and we have to be able to trust anything CU/OS say about their decisions. rootology (C)(T) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some are beloved of the arbcom, and the personalities of some of those running WP is what it is:):):) Also, there is a lack of action (to the extent that I wonder what some employed by wikimedia think they're employed to do.) You know what I think, some people would actually be removed from most other sites, never mind from any position of power. But fans and those by whom they are beloved might not feel the same despite how the person acts. Some people haven't experienced it themselves anyway, so they probably won't see why it's a problem. Sticky Parkin 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rootology. Could you please make your first and most important question less ambiguous (i.e. support what/which same process?)? Is it possible that you reformulate it? I had to make a trip to this talk page and though I read your answers to Sticky Parkin I'd still like you give us more clarifications there. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, sorry, my usual crap copyediting strikes again. Take a look now. rootology (C)(T) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am hungry and tired now and will get back answering your questions in a few hours. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no rush. Given the questions, I honestly wasn't expecting anything for days, to be honest. rootology (C)(T) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Thanks again, and I think you already know this, but my Microsoft love was a joke! It's all rubbish, except for Office for Mac and possibly DOS and Win 3.1 Nja247 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Cox

I am requesting the support of other administrators.

Baroness Cox has not been involved with Christian Solidarity Worldwide since 2003. She successfully sued the Evening Standard for the false article that you now reference. It is a subjective statement to say the film was anti-Islamic. Check out www.worldcommittee on Disability, all of her disability work has been removed. This is libel!!!

The opening paragraph should read:

Caroline Ann McNeill Love Cox, Baroness Cox FRCN (born 6 July 1937) is a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords, and campaigner for many humanitarian causes and issues relating to disability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the Evening Standard issue a retraction? If so, you can put a link to it on the article talk page and say that it retracts the article that's currently referenced. Then go change the article. This should short-circuit any future attempt to rely on the retracted article. Absent a retraction, an online copy of the court order or settlement might be of use, but only if there was a finding of fact that the article was erroneous or an admission by the Standard that it was erroneous, and even then, only to the extent that the article was found to be in error. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Oops, I didn't notice the article was protected. The correct place to request changes to protected articles is the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for protecting the page. I appreciate your wonderful work here. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request unprotection of User talk:MBisanz

this is probably more of a technical bug than anything else, but i thought i'd start here (with you).

i want to post a comment about a deleted article, MogileFS, to MBsanz's talk page, but i cannot, apparently because it is semi-protected. i have been a registered user since sept. 2008 and looking through my preferences it appears that I have available all the options of a registered user (like skins), but no edit buttons appear when examining the talk page.

so, the most direct route to posting a comment on the page appears to be to get it changed back to unprotected.

comments? suggestions? (note that this is not a problem with cookies in my browser, or at least not so far as i can tell.)

Craigster0 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are sound reasons that MBisanz' talkpage should not be unprotected at this time. Although your account has been around for awhile, you do not yet have enough edits to meet the threshold for editing a semiprotected page. Perhaps if you place your message here or on my talkpage, someone could transcribe it over there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I watch this page so I saw your comment. There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MogileFS where the Wikipedia community discussed the MogileFS. People found that the article lacked coverage in reliable sources. Articles on Wikipedia need to have coverage in reliable sources in order to be verifiable and notable. If you want to ask the people who commented at the AFD discussion or seek help from a Wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, they may be able to give you more details. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, i need to cover three separate topics in this post. i hope that's not too confusing.

1) from what i found on the Wikipedia policy pages, it seems like being a registered user for 4 days (approximately) should be sufficient to allow me to edit semi-protected pages. i'm surprised to learn that there's also a "number of edits" threshold. perhaps the help page on the subject of semi-protected pages, Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection should be updated. i'm not sure where i got the "4 days" from (that page says "newly registered users"), but i believe i read that on a help page that i got to from the "semi-protected" User_talk:MBisanz page.

2) i looked through the page history for User_talk:MBisanz and saw the history of vandalism, so i understand why it was protected. but from my reading of the Wikipedia:Deletion_review page, it is courteous to start a discussion of incorrectly deleted articles with the editor that deleted it. since i'm unable to write to User:Mbisanz's talk page, that means i'm unable to comment on the deletion of the MogileFS article in the approved fashion, which is a problem (at least for me). this talk page isn't really the right place for such a discussion, but it seems to be my only option, other than initiating the more formal Wikipedia:Deletion_review process.

3) getting back to the original subject of the MogileFS article that was deleted ... i think there were a couple of errors made here. the first is the decision that MogileFS is not notable or verifiable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry, and the second was in the way the article was deleted. other than the aforementioned Wikipedia:Deletion_review process, i don't see a mechanism to initiate a discussion with "the people who commented at the AFD discussion".

i should mention that i have no personal or commercial interest in MogileFS. i've found Wikipedia to be very useful to me, and i just want to see Wikipedia be as useful as possible to others. also, for what it's worth, i'm a file system developer on UNIX and Linux with 20 years experience, and one of the original developers of VxFS so i have some knowledge of file systems (though not of cloud storage).

3a) first of all, i think MogileFS is sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia entry (though i don't know what that threshold actually is). i ran across MogileFS in the course of my work at Symantec researching Cloud Storage solutions (it *may* have come from an IDC report). i looked up MogileFS on Google, which showed me a Wikipedia entry, among other references. unfortunately, when i followed the Google link it was effectively broken since it took me to a page on Danga_Interactive that contained no useful information on MogileFS. so i went back to Google, looked at the cached version of the Wikipedia MogileFS page, and got information that was useful for my purposes.

in this same week, i ran across another reference to MogileFS in a SNIA presentation. that can be found at [11]. unfortunately, the content is password protected (SNIA members only) and copyrighted, so i can't just post it here. but only one slide of the presentation talks about MogileFS; i'll try to post it somewhere on Wikipedia and then reference it.

anyway, my argument for "sufficiently notable" consists of the fact that i ran across two different references to MogileFS in the course of my work, and therefore wanted more information about it.

3b) although the contents of the article were sparse, they were not free of content. in fact, i found the content of the article sufficient to my need to learn something about about MogileFS. i assume that there are other readers in the same position.

3c) i'm a bit confused about the verifiable requirement. although the article appears to summarize information from the Danja Interactive Mogile FS page, that information is verifiable, as is all open source software. simply download the source and examine it. nobody who commented on deleting the article seemed worried about the verifiability of the information; the comments simply pertained to notability and value of content.

3d) my third point is that the article was deleted incorrectly. i'm a naive Wikipedia user, but as far as i can tell there were three "votes" in favor of deleting the page, and none in favor of keeping it (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MogileFS). however, two of the three "votes" suggested that the content of the page be moved to the Danga_Interactive page, which was not done, so the useful information on the MogileFS page was lost. i think that if you're going to take the responsibility to delete the article, then you're also responsible for propagating the useful information that two out of three members of the Wikipedia community thought should be preserved. it seems to me that the first rule of editing should be "First, do no harm".

Craigster0 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(it turns out that while adding the above entry i accidentally deleted the entire contents of this talk page. fortunately, KP Botany noticed my action and reverted my change back, after which i re-added the above section, all without realizing what had happened. my apologies for deleting the other content--it was a mistake and not a deliberate action. and thanks to KP Botany for reverting my change so quickly. --Craigster0 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Audreetucker

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for somoene neutral to review a BLP and don't know where to start

There is an artice for a BLP that I would like someone with a fresh set of eyes to review. While the person is notable for one thing, the rest of the article contains IMHO a bunch of fluff and should be removed. However I don't want anyone to predjudge the article first, so I wanted to see if there is a place where I can make such a request? I saw you made some comments to the BLP page, so I figured I'd ask here first. If you could post a new section to my talk page that would be great too. ThanksFasttimes68 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks Stephanie_AdamsFasttimes68 (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If I have time I'll take a look, but if it's an urgent BLP issue please bring it to WP:ANI. I'm short on time currently. rootology (C)(T) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Loved your tag

I cut and pasted it here: User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#RfC. Looks like there will be another war, initated by the same group of editors, who will ironically argue that I am making wikipedia a Battleground These editors are trying to make this whole issue about user conduct, never mind the radically different ideology. Ikip (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seemed to have all blown over. Ikip (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oversight support thanks

I can't remember if I voted in your RfA or not, but I am glad to see the trust I have in you reciprocated. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and it's true (regardless of RFA or anything else). rootology (C)(T) 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment Drive for WP:OBAMA

Since you are lead coordinator, have you ever thought about having an assessment drive for this? miranda 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

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

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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)