User talk:Narsil/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
2006
"Fire drill" as abbreviation for "Chinese fire drill"
Could you provide a written citation (for instance, a Web site) showing your use of "fire drill" as a shortened version of "Chinese fire drill"? I'm interested to see if your term has more widespread use than your office. Such would also justify its continued inclusion in the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure! I've done a little quick googling, and the term seems to be out there, at least in the software world. For example, here's a company's press release that uses the term that way:
- As Primary Response eliminates the risk associated with application vulnerabilities, it also provides a foundation for a security vulnerability management process to be implemented as an alternative to the patching fire drill that is becoming increasingly commonplace. (http://www.sanasecurity.com/press/pressreleases/102203.php)
- Or here's another, from a company's official marketing material:
- Troubleshooting in a complex, rapidly changing distributed environment is not a trivial exercise – 90% of application recovery time is spent on isolating the problem and only 10% spent on the actual repair. And when application downtime or poor performance manifests itself, it's the IT organization's most qualified staff that must drop what they are doing to perform troubleshooting-triage. Productivity is dramatically reduced as everyone engages in the fire drill. (http://www.cendura.com/solutions/solutions_problem_management.htm)
- Given that they use the term in official publications, they seem to be taking for granted (as I did) that everyone would be familiar with the term.
- In my company, I hear the term a lot in conversation. In fact, we just rolled out a big promotional poster for a service with the slogan "More fireworks, less firedrills". (Should be fewer firedrills, of course...) It's generally used to mean "a period of frantic activity with a lot of wasted effort"--not precisely the same thing as the older "Chinese fire drill", but pretty close. And I'm fairly sure the derivation was as I said--that it's un-PC to say "Chinese", so they just say "fire drill". Narsil 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ledeen Doctrine
Thanks for the email ! I think your solution is a good one, and I left a note at the article talk page. I removed the {{prod}} tag so there's no rush ! Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Come fly with us
- —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks much! But actually, I think I'll be approved for VandalProof next time I ask (I was borderline, and they said to reapply after a few more edits--I think I'm over the line now). So I'll probably have enough vandal-action to keep me busy.
- Thanks much, though! -- Narsil 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Narsil! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
2007
Orkney
thanks for the rewrite. I also added a crossref to the legal definition of pledge, which (after revealing what bailment meant) makes much more sense. MatthewEHarbowy 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
So it goes.
My edit on the Vonnegut page was not meant as a joke in anyway shape or form. There is obviously some dispute about whether it is appropriate, but it was not a joke or a tribute. It simply feels as though it belongs. Ugnut 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Reverting addition on MY user talk page
Maybe you can point me to where it says I can't remove additions to my own user talk page. See [1] where it reads: "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed." Make a note of the part in parentheses.
That you actually reverted an addition I removed makes you seem, IMO: petulant, inappropriate, obnoxious, and squirrely.
Moreover, I think you're a punk. Don't touch my user page anymore. Shiggity 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. I was going to leave a warning on your page regarding your repeated and frivolous modifications to the Kurt Vonnegut page, but I saw that a warning had already been put there, and you removed it. I was under the impression--mistaken, as you point out--that people weren't supposed to remove warnings from their own pages. In retrospect, instead of reverting the warning you deleted, I should have posted a brand new one, bumping it up a level, and referring to the previously deleted warning, instead of restoring it. Again, my apologies. -- Narsil 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- In any event, the fact that I deleted it should have suggested to you that I either: (1) read it and took heed (which was the case), or (2) deleted it without either taking heed or reading it at all. In either case, I fail to see how adding the same or a similar warning would accomplish anything. All the warnings I've gotten are viewable from my history. Shiggity 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Truth for Life
A tag has been placed on Truth for Life, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I created this page solely as a redirect page, pointing people to the article on Alistair Begg (whose show this is). I think that's more than sufficient under the circumstances. I'd recommend turning this back into a redirect page. -- Narsil 23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CVU status
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Little context in Advent Fast
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Advent Fast, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Advent Fast is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Advent Fast, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I meant to make that page a redirect to Nativity Fast, but I coded it wrong--I fixed that. I also took out the "speedy delete" template, since I never meant that to be an article anyway--I hope that's okay! -- Narsil (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirects
The other guy from Wham! = A++
- Thanks! A little frivolous, maybe, but... well, tht actually was the search string I used to track down his name! -- Narsil 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
2008
Image:Dean Karnazes at Napa Valley Marathon 2008.jpg
Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, took it at the race expo (I ran the race this year). I also took a picture of Dick Beardsley which I added to his page--Image:Dick Beardsley at 2008 Napa Valley Marathon expo.jpg. I meant to set the image settings to show that--did I do it right? -- Narsil (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Edits to Rod Blagojevich
yeah narsil he did admit to watching all hannah montana episodes. Is the truth vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, that would hardly count as a "controversy" along the lines of the Rezko trial! If he's a fan of Hannah Montana, that might be appropriate for the "biography" section, but really it doesn't seem to me to be important enough to mention.
- That said, if he did really say that, then I apologize for using the "joke" warning for you. I assumed it was just a silly prank to put that on his page. In a case like that, though, it's helpful to actually put in a link to the source for your claim. I suspect other editors would agree with me that it isn't worth mentioning, but it wouldn't be mistaken for vandalism. -- Narsil (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Cosmopolitan trivia
Hi. Since you added the {{Trivia}} tag to the Cosmopolitan (cocktail) article (and it needed it), I'd like your opinion on how I rewrote it into more of an article format rather than a list of disconnected items. I'm still not sure if I like it or not. There seems to still be a bit too much trivia packed into it for my liking, but I'm not sure what to cut -- if anything. I'd still like to use the section to show it's popularity, but not be bloated. Your thoughts? Or go ahead and be bold and edit it however you see fit. Aside from keeping some sort of Sex and the City reference, I'm pretty open to any changes. The perfume is also pretty interesting. The Lobsterpolitan seems quite a stretch to me. The Office reference leaves me kind of feeling like, "So what?" --Willscrlt (Talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm pretty new here myself, but it looks to me like you did a fine job. Personally, I'd drop the Office reference from the article entirely--it seems to be more of a joke about Sex In The City than it is about the drink--but that's a judgement call. The SITC reference, on the other hand, seems appropriate, since (a) it's a major TV show, and (b) it's a significant running joke in the show (and it makes sense to keep the drive-through story as a typical example from the show). Anyway, this is much better integrated into the article now, instead of just being a bulleted list of factoids. So, nicely done! (And yeah, I'll go ahead and nuke the Office ref, since neither of us seems thrilled with it...) -- Narsil (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Moving pages
I am rather alarmed that you are surprised the move you made of Palin was controversial. Anyone who had bothered to check out the other people on the page should have realised the movd may be controversial. You may want to check out some other moves or proposed moves that were or would have been controversial, to get a feeling of what a controversial move is. For example Obama to Barack Obama was controversial, McCain to John McCain was controversial (although was moved without discussion some people later opposed), Java to Java software has been proposed numerous times and always rejected, Bill O'Reilly to the American commentator has likewise been proposed numerous times and also rejected. Note that just because a move holds (as in the case of Obama and McCain) doesn't mean the move was not controversial. As I've said on the talk page, discussion costs nothing, avoids unnecessary drama and prevents you being seen as a POV pusher. You should be absolutely sure a move is not going to be controversial before moving without discussion else go through the process at WP:RM. The most likely cases would be spelling mistakes. Most other things, particularly when there is a likely to be a geographic or other bias are likely to be controversial and you really should discuss changes rather then presuming everyone will share your POV. Note that bold, revert, discuss doesn't really hold for page moves because it can be difficult for non admins to revert your changes and in any case, making a controversial move (given that a move is a substanial change) without discussion is more reckless then bold (akin for example to making substanial changes to a featured article or the main page or a common template without discussion) Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, point taken. I have made similar moves on many occasions before, and never excciting any controversy, so I honestly thought this situation would be similar (especially since there was so little activity on the page's talk page at the time)--but I've learned differently. I'm quite happy to let the wiki.community take it from here, and next time I see a similar opportunity to 'do good', I'll run it by WP:RM first, even if I think it's utterly anodyne. Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
2009
Requesting autoblock removal
SUL
I own the name "Narsil" under Single User Log-in (my account matrix is here: meta:User:Narsil/matrix), though there are a few Narsil accounts on non-English Wikipedias that aren't mine: [EDIT: And now they're all mine!]
bg:User:Narsil (3 edits)Request to usurp; posted follow-up on 3-20-09ca:User:Narsil (2 edits)
Done --Vriullop (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)de:User:Narsil (0 edits)
Done by local 'crat. — YourEyesOnly (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)es:User:Narsil (0 edits)Request to usurpfr:User:Narsil (1 edit) Done by one our 'crats too. Popo le Chien throw a bone 09:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)hr:User:Narsil (0 edits)Request to usurp Added followup note 3/20; then saw that, apparently, a notice was posted to hr:User_talk:Narsil on March 13, presumably starting a 7-day clock tickingit:User:Narsil (2 edits)Request to usurp (7-day notice started on 3-14-09)pl:User:Narsil (0 edits)Request to usurp 3/20: Turned out I'd needed to transclude the request on another page--that's done now, and a 7-day clock is tickingru:User:Narsil (0 edits)tr:User:Narsil (0 edits)Request to usurp (7-day notice started on 3-14-09)
I'm in the process of trying to usurp those accounts. -- Narsil (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, the SUL collision-tracker utility is here: Username Narsil on various wikis
- The account "Narsil" on fr.wikipedia.org has been renamed "Narsil-fr", so you can now log in with your unified account. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah oops, hadn't seen EF had told you already ^^. Popo le Chien throw a bone 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)