Wikipedia

User talk:Cube lurker/Archive 2

< User talk:Cube lurker
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Durova in topic Email

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
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 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

dane cook

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

why did u change the dane cook page? he died and i was trying to help increase everyones knowledge!!!!!!!

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.235.119 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Odd then that it hasn't been on the news. However if you can supply a reliable source it can be added. Just a caution though, due to the fact that it seems to be untrue, if it's added without that reference it will be viewed as vandalism by just about anyone who notices.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well thats because the family wants to keep it private. I am his son though and i think the world deserves to know the truth. thank you though. you seem like a very nice person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.235.119 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fedor

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Fedor Emelianenko for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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 01:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


   — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Chronology

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for letting me know. I hadn't considered them very bold at the time, given the amount of other information and the incredibly fine grained, almost day by day, content that I removed. However, if it is controversial it should of course be deleted. I may not have time to contribute to the discussion right now, but thanks again for letting me know. Over The Desk (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just had root canal so I'm cranky. Everything Americans say about bad British teeth is true! Stu.W UK (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on RfA

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I recently added a discussion re: Goodmorningworld's neutral !vote. I encourage you if you have time to read that discussion, and Goodmorningworld's own additions to his commentary. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... please do let me know sometime what it would have taken to earn your trust. Thanks again, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please do not assert this man is a bishop with no source for that. What diocese? Who consecrated him? Citations, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.198.88 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep adding disputed assertions on a biography of a living person without any citation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.198.88 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Craigslist Killah!!

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a note of my change. I edited it brashly, because I've been jaded over the years by legions of superfluous delete tags. Next time, I'll take it slow, and make sure I'm not stepping into anything.M4bwav (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Rashad Evans

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Dear Cube Lurker,I am going to try to be nice as you are bugging me... His record is 18-0-1, turn on your TV to Spike, he has a title bout coming up soon... theres a commercial every 30 mins.. "The 18-0-1 Sugar Rashad Evans... vs.. The 14-0 Lyoto Dragon Machida. His Record is 18-0-1. I promise. There is no need to site references, it is common fact. -Antonidus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonidus (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail.FightCard&eid=1461 Have a look for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonidus (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=EventDetail.FightCard&eid=2001 Even better this is the upcoming fight card. Current record. thank you- Antonidus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonidus (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey cool, first time my page has been vandalized.  ;) Or at least, since I became an admin, might have happened before. :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anytime.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know what that's about now... I protected Carnage (comics) because that user kept reverting to an older version of the the article without discussion. Might want to keep an eye on that article, because the protection runs out around the same time as the IP's block. :) BOZ (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny. I was sort of wondering what set him off. I didn't see your name on any warnings or the block notice. I added that page to my watchlist.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no surprise, he hit the article again. I gave him a warning, but possibly he could just be blocked again straight out. BOZ (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Markoff

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Yes, I totally agree with that strategy. I left a note on J. delanoy's page and then saw that you had as well - I just got on today and haven't seen if anything's happened yet. But yes, please do go to the BLP board. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your note looks fine - send me the link when you post it. Thanks for doing it. Tvoz/talk 21:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tito Ortiz Edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello.Um...I just thought the added year would be needed since it doesn't say anything about the year.We probably know it was in 2009 but I do belive it should be added.The edit was just to clarify when the children were born.If there is another way of doing this, then we can do it that way.Thanks. (MgTurtle (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)).

Oh, I see what happened.Sorry.That was a mistake.(MgTurtle (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)).

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Government Motors

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is not "constructive" about making sure that the GM article accurately refers to GM as Government Motors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.8.208 (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:V

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I know, "verifiability not truth". :) As for where I am going with this, I would say that the English Wikipedia (unlike some others) relies too much on journalistic sources, as opposed to scholarly sources. Hence parts of it have acquired a tabloid-like feel. There is no adjustment to policy that could be made to save this specific situation – there are no scholarly sources one could consult in preference over journalistic ones, and even the most reputable papers like the Independent have run with the Register story and repeated its (wilful) errors. However, I think the case highlights the problems attached to journalistic sources and provides some food for thought. At the end of the day, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. Cheers, JN466 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, the German Wikipedia's version of WP:V says point blank that articles should where possible be based on up-to-date scholarly sources. It goes on to say that if there are no, or insufficient, scholarly sources, then journalistic sources may be used, provided they qualify as "thoroughly researched". It adds, if there is a lack of secondary literature, this may indicate that the topic lacks encyclopedic relevance. I think a policy like that better befits a project carrying the name "encyclopedia". JN466 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. [1]

This is nothing new as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender and the associated links clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking Page

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In reply to:

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Stephen Hawking, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage in question:

In 1950, Hawking and his family moved to St Albans in Hertfordshire where he attended St Albans School from 1950 to 1953. (At that time, boys could attend the Girls school until the age of 10.[1]) From the age of 11, he attended St Albans School, where he was a good, but not exceptional, student.[2] When asked later to name a teacher who had inspired him, Hawking named his Mathematics teacher, Dikran Tahta.[3] He maintains his connection with the school, giving his name to one of the four houses and to an extracurricular science lecture series. He has visited to deliver one of the lectures and has also granted a lengthy interview to pupils working on the school magazine, The Albanian.

Specifically:

"... here he attended St Albans School from 1950 to 1953. (At that time, boys could attend the Girls school until the age of 10.[1]) ..."

As the passage clearly indicates, he did not attend St Albans School from 1950 to 1953, St Albans High School for Girls. He only attended St Albans School after 1953. Thus the highlighted sentence should read: "here he attended St Albans High School for Girls from 1950 to 1953.".

My mistake and apologies. After reading your explanation the edit seems correct and I have restored it. Sorry about that.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
 
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boxers nicknames again

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You were recently involved in a discussion with regards boxers nicknames. There is a continuation of that discussion with specific reference to Audley Harrison on the BLP page here. Please feel free to add your opinion there once more. Regards. Vintagekits (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'm going to pass on re-involving myself. Best wishes on resolving this.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Mangini

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After watching the garbage he's put on the field this year, it needed to be said.

Vjmlhds 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but if you need to vent i'd recomend a messageboard, not his article.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re [2] you are absolutely right. WMC is someone I interact with regularly and I hadn't even thought about him being an arbcom candidate. My apologies -- I blame it on insufficient caffeine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No one said anything to him, until User:Muboshgu called it vandalism and put a vandal template on his page. Still never explaining what he did wrong. It took User:Blahblah32blahblah to finally realize to explain why his edits were being reverted. Then and only then did he stop. If any of the editors did that in the first place this edit war would've been avoided. He was never a vandal he was just trying to improve wikipedia, but needed to be pointed out that adding non-official reports is not improving an article.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvester14

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am sorry that you are so childishly bossy—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvester14 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect revertion.

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to David Letterman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)"

Letterman revealed his nickname was "Duck Lips", as I edited into his Wikipedia entry. My edit was not vandalism, as such, it should not have been reverted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4M74NWMBvM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.16.220 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply made here.[3]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the heads up there. The great thing about it is, there are already two more keeps on it, so there is no doubt now to the fate of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

TBSDY

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm done with having him harass people. Would you cerify an RFC if his behavior repeats itself? Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  Hi Cube lurker/Archive 2, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Re-read policy"

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

There is no need for me to re-read policy. User:A Nobody (among others) was carrying a personal battle over to an AfD page where it should not be extended. It had little to do with the subject of the AfD, and he (and others) should be called into account. A Nobody appears to flaunt this, removing a comment which calls him down anytime one is posted. Frankly, he needs to be blocked again, as his actions are disruptive. As for you comment, I'll echo Jack Merridew: WP:DTTR - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Execution:" - It was joke, for crying out loud! It was playing on the reply above it. You do know what the ":-)" on there means, don't you? Geez, Louise! I don't even know any of you all involved, and you're reacting like children. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you confusing "refactor" with "retract"? If "refactor" is correct, I don't see the point or where there is an error. I will gladly fix a problem if you'll be more specific about what and where it is. If you meant "retract" instead, no way. It's a joke. Get a sense of humor. Good grief. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant what I said as an play on the comment before it, but to think that I would favor the actual execution of another editor (unless convicted of some heinous crime) is farcical on its face. A joke is a joke, nothing more. If you consider that comment to be over the line, you are way too sensitive. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The comment was made well away from the section where the main body of the argument was taking place, and was placed in such a fashion that its attempt at humor should have been obvious, or so I thought. I was not even a main party to that argument, just a guy on the sideline making wisecracks on occasion. My only direct involvement was a comment on the talk pages of two of the main participants, telling them to take their peeing match (which apparently has its seeds in another altercation in another AfD) elsewhere. User:A Nobody simply erased the comments, taking the ostrich approach; he apparently is rather ill-tempered and prone to getting in these heated discussions. You don't see many of those at WP anymore, especially those that have been around here as long as he apparently has. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Cube lurker,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to an article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Cube lurker, I just got a message telling me that the changes I made to an article about Edward Jenner (and the message implies more changes to other unnamed articles) had been reverted back to the original form. That's fine, but the thing is that neither I, nor anyone else who had access to this computer had made any edits to any article- do you have any idea how this could have happened? Thanks. 92.25.251.194 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of IP adresses is that depending on your connection IP adresseses can be reassigned. So though someone made those edits on that IP adress, it doesn't mean it was the same physical computer. It just means it was someone else on your provider.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Email

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Someone seems to have blanked your post accidentally due to an edit conflict. The solution to your privacy concern is gmail, which cannot be traced to your real location via headers. Durova412 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could, just not sure it's worth the trouble. To be honest this is the first time I've been tempted to use it. Let me be clear on the only information that would really sway my opinion. Do you really think you can convince me that this stalker could have googled 'Jane Stalkervictim curling' and not come up with the USCA information even if it hadn't been added here. If you really think so, when i get back to my home computer I'll set up a clean gmail and email you.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just an update, Floquenbeam made a post that I replied too.[4] I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess that's at least in the ballpark of what you were going to explain to me. If so I think I see the concept in general, We may still disagree a bit in the application in this exact situation at least as it was presented originally. As I think about it I think part of the disagreement may come from the amount of credit I give to a stalkers ability to find any info that's out there in any form. Actually a sad bit of social commentary I guess. Are we close enough to me understanding what you were going to explain?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually that's a side of it that I have no objection to discussing onsite. A fair and relevant point in its own right. Basically the tip of an iceberg. Durova412 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you. If you think you can pound some info through my thick skull I'll set up an email tonight. Either way this reminded me of something I keep forgeting. Some how what starts with a simple post throwing a question on a talk page turns ends up with dozens of posts and geting way more involved than I intended.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We all have that kind of conversation. :) The two word summary of what I would tell you is attractive nuisance, although the details are quite disturbing. Anyway I put a three point checklist on ANI; email only becomes relevant if you get to point 3. Will be checking the inbox. :) Durova412 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Stephen Hawking A Biography. Greenwood Press. 1995.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Current Biography 1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Dick Tahta". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cube_lurker/Archive_2&oldid=1166514217"