User talk:Quarl/Archive 2007-03
 Quarl talk |
|---|
 | This page 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. |
I'm quite confused by your closing of this AfD. In the entire discussion, it appears that there was only a single editor who suggested the redirection, and at least 4 who specifically disagreed with the idea. --Philosophus T 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Philosophus, thanks for asking. The stated disagreements to redirection were mainly opposing content merging, not the existance of a #REDIRECT. A redirect makes sense here: if someone searches for information on something called "solar system warming", solar variation theory is probably what they're looking for. Anyway, closing as a "redirect" can be seen as procedural shorthand for closing as "delete", then creating a redirect, then doing a history-only under-redirect undeletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-28 06:23Z
I'm confused by your vote-closing on this. There was *one* vote for redirect, and a large majority for delete. How come it ended up as a redirect? William M. Connolley 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi William M. Connelley, have you read my above reply? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-28 09:30Z
- No I haven't, silly me. I'd prefer a straight delete but can live with your logic William M. Connolley 09:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quarl, good call on this AfD. I was a bit confused about why everyone wanted to delete it when it was definitely something I had heard of. But later I realized that I was probably confused about what exactly this "theory" was and solar variation was probably what I was thinking of. So your actions (as per your reasoning above) solves this. Best regards, Icemuon 10:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I do not strongly disagree with the course of action you have taken (redirect to solar variation), I think this was done too quickly after the creation of the article, which was growing fast, both in scale and in sources. --Childhood's End 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Childhood's End, if you've newly found reliable sources since the closure of the AFD, you can them the redirect target. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 06:44Z
 Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming |
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → User talk:BigHaz |
Good work! Tyrenius 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!
School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → User talk:Deryck Chan |
J R Gillis
Thank you. Would you like to tell him? (If he doesn't know already). Dieuk seems remarkably dilligent if he is not J R Gillis. - Kittybrewster 09:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → User talk:Kittybrewster |
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Quarl. Just popping by to say thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Great turnout, humbling result. Most appreciated and no doubt I will be seeing you around! :) Bubba hotep 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Breed (ECW). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TJ Spyke 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Breed (ECW) → Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6#New Breed (ECW) |
I do object to the merger (which is obvious since I filed the DRV). 1 voted merge, 2 voted delete or merge. I also objected in the AFD (when I replied saying that both articles can be expanded). Both are seperate full stables, and I see no reason for them to be 1 article. TJ Spyke 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi TJ Spyke, I stand by my closure of the AFD. Please work out the details of the merge or not with the other editors of the ECW articles. There's no need to aggravate the situation. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 03:32Z
| Relevant discussion at | → Talk:ECW Originals |
Auto summary
What thread of code do you use for the auto edit summary? Also where in my monobook (linky) will it fit best? Ie not screw up any of my other codes? Plez feel free to let me know of any other codes that you think would be useful to me, for I am always looking for more. --Darkest Hour 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The script is at http://www.cubewano.org/wpt/scripts/autoedit.js. You can find more scripts/tools at http://www.cubewano.org/wpt/. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 02:45Z
psst
Dont work worth crud:
//[[User:Darkest Hour/util.js]]
importScript('User:Darkest Hour/util.js');
//[[User:Darkest Hour/wikitabs.js]]
importScript('User:Darkest Hour/wikitabs.js');
//[[User:Darkest Hour/wikitabs.css]]
cssinc('[[User:Darkest Hour/wikitabs.css]]');
//[[User:Darkest Hour/util.js]]
importScript('User:Darkest Hour/util.js');
//[[User:Darkest Hour/wikipage.js]]
importScript('User:Darkest Hour/wikipage.js');
//[[User:Darkest Hour/auto.js]]
importScript('User:Darkest Hour/auto.js');
What is wrong with these????? -- Darkest Hour 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. Did you try following the instructions on the page I linked? —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 07:11Z
- Yes but I also have a ton of other scripts in my monobook... -- Darkest Hour 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of the revisions to this article. I have changed my vote to Keep accordingly. Walton Vivat Regina! 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
AFD arguments vs votes
- I just noticed this conversation... sorry for butting in. I just wanted to ask this because I don't visit a lot of AfDs. I thought it was the case that one valid argument for keep is all that is needed. Even if all the other votes say delete, if they don't give arguments stronger than the person that voted keep gave, then the article will be kept. Is this how it works in AfDs? Or does it end up coming down to majority? Sancho (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to query a decision of yours, but when you closed this AfD with "no consensus to delete" you added your own thoughts about it making sense to add the content to a list. I'd contend with this closure on two counts. First, I think there's a clear consensus to keep, rather than no consensus to delete. Second, you undermine that consensus with your own opinion that seems to imply that the article should, in fact, be deleted. It could be that I'm reading this wrong. That's a strong possibility - I stopped interacting at the AfD because I was becoming irritated with one of the contributors and thought it was better to stop before I bit, lol. Anyway, perhaps I'm still suffering from some residual wikistress over it and I've therefore read your closure comments in a way a cool head wouldn't. Happy for you to explain that I'm wrong and hope this ramble is taken in the spirit it's intended (ie ramble, not rant!) Cheers, --Dweller 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you read consensus on the AfD, which clearly seems to be keep and improve. Even if consensus was to merge/redirect, there seems to have been nothing merged from the original article into its target. Any insights on your decision-making process would be appreciated before opening a needless DRV. Alansohn 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Alansohn, thanks for writing. The article Kirkbie Kendal School had nearly no information (and nothing sourced) so I exercised my judgement in recommending its merger to Kendal per WP:LOCAL. I closed it as merge the usual way of redirecting the source article and then starting a merger discussion on the target article's talk. Please see Talk:Kendal. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 14:04Z
- By the way, I think the lack of significant "delete" votes in the AFD is probably due to it being obscured because the AFD nomination called it a "business school". Most high school AFDs attract many "delete" votes, and this one is a very unremarkable one at that. So if relisted, a "keep" closure wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 14:08Z
- While I appreciate the concept of administrator discretion, there was no indication provided by you on the AfD as to how you came to your arbitrary judgment. Your statement was "The result was Merge to Kendal", when in fact, the result was that you took it upon yourself to decide that the AfD would have been rejected if it had been properly worded. It is hard for me to understand how you would be able to predict what the vote should have been, and its hard to imagine that the word "school" in the title did not attract the attention of those who normally vote "delete" in such AfDs. Given that there were indications of notability provided, and that your actions were in total contradiction to the clear consensus provided, a far more detailed explanation of why you took it upon yourself to ignore consensus should have been provided. As an administrator, you have a far greater responsibility to explain your actions when they fly in the face of consensus. As of now, you have not provided adequate justification for your actions. Alansohn 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. On examining the AFD discussion again, I still believe a "merge" closure is justified. There were 5 "keep or merge", 2 "delete", and no straight keep or objections to merging. If there is a specific action you are seeking, please say what will resolve this issue for you. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 14:19Z
- The article has been expanded significantly, addressing the concerns raised. The discussion is moot for now. Thanks anyways. Alansohn 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. On examining the AFD discussion again, I still believe a "merge" closure is justified. There were 5 "keep or merge", 2 "delete", and no straight keep or objections to merging. If there is a specific action you are seeking, please say what will resolve this issue for you. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 14:19Z
- While I appreciate the concept of administrator discretion, there was no indication provided by you on the AfD as to how you came to your arbitrary judgment. Your statement was "The result was Merge to Kendal", when in fact, the result was that you took it upon yourself to decide that the AfD would have been rejected if it had been properly worded. It is hard for me to understand how you would be able to predict what the vote should have been, and its hard to imagine that the word "school" in the title did not attract the attention of those who normally vote "delete" in such AfDs. Given that there were indications of notability provided, and that your actions were in total contradiction to the clear consensus provided, a far more detailed explanation of why you took it upon yourself to ignore consensus should have been provided. As an administrator, you have a far greater responsibility to explain your actions when they fly in the face of consensus. As of now, you have not provided adequate justification for your actions. Alansohn 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I think the lack of significant "delete" votes in the AFD is probably due to it being obscured because the AFD nomination called it a "business school". Most high school AFDs attract many "delete" votes, and this one is a very unremarkable one at that. So if relisted, a "keep" closure wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 14:08Z
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirkbie Kendal School → Talk:Kendal → User talk:Alansohn |
Just FYI, you had just redirected these back to your user talk page...? I undid that for you. - Denny 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for your trust; I have replied on my talk page. -- Black Falcon 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → User talk:Black Falcon |
- Thread retitled from "Thanks Quarl for your work on Natural History of South Asia mailing list, I really appriciate it".
This is the most important list on the subject in India, members include all top NGOs in Conservation of the region (Including WWF-India, WTI: Wildlife Trust of India, WPSI: Wildlife Protection Society of India, BNHS: Bombay Natural History Society, Kalpvariksh etc. etc. etc., wildlife researchers, foresters and nature lovers alike, it has many members from top International Conservation NGOs and Institutions like the IUCN.
Its is a much needed and appreciated new media thing networking professionals, NGOs and nature lovers alike, its reputability has grown from word of mouth and personal recommendations, even though many wildlife journalist are members of the list, it seems they still have to figure out it makes a valuable subject in itself to write about.
I just wanted to remind you Quarl, please improve (You have already made it great) the article such that all internet searchable "keywords" / "alternative names" of the list become a part of the body of the article so that when people go searching for this list on the world wide web and on Google etc. Wikipedia article comes out high in the internet search engines.
Thanks again for your help
Atulsnischal 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural History of South Asia mailing list |
How to close AFDs?
- Thread retitled from "Quick (and embarrassing) question".
I am a sysop wanting to help clear the AfD backlog. In general I am comfortable with the policies etc but I cannot find the templates for closing the AfD debates listed anywhere... they are subst AFAICT so I cannot easily copy them. Can you point me the right direction? --BozMo talk 08:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thread retitled from "Question: What next".
I saw that you closed the Jan Cox (philosopher) debate. What do I do next? Do I delete the article or do I submit somewhere to have it deleted? This was the first request I've done. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Marking "resolved" on WP:AN
Could you please either start signing the "resolved" comments, or modify the template you're using to automatically include a signature and timestamp? It would be very helpful to easily find out who thought the problem was resolved, and at what time, rather than having to trawl the history for it. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Quarl, you're my hero. Wow. I didn't know that much information existed about a sports director. wjmoore17
{{Coor dms}}
Hi, your last edit to {{Coor dms}} seems to have inserted a space between the degrees and minutes in the template. Strange it doens't show in the history but it is indeed there. It might have been caused by line wrapping. Thnx. – Caroig 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Template talk:Coor dms |
{Coor at} templates
I figured out why the span titles for the coor at templates weren't working. In both of the span titles on each template, there was: ...other data for "{{{1}}}°{{{2}}}′but the " was screwing it up. If you remove the quotation marks between 'for' and {{{1}}} it should work fine. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Template talk:Coor URL |
Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar. Dr. Submillimeter 10:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted you closed this with no concensus. Curious about your thoughts behind this - what I observed were proponents just stating how notable it was without really providing evidence, and opponents noting that it doesn't really follow the rules. No disrespect intended, but I'm curious - what prompted your decision? --Dennisthe2 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Dennisthe2, thanks for asking. That AFD was indeed borderline; I hesitated before closing it. I agree that the AFD was plagued with newbies and SPAs and useless arguments about free speech, but filtering out the noise there were good arguments to be found. The primary Keep argument that I considered was that the group met the PNC, and the Delete counter-argument was that the sources weren't reliable enough or that there weren't enough of them. In particular, Djrobgordon's analysis was good, favoring deletion, though he also noted that the "Paradox member arrested in NY" article is reliable non-trivial coverate of Paradox, after which an argument ensued over whether that was enough to merit an article. What cinched a no-delete was the article in The Inquirer [1], which was published 2007-03-06, that nobody in the AFD questioned for reliability or evidence of notabilty; and there are also other articles such as in The Register [2]. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 09:59Z
- Ah, OK, good point - I didn't actually see the Reg or Inquirer articles, as they had gotten lost in the noise. =( Had I seen them, I suppose I would've flipped my vote. --Dennisthe2 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARADOX (warez) |
Thanks for your reviewing of SFBA Jumpaclass articles
Reviewing articles is always a thankless tedious job, and i want to thank you for the timely and careful review work on Havens, Tolay and Goat Rock Beach articles. Your efforts are very important in sustaining the article improvement aspect of the SFBA project. Best regards. Anlace 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the csd tag for the article "Underrated" — a page without content? If there is some special reason for keeping this nearly five-month old empty article, perhaps there should be an explanation on its talk page (or at least a simple one in your edit remarks). Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Askari Mark! I consider {{wi}} to be content. We have hundreds of {{wi}} articles; I don't see a need to delete them all. If nothing else, the existance of a pointer to Wiktionary helps prevent dicdef recreations. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 04:27Z
- Thanks for the explanation, Quarl. I had not run into a {{wi}} page before and the template doesn't make clear what its purpose is. I have added a note on the Talk page to the effect that "This page is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Please do not delete this page." You might recommend that this notice be placed on the Talk pages of {{wi}} articles (wherever they are discussed) so those of us not familiar with Wiktionary don't interpret them as "empty" and therefore suitable for speedy deletion. Have a great week! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
AfDs ...
Grr, you've closed all the unanimous 'keep' AfDs I was looking for. Keep it up! Yuser31415 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
About template documentation harmonization stuffs
Hi. Thanks for your work with {{template doc inline}}! Although, with {{templatesnotice}}, there is now quadruple transclusion, whereas previously there was only double transclusion. The job queue for the server is big enough, methinks. May I suggest (and this is where we would depart from Meta) having "Template:Template doc inline top" and "Template:Template doc inline bottom"? This would reduce the transclusion level by one, and overall make it more elegant. (See {{AfD top}} and {{AfD bottom}} for a similar system.) In this way, we might have the following for {{templatesnotice}}:
{{template doc inline top|Template:Templatesnotice/inner}}
{{Templatesnotice/inner|s1={{{s1|}}}|s2={{{s2|}}}|s3={{{s3|}}}|series={{{series|}}}|max={{{max|}}}|escalate={{{escalate|}}}|escalate_to={{{escalate_to|}}}}}
{{template doc inline bottom}}
Do you like the idea? GracenotesT § 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Gracenotes! I count three (templatesnotice, template doc inline, templatesnotice/inner); but either way I see your point about it not having to have so many levels. Does it really hurt server performance much, especially since it's only seen in documentation? I don't mind changing Templatesnotice to use top/bottom templates as you suggested, though personally I think a single template is more elegant, and the whole point was to factor style code into a single template so they could be changed in one place. If you want to change it to top/bottom, then Templatesnotice/inner isn't necessary any more either. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-13 08:36Z
- The problem isn't so much the transclusion as all those parameters getting passed around. But, it's not behind-the-scenes, so I guess it's fine. (The fourth transclusion I was talking about would be on the templates themselves, e.g. {{uw-vandalism2}}.) GracenotesT § 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see how you counted 4. Since it's inside <noinclude> I don't think it matters though. If someone tagged User talk:JohnDoe with {{uw-vandalism2}}, then UT:JD would only have 1 transclusion (unless it's substituted, in which case zero); and when viewing Template:uw-vandalism2 directly, you don't count itself so only templatesontice, template doc inline, templatesnotice/inner. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 09:49Z
- I mean, more important than visual appearances, the actual technical structure. templatesnotice/inner is transcluded in the template, which is passed as a variable through template doc inline (the same as transclusion with respect to how the templates are called), which is transcluded on templatesnotice, which is then transcluded on the appropriate template - 4 transclusions. But it's probably not that important; it may increase the job queue a bit, though. Although, at the last count, template transclusion took up just under 50% of activity on Wikipedia -- which makes it a bit of a problem, with the db being down for many people. As I said, this won't make much of a dent in the problem, but... [insert whatever my point was]. GracenotesT § 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still sounds like 3 to me. Suppose Wikipedia:Sandbox contains:
{{X1|{{X2}}}}, Template:X1 contains:{{{1}}}and Template:X2 contains:foo. Then Sandbox has 2 levels of transclusions total, not 3, just as if it had{{X1|bar}} {{X2}}. X2 isn't evaluated twice just because it's inside an argument to another template. See also Evaluation strategy. If you wanted you could count use of arguments in templates as another level of transclusion, though almost all templates would count twice in that case. Seems like chocolate bar-like mathematical induction to me. Also, I'm not sure it's purely the depth of the transclusion tree that's important; I would think it's the tree-product of number of templates at each tree node, i.e. the total number of transclusions. For example, suppose Wikipedia:Sandbox ={{X1|1}} {{X1|2}} {{X1|3}} {{X1|4}} {{X1|5}}and Template:X1 ={{X2}} {{X3}} {{X4}} {{X5}} {{X6}}. Then the total number of transclusions is something like 25, even though there are only two levels. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Sandbox ={{X1}}, Template:X1 ={{X2}}, Template:X2 ={{X3}}, Template:X3 ={{X4}}, Template:X4 =foohas 4 levels and only 4 transclusions. Anyway, if the {template doc inline} thing will hurt overall performance, I don't object to changing it. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 05:16Z
- Still sounds like 3 to me. Suppose Wikipedia:Sandbox contains:
Hm. I suppose I grouped parameter-passing and transclusion together, both of which (if I've read the PHP source code correctly) take up a fair amount of resources. But then again, WP:PERF... GracenotesT § 17:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thread retitled from "Template Documentation disruption – please revert your changes!".
Hi! You made a redirect from Template:Navconstel-help to Template:Navconstel/doc, which looks nice, but disabled the edit links. Will you please revert the changes on: Template:Navconstel-help and remove all {{Template:template doc|Template:Navconstel-help}} on the relevant templates – or else I'll do it in the next week. You did these edits in best intentions, but please take for habit to test changes. Rursus 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rursus, thanks for the message. I apologize for accidentally disabling the edit link. I have moved it back. I still think /doc is a better name but I will let you decide that. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-13 08:30Z
- Thank you very much! You did that well (the best way). Otherwise the image
and the box layout are very good for keeping the user's control of what he/she is doing. I'll reuse that for similar cases when the standard templates don't apply. Otherwise: happy template hacking, I'll do some similar but very specialized hacks for astronomy templates soon, but there's things to consider carefully so that the user understands what's happening, when clicking a certain link. Rursus 09:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! You did that well (the best way). Otherwise the image
Was Csn broken?
Re: Excerpt (Prior version NOW relative to the diff below)
- Factoid: There are 3,804,801 users on Wikipedia, and only 1,143 administrators; that's about 3,329 users per admin, or 0.3 admins per 1,000 users. Now, admins aren't police, and most user accounts aren't active, so these stats aren't strictly comparable, but the average ratio in USA cities is 2.3 police officers per 1,000 residents. So isn't it nice that there's always an admin around when you need one?
And this edit -- I was back at untangling {{lz3}} frm {{Csn}} and leaving a note for CBDunkerson on those two, and as I did I see (now) the 'consumer' has changed, which lead me to your edit. Was there a 'csn' malfunction or is this random bad timing (happenstance)? Actually, looks like your change (10:04, 11 March 2007)) was well after that edit sequence which was on the doc pages, which involved only the /doc and demo sub-pages, so if there was a malfunction, these two templates are even less robust than I'd feared. They seem clones, but one calls the other enough to make me ask CBD to take a look.
So if I broke something, things really suck! See, these were doc pages edits only!:
- 05:53, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Csn/doc (Added WP:DOC style heading) (top)
- 05:49, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Template:Csn/Csn demo (Doc purpose and scope) (top)
- 05:43, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Template:Lz3/doc (Add stnd fixups) (top)
- 05:29, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Csn/doc (typo)
- 05:22, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Template:Csn/doc (Update to moved demo page name Csn/Csn demo)
- 05:04, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Csn/Csn demo (moved Template:Csn demo to Template:Csn/Csn demo: Doc support page for /doc page... all three belong together.)
- 05:03, 11 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Csn/Csn demo (+cat)
So please advise me ASAP on your motivations. I don't see any problem in the previous version viewed directly now. Thanks // FrankB 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Frank. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Quarl's motivation was that 'formatnum' is not a template at all. It is a built in 'magic word' added to the software specifically to add commas to numbers. The 'csn' and 'lz3' templates are therefor no longer needed. --CBD 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The Sebastian Mego article has been recreated a couple of times in the last few days. Why tell you? Because you were the closer on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Mego. I'm unclear about the policy on recreating and "salting". The guy might have a Wikipedia notable career in the future but obviously not yet. Thoughts? Pigmandialogue 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul_Pigman, I have listed it at Wikipedia:Protected titles/March 2007 to prevent recreation. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-13 08:25Z
No-one who debated on this article suggested redirecting this article. This seems to your view and defeats the objective of AfD. Please can you explain your action, (I have noted from your talk page you have done this before) bearing in mind what contributors to the debate said. Although it makes no real difference, I have concern that you chose to ignore contributors views and made a decision yourself and then carried it out. --PrincessBrat 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi PrincessBrat, thanks for asking. In this case a redirect is compatible with a delete because it is technically equivalent to a delete, plus recreate as redirect, plus history-only undelete. There's no policy reason (such as libel) to delete history, and redirecting has advantages such as preventing recreations and allowing non-admins to view history. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-13 08:21Z
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kempsville Middle School |
Whilst I understand there was some merit in merging this item with Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, the small number of responses don't seem to have warrented such a swift action, and I had suggested, within the discussion, some alternative solutions, for which I was awaiting further comment and discussion.
However, as a result of the merge having been carried out, all the other items that had this transclusion have now been extended to beyond wikimedi size recommendations, and now make less sense that before. Examples of these include Woody Bay railway station Yeo locomotive, Chelfham Viaduct and Pilton, Devon among several. Please can you arrange for the merge to be reversed, at least until I can remove the transclusion for the other articles, or replace it with a smaller and more focussed item. Kind regards, Lynbarn 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Lynbarn, thanks for the note. I have removed the transclusions -- mainspace articles shouldn't have been transcluded like that anyway. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 18:25Z
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth |
I was the only keep vote (it only had one delete, as well) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political taxonomy, and when I saw the afd pop-up in my watchlist, I checked it out, and realized where the information ought to be merged to, form of government. I merged the info, and I figure political taxonomy ought to redirect there. I'd close it myself, but I suppose the afd might as well go the extra week, now that its been relisted. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know, as if you wanted, you could maybe withdraw your relist, and the article could be redirected now. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political taxonomy |
Hi, sorry to bother you here, not sure if this is the right place; but I'm seeing that this article has been created again the same day it was deleted, by one of the voters for strong keep. If this is okay, then nevermind, but it seems a little obnoxious to me. I'm still learning about this process. Also confused that a search for "articles for deletion" doesn't bring up "Wikipedia:articles for deletion". Now that I know how to type it it's fine, but do you know a forum where I could bring that up? Thanky.--Parsleyjones 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Parsleyjones, thanks for the note. Since the article is different I will give User:Goldburg the benefit of the doubt and not speedy delete it as a recreation, but instead I have re-nominated it for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Barrymore Halpenny (2nd nomination). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 17:00Z
"Resolved—Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 10:33Z"
Maybe not quite resolved? Scrubbing done, thanks, but I've commented there that I can't find the semiprotection for User talk:Xanthius, and I can't tell if the invading IP# was blocked. Milo 02:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → User talk:Xanthius → WP:ANI#True name privacy outing |
"Greatest" claims in several football articles.
Hi, I'm not sure this is resolved. You stated "Claims are OK if they are attributed".
To take an example the current wording of the Maradona article is: "Diego Armando Maradona (born October 30, 1960) is an Argentine former football player widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time". The two references given for that sentence are a FIFA poll and a quote by Eric Cantona. It is exactly this type of statement I want removed.
I previously edited the Maradona article to state what the references actually say: "Diego Armando Maradona (born October 30, 1960) is an Argentine former football player. In 2000 FIFA conducted an internet poll on the Player of the Century, with Maradona receiving 53.6% of the votes. In 2006 Eric Cantona stated that Maradona was a superior player than Pelé." This has since been reverted. My opinion is that broad statements like "widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time" should never be used. This seems to be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL.
If someone calls a player "the greatest" then this should read something like "x considered him the greatest". Not just "is the greatest". If a poll is being quoted then the result of the poll should be stated only.
I've given my full explanation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Stubacca, I completely agree with you. I have edited Diego Maradona as per your comments and replied at the Football talk page. In the AN/I thread I believed it was obvious that WP:ATT applied and I wanted to write the resolution commentary in a positive tone rather than "do not add unattributed material"; perhaps "Claims are OK if and only if they are attributed" would have been more clear. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 17:23Z
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims → Talk:Diego Maradona |
A question about SVG
I noticed that you put a tag on Image:Stop.png asking that someone create an SVG version of the image and that they then replace all instances of the previous PNG version throughout Wikipedia. However, the SVG article says that Safari and Internet Explorer only support SVG with the use of a plugin. Since IE is still (unfortunately) an extremely dominant browser, is it wise to replace such a common image with one that can only be viewed if the user has a browser plugin installed? I don't actually know much about graphics, but this concerned me. If the information in the SVG article is wrong, or if I've somehow misunderstood, I apologize in advance. :) LastChanceToBe 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi LastChanceToBe, you are right to be concerned about browser support -- but don't worry! The MediaWiki software renders ("rasterizes") them as PNG, which all browsers support. See m:SVG image support —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 08:47Z
- The wiki software rocks. And so do you, for your fast reply! LastChanceToBe 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Mediawiki:Edittools
Your last change at Mediawiki:Edittools broke it! It now says: "Sign your username: <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—~~~ <small>2007-03-16 08:55Z</small></i></span>" I'm heading to bed, but just noticed that. ;) --Quiddity 10:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt and I did tell everyone that I would create the article as a stub so it could grow from there. At least it would be an anchor and I don't think even the artist could complain about that, though I know he was happy to have it deleted. However as was pointed out to me, the wishes of the subject do not count and he has done everything that has been stated, so his achievements and continued achievements warrants him a place in the Wikipedia, for people will look him up and it is the responsibility of a credible encyclopaedia to be useful and informative with credible information available to the user.
It has been edited by the administrator NawlinWiki to conform to Wikipedia standards and cites at least one independent source. The references I have given can be looked up if people did a little research other than Internet and Google. I have got mine the old fashioned way, like my father did. You can contact the Isle of man philatelic bureau and buy the books listed and you will see I am correct. Goldburg 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Ad project
Hi Qxz, your banner advertisements idea is nice. Suggestions: 1) an ad for RC patrolling, 2) create a WikiProject around the ad project (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Internal Marketing), 3) use protection instead of .css extension hack -- hey wait a minute! 30,000 edits? Do you want to be an admin yet :) ? I looked at some of your contributions; you have a standing offer of nomination from me whenever you're ready. (I know some people will oppose over wikiage, but you've contributed so much already. I was promoted after 2 months of activity, so "under 6 months" is not impossible.) —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 07:38Z
- Hi, thank you for your suggestions. I'm considering (1); I've already added one about fixing vandalism in general. I'm not sure (2) would be such a good idea; people keep trying to put these things in project space and someone even suggested putting them above every article (which resulted in lots of people yelling at me, even though I hadn't suggested any such thing). I want to keep it clear that this is just a personal thing I'm doing on a personal user subpage, which other people can put on their userpage if they like. And I wouldn't call it "Internal Marketing" even if I did create one. Big problem with (3): I can't edit pages while they're protected. I don't think I would be very popular with the administrators if I had to make an {{editprotected}} request every time I wanted to edit my own subpages. So why have them protected at all? I feel I owe the 46 people who are using it a guarantee they won't log on one day and find their userpage messed up due to vandalism. Thanks – Qxz 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
what happend? I reverted your change. →AzaToth 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support during my recent RfA. It closed successfully, and I hope to put the new buttons to good use. Shimeru 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → User talk:Shimeru |
You Redirected, back to the original. I assume you feel that the original is sufficient, however the only difference is that the amended template links with WikiProject Kent categories to enable tracking of Kent related articles. Please can you/we revert? - Olive Oil -ŢάĽɮ - 17:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Olive Oil, good point, I have reverted and transcluded {{unreferenced}} instead, and added documentation so it's more obvious what the difference is. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 03:25Z
Geo microformat
Please will you help to implement the Geo microformat in the Coor d template? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for the pointer. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 03:26Z
- Thanks for marvellous (and prompt!) response. I've commented on the relevant talk page. Andy Mabbett
- And again; thank you. Andy Mabbett 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
| Relevant discussion at | → Template talk:Coor dms#Geo microformat |
Template: Template doc
re: User_talk:Random832#Template /doc pages
Anyone that's observed my comments on various forums knows that I'm an inclusionist, and believe esp. in templates that people ought be let to have their tools, but this and it's inline version are going to create problems for interwiki compatability at what I can see is but only little gain--prettiness. Moreover, they totally ignore categorization and WP:DPP/M:DPP. Such utility as it has is redundant with Template:Template doc page pattern(edit talk links history)'s links, so where is the benefit? I do like the green, but the subst'd result adds a lot of code inside the template swelling pre-expand limits... which means it fails in universal applicability. (See the link to the technical discussion near the top of the DPP guidline.)
SO I'd like to suggest you recast this before is widely used and widespread; (A) subst it now, and then (B) re-write it as the header template inside a /doc page where the pretty stuff belongs, such that it can be synchronized with the tagging done by {{Template doc page pattern viewed directly}} and serve as a simple name to replace and provide both those and their nesting similar to the way {{interwiki doc page pattern}} is used to provide boilerplate.
God knows, it's got a nice simple name that would be a great way to start a new doc page, but not in this form and manner. But I suspect, that like the Afd/Cfd templates, it should also scream bloody murder if not subst'd. I had to figure out the indirections to know I was in actual fact adjusting the right doc page. Applying it as was used on {{Sort}} is confusing at best. See {{DATE}} for one technique that could be employed to make it have a capability of substing some of the inner templates as well. Best regards... I like it overall. Kudos on the appearance too... but the process needs adjustment. // FrankB 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi FrankB, thanks for the note. Why do you want {{template doc}} to be substituted? I think not substituting is better. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 03:26Z
- If it's used on the template page it adds to the post expand limits of the template page. If it's used as part of the /doc page, as a first line, then it would be quite useful to begin such pages... but now and then if the page is used as a combined usage page such as Template:Lts/Doc(edit talk links history) [note what links here--some other templates common usage pages even include THAT!], then there is no quick way to subst the 'BASEPAGE' name, so all the templates register correctly in off basepage transclusions.
- Secondly, having another template or two to manage 'abroad on the sister wiki's', (and if necessary fight for) is a multiplication of the work WP:TSP has to do.
- Perhaps an annotation that it may need subst'd if used for common help pages would suffice for now, but if I port help, I'll likely subst it pre port. I should note as well, that if you annoted that the template should be and is usually subst'd, no one can pick on it in TFD for lack of use... there's no way to tell! <g>
- There aren't that many people going back to groom and categorize templates properly, so experience of the burnt hand teaching best sort wouldn't be too wide spread. That was just my 'blurted out thinking' at the time... and probably how I'll use it. Care to join us in a worthy (thankless) cause? Best regards // FrankB 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Reactivate
You're welcome to "reactivate" historical proposals if you want, but if you do please try to advertise them (e.g. WP:VP, WP:CENT, WP:RFC) because otherwise it won't really accomplish anything. >Radiant< 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to undelete List of Korean family names and relist on AfD. (The relevant deletion debate which you kindly closed was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names.) I think the issue deserves a more thorough airing, since heretofore lists of culturally important surnames have been a staple of Wikipedia, particularly when these names form a small closed set as they do in the Korean case (cf. List of common Chinese surnames). Further, the deletion discussion attracted only two votes, neither having any particular relevance to the Korean case.
Would you be OK with this, or would you prefer that the article go through Deletion review first?
Cheers, -- Visviva 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean family names (2nd nomination). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 05:25Z
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean family names (2nd nomination) |
Korean family name I have just found that this article was deleted, and don't believe I understand how or why that could have happened. This kind of practice, with so little input and no advertisement to the community of editors actively involved with Korean articles, seems highly disturbing to me. Would you please undelete? Many thanks, Badagnani 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Badagnani, thanks for the message. It was deleted as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names. Deletion discussions such as these are advertised to the community on WP:AFD for five days. However, since Visviva requested as you see in the thread above yours, I undeleted it for a new AFD, short-circuiting deletion review that would normally be necessary. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 05:50Z
Korean family name is not undeleted, nor is it a "list of names." Badagnani 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you are talking specifically about Korean family name rather than List of Korean family names, it was only a redirect to List of Korean family names and the deletion of that redirect is tied to the deletion of List of Korean family names. I have undeleted it for you, since you are complaining. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 05:57Z
- Thank you for undeleting; as a redirect is is still certainly of importance in that regard. It was impossible to tell that it was a redirect under the circumstances. Badagnani
Your (non-)explanation of why this was not advertised well and fully to the community of editors active in Korean culture and history articles is most unsatisfactory, and the deletion (especially with so little input) remains embarrassing at best, and very disrespectful to the aforementioned community (and the Wikipedia community as a whole) at worst. Badagnani 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, I am complaining, and I believe I have a right to do so, when pages are summarily deleted in such a manner, without consideration to the community. We don't all haunt the Articles for Deletion pages. Thank you for undeleting; as a redirect is is still certainly of importance in that regard. It was impossible to tell that it was a redirect under the circumstances. Badagnani 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Visviva's post above yours where he said the same thing you did, but in a nice way, while you are being confrontational. The deletion of this article was completely normal and within AFD guidelines. Hundreds of articles are deleted each day and there's no way requirement to "tell" each editor about an AFD before it is closed. If you think AFD is broken (which it is, actually what isn't somewhat broken? :), go ahead and suggest improvements at WT:AFD. Also, please stop inserting the section heading; I merged the two threads on purpose. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:10Z
A minimum of consideration involves the pending deletion of a page being noted in the relevant places (viz. the talk page of that article as well as various other related talk pages, to get the maximum number of comments), not simply at the "AFD headquarters." You know that and I know that. The entire deletion discussion in question consisted of two comments, with no input from editors specializing in the subject. Yes, I think that was done incorrectly, and you are partly at fault. If you don't wish to admit any responsibility, instead criticizing my criticism, I think that speaks more about your editing practice than my own. Badagnani 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion was advertised on List of Korean family names for more than 5 days. I have closed thousands of AFDs and you are the first one to accuse me of being irresponsible in not "advertising" before closing one and being disrespectful to the Wikipedia community. If there's any particular action you are requesting, please say so, otherwise I consider this matter closed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:27Z
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you might be interested in this diff [3] sigh. aLii 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Crazeedriver2005
-Originally posted at top-
First off, forget you and your "new threads at bottom" crap. If I were to place this at the bottom, you would have an excuse as to why you've never seen it. That's why I'm placing this right up top where it is the first thing that anybody that comes to this page sees. I want to know why you keep deleting my page (Michael Coldsmith Briggs III). There's nothing wrong with it. I can understand removing the "under construction" message, but not deleting the whole thing! Every time you do your redirect tricks, I have to restore my page from a previous edit. But now I can't even do that. Today (A few minutes ago, in fact), I went to add on to my page in hopes of keeping you from deleting it again, and I found it BLANKED!! I can't even go back to a previous edit now because every previous version has your "This Wikipedia article has been nominated for deletion" crap all over them. Now I don't know what your problem is, but it needs to stop. Even after I removed all of the construction tags and the suggestion for the article to be merged into Airwolf tag, you still deleted the page. I will tell you the EXACT reason that I haven't edited the page in a while, I IMPROVE DURING WHAT LITTLE FREE TIME I DO GET. Probably unlike you, I balance my days between high school and a part-time job. I don't get much time to do anything but school, work, homework, and sleep, and whenever I do finally get some free time to work on my pages, I expect to be able to bring them right up without any problems or any worries about them having been deleted or redirected. Now I do admit one thing. I should have removed the under construction tag since I wasn't going to be editing for some time, but I left it on hoping that maybe if someone like you came to the page, saw that it was a stub, and saw the Under Construction tag, you would respect the fact that it is still being expanded upon and LEAVE IT ALONE!! Now I am thoroughly agitated at the fact that now I have to recreate the page and re-upload the photo. I don't even remember what information I have or haven't put in the article. I would've greatly appreciated you sending me a message saying that it was being deleted and why you nominated it (I received a bot message, but it tells me nothing). Thank you. Crazeedriver2005 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Crazeedriver, thanks for your message. For the record, here is the sequence of events:
- 2007-02-22 you created the article on 2007-02-22
- 2007-02-27 you stopped editing on, leaving the article unfinished
- 2007-03-14 Nlu nominated it for deletion (if you read the AFD it will tell the reason that Nlu (not me) nominated it)
- 2007-03-18 I closed the AFD as "redirect" instead of deleting it
- 2007-03-19-2007-03-22 you reverted the redirect and others reverted you
- Based on that, there's nothing to ask me to stop doing. I understand that you are frustrated but you are barking up the wrong tree. It's better to ask for help than to yell. The only thing I did was prevent your article from being deleted outright. I'm sorry that you are busy, but so is everyone else. What I suggest you do now is: either (1) add the material to the Airwolf article, or (2) compose the article in your userspace at User:Crazeedriver2005/Michael Coldsmith Briggs III, and move it once you're done. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 01:40Z
- P.S. the standard on Wikipedia is to bottom-post threads. I usually don't look at the top, so it's a good thing somebody moved your thread down, else I might not have seen it. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 01:44Z
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki namespace
Re [4], the MediaWiki namespace, including templates used in the MediaWiki namespace, do not support any of the normal things used in templates. MediaWiki pages have to be exclusively what is to be shown in the interface, and the template pages adjutant to it effectively qualify as being in the MediaWiki namespace and, because it is not encountered by most anyone and very few people have reason or inclination to edit it anyway, there is no reason to have the propagation of templates trespass into it. —Centrx→talk • 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space. Are you aware of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation? The discussion on merging WikiProjects has been going on for a while now. Dr. Submillimeter 08:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Geo microformat on GeoHack
Just FYI: Template talk:GeoTemplate#Geo microformat on GeoHack. Andy Mabbett 09:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thread retitled from "To Quarl".
Hi Quarl, I am Revivo formerly known as Brasileiro. I am asking you to unblock my Brasileiro1969 account as I am not associated with those other users as you think or like to believe.
You seem to have acted on "complaint" from aLii on your page about me. Alii's comment reads a bit like a footballer who is begging the ref for a red card after one of his fellow players (stubacca) claims to have been fouled.
The comment I removed from you (with explanation) on that SP allegation page, looked like you were necessarily trying to inflict damage to my position, with just saying sonmething along the lines of 'I agree as per above and he deleted one of my edits as well'. That does not strike me as very constructive towards a proper decision by a neutral party. Why am I not allowed to delete one of your entries? Where is the vandalism and disruption in that? Where was the warning from you if you really felt that strongly about the comment you added?
I merely had a content dispute with Stubacca and a discussion with aLii on his wholesale changes to an article without debating first. In my discussion with aLii, though pointed at times, I have done nothing wrong and he tried to leverage the false allegation Stubacca made and discredit me (an allegation which Stuba made as he could not further an edit based on his POV only, which also happens to be your POV on the matter I have read)
And with you as admin involved in this case, you should not be the one who is the accuser and judge rolled into one. An unfair principle, don't you think?
More reasons for you to reconsider what you have done, in my view. I am waiting for your response, which I expect to be balanced, open, honest and with a degree of self-reflection.
I ask you to unblock me and let me be and feel free to keep following me in my tracks as I am not a SP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revivo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Thank you for the message. The evidence for sockpuppetry was pretty strong so I'm not going to unblock. I noted the potential COI on AN/I before and after the block, and it was endorsed. I haven't blocked the sockmaster account (though it deserves to be); I would recommend letting the matter rest and editing using only the main account. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-27 11:19Z
I cannot and will not let it rest, as I am not a SP. Brasileiro1969 is main account (only created Revivo to start a direct discussion with you) so it is a matter of principle.
If you feel that he suggestion is so strong in your eyes why did you not leave the case open for a neutral Admin to have a look at? Given your involvement in the discussion as whole and your POV on the football page there is a clear, not a potential, COI here and you should not have acted unilaterally, so rashly. Not even mentioning the way aLii prompted you into action... aLii: Ref foul!! Give him red! like a player diving to the ground in agony after a mere brush.
Fact was: aLii preferred to play it like this rather than finishing the debate properly we had started on the discussion page. A debate he had reluctantly started after being pulled over for making wholesale changes to a page. ..and you.. you were there to oblige even with COI written all over you. Again I ask you to reconsider and unblock Brasileiro1969. Feel free to monitor my movements thereafter, but as things are now.. I cannot and will not let it rest.
COI, even the suggestion, for an admin is a dangerous and improper thing. You cannot be involved and be the final arbiter at the same time. One could have a case if the 'disruption and abuse' was so great and material that action had to be taken immediately. But was that REALLY the case? I dont think so. I was in the middle of a debate with aLii and getting towards some sort of consensus.
I await your reply.
| Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy |
Barnstar for work on Project: San Francisco Bay Area
In recognition of Quarl's contributions to articles about the San Francisco Bay Area , I award this barnstar on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Thanks for all you do. You have performed important work in edits, article review and the significant additions to incorporating article importance into the San Francisco Bay Area Project. Cheers. Anlace 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
| Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0.
Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage). | |
|---|---|
| cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |