Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 10 November 2007

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Thanks

Thanks for the welcoming and offer of help on April 27. I will take you up on it now, calling on your Science CV. I also want to call on your Wiki skills. A person has disappeared my article, my one article. I am trying to be cool and all wiki-correct. I would like your advice, do you think I should put this letter up on the discussion or is it not in the spirit - or maybe I should not even post it here? And if not, what is the best thing I can do, my Wiki skills are nearly zero. Well, here goes:

You know, Fred, what you have done in deleting this article is so infuriating I can hardly respond with civility to you. But I will try.

Of the thousands of Wikipedians over the last six months who have read the article "Last Common Ancestor," you alone cannot seem to grasp it. Yet you believe this failure to understand gives you the license, after only four days of review and absolutely not a single person agreeing with you, to destroy the article in a sneak attack.

And you have done so in a way the dismembers the original - deleting parts and history and replacing the original information with your commentary, so the common man cannot judge the evidence, thereby covering your trail.

Regarding the material itself, you have a blind spot. You hold that the Most Recent Common Ancestor of All Mankind (Wiki)and the Last Common Ancestor of Mankind must be the same person and you cannot be shaken from that belief. Instead of looking for a consensus or an anthropologist or simply dropping the whole thing you decide to "merge" the two titles to comply with your belief.

In summary, you are wrong in your understanding of the article, you are wrong in acting unilaterally and you are wrong in the way you attacked - dismembering the original and destroying the evidence. You are wrong on many other counts as well but these three are immediately obvious under even a cursory review.

So what I request is that you 1.) reassemble the article as it was, 2.) not edit the talk page discussion we had (actually if you spent one-tenth the time reading it as you spent hacking it you might clear up your blind spot), and 3.) agree to let this article alone for a few months while we get an expert in here. What is the harm in that? Finally I think you should step back and see yourself for the Wikibully you are and take some serious steps to fix the problem. Tom Schmal 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Schmal (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tim I didn't know how else to reply to your message so I guess this is the only way to express my sincere apologies for recklessly editing charles darwins page, I dont know what came over me, I realise that charlie is an inspiration for species all over the world including myself. I can only hope you will forgive me.. yours katie zimzalabim...yes thats my real name I'm from morrocco..

Hey Tim,

S.Percy Jones here. I noticed you help delete the profile of one of my clients, David Oliver Doswell. I researched (apparently, not good enough) the code of ethics and policies that apply to copyright and cannot find why this man is not "worthy" (politely spoken, of course) of a bio. Please let me know what I can do to be of assistance. Thank you Mr. Vickers.

S.Percy Jones Jones Agency, LLC 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DNA FAR

DNA has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Photosynthesis

Need help with catalyst induced artificial/natural photosynthesis. Applications in genetic engineering, biofuels, iron fertilization/ocean nourishment.

Barnstar

(Moved to user page)

Barnstar

Hey Tim,

I think this makes the the 4th barnstar I've awarded here on WP...

• Moved to trophy cabinet.

Ox phos SVG diagrams

All done, sir :) Took me a while, I know—I hope they're accurate! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I just redo them from scratch using the PNG as a basis. There are automated "tracing" utilities, even in Inkscape, but the results are awful. It's no bother at all, though; the worst part is my taking so long :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome :) I completely forgot to add them to the article when they were done. I only noticed because I was updating my gallery at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Of cleaning up homeopathy. It will of course have to be repeated after a while, just as in the past. But I think the present state is a good standard to revert to if needed. DGG (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for your msg; regarding your view that the homeopathy article is now ready for FA, I am not sure and I think the idea really now needs floating on the talk page and then we can see what all the other folks think. Maybe you can do that later today so we can see what the reactions are? thanks Peter morrell 06:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think nominating it as FA would be best if it's not even GA status yet. It was GA status a few weeks ago (for only a few days) and I think we should make it a GA status prior to nominating it for Featured Status. That's my opinion at least, though we could always go ahead with FA if you want. Wikidudeman 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

for you!

Moved to trophy cabinet

Hello again!

Hi,

I think we corresponded breifly a few months ago. I've been meaning to contribute a lot more to the MCB pages but haven't had the heart to take time off from writing (my dissertation) to writing for leisure (g). Fortunately, the writing part is done and I am settling in nicely. I think I mentioned the ACS Chemical Biology WIKIspot journal club. I just joined the journal as a staff member this week. I'll be contributing a lot more to[REDACTED] now that I'm settling in my day job, but I was told by others here that you had some wonderful ideas on collaboration between the MCB wikiproject and ACS Chemical Biology. I am definitely on-board and ready to kick-start that. Thanks for your time. Antorjal 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas are excellent. I was thinking about taking it a step further. I'm going to be writing an editorial soon enough for ACSCB. A good topic would be collaborative efforts and experiences with wikipedia. Would be good for publicity and I'd mention a few wikipedians I know who are working on the MCB project (such as yourself). Then we could see if this could be highlighted somewhere here on[REDACTED] itself. Send me a message or an email if you'd like to bounce other ideas. Thanks. Antorjal 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both good suggestions. Nice to see Enzyme kinetics as an FA up on the mainpage! :)Antorjal 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunin Family Spam

This is not a personal attack rather a recitation of facts. These editors (admins now) have been personally responsible for protecting these useless, vain and ponderous articles relating to Elonka Dunin and her family. What are you going to do about it? Past editors have actually been banned for attempting to remediate this spam - it is disgraceful! 72.107.35.156 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dysgenics, Human and Human evolution

Hey Tim, I've put up a notice at the fringe theory noticeboard, any thoughts or input you have would be appreciated. Looking through his history it seems like the matter is something of a personal crusade for aruno3. – ornis⚙ 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS change

Hi Tim: I read it and thought it was fine. Thanks. I've snooped around your user page: there's an "m" missing from "from" in the shiny things cabinet. And I love the absence of dots in your work-list. I'm waging a battle with the dot-manics at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_-_abbreviations_of_names, and here. Tony (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim

I agree with your comment about preferring to work with civil editors. Right on to that. However, do you know how I can access the wiki image bank? I just want to check if there pics already in there for certain subjects, such as embryology and histology slides. It would be helpful to view the whole bank of images and check them by name or as small thumbnails. Do you know if this can be done? thanks Peter morrell 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, Tim, that's just what I needed. Oh, and how come your cat's called Loki? why? cheers Peter morrell 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mischief, heh? well have you introduced her to a ball of wool or a 3 foot piece of string? Hours of great fun awaits you if you haven't. She's a beauty. cheers Peter morrell 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I had no problem with that 'tangtango image thingy' the other day but today for some reason I cannot access it in spite of repeated attempts...any ideas? thanks Peter morrell 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A reply would be nice! Peter morrell 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, no probs; oh, its been saying that all day! hrumph! cheers Peter morrell 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Random order ternary mechanism.svg

Hi Tim—congratulations on getting Enzyme kinetics on the Main Page! I was going over the article and noticed that Image:Random order ternary mechanism.svg looked like a JPG embedded into an SVG. I've been incredibly bold and replaced it with an actual SVG. I hope you don't mind; if you do, please revert to your version. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments!

I have replied on the talk page of the article. Sushant gupta 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

replied on the talk page. kindly see to it. Sushant gupta 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you add "Category:Main Page" to the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page? I recently discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Main_Page_alternatives which can be found through Category:Main Page. I tried it in a sandbox, and it works fine there. I asked about it on the main page talk page and was ignored. WAS 4.250 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WAS 4.250 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A book to keep in mind

I am reading this book right now (On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen (ISBN 0-684-80001-2, 2004)). And it made me think of the peer review of Bacteria, in particular the section "Significance in technology and industry" which always had a weakness from the lack of top-notch sources. This book is really a different approach where the details of chemistry and historical methods are given a decent treatment. I am not knowledgeable enough to recognize any deficiencies in the chemistry, but the treatment is detailed enough to articulate which things are not yet understood by scientists. I just wanted to drop you a note about it because I can imagine it might be useful to you in future articles that need a information for the "practical" section.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Virus

Did any relevant information get lost in the rewrite of this article? Can you refer me to your version as mentioned by the anon on the FAC page. - Mgm| 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Enzymes

Hi Tim,

I support you on the units issue, although you might want to introduce the words "most common units in the relevant scientific literature". Unfortunately, I have to dash off to my adult-education class, so I can't anything to the debate just now. But something nicer is in the works, un petit cadeau mainly with you in mind. Please check out Daisy's work on 4-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase and let me know what you think. We've been gone too long from the MCB community and I thought this might be a nice revenir and souvenir. Ta-ta, and wish me luck — I have a test tonight! :( Willow 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Soooo — I guessed that this was your favorite class of enzymes? It does make for a good beginning, so that we can get our bearings and think about how to improve such articles. Daisy is eager for suggestions from everyone at the WP:MCB. I'm going to try to finish them tonight, but I'm leaving tomorrow morning to visit my sister, and won't be back until next week. I still have to pack as well!  :( Hoping that you like your oxidoreductases, however many there are, Willow 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. You might want to move one or two articles to a simpler name, or maybe connect it by redirects to an existing article that I missed or to a redlink such as those on List of EC numbers (EC_1). I wasn't always sure which name to choose; some of them seem overly complicated and others overly simple. It was a hard balance to strike. Also, my wikilinks to metabolic pathways seem to need work. :( Willow 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to afd

Hi Tim. I noticed you deleted article Dom Passantino with the wrong link to AFD in the summary. The result of the first afd was "no consensus" thus preventing the article from being deleted. It had to process to the third AFD which you closed as delete that the deletion was justified. It happened on September 27, a fairly long time ago but I still want to notify you in case you make the same mistake again. Cheers. @pple complain 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of Homeopathy

Tim, I saw your query on the article talk page. This came up during the parapsychology issue at WP:FA, and I raised the question here. I like categorizing these articles as Health to bring them under the WP:MEDMOS umbrella of requirements at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tim:

Thanks for the feedback on my talk page. Cheers, Wanderer57 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Review!

Asperger syndrome

Is AS still on your watchlist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Same ole, same ole, allegations of POV still. I thought WP:NPOV#Undue was understood last time around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick head's up - you've mis-spelt Sadi Carnot as Saudi Carnot in your evidence section (x6). Carcharoth 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

flu vaccination

Sorry. I just reverted your addition to Human flu as it was unsourced and I believe it to be inaccurate. I think the main difficulty with vaccinating humans for flu lies in the rapid evolution of the flu virus. If the current strains of flu never ever changed we could be successfully vaccinated against them all I would think. WAS 4.250 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Methyltransferases

Hey Tim,

So, I'm really sorry, but Daisy and I got tired of all those oxidoreductases, so we're taking a little vacation among the methyltransferases for a change. :) I didn't get them all, but at least we made a good start.

One problem we're having is how to make the first letter of the article title lowercase — do you know how to do that? It's rather annoying to have rRNA (guanine-N2-)-methyltransferase come out as RRNA (guanine-N2-)-methyltransferase, don't you think? Bleah :p Thanks for any help or insights in advance! :) Willow 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I kind of fixed some of the -ate endings to -ic acid, although I was uncertain about phosphate, isoaspartate and similar articles.

Thanks very much for the {{lowercase}} link to get the various RNA enzymes OK! :) I've started back in on the oxidoreductases today, as you can see. Do you think I should finish them off first before moving on to the other fives groups of enzymes (transferases, isomerases, etc.), or do you think I should do a smattering from each category and then gradually fill them in? It probably doesn't matter, but I was just curious whether you had any opinion, any pre-vision or foretelling from your dreams ;) Willow 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TATA box binding protein

Shouldn't TATA box binding protein redirect to TATA binding protein instead of Transcription Factor II D? I think TBP is a protein in the TFIID complex and has enough unique biology to warrant its own page. Forluvoft 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The pandemic vaccine puzzle

FYI: CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy - Academic Health Center -- University of Minnesota) has an interesting series of articles called "The pandemic vaccine puzzle" available here containing:

• Part 1: Flu research: a legacy of neglect
• Part 2: Vaccine production capacity falls far short
• Part 3: H5N1 poses major immunologic challenges
• Part 4: The promise and problems of adjuvants
• Part 5: What role for prepandemic vaccination?
• Part 6: Looking to novel vaccine technologies
• Part 7: Time for a vaccine 'Manhattan Project'?

WAS 4.250 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cell Signaling

Hi there. I noticed you listed "Enzymes, enzyme kinetics, enzyme inhibition and pathogens" as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. These interests may intersect with WikiProject Cell Signaling, which I invite you to join. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help request

I was planning on removing a miscellaneous section from the Scriabin article. I know I've seen something on Misplaced Pages's policies that says you shouldn't have trivia. Do you know where I can find this info so I can put it in the discussion article? Thanks.  Stewy 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping  Stewy —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Admin?

Hi there, many thanks for the offer! It has crossed my mind in the past but I while I would give it a go, right now I feel I would not stand up to closer scrutiny in any nomination! I feel that I still have a lot to learn about aspects of[REDACTED] and my lack of knowledge on all the polices would most certainly let me down! Andy 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

Hi Tim, can you check out the current edit war at Jonathan_Sarfati, I am no fan of creationists but to describe a letter to nature a note as FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is insisting on doing there appears to be a tactic to trivialise the work. I agree he is probably fighting fire with fire but that type of in your face escalation makes articles become highly unstable and leads to edit wars. Basically he is creationist baiting and that will make them a pain in the butt for everyone else too. David D. (Talk) 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. i now realise that FM is ignorant of the Nature set up and assumed it was a letter to the editor, at least I hope that is the reason. Seems strange to fight so hard for something you have no clue about. You'd think he would at least listen to input. I expect he assumed that since I disagreed with him I must be a creationist. David D. (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at RNA Biocatalysis

I was getting ready to remove sourcing and link to a nn blog when I realized the copy may have picked up from the blog, not the other way around...the blog has the same content and similar dates as the[REDACTED] article, which was created by the same editor who added the blog to several articles. In any case, the article needs a lot of work, and I don't have the expertise in either copyvio or biowhatevers :) to determine what to do ... would you take a look at this and Virtual colonoscopy (link I removed from VC is here: http://www.pulasthi.info/2007/07/vertual-colonoscopy.html )? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay calm

I understand what you mean. The problem is that it becomes very difficult to express things within Misplaced Pages when you actually do suspect someone of wrongdoing. My experience is that a retaliatory flurry of accusations tends to come from the guilty, not the innocent. When the discussion took the turn from whether Sadi was a bad actor to the idea that I had caused the whole problem by being tenacious in trying to get something done, I started to look deeper. I found what I thought was a smoking gun, although everyone seems inclined to discount it as nothing more than a cap pistol.

Anyway, I've put in my recommendation, documented my reason for it, and I'll try to sit quietly while I am sanctimoniously accused of bad faith by someone that assumes that I had an ulterior motive for trying to get Sadi banned. Once the arbitration is over, I expect that I will be getting blocked on a weekly basis, so I'll try to do my best in the small windows of opportunity I get.Kww 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin?

Hi, thanks for the offer but I have no intention of becoming an admin, now or anytime in the foreseeable future. I do not see the point in going through a grueling week for something I probably will not use often (or ever). :) On another note, please keep doing your good work on MCB articles; we need all we can get. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

...

It's called looking out for other users and warning them of the dangers of having their personal information available publicly.--Snakese 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixatropic

I've changed "Fixatropic" back to a request for speedy delete, because (a) it seems to me too wild a mis-spelling to bother providing for, and (b) we end up with a double redirect Fixatropic -> Thixotropic -> Thixotropy. But I don't feel very strongly about it - revert it if you like. JohnCD 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Well yes I have in fact, I just seem to run so far below everyones radar I think people just don't notice me. –– Lid 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would. –– Lid 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I need to confess - I am in fact a vandal who adds blatant spelling errors to articles. My subtle slip of the tongue will be my undoing. –– Lid 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I then fix the errors afterwards, usually with the explanation I made a "spelling error" but I think we all knew the truth. –– Lid 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your drive has been a success, six nominees accepted and zero with oppose votes. –– Lid 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

True but it seems that has caused more of an attack on the opposer than the candidate. –– Lid 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

potential admin?

Thanks for the invite. I'm supposed to be writing a dissertation. I'll check back with you in eighteen months or so! ;-) later, --Ling.Nut 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, but I don't feel a need for the tools. Plus I don't have enough time at the moment to write all the articles I want to, let alone take on extra responsibilities :) Dr pda 11:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Dr pda, as they say on AfD. Colin° 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin hunting?

I presume this has to do with the impending anon-creation-of-new-pages deal? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When searching out potential administrators like this, it's important to remember to only nominate those individuals that you have experience with personally and not various random editors with a lot of edits. This way you prevent numerous unqualified people from becoming administrator. I've seen people go on "nomination sprees" in the past and often a lot of the nominations fail due to lack of qualifications or other issues. Wikidudeman 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging from his contribs, Wikidudeman, Tim has approached editors I recommended, so I'll detail my criteria. I'm not much in the habit of recommending or supporting "various random editors with a lot of edits" for adminship. I'm more inclined towards supporting editors with a long-term commitment to and knowledge of Misplaced Pages who have evidenced a character and disposition to convince me that they are unlikely to abuse of the tools. I Support few RfA's; I have a phobia that anyone I support will join the ranks of abusive POV-pushing admins, which IMO is the scourge of Wiki. Specifically, I recommend editors who don't come with a pre-packaged POV agenda in any specific content area, but are just good, decent, productive editors working across the board, always willing to pitch in and help the Project without undue focus in one content area. If you are assuming that I would recommend "various random editors with a lot of edits" for adminship, there we find the reason some people avoid RfA; it is a process that slaughters editors of good repute while serving less well to filter out editors who seek the tools to advance an agenda in a specific content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's good. Wikidudeman 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Hi Tim, can you cast a critical eye over Rotavirus? I'm nearing the end of a major edit and need some objective input. GrahamColm 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, would you have any use for the admin tools? You seem very well-qualified if you wished to apply. Tim Vickers 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been on the fence about that, mostly since I'm an admin on Wiktionary (where the policies and procedures are very different). But sure, OK. Then I could help with the DYK updates. How does that happen here? On Wiktionary, one is nominated (usually by an admin), accepts officially, then the votes happen and *poof* you're an admin. I've never paid attention to the process here before. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then. If you nominate, I'll accept (though I'm about to head off to a meeting in a moment). --EncycloPetey 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm interested, too. Gimmetrow 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good news! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you type fast; I'm still typing. I've never nommed or co-nommed; do I just add my blurb on to the bottom of yours? I expected PMA opposition; no surprise there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added the co-nom, but I'm not sure if that's how it should be formatted; please let me know. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis

User:DO11.10 and User:MarcoTolo have been working on poliomyelitis for some time and DO11.10 is close to nominating at FAC. I'm partway through reviewing and copyediting but I'm not good enough to get it up to FAC quality. I'd really appreciate it if you could help to ensure it is well prepared for FAC. Be bold with your edits, or make some comments on the talk page. Regards, Colin° 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

adminship

Hi Tim, thanks very much for the offer (and to Sandy for -->pointing--> to the draft picks). I am not presently interested but might entertain the idea in the future. I like your pragmatic approach in trying to round up more admins and in doing so disarming the admin mystique, which is why I found Wikidudeman's cautionary message above a little disheartening—the message indicates essentially the opposite approach. I'm interested in adminship when the majority of admins really think adminship is "no big deal". That time hasn't come, I don't think! –Outriggr § 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow

Please review the recent passages of Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes before considering Gimmetrow further. He is revert-warring for an unsubstantiated claim of fact, and for an effort to make another guideline to make Misplaced Pages an instrument of language reform. (This is especially silly, since the matter in question is itself trivial: whether footnotes should go before or after punctuation; the shallowness of my feeling on this matter may be judged by the fact that I am arguing for the permission of a practice I do not myself follow, just as I do not use British English but support both sides of ENGVAR). My feelings about admin bullies, however, are much more serious, and will be reflected in any future RfA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking.

Stepping back myself, I think my greatest objection is that Gimmetrow went to the brink of 3RR to legislate on such a point. Busybodies should not be admins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Tim, thanks for the kind offer to nominate. My opposition to the idea of adminship has been waning greatly over the last few months, and I might be up for a nomination in the weeks-to-months ahead. I've made promises to several/many people that I'd let them know if I ever changed my mind about having a go at RfA, and I will make the same promise to you. (Most importantly, I figure a run at adminship is going to chew up time in RL, and I have a bunch of letters of recommendation, course syllabi, and student papers unsubmitted to journals pending on my conscience. My promise to my inner demons is that I won't take a run for adminship while I have too many backlogged Responsibilities on my desk.) Thanks again for the offer, and best regards, Pete.Hurd 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

potential admin

Hi, your talk page is buzzing.. I hope I don't step on others' comments.

User:Cronholm144 will be a good admin candidate, but may decline at this moment 'cause busy with school. I strongly suggest User:Geometry guy be asked to be the nominator if Cronholm144 does accept. Later! --Ling.Nut 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I will decline (for now) :), but not for the school reason. I have figured out my schedule and would have time to wield the mop. However, I would like to have about 3000 or so mainspace contribs, 10000 total contribs touching XfD and other admin related areas, and have a FA that I contribute to significantly before I run for adminship. After all this is done I would gladly accept a nomination. Cheers —Cronholm 06:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

No thank you. I don't have much desire to do admin things around here, and I really don't feel like going through the RFA process.--BirgitteSB 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin?

Thanks for the offer. I'll consider it and try to let you know in the next couple days. --Onorem♠Dil 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PBB instruction revisions?

When/if you have a chance, please see User_talk:ProteinBoxBot/Volunteer#any_instruction_revisions.3F. Thanks! AndrewGNF 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin?

Well, the one issue I can think of is that I've taken positions in a lot of controversial policy debates. —Random832 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I would be willing to - just out of curiosity, why me? —Random832 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Re: incivility. With users Ryoung122 and User:Bart Versieck about a month or two ago. It started when I nominated one of Robert Young's articles, Gladys Swetland for deletion and was accused of, among other things, "conspiracy to commit supercentenarian Holocaust." The accusation got to me, and I unfortunately stooped to low levels in response and it was quite a kerfuffel. In the end, however, I did fully and sincerely apologize here (at the bottom of the page) and we worked things out. As you can see from my talk page, we can at least get along now. Bart Versieck was involved in the debate as well and, quite frankly, his continual breaking of promises to not edit others comments (he's been blocked several times, had one WP:ANI and the latest message on his talk page is regarding this type of behavior) really gets on my nerves. The angriest I got with him was about two weeks ago and can be found in his User_talk:Bart_Versieck/Archive_1. Both of these editors have had problems with other editors, which is clear from their talk pages, but this does not excuse my uncivil behavior.

I would argue that I have learned from it. Some recent examples:

1. Rather than confront Bart Versieck, since then, I have just avoided him.
2. User:Perspicacite me of vandalism and I then explained my actions on his talk page, to which he responded by templating me for vandalism. Rather than let the situation escalate, I removed the accusation from my talk page. When they readded it, an admin reverted it and then told me that it was fine to keep it off my talk page.
3. In response to this personal attack I simply responded asking him to respect NPA. I later moved my response to his talk page and removed the attack from mine. This diffused the situation, rather than fueling the fire.
4. Most recently, on Talk:Charles Barkley, I was the subject of complaints about a quick fail good article review I did. After pointing out that I was GA Reviewer of the Month, I decided that the best way to end the complaints was to not only review the article, but to give it a full copy edit as well as a peace offering.

So I guess it depends on what you think. While I feel that I have learned and grown from these stressful experiences, and I do feel that I would use the tools in a productive manner, I can completely understand if people thought I should prove myself for another month or two before being nominating. Cheers, CP 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I thought about it and let you know by the weekend? By the way, that's one hell of a cute cat, and the name just seals the deal! Cheers, CP 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I left my computer in the hedge maze! If you still have confidence in me then yes, I would accept the nomination. I had to think long and hard about what I would do if I were an admin, and if I would need the tools, and how I would answer the first RfA question. I now believe that I have a good answer for it. I think, of course, it will be absolutely necessary to disclose my past incivility and prove to community standards that I have learned and improved from these experiences. Cheers, CP 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I'm not sure what exactly is inappropriate about my question. I felt the admin in question was misusing the tools in that case, and I told him so. If other admin candidates can't candidly say, "I would not set a punitive 3 hour block in that case" they will not have my vote. Is that against the rules of RfA somehow? If so, I was unaware of it, and I will withdraw my question. K. Scott Bailey 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. As I said on FisherQueen's page, I tried to formulate a hypothetical, and it was so unwieldy and long I felt it would be easier to simply present the case. K. Scott Bailey 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Admin?

I responded on my talk. Thanks, VanTucky 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA

You're trying to bait me into a conflict so you can block me. I'm not stupid. I'm not going to bite. You should know better. Perspicacite 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? You dont think posting an NPA warning more than 24 hours after a conflict has been resolved qualifies as baiting? Based on a diff that doesnt mention someone personally in any way? Perhaps you should step back and look at the wisdom of your post on my talkpage. Perspicacite 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon further inspection of WP:NPA it appears you have violated the policy. From the page: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Perspicacite 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I do. Is there a reason you're not signing your posts? Consider that a rhetorical question. I'd prefer you not contact me in the future unless you have something to discuss. Perspicacite 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, Misplaced Pages:Signatures. Perspicacite 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Perspicacite

I just unblocked User:Perspicacite because I could not see any incivility on his part. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my place to comment on the incident above, but I would like to alert all concerned admins to a peculiar feature of User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour - not as a personal attack but because this behaviour damages collegiality and strikes at the very heart of our co-operative enterprise.

I am brand new here and perhaps, therefore, a little naive when it comes to interpreting policies and guidelines but I understood that simple reverts were basically to be used only for vandals.

I have spent some considerable time analysing User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour and discovered that he uses the powerful revert tools excessively - in my opinion.

We all understand that it is the work of a moment to revert to an earlier edit version but, if this is done without due care and attention, then not only can one unintentionally revert to a version that has errors and mistakes but one also risks (unintentionally or otherwise) belittling the work of other editors and slighting their feelings.

For example, in this recent reversion, User:Perspicacite re-introduced US-English spellings (against WP:ENGVAR) into our Rhodesia article that previously consistently used Commonwealth English, removed sourced material without explanation or discussion and changed into "redlinks" internal linking that, in the reverted edit, had functioned correctly. All with the less than helpful or explanatory edit summary of "Not sure why you're stalking me here...". {this diff shows that the edit in question was actually yet another one of Perspicacite's simple (but very destructive) reverts.}

For the avoidance of doubt, our behavioural guideline specifies "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." (my emphasis added). Alice.S 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted the unblock on ANI. I thought it should have been discussed with you prior to being overturned. --DHeyward 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite Jimbo's desysopping of an admin for exactly this sort of thing, it appears that other admins are okay with simply undoing blocks without discussion. C'est la vie. --DHeyward 07:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely...that is why I am asking some admin candidates about the unblocking issues.--MONGO 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do next time (responding to the comment on my talk page). Kwsn (Ni!) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hey Tim, Thanks for your note. This is something I might consider in six months or so, but for now I have quite a long to do list that I have been neglecting. Thanks though. Ceoil 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Znznzn

Thanks for your help in this situation and your block of this user (who is apparently around ten years old). I'll keep an eye on your user page since he's persistent. From your appreciative "fat Canadian Nazi", Accounting4Taste 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Tim, Thank you for the offer. I would like to have all those nifty tools, and with article creation by anons looming you guys will need all the help you can get. However, I am right in the middle of trying to get polio ready for FAC. I am not sure I can do both at the same time?. The article is almost there... can I contact you when it is over? I will definitely take you up on your offer then!--DO11.10 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back!

I'm only doing a few things here and there when I find something in need of a fix, but I'm still pretty swamped. How have things been here? – ClockworkSoul 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's RfA

You're right, of course. However, I just get so tired of one person mischaracterizing a dispute as "edit warring", "revert warring", or whatever to prop their oppose, and then others jump on the pile with little analysis of their own. This kind of thing is why I would never stand for adminship, and would hesitate to nominate an editor I respect for it as well. Any editor who has made any type of bold moves stands to come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism, which can become discouraging, even to those Wikipedians with the thickest of skin. K. Scott Bailey 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. For example. User:GwenGale is placing frivolous fact tags on the Lincoln intro, demanding citations for uncontroversial statements of facts. When I gave her one, she derided the source, demanding another. I have now posted two different refs for the uncontroversial statement of fact. However, I have been brusque with her, as she richly deserves in my opinion--both for wasting my time, and injuring (however slightly) the project as a whole. I'm certain if I ever stood for adminship (which I never will), she would oppose me vigorously, even though she very much earned the brusqueness she received. Anyways, I appreciate how you are able to comport yourself in the face of similar lunacy (see the reversion of your very legit block), but that's just not me. There's a reason I self-identify as a "Wikidragon." That's what I aspire to, not adminship. K. Scott Bailey 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Abraham Lincoln?

User:Gwen_Gale is holding forth on the talk page and at the article as well, pestering good editors to source even the most uncontroversial assertions about Lincoln, that every major biographer discusses. Then, when such sources are provided, she derides them as unreliable, or claims we're doing original research. It seems a classic example of pettifoggery, and I've disengaged a bit, letting her know that I'm not arguing with her about it anymore, and that the only time I will be engaging her is if she tries to push her POV (she claims she could source that Lincoln was "genocidal") into the article. I've asked one other admin to take a look at it as well, but I've appreciated your cool demeanor in our recent dealings, so I'd like you to take a look as well, if you have time. Thanks, and best regards, K. Scott Bailey 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your advice. Are you saying just edit, and don't even engage at ALL with her? If so, do you think it would be out of line to simply revert her frivolous fact-tagging of uncontroversial statements? K. Scott Bailey 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying. I've done some version of this (most of last evening, in fact), and she simply starts doing the wikipolicy alphabet thing, claiming that my sources aren't reliable, don't say what I say they're saying, or whatever. She's never once given a source that argued against any of the positions she attacks. K. Scott Bailey 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited any assertions at all into the article header. I've only asked for citations to support those which were already there. Gwen Gale 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to deal with her, Tim. I'm too frustrated, and I'm trying to improve the article, and can't be bothered with arguing with her right now. K. Scott Bailey 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)