This is the fifteen page of my talkpage archives, dated early to mid June 2006. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave a message, click here! :)
After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't upload them to Wikimedia Commons because they are not free licence. I was given permission to use them, and the website must be in every article that uses the pictures. --sonicKAI 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - CorbinBe excellent
Do featured portals fall under your 1FA policy? After all, getting a portal to featured status and continually mantaining it does require a large amount of work, perhaps equal to that of a featured list or article.--☆TBC☆ 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark
Just so you know, I have closed the very confusing DRV on this article. In my judgment, the deletion, undeletion, reopening, reclosing, renaming and redeletion of this article that occurred during the DRV marred any attempt at a definite consensus. Based on the comments rendered after this sequence of events occurred, I have found a consensus to restore the article and begin debate afresh. I advise you of this because you had deleted the article previously. Please allow this debate to run the full five days, so that this matter might be settled well and completely. Thanks, Xoloz 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey man, cool of you to move us towards the FA Mailer Diablo. It's was a suprise when you nominated us, because I don't think we've ever met before! (Which is just as awesome.) I guess you must have been one of the silent admins watching over us. :) If you ever need anything, just ring! Cheers. --P-Chan 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need to apologize -- when I saw you had deleted it, I knew you must have had a good reason, or thought you had one. :) I will take advantage of your kind disposition by asking you if you might close the DRVs of May 12 and 15. I would do it, but I am too involved in those discussions to make an impartial close, so I've been drafting trusted, willing admins. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I love you! :) I discover as soon as you go on wiki-break! Sigh :( Enjoy! Xoloz 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! ~LinuxeristE/L/T 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mailer diablo/Archive O — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Tone 00:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC))
Hi, I saw that the Ho Shin Do entry was deleted. I am re-posting the entry with a few changes because I feel Ho Shin Do has validity. The art itself has some solid backing from several grandmasters and has good lineage. I've been studying martial arts for almost 20 years, and this is one of my passions besides getting my doctorate in political science and playing music. I know the founders of the art quite well (as well as being a 4th dan in Ho Shin Do), and they are all outstanding martial artists with solid credentials. I am trying to get this art the respect it deserves because I feel it's important to the founders to get it on the map, as the official recognition from Korea is in the works as I speak. Right now I'm working with some of the guys in drawing up the details, in fact, and going through the proper channels for the recognition. Please allow this entry on Wikipedia because I constantly do my best to reach out to the greater martial arts community. I am actually specializing in East Asian politics in my studies, and I present papers at conferences frequently, as well as working on some possible publications later this year in some academic journals. I study martial arts from a scholarly point of view whenever possible and constantly interact with other martial artists from other styles and systems constantly, seeking their advice and constantly fine-tuning my mechanics and whatever techniques seem more efficient in reality situations. If you feel the Ho Shin Do entry here needs some work, please let me know and I'll get some solid references for you to back up the art on the page itself. Both founders are Korean, in fact (Tommy Cho is 100% ethnically Korean, but John Carroll is actually a Korean national, being half-Korean himself). The roots of the art trace back to exactly what I listed in the journal entry (TKD and kwon bup). I have carefully researched the roots of the art and can draw comparisons to similar arts that I've come across. My justification in using some of my research methodology is to be as honest and open as possible when writing this journal entry and reflect accuracy because the worst thing an academic can do is tamper the evidence or falsify his results (i.e. the recent case of the South Korean scientist with stem cell research). Though Ho Shin Do is kind of small at the moment, it continues to grow and evolve as a martial art. If you would like to contact or email me my email is frankiefuller@gmail.com.
Hi. I refer to the Diablo Test. I think this is a possible loop hole. Two featured lists cannot be equal to one featured article. Please make it atleast ten. Bcoz the level of research that goes into building an article from scratch and the experiences, skills and knowledge generated in the process is not comparable to the work done on just FLs. All said, its a great work. Well done!. Anwar 01:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's some mail for you! Mail somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! --☆TBC☆ 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Mail for Mailer Diablo? Do you get it? Anyhow, keep up the good work on Wikipedia, you've contributed a lot of great edits. :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by ☆TBC☆) 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! ~Linuxerist (talk·contribs)
Thank you for so clearly describing your criteria for consideration for RfA in 1FA, I find this type of information very useful when evaluating myself. HighInBC 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your thoughtful comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chancetoseemeinaction. Please let me know what you think! (Fortunately for me, I squeaked in before your 1FA requirement went into effect... so how many accepted DYK selfnoms equal 1 FA??? :) ) Thanks again, and let me buy you a beer if we're ever in S'pore at the same time! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This person and myself are causing problems to Wikipedia! I am apologizing first for reverting the articles. This user has been reverting articles and replacing the information with constant uncomfirmed information. Please can I do something to solve this issue with the person. He has ignored comments left on his page and kept reverting articles and adding threats and personal attacks on myself and TED87. I am trying to find a way to dispute and solve this problem! I Don't want to loose my cool about this person. I guess the user does offer some insight. Thank you for your helpLILVOKA 28 May 2006 05:34 (UTC).
":)" is certainly a good edit summary for your post to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts saying that you've returned! Glad to see that you're back, and I hope you enjoy your term break! -- Natalya 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Oftentimes featured articles are the result of the collaboration of multiple users. What would you say in an RfA of someone who had contributed partly to raising an article to featured status? --SCHZMO✍ 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mailer diablo. Thank you for your support at request for adminship and your gracious statement in my Editor review, which was also highly influential, as it was quoted by many RfA participants and strongly contributed to the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You are one of my role models on WP, with your skillful handling of deletion procedure - so of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. Of course, I look forward to working with you in the future. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the back pages of the Sunday Times the other day. I knew that name sounded familiar (from the earlier Life! interview with you re. Wikipedia), heh. Your link to the blog above just confirmed my suspicions ;) NSLE(T+C) at 09:38 UTC (2006-05-29)
Thank you for offering your help, (I may take it up but I'm in the middle of writing up a request for indefinite blocking about sockpuppets right now) I have already left a note on Raul's talk page about the subject, but he's away at the much. I just get the feeling that if, for example User:Celestianpower nominated the article, (which I don't think he would, I wouldn't want him to anyway) the response from editors would be different. There have been some good comments, mostly from participants in the former FAC, but not an overwhelmingly helpful response. Do you think I should notify Kirill Lokshin (that probably isn't how to spell it) about the FAC, since he was very helpful last time? Thank you for your offer, if I need any assistance I know where to look. Cheers, HighwayRainbow Sneakers 14:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This seems different. It's not that they aren't listening, it's that they aren't reviewing the article. Someone actually told me to write about another topic. I will ask Kirill, nearly done with the socks. HighwayRainbow Sneakers 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. The main reason the Bulbasaur FAC finally passed was more down to the community respecting Celestianpower than the article being of the quality. I'm sure the quality did reach it finally, but I don't think 3 FACs would have been required on other subjects. I think there has been less of an outcry since there is less actually wrong with the article, the first FAC was kinda throwing me in the deep end, so I had to make all these changes to the article. The biggest things this time have been minor clarification, plural and overlinking. They are still important, but I don't see enough grounds to actually fail the FAC since I've corrected this stuff. Back to the socks, HighwayRainbow Sneakers 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm just about halfway there. ; ) Could you perhaps look at the nomination? I trust your opinion (anything oppose or not is welcome, as long as it isn't gibber ;) and you seem to have your head screwed on. Cheers, HighwayRainbow Sneakers 15:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the help, I had a question about the secondary sources; should I use them whereever or in a "critical response" place. I could switch the fansites for that easily, but there has never been a critical response to Torchic. Cheers, HighwayRainbow Sneakers 12:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mailer diablo, when you closed the above discussion and deleted the article, I think Itsmbok should also have been deleted. Both articles contained the same information. Regards, Accurizer 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please disregard, it's been taken care of. Regards, Accurizer 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1FA is ridiculous. I contribute so much to this fancy intarpedia, but I don't have the time or energy to focus on one featured article, let alone several. Note my early additions to cannabis cultivation and the various high altitude nuclear explosion articles. huge content additions, and worthy of consideration, but not FAs by any stretch of the imagination.
you're being an elitist boob.... aa:talk 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you deleted Ebo The Friendly centurion for being a spoof article. Since I found it a quite amusing spoof, could you possibly submit its content to BJAODN? Thanks a lot! Cohen the Bavarian 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, quick question. You closed the Sydney Roosters AFD today. Sbryce858 has created another one today, Sydney Roosters 1911 Season. Does this have to be listed on AFD, or can it be speedied? Stu’Bout ye! 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the others had not been deleted, I didn't create it in ignorance of the others, it was always planned to be ongoing.
Also I wish I was notified about the deletion. Interesting enough is that Sydney Roosters 1911 Season has so far shown in favour of keeping it because of the additions I had made.
I explained this earlier on that there were more additions coming but that was ignored, yet here we see where the additions are in place and people are in favour of keeping it. Every season would be uniformed in structure, so if it justified that the seasons article can be kept, why were the others deleted without considering the updating I had done.
then it should be only fair that the others are re-instated as they are identical in structure.
Is it possible for the articles to be re-installed as it was a time consuming process creating each page.
I'm disappointed that the article was deleted on the basis of its original structure, and not on the additions that had been put on, which show with the 1911 season a clear favour in keeping it.Sbryce858 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of no consensus, does that mean that the Roosters article will stay? Does this also give justification for the other articles to be re-listed as per the deletion review? Thanks
Hi. No disagreement with the closing, as unfortunate as i think the consensus was. Any chance I can request you userfy the article into my project space as it's likely to address the delete arguments by the end of the summer? Thanks! --badlydrawnjefftalk 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Gday, could I ask why this image was deleted along with an article in which it was contained? The image was also used in a fair few other pages too. As far as I can see there are no issues with this image being placed on Wikipedia. --mdmanser 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok no problem at all. Apology accepted. Cheers, --mdmanser 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Mailer diablo/Archive O, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!
Cool3talk 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
So, not the most eloquent haiku, but I just wanted to say thanks for your input at my RfA, and I hope to contribute to a featured article sometime in the near future! -- Natalya 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike(T | C)⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mailer, its about time that we should get back to admin coaching. Oops, I forgot its your exams this month. Anyway, good luck and all the best. If you have the time, please do see my admin coaching page where all my answers for the questions are. Regards --Terence Ong 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I just like to inform you that my second RFA will be coming soon, sometime this week. --Terence Ong 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome back and your wishes. Hopefully, I will have a more enjoyable experience now. ;-) Regards -- The Kingof Kings 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please un-delete Image:GrandAd.png. It is still in use and I do not believe it was deleted according to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion policy. I, the uploader of this image, should have been contacted when it was listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (which it wasn't). Thank you. Jecowa 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There are three articles that link to that file, which are Grand General, Grand Admiral (Star Wars), and Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire. If you were to visit Image:GrandAd.png, you would see the names of the articles linking to the image. Could you please un-delete this file and check to make sure an image isn't in use before deleting the image along with the article? Thank you. Jecowa 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring Image:GrandAd.png. The only two differences were minor. Jecowa 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Thanks a lot for your input in my pending RFA. Whether or not I become an admin is irrelevant. I'd most like this to be an opportunity to learn more about how to be a better editor and make wikipedia a more effective tool. Your FA comment is certainly a step in the right direction. Thanks very much for the constructive criticism.--Evadb 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me(t/c) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Mailer diablo/Archive O, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock outWikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!
Hello, if you have the time and you're not busy at the moment, would you like to spare some time at IRC. I need to discuss some issues with you. --Terence Ong 09:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, was doing something else while you were on IRC. :( If you could come back later or the next few days, would you mind? --Terence Ong 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I just saw you online, would you mind coming on IRC now? --Terence Ong 06:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So a "no consensus" is tantamount to "keep"? That's the end of it, right?MollyBloom
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Mailer diablo/Archive O" page.
E/L/T 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
We are here to build an encyclopedia!
