User talk:Splash Archive10

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005 – Archive to end 5 December 2005 – Archive to end 3 January 2006 – Archive to end 20 January 2006

Damadola airstrike

The IP editor and reverter is back See {Damadola Airstrike}. He reverts to a version that everyone in the discussion has generally moved beyond. Please put protection back. Thanks for your help. Tbeatty 04:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And DS UWB is the wave of the future. So to speak :).

Thank you

thanks for helping me with that. Sorry I had to get off so abruptly last night...my parents are pretty strict about bed-time! ;) --ViolinGirl^♪ 13:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how long does it take to get "rank"

I was wondering what your "wiki-title" is and how long it took you to get it. I was thinking of triing to become an administrator and was wondering what steps I should take. My good freind advised to keep editting as I have been doing, but Im curious as to what steps need to happen exactly before I become one. Any help you could give would be appreciated, thanks Pickelbarrel 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh, there are no ranks or files around here. Not supposed to be anyway. An admin is just a dude/dudette/other with access to some el-neato extra buttons. You get to pick up the extra buttons anytime you can prove that you're sane and won't blow up the wiki. Oh and you need 1500 edits and 3 months, because there's some stupid idiots who think that if you have 1499 edits and 2 months, 29 days of experience, you can't possibly be sane. So anytime you have all that, and feel like it, drop by my talk page, and I'll ask you some tough questions and check your saneness level and all that, and then nominate you.

Hope to see you soon! :-) Kim Bruning 09:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory

With all respect, I think the sprotect should stay on MapleStory. Just take a look at the history yourself. I've had this on my watchlist for months, and it gets vandalised a lot, mainly because this is a game played by a whole lot of young people who like to muck around here. enochlau (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I too see it being used a little condescendingly sometimes, and am glad when we don't have to use it. I was just about to come and thank you for your vigilance on removing semi-protection from certain articles, so I guess I'll do that now: Thanks. Sometimes it just sits there for days, and it kind of bugs me. Anywho, thanks for your kind words. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user freedom

If you look at the edit history you will see that this is not an edit war, but one user gmaxwell trying to change the message of the box, refusing to listen to pleas to discuss it on the talk page. All of the multiple parties involved have been reverting back to the original version. gmaxwell is the only one trying to force through a change.--God of War 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that, and Gmaxwell nearly got a block from me for his troubles, but he's barely been within the bounds of editing and not reverting. The sooner you all go and have a chat, the sooner you'll have a template everyone is (un)happy with. The template's talk page is still a redlink, and that needs to be fixed. Note that protection is not an endorsement of the current version (either by me or by anyone else). -Splash^talk 05:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In fact, Gmaxwell has been briefly blocked by another admin. -Splash^talk 05:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion on the talk page, all of it critical of the current version. I see no evidence that anyone other than Gmaxwell wanted the version currently in place, and since he's been blocked now for 3RR, I've requested that protection be lifted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, I think it is very wise to protect the user box because of the edit war. However, I do think that it is not enough. The protection leaves the template in the short-term version of the last editor who was only lucky enough to be the last editor and now sees his warmongering rewarded with a long-term version. How unjust. The best thing to do is to protect it and revert it back to the last version before the edit-war, so you know it is in the long-term version its users accepted. It also protects you against false accusations of being partisan and abusing protection (intended for NPOV) in order to push through a POV which is then falsely presented as 'yours'. -- ActiveSelective 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to be concerned about false accusations, particularly. They'd be false, after all. -Splash^talk 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help.

thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I will try to continue to edit for a few more months before triing to become an administrator, but its nice to have an idea of what they are looking for. Are the discussion pages of possible future administrators acceptance or denial avail;able, it would help for me to see reasons that past editors have been denied. The one tool I wish I had now, was the ability to ban a user for vandalism/sock puppetry. I am have repeated problems with a character named pamento who continues to to vandalize and cause civility problems. I have deep suspicions that he is a sock puppet of a fifteen year old named dan. Any extra help you could give in this matter would help. Thanks againPickelbarrel 16:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

A page you have recently edited, User:EdvonSchleck/Bilder, has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to discuss this matter at It's MfD entry here. Thank you, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmaxwell's userpage

Hi, Gmaxwell posted the tongue in cheek troll comment himself, I just posted the joke image to go with it (which is free use). I think the people who are reverting need to get a sense of humour but anyway I can't be bothered to get a ban for it (I'm not even sure it would be appropriate as GMaxwell invited people to edit his page here). Regards Arniep 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFD

On the TFD nominations you closed here, one of the nominations you closed as "no consensus" (default: keep) depends upon one of the nominations you closed as "delete". Specifically, Template:If defined depends upon Template:Void. In light of the no consensus on Template:If defined, I believe it would be appropriate to "inherit" that no consensus for Template:Void. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other possibilities then that you might consider:

Renominate Template:Void for deletion and allow another debate (given the new status of WP:AUM and the fact that some templates are being moved back to utilizing templates that depend upon this template (indirectly) to function).
Have someone (yourself or someone else) contact the people who voted in the previous debate and ask if their opinion remains the same (you noted in your closure that two of the votes were a bit difficult to comprehend).

Just some ideas. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is also a third route you could follow of using WP:DRV. Do also see the below discussion. I think (perhaps I even hope) that you two and others may be able to work it out amicably, eventually returning to TfD with a consensual position on the templates. -Splash^talk 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may try that, with no disrespect to the decision you reached intended of course. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 15#Template:If defined, and others - If you look over those, only one (Template:If defined) is used. I can understand not deleting that one given the major stink over at WP:AUM - but the others are just flatly deprecated. -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the kind of reason that I didn't want to reverse the closure in the kind of manner that Locke Cole suggested. However, in particular, I see Template:If defined call1, 2 and 3 being used, quite extensively. (I suppose this is a feature of the nesting, and not something I feel motivated to sort out; this is for either the nominator or the orphanor, not the closer.) I thought the argumentation about whether we should AUM or AAUM quite confusing (and not a little on the bickery side, as I already mentioned to Locke Cole). I honestly think you'd do better with a clearer renom of only those templates that are actually orphaned, unused and useless, writing a very clear nomination to that effect(s). I don't want to make people jump through bureaucratic hoops if they can be avoided (WP:ABH), but I don't honestly see how any deletion or outright keeption I might effect from these particular debates would have any chance of sticking in a deletion review (or wheel war). In the absence of a clear position on the status of WP:AUM and how it relates or not to these templates, I think that the debate cannot be seen as giving the kind of backing to deletion that would otherwise be necessary. -Splash^talk 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Template:If defined call2 and 3 are now no longer orphaned, probably a result of my post here. Please do delete any others that are currently orphaned. -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatlinkshere for If defined call2 certainly doesn't just list my talk page; it appears to be in a substantial number of articles by some method or another, and no. 3 is also in article-space use. -Splash^talk 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean someone re-instituted in an effort to defeat its deletion. -- Netoholic @ 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who did this, when did they do it, and where did they do it at? Please, no more wild accusations of wrongdoing without evidence... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Farmer

There was no edit war. What made you think there was an edit war? Did you review the edit history? A blocked user was attempting to edit from an AOL IP. This is not a big thing but I'd appreciate if you'd put back the sprotection in order to prevent the blocked user from violating WP policy. Thanks. Wyss 17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting articles

Could you take them off of PP when you have unprotected them? Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wish there was a way to stop him once and for all. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: More speedies

(reply to now archived discussion - see User talk:Splash/Archive9#RE: More speedies)

I was going through AfD, voting on various articles. One of the closed listings caught my attention - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoky's Fine Cigars. The comments included "speedy delete [as] blatant advertising, non-notable", "speedy delete [as] spam", and "speedy delete [as] nn advertising". User:Mushroom then deleted it under CSD A7, non-notable people or groups. First of all, a product is not a person or group. Second of all, non-notable, spam, and advertising are not criteria for speedy deletion. Should I list this under deletion review? Thanks. --M @th wiz 2020 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing TfDs

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me to leave a closing note, I completely forgot. And yeah... it's good to "see" you again. I haven't been as active lately, mostly due to school, but I do find time to sneak by here and help every now and then. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically...

... no warning to editors will be given about such admin action? Is that what you are seriously saying? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why are you going down the blocking route straight away? Surely protection is better to start with: it still allows an editor to edit, but restricts them from adding fair use images. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and the whole point is that we don't want to block editors straight away!!!!! Sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might also point out that this material was removed from the protection policy by SlimVirgin (see [1] with the comment "already dealt with above and at the blocking policy". So we can't detail it in the user page policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every user is aware of the policy, and we give people quite a bit of leeway before blocking. Blocking has always been a last resort. If they game the system, then we block, but not till then. Stop telling me to calm down. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The election

Thanks for your note. I thought something like that would happen and became somewhat flustered when I couldn't edit after what I thought was its expiry. In any event, everything has come out in the wash.

Again, as you, I abhor edit warring regarding articles – in this case, a hotly debated template as last evening – and apologise for any faux pas. As with the ArbCom elections, Wikipedians may not see eye-to-eye on issues, but I feel given the extensive discussions and consensus in support of such a template (a position that arguably cannot be said of the other party, despite evocations to the contrary), that my actions were justified. This is also somewhat validated by the other party's belated withdrawal of the related TfD, nonsensical nomination of a nascent AfD and later withdrawal of that too (based on "precedent"), and wholesale visitation/replacement of numerous Canadian riding articles to substitute another template (none of which was discussed on the election talk page beforehand). Keeping cool notwithstanding, these actions would drive any Wikipedian (as they did) to near madness. :0 Administratively, is this disruption?

In any event, I will 'behave'. Thanks again for your attention to this and my apologies for any inconvenience. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your frank appraisal; I appreciate it and (also) understand your avoidance of other commentary. :) I don't disagree: I'd just like to point out that ch's evocations of consensus (as highighted in the TfD and underived through prior discussion/consensus) and wilful actions thereof do not make them so. If any of the discussions on the talkpage and resulting TfD/AfD supported ch's actions, I would have deferred and not have challenged them in kind. But none of those actions garnered consensus or were derived from it ... and he went ahead to make that point anyway and IMO disrupt. That is what I believe justified my actions.

In any event, lessons learned. Thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block against community rules

You blocked me against community rule that allows reverts to avoid 3RR-see Gdansk Vote:

This page is affected by the results of the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule. Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gdansk/Vote Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule. Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. Please use descriptive edit summaries. Molobo

You didn't only revert the naming, Molobo, but made also other changes through reverting, so a block is justified. Anyway, I'd categorise your actions as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point as you've been blocked for actions against the Gdansk/Danzig voting before and you want to demonstrate that unreasonable actions would have to be tolerated under this ruling. Anyway, Molobo. Take your time to finally engage in discussion on Anti-Polonism and not just revert me. You haven't been blocked for your last three revert violation and your last but one violation was incorrectly undone crying abuse. Sciurinæ 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you violated 3RR on Antipolonism... Molobo.

Molobo, I don't see any means by which this kind of diff is any way exempted by that red box up there. You cannot use that to make any other changes you like to an article and try to cover them with name changes. It is emphatically not a licence to edit-war which is precisely what you were doing. So no, I won't lift the block if that's what you're asking for. -Splash^talk 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I should have guess this would already have a section here... On his own talk page, Molobo makes the comment "Alternative IP address ? Hardly ? The same as ever only unlogged." I'm confused by this, wouldn't the "same IP as ever" be autoblocked by the original block on the userid? Alai 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he were using the same IP, the autoblocker would have hit him. Certainly, he 'own's that IP, as this diff testifies, but I guess we'd need checkuser to tell us if he uses any other. -Splash^talk 12:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. A request for checkuser's probably not currently necessary (and hence probably also not fulfillable) as the only claimed instance of block-evasion or such is this one, which is already dealt with. Worth remembering for the semi-evitable next time... Alai 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in October there was a clear consensus for deleting both {{Infobox british hills}} and {{Infobox british hills (no image)}}. I notice that you deleted the former, but seemingly missed the latter. Rather than shoving it through TFD again, I thought I'd draw your attention to it, so that you could delete it. Ta. --Stemonitis 10:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Stemonitis 12:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New AFD closing tags

Hi Splash,

I notice that when closing the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frollett that you used the old-style tags from when it was called VFD. Just to let you know that we now use {{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}} at the top and bottom respectively of deleted articles. Stifle 20:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean — I use subst:at and subst:ab in every AfD I close; I use a script to insert them automatically. Do note that my closure was way back on 19th September 2005, and a new debate was recently reclosed by another admin. (Plus, Template:Vt has been a redirect to Template:At for months.) -Splash^talk 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread the date. My bad. Stifle 08:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:The White Snake

This article was listed for transwikification as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This aritcle already exists at sThe White Snake I am removing the move to wikiource notice--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates:Infobox Country English & Metric Units

Just stumbled across an arcane template redirect: What would you do with Templates:Infobox Country English & Metric Units (note the "s" in "Templates")? It's a redirect to Template:Infobox Country English & Metric Units. Is it worth for TfD? --Adrian Buehlmann 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SNK Boss Syndrome

Hello. Splash, I'm in agreement regarding the terminology "SNK Boss Syndrome" ; its fairly unrefernced and unofficial. However the article itself holds plausible information and solid thesis. I've made a suggestion on the talkpage here. It would be wonderfull if we could reach a concensus together on this, as I genuinely know this to be a assest to wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlest Mans

Excuse me Mr. Splash, I see that you have recently put up our band page for deletion. I would kindly ask that you revoke that request because we are still a very new band and have little to no publicity. The reason you had trouble finding the name of our band on google is simply for that reason. This was our first time trying to make a website about us, and while we were in the middle of writing up our description it was instantly put up for deletion. As a band composed nearly entirely of little people, we like to get our name out as much as possible, but with only one gig under our belts, it's hard to accomplish. Please sir, if you have the ability to, keep our website up. Thank You, Thomas Kaln

As much as I would like to say we are a band, unfortunately we have not gotten that much recognition. I consider us more of a group designed around altering people's perceptions of little people across the United States. Anyone who came to our first concert can know that it's not about the music. We are all about promoting little people and their advancement in society. Our music is just a way to get that through. If we alter our wikipedia page a little is there any way we could have it stay up, maybe as a different category of page design?

I'm sorry if this is bugging you, but I'm just doing my best to try and get a page on here within the guidelines. Do you know of any good way for getting a third party source? Would a large following on a myspace music group be effective enough?Jahovasnout 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not believe that a band composed entirely of dwarfs is incredible enough for the media to take attention? And with our album coming out this June it is hard to say that we are not capable of being big within the next year. We have actually been contacted by MTV news for a segment on our band and it will be shot in July. So please Splash, do not delete our page anymore we just want to get the word out about our band and our revolutionary members. Jahovasnout 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is this[2] to consider... Though the Killer Dwarfs weren't technically dwarves, but they were all pretty much around 140-150 cms. Diminututive persons, rather than dwarven. And they rocked out on several albums, so try to get some of their (sadly) out of print music. Perhaps Godsnose can wait until The Littlest Mans has an album out, or until they have completed a tour on a national basis, perhaps in an opening slot for a major act, and the article would be more substantial. Thas all I'm sayin' brother. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning light³

Do you want me to keep telling you when you start verging into my territory? The community seem to feel that one slightly hysterical and occasionally over-aggressive voice of reason is enough, but I do get lonely in my tent sometimes.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxvoid AFD

Hi Splash. First, thanks for closing some DRV debates. I was closing them all for quite a while and was getting sick of it. However, I sort of have to take issue with one thing here. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gfxvoid (2nd nomination) you started a new discussion intead of reopening the old one, which basically tosses out 9 legit votes. The consensus on DRV seemed to be that the problem was closing the vote early. The remedy to that is to reopen it. Is there any real reason not to? Thanks. -R. fiend 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they'll probably be deleted anyway, but I still really see no reason to thing those votes are anything but still valid, even if a little old. The only issue the policy hounds had was with Mushroom's early closing, not with anything proceedural with the votes. Would you object to turning the 2nd nom AFDs into redirects to the originals and opening them? -R. fiend 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply at Candidates page...

Just a ping, [3] StrangerInParadise 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another ping, StrangerInParadise 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm thinking that you are ignoring me, could you at least read the updated story, and answer my questions? StrangerInParadise 14:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I don't remember posting that explicit message in the discussion zone of the website, my guess is that it was one of the other band members who knows my password. I'm sorry that that had to come up and that such a horrible result would come. As a member of this band I would like to apologize to everyone that was offended by this message. I am trying to maintain a peaceful existence on this website and I would hate to have that ruined by something that I didn't have control of. Again, sorry Jahovasnout 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo!

[4]. It's a tool that shows the articles that are semi protected. Awesome. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the list, there are a slew of articles that are SP but have no tag. One for 18 days! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a better one. 50 Cent had been protected (with no tag) for 23 days! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism

I noticed you unprotected Wikipedia:Vandalism a few hours after I protected it; would you mind to leave me a note next time? The reason I ask is that I had noticed quite a few anons vandalizing the page, and so I sprotected; when it turned back up in my watchlist with anon edits, I thought the sprotect wasn't working. I don't care that it was unprotected, I'd just like to know when something I've done has been undone. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

Why is Abortion protected? There is no content dispute, there is a recurring user (Goodandevil aka several AOL IP addresses) who keeps inserting POV stuff, we've been reverting and trying to engage the user in productive editing for months. I see no evidence of anything else - please let me know why this page was protected? I've been out with a flu, I may have missed something - but if its the one user there is no dispute, and there are half a dozen regular editors to that page and another half dozen semi-regular. Thanks in advance - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your lengthily justified support of my RfA. It's kinda hard to tell what articles I'm working on just by checking my recent contributions, so I was humbled to see your approval of that and my take on the RfA questions. Anyhow, it just closed 71/1/0, so I'm a sysop now! Yay! Ashibaka tock 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 17

Yes, everybody is in agreement about deleting Template:LND, and for days at a time we have agreement on what to do with them, and then a couple of folks start arguing again. Holding cell is good for time being.

Yes, Template:5LA is ready to delete, and orphaning believed to be complete.

But, Template:4LA is not ready.

Thanks!

--William Allen Simpson 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I deleted 5LA now (I think I may have dropped the ball on that one actually, but at least by doing so I got confirmation!). The others I'll leave as is, then. Thanks for the udpate. There are indications that the WLH problems are being solved...gradually. -Splash^talk 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander

Hi, you protected this article, but doing this would stop work such as that done by User:DollyD in the hours prior to protecting it.

Recent edits done by dollyd

As you can see, she has been pretty busy, adding two paragraphs and an external link.

This is a wiki, people are supposed to improve articles by editing; it's the very reason why the website exists. Please do not protect the article again.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Splash, following the protection of Bosnian Genocide article you may find these also interesting:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

With a quick overview you will notice that particluar user (User:Nikola Smolenski) that has resorted to edit war on Bosnian Genocide article is also revering other 12 articles (at least) while singlehandedly opposing anywhere between 6 to 10 other regisetered users on a regular basis. Some action is badly needed as we are loosing time and energy on this person while we could use it for more productive work. Thanks--Dado 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, thanks for taking time to look at these issues. For the most part discussions have been taking place for last 6 months and this last round of all out edit war is just a tip of the iceberg of the frustration that has been accumulated. The situation has also been agrivated by a fact that admins don't want to touch any of these controversial issues with the 10 foot pole. Except for the article Republika Srpska (topic of the similar category) where moderator has brought a relative calm to that article all others have gone bellow the radar of some serious involvement for last 6 months. I don't want to bore you with details but I think it would help if maybe half of those articles were protected as some are being reverted on parallel issues such as:

Thanks --Dado 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Hi Splash, could you clarify what you meant in this diff with your edit summary "already recreated, drv closed"? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Druids

New Order of Druids up for AfD review today.Obina 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Just saw some comments from you about your reservations regarding declaring consensus on userboxes lately in TfD. Just wanted to drop you a note to say, "Keep the faith." Cool, neutral heads are exactly what is needed to come to a resolution on all of this. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your actions on behalf of the wiki in the face of advancing Wikistress, a **Barnstar of Diligence**.

re: List of Louisiana Baptist University people

Good evening, Splash. On 29 Jan, you closed this DRV discussion with the comment "kept deleted" but you did not redelete the article. (It had been temporarily undeleted during the discussion.) Was that intentional or an oversight? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

The problem lies chiefly with Nikola Smolenski, a highly nationalistic, racist, and stubborn user who refuses to allow anything that doesnt resemble his own Serb radical POV. Its worth noting that precisely for these reasons, Smolenski's candidacy for administrator went up in flames and was defeated in a total landslide (Its also worth noting that it was proposed as a sort of corrupt bargain, in exchange for his nomination of another user for administrator on the serbian wikipedia). I see you've only noticed that two people are reverting his attempts to force POV into wikipedia. Actually, the list of users changing his edits include Dado, Dijkxra, Zmaj, Elephantus, Emir Arven, and myself, among many, many others. The lack of discussion usually comes from user Smolenski's refusal to accept any sort of reasonable compromise or the existence of any wrong in his highly controversial views. Oh I know you're reading all this suspiciously enough considering that I'm one side in the conflict, but what I've told you is essentially the truth of the matter - Nikola Smolenski is trying to push Serb nationalist POV into wikipedia to the point of the absurd. For instance, in an effort to block any mention of Serb authorities ethnically cleansing non-Serbs durning the Bosnian war, he's branded Human rights watch and the United Nations Human Rights Comission as "biased against Serbs" and refused to accept them as valid sources. This is only the tip of the iceberg too. For what its worth, this isnt exactly an ethnic conflict either - relations between Bosniak, Albanian, and Croatian editors with numerous other Serbian editors is perfectly fine. Smolenski is like a thorn in the side and is responsible for 90% of the chaos and edit wars going on right now. While I appreciate your offer to try and sort things out in the talk pages, I have almost 0 faith that anything will get accomplished. Asim Led 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The afd thing

Hi there. Someone (maybe not you) has added subst: to the PAGENAME variable, and this breaks non-subst: usages. A removal of that would unbreak that problem, and there'd be no need for that message of yours. The tag has always worked fine in the past. Note that PAGENAME is not a template, it's a variable so there's no transclusion load. In fact, someone has made Template:PAGENAME. It should be unnecessary. -Splash^talk 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. See Template talk:Afd#template broken. There are two benefits to having the PAGENAME be substed. 1) If the article gets moved, the deletion discussion link doesn't break, and 2) Admins looking at the deleted article will still see the right link. dbenbenn | talk 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I leave a note for you?

The discussion page at NSA warrantless surveillance does not note that semi-protection has been removed. Would you be willing to note your action there? Metarhyme 00:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have done, although I usually figure the edit summary and protection log give my reasons clearly enough. -Splash^talk 01:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Footnotes are trying. I am asking for suggestions for shortening the thing. Metarhyme 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have a footnotes section a couple days ago when I started the conversion. Having that section above sources was my ploy to make the change to automagical a difficult but not impossible accomplishment. If it gets done, needed shifts and changes won't be mired in a citation nightmare. Metarhyme 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out! While I'm at it, I've been wrapping them in templates. I've only needed these three so far:

<ref>{{news reference |firstname= |lastname= |pages= |title= |date= |org= |url= }}</ref>

<ref>{{Press release reference |Organization= |Date= |Title= |URL=}}</ref>

<ref>{{Web reference |title= |work= |url= |date= |year=}}</ref>

If you don't want to go the extra mile, I can get 'em as I crawl downward. Metarhyme 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

g'night, then. Metarhyme 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James John Parker

May I ask why you removed the "semi-protection" from this article? The person who it is about has repeatedly been modifying the article to promote his candidacy for Congress. This has been done from a series of IP addresses and this was my effort to prevent this. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Another removed the protection and I thought I restored it. Apparently I only did the alert tag on the page. Thanks for your swift reply. PedanticallySpeaking 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment...

Please comment here. It's about this seemingly daily thing where people are protecting pages linked from the main page. I'm thinking about creating a template which states that the article is linked from the main page and should not be protected. What do you think? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I need help at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons too. We have a protection war going on. The main problems I have are that the page is linked from the main page and that this has the earmarks of an edit war as much as vandalism. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell logo/image

Okay. I see that we can't use fair images on the main page. I think the photo, with the gas prices, goes nicely with the news item. But, the proportions of the image on the main page seem off to me. What about a cropped version of the photo, as suggested on the candidates page? (it's already cropped and ready for use) Or, maybe it's just my computer screen and resolution, but the image is spilling over into the DYK feature. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just saw (and mentally processed) your suggestion on the candidates page. It's changed over now. -Splash^talk 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Drawings

Have you been following the lengthy discussions we've had about protection on this page? The prohibition on protecting pages linked from main page is not absolute, and we have determined that the locust-swarm of vandals and socks we have had to deal with warrants protection for now. Why did you overrule this? Babajobu 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen as many admins protect it, surely. The protection policy page is very clear that in general we ought not to protect main-page-linked articles, but when really necessary we can. This article has been subjected to an unbelievable amount of harassment by IPs and new users who removed content repeatedly but never showed up on talk page. We couldn't even keep up with the blocks, numerous IPs got to 8, 9, or 10 reverts before being blocked. These are exceptional circumstances, and it's well within policy to protect, WP:IAR is not required. I would definitely do it if I were not involved in the article. Anyway, it's later, and things seemed to have calmed down a bit for now, so we'll see what happens. Babajobu 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to lay trouble on your door step

I have come to you as I think you are the best & wisest of all wikipedia admin. and as I have said I hate to lay trouble on your doorstep but I think you may be the only person who can help. The trouble I am speaking of involves a very energetc editor name pickelbarrel. User: pickelbarrel has been barred for a month by user: DragonflySixtyseven for dedicating an article he (pickelbarrel) wrote to me. The article, Panty Waste, was about a museum located in San Fransisco. The reason Pickelbarrel dedicated the article to me is that when Pickelbarrel had written a previous article on Panty Waste (a dict def & misspelling of the term pantywaist) I suggested during an AFD debate the current article be deleted and a new one about the museum be wrtitten. This is exactly what pickelbarrel did and was blocked (for a month) for. I honestly belive that Dragonfly did not even read the article before deleting it and blocking pickelbarrel. Had pickelbarrel recreated the same article I would understand it but this was a completly new article about a museum no diffrent that the Museum of Bad Art. To further compound the problem Dragonfly listed the reason for blocking pickelbarrel as pickelbarrel being a jerk. Not a good reason to block someone unless they are making personal attacks. If you could look into this mess I would think highly of you for it. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Shorting Editing War Resumes

Appreciate your efforts in keeping a neutral POV on this page. As you may have noticed, another anon user has carried out the identical edits as the anon user you blocked.--Mantanmoreland 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a single individual on a Verizon dynamic IP continuing to insert the same edits, and completely ignoring any attempts we make to seek consensus for these changes (we have tried their talk pages, the article talk page, and an HTML comment at the top of the article!). Should we just keep reverting until our 3RRs run out each day, or is there something else we should pursue? Do you think we might benefit from another stretch of protection or semiprotection? (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you know - I think it got our anon out from under the rock! Always good to see when that actually works. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

technical assistance

I noticed you referred Aaron to the {{ref}} template in his RfA, and I was trying to figure this out the other day at Saugeen-Maitland_Hall#The Saugeen Stripper. I'm not at all certain how to get a tag of "#endnote_timing" into the References section, using the wiki software/templates available. I'm probably missing something basic, and with as few references as that article has it gets the job done, but I'd still like to add this to my toolbelt. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad form

Agreed, feeding the trolls is bad, mea culpa... does "he started it" still work as a defense? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pickelbarrel

If you would restore the Panty Waste article I would appreciate it. I would like a chance to fix it up a bit and think it could be made into a pretty good article. A google search of "Panty Waste" + meseum returned 300+ hits so I think I can save it. As far as pickelbarrel goes I take partial blame for his actions. I told him that if he had evidence of an improper exchange between an administrator and a minor he had best not leave anything to chance. I think he over reacted but it was not with malice. I will speak to him and ask him to calm down as I don't think he is a troll just a bit excitable. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)I forgot about his signature. That was my fault as well. User: Pamento had been running Pickelbarrel amuck calling him all sorts of insulting names and not getting blocked for it (I really don't know why he wasn't).He listed Pickelbarrel on a list of assholes & called him an asshole several times before dedicating his talk page to what an asshole pickelbarrel is. Pickelbarrel came to me for advise and I suggested that he change his signature to Pickelbarrel the Ashole to take the wind out of Pamentos sails. Picklebarrle didn't do it for several days until he saw that Pamento had put him on a list of people that weren't assholes. I guess he figured by calling himself an asshole Pamento would have to take him off that list. So again I take part of the blame. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'll gather some research & fix this article right up. You have proven yourself to be the best and wisest of all wikipedia administrators.--Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit fair use images?

Could you PLEASE cite me sources on that? You just deleted my work. GraphicArtist 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC) If that is the case then you should delete[reply]

Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg

and you should also delete this...

Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg

You deleted an image without going through due process. I will be complaining about this. GraphicArtist 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can't use your own rationale. CNN and other networks have shown them and they have not asked for permission either. Deleting images can not be reverted. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN per your own rationale. GraphicArtist 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am have created an uncensored version of the image as well as added censored versions of the images. I'm not censoring the original image i'm uploading 'more versions of it'. See Image:Microsoft_logo.svg for examples of multiple versioning on fair use images. If you want them removed then add an entry at WP:PUI. Thank you GraphicArtist 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not give you the right to delete them at will without due process GraphicArtist 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Images info

Hi, I hope this is the right place to communicate - apologies if not. I noticed you deleted an image from the David Hockney page in September 2005 for copyvio. It was this image:

-

File:Hockney-two-figures-pool.jpg

Two Figures by the Pool

Is this not fair use under the art justification (as in the label below)? There is an image on the same page at the moment which cites this, as well as various other images throughout Wicki, so when is it allowed and when not? Your feedback/previous rulings would be much appreciated. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This image represents a two-dimensional work of art, such as a drawing, painting, print, or similar creation. The copyright for this image is likely owned by either the artist who created it, the individual who commissioned the work, or their legal heirs. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of artworks:

for purposes of critical commentary on:
- the specific work in question,
- the artistic genre or technique employed in the artwork, or
- the artistic school or tradition to which the artist is associated,
as applied within the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers located in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Any other use of this image, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, could potentially constitute a copyright infringement. For further information, please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on non-free content.
Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

I would be grateful for your observations on the image I have added on this page Michael Landy. I feel that a proper appreciation of his work and the school of YBAs can only be gained through seeing a representative image. Tyrenius 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tag for pictures of 3d images, or is that not applicable under Fair Use? I take it from what you said that use could be justified of a 2d representation more easily, especially if there was particular reference to it? If you feel this is a copyvio, I have no objection to it being removed - also see Angus Fairhurst - though I think it's a shame. I have told Splash I will not be adding to the RFC, because I don't have enough knowledge of the issue to comment. Tyrenius 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. I will attend to the images one way or another, with commentary/replacement/whatever soonish. Sorry - I meant of course I have told GraphicArtist about the RFC. Tyrenius 03:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Wolf Child

Hey Splash, I just noticed you deleted this article. It's back and it makes some claim to notability. I don't know if it's the same article as the one you deleted, that might have made a lesser claim to notability. Is it a reposting? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the claim to notability is that he's a party founder. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Splash, nothing personally against you but admins deleting fair use media without process has got to stop. I have filed an RFC regarding this matter here, and I'm waiting for Tyrenius to add his name to it. If you want you can wave the requirement of two people certifying (as has been done before). Thank you, GraphicArtist 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC against Splash? Gosh. Nothing's sacred anymore, eh? ;) But I say, if you'd like a Request for Comment principally about a general issue (such as deletion of fair use images, for example), and do not have a complaint "personally against [Splash]", why not file a one of those policy RfCs? For the policy page to RfC, you might try Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Just a suggestion, GraphicArtist — the thing is, the User RfC is a useful tool, but it's use in this fashion can sometimes be a tad controversial, that's all. Very kind regards ENCEPHALON 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've just done the leg work—looks like the matter has been amicably resolved? Tyrenius' issues at any rate. I'm unable to find the RFC page, incidentally. ENCEPHALON 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedied on request of the creator. The creator has also had his userpages deleted which means that the discussion surrounding this is half-missing. It was, incidentally, a declared sock (but undeclared ownership) for the purposes of editing the Muhummed cartoons articles pseudo-pseudonymously. -Splash^talk 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Of course. A little "self-censorship" and all, mayhaps? Very much at the root of that whole flare up. I say, I've been meaning to ask you, Splash. There's this nifty link called "related changes" in the toolbar. How new is it? I don't seem to remember having it last time, and while I'm no Curps I used to be pretty up on the technical side of things. I can see it being very, very useful. ENCEPHALON 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's been there for 'ever'. Some people have made quasi-watchlists by listing articles manually on a user-subpage and relying on Special:Recentchangeslinked to function as the watcher. I think I recall seeing some of these that were quite old; certainly older in wiki terms than I am, e.g. User:Tony Sidaway/Watch. -Splash^talk 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I remember seeing it now, but I think I never really used it because it was "registering" as recent changes in my head. And yes, I've seen Tony's page before, although I can't remember how I got there; he used to be called Minority Report or something, before he changed his username — way before our (well, my) time. Thanks Splash. ENCEPHALON 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TransLink (Brisbane) connections

I would like the item to be deleted.

I never really wanted the item, anyway. I only put the article up because SM247 has been flooding Wikipedia with Brisbane bus information on any page that he could think of, including article pages for Brisbane railway stations (where he placed the full bus information in a more prominent position than some of the information about the railway station itself, often swamping the railway station information with bus information). The information on the deleted page was a directory to all the information that I had had to move to a separate page because of the swamping of the article pages by the bus information.

All the information that he has been adding to pages is available on the article TransLink (Brisbane) services.

The Wikipedia page that I set up was an attempt to start unifying a catalogue of all his contributions with regard to Brisbane buses, within the Brisbane CBD.

I will not follow the example set by SM247 when he reinstated the deleted Capalaba Bus Station, Brisbane article. Figaro 03:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this. I appreciate it very much. Figaro 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pickelbarrel

Hey Splash, Pickelbarrel just e-mailed me saying he was blocked again, but I can't see it on the logs. I'm wondering if you knew what he was talking about. I think he's in good faith, but needs alot of guidance at this point. Karm a fist 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I hate autoblocks. They're more trouble than they're worth in situations like these. Ok, off to deliver pizzas...Karm a fist 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help.

I hadnt had a chance to thank everyone who had helped me out before you wrote me(I had gotten to karma and uncle g and pantywaste and an i helped clean-up the article ebaums world that DS seems to be passionate about...you and emperor cenestrad were to be next). I appreciate all the help. Being blocked for a month for a at least somewhat legitimat article and being called a jerk(I still havent heard the appology he said was forthcoming) has left a vad taste in my mouth concerning DS but I decided to kill him with kindness, instead of starting a veral battle. Can you look at my edit on ebaums world to make sure it is appropriate, I cant see why it wouldnt be, but I sure as hell dont want to be thrown off again for attempting to contribute. Thanks bunches pickelbarrel 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Splash/Archive10

Damadola airstrike

Thank you

how long does it take to get "rank"

Thanks

user freedom

Thanks for the help.

MFD

TFD

Frances Farmer

Unprotecting articles

RE: More speedies

Closing TfDs

So basically...

The election

Block against community rules

{{Infobox british hills (no image)}}

New AFD closing tags

Copied from Talk:The White Snake

Templates:Infobox Country English & Metric Units

SNK Boss Syndrome

The Littlest Mans

Warning light3

Gfxvoid AFD

Please reply at Candidates page...

Sorry

Woohoo!

Abortion

Thank you

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 17

Protection

DRV

Druids

Cheers

re: List of Louisiana Baptist University people

Edit warring

The afd thing

Should I leave a note for you?

Please comment...

Shell logo/image

I hate to lay trouble on your door step

Naked Shorting Editing War Resumes

technical assistance

Bad form

Pickelbarrel

Thanks

Can't edit fair use images?

Fair Use Images info

RFC

Pickelbarrel

Thanks for your help.

Warning light³