User talk:Gazimoff/Archives/2008/June

Re:

Thank you for taking the time to do so! iMatthew _T.C. 01:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Electric zerobike

Thanks for the note on the Electric zerobike prod. I thought I'd put in a reason ... I've added one now. Appreciate the note. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your research!

I wrote this at WT:RFA, in case it gets lost in the shuffle. It contains a lot of nonense, but once in a while, it shows a bit of the community's general vibe towards RfA/adminship type things. Also links to past polls for historical reference going back to 2004. In case you weren't aware of them, tis all. "Gazimoff, a potentially good reference point from about a month ago would be WP:AMP." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info, I appreciate it. Early indications are encouraging, although I'll probably wait a day or so before putting up a dedicated page to hold a framework. After that, we'll see what the contributions say.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove's responses

1. Candidate selection: Is the current process of invite or self-nom appropriate?

   I think both are fine. Some editors gnome and don't really make friends or get noticed. They're no less valuable than other types of editors, but less likely to find a nom. If we were to switch to a nom-only system, one way to help such editors would be through editor review. It currently reads "If you are here because your goal is to become an administrator, you should direct yourself to Wikipedia:Admin coaching." I know it has been, at least in the past, used to gauge an editor's readiness for adminship. For anyone who doesn't care to participate in coaching and thinks they are ready, one could express their desire for nomination through this.

2. Admin coaching: should it be disbanded, maintained as optional or made compulsory? Should some kind of pre-nom mentoring scheme take place?

   I don't think admin coaching should be compulsory or disbanded. There are some very good coaches out there, and plenty of candidates that don't need it. This should remain optional, I think.

3. Nomination: Should the current nom+com be kept, or should something else such as a debate-only phase or a support and oppose declaration be considered?

   I suggest running RFA much like board elections. Have the first, say, four days be for questions and discussion only, then three days of voting. The problem with this is that for people who only log on once a week, they would not get the chance to participate in both phases. More fair for participants would be a week of questions and discussion followed by a week of voting, but do we really want candidates to go through two weeks of RFA? It's daunting enough as it is, but then, as many point out, adminship can be stressful, so it's not really unfair to put pressure on candidates to see how they react. So, at the very least, it may be worth doing a trial.

4. Advertising: Should canvassing for input be encouraged or discouraged? Should input come from a jury-selection system or similar?

   I think on-wiki neutral canvassing should be allowed by everyone. As we leave notices for Wikiprojects when related articles are up for deletion, I believe a simple "User:Example is requesting adminship" with a link to the request should be placed on all projects for which the candidate is an active member, as a standard. I believe they are often the best editors to contribute to RFAs, as they have often had the most interaction. I also believe that anyone, including the candidate, should be able to inform others of the request, however, I think it should be limited to allowing nothing more than the link to be posted. No debate on whether an accompanying message is neutral if there is no accompanying message. And, as is currently the policy, if anyone is canvassed in a non-neutral way, then the same measures that current stand should be taken. I am wholly opposed to any sort of "jury" process.

5. Election: Is it better to have a pure vote, a pure debate, a debate then vote or a concurrent debating and voting process?

   See my response to question 3. Questions and discussion/debate followed by a vote.

6. Declaration: Should an RfA be closed through a simple summing up or an interpretation of the election? What rules should be used? Should an Arbcom style process be used?

   I think the current process works well. I think I share a trust with the majority of the community in the bureaucrats determining consensus. The idea of running RFA like ArbCom is an interesting one... A nom statement could be made, those who agree could endorse the statement. Those wishing to point out other things could make their own statements. Users only permitted to endorse one statement... I don't know. A viable option that could be built upon and possibly built into something worth trying.

7. Probation: Is this a good idea? Should it be considered? Should any conditions be attached? Should it have a minimum/maximum length?

   This has been suggested before and I agree with those that oppose this idea. New admins would simply mind themselves until the probationary period is over. If such a provision was added to adminship, there'd have to be a process set up in which the new admin would be reevaluated and then either officially granted the tools or have the bit removed. It seems to me a better process would be to create a viable community desysopping process. But, as we know, this has been discussed at length on a pretty regular basis to no consensus.

8. Recall: Should it remain as an optional process? A condition of an RfA?

   This goes back to the previous question. You could make it mandatory, but what's to stop admins from imposing completely impossible conditions? There would have to be some sort of standard set. Not necessarily one set of criteria for all, but something to keep it realistic. And I can't envision the community coming to a consensus on that.

9. Omissions: Anything that isn't covered by the transition from editor to administrator.

   Can you clarify this question, please... perhaps I'm too blonde. :p

   Lara❤Love 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Portal screenshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Portal screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA Review

Establish the scope, baseline, question, reflect, recommend, collate, present ... an interesting approach. As a systems thinker, I prefer the Deming Cycle, but good luck! Neıl 龱 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. Effectively, what we're doing here is the Check part of the Deming cycle, as the process has already been in place for a number of years, with any outcomes from this review forming the Act part. Instead, I'm using something similar to the Information technology audit process to verifify an existing process. Part of that involves establishing the terms of engagement or scope, then performing a preliminary review. Part of that review will be ensuring that the information on the current process is correct, while anoher part will focus on the problems with that current process in order to asses risk. Once we have that, we can then focus on the areas requiring revision before developing a set of reccomendations. Although the very first thing to do is make sure that the review process stands up to scrutiny. Hope that makes sense, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)

Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(sorry for the generic message, just wanted you to have the right bluelinks). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks very much for the speedy response! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Review

Hey Gazimoff, I know I'm late to the party, but I drank too much coffee and needed a project - so, thus, {{RFAReview}}. Subst'd to the appropriate sub-page, this template will generate the appropriate questions and instructions, including instructions on how to format and post a link to the responses on the response page (or wherever). I'm leaving for a bit, but wanted to ping you and make sure you saw the discussion at WT:RREV. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That template is absolutely spot on and a great idea. I'll update the relevant process pages so that we can get the ball rolling soon. Many thanks!

See also: {{RREVlinks}}. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Now *that's* neat. Great work! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

aFd Nomination of FUNLIB for deletion

Hi, Gazimoff. I don't agree with the expressed sense that FUNLIB is too obscure for inclusion into Wikipedia. The experiences we computer folk had before 1994 and the rise of the Internet are important. It's sad that there aren't a thousand blogs about FUNLIB... but it is well related to the early eighties mainframe-type game discussions, which included books (like 101 Basic Computer Games), ASCII art, biorhythm charts, and text-based role-playing games. So I hope that Wikipedia will save a spot for FUNLIB. Jessemckay (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we have sources dating from that time, such as published books or works, then I'm all for it. I'm not against FUNLIB as a concept and maybe the template notice I put on your talkpage didn't explain that thoughtfully enough. As long as we have reliable sources in order to demonstrate to the readers that what we write about is verifiable and notable, then there's no reason why the article can't exist. Just because the source is on paper instead of a website somewhere doesn't matter.

If you're interested in rebuilding an article on FUNLIB, it's probably a good idea to ask an admin to create a copy of the deleted article and place it into your user area as a sandbox to work on. I'll happily help you with making sure that the article will stand up to the various policies that exist before moving it back in as a full article. If you have, or can obtain sources or references on FUNLIB that would be fantastic. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your username block requests

You're trying to use UAA to get accounts such as User:Cupeyville*School*Staff blocked without discussion. I removed your reports because they didn't give a reason that's relevant according to the username policy.

Do you honestly think it's a blockable offense for a school's administrators to try to improve the school's own Wikipedia article? How would that help Wikipedia, more than it would hurt it by reinforcing the image of WP as exclusive and intolerant? At worst they're a role account, but that just means we need to talk to them, not break out the banhammer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going from WP:U, specifically the section on company and group names. The first account already had a warning on it, detailing the concerns, but was never replied to. After checking with editors more experienced than myself on reporting it to UAA, I was advised that it was the right thing to do. Besides, in submitting an entry to UAA, I was asking for an administrator to look over the account and make a decision of judgement. I wasn't explicitly stating that the account should be blocked, only that it should be looked at by someone such as yourself with more experience. All I have to go on are policies, which I attempted to follow in this case. I hope you can understand that. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. I'm sorry that other editors misled you, because UAA was not right for this situation. UAA is a way to explicitly say that the account should be blocked. If you just want administrators to look at something and decide what to do, you may want the administrators' noticeboard.

The part of the policy you're referring to says: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. Similarly, editing with a possible conflict of interest, such as editing an article about your employer, is not disallowed, but anyone wishing to do so is advised to first accumulate some editing experience in unrelated areas."

Yes, the article has problems, they're doing things that are far from recommended, and the original version of the page that they created read like an ad. But from my looking over the contributions, this really isn't a case for blocking. The messages left for them were sufficient, and may have even been read by the people involved (the second account was much less blatant than the first). Neither message was a "you're going to be blocked" warning, and neither one really required them to respond.

Sorry if my initial message was too cranky. I often remove bad reports from UAA, and I fear this gives me as jaded a view of UAA reporters as the typical vandal-fighter gets of newbies. I do this because I find that admins occasionally just trust the report as being correct and block people without looking into the details, and moreover because other people look at the current UAA reports as an example and will report more like that. When you hear from people outside of Wikipedia about what's wrong with Wikipedia, the fact that so many people are kicked off by the overused username policy is one of them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WayForward Technologies

Is there a particular reason you keep trying to delete that game developer's profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.68.98 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I originally came to the article from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Notability - a list that had been compiled by the overarching WikiProject Council. After searching, I couldn't find anything that would make the company notable enough to meet WP:CORP, so I proposed it for deletion, citing these concerns. The PROD was quickly removed, but the article didn't improve with it, so I listed it at WP:AfD. At the end of the day, if reliable sources can be found to satisfy WP:CORP, it'll be likely to be kept. As it is, the previous AfD did not reach a concensus and the article still has no references, so it's likely that in time another editor will list it for deletion. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? A Google search finds 88,000 webpage references of the company, and a search on Contra 4, a recent game developed by the company, finds half a million pages. How does this company not obviously meet WP:CORP? I'm not sure why you're bent on deleting the page for this company, but I think you're behaving ridiculously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.213.39 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Google page hits cannot be used to determine if a company reaches WP:CORP - see WP:GOOGLE for more info there. Essentially, the company needs to be described in third party reliable sources that refer extensively to the company. A game review that mentions the company in passing, but a detailed interview with the CEO, lead designers would definately qualify. When I search for sources, it's these kind of things that I look for. Don't forget, printed sources are just as valid as web-based ones, as long as they meet the WP:RS criteria. Nothing that meets this was added, either when I initially proposed the article for deletion or when the AfD debate took place much later. If it had, I would have withdrawn my nomination immediately. I hope this clears things up for you.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like any of these?

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2164/wayforward_to_the_handheld_future_.php

http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/088/088729p1.html

http://search.ign.com/articles?sort=relevance&query=wayforward (62 articles and reviews on the company at IGN)

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16721 (keynote speakers at IGS)

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/np-0708.jpg (extensive interview with company in Nintendo Power)

Honestly, you're completely ignoring thousands of articles and pages with acceptable sources on the notability of the company. Your deletion attempts of this page are without warrant. Any criteria you're holding other entries to could be found on this company if you spent half a minute searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.213.39 (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of those sources are fantastic. The point is, this didn't come to light earlier in the process. If it had, I'd have immediately changed my stance and worked on inserting the references in and improving the article as a result. As such, with these sources, the article can be extensively improved with a full set of references. Just to note, I can only make proposals on the information I have available - if there's more info out there that I've missed then I'm always happy to take it on board. Also, deletion doesn't have to be permanent - if an article is deleted that can later be sourced, an administrator can always restore it so that the sourcing can be added. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it took me about 5 minutes to find those, so you might be behaving in an overzealous manner if you're suggesting entries for deletion when there are readily available articles regarding those companies on the web. In light of the above links, are you done trying to delete the WayForward Technologies Wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.213.39 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of these links, I can do more than that. I can improve the article, adding these references and a bucketload of sourced information to the article. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Many, many thanks! If I could think of a suitable barnstar, I'd give you one. Looks much nicer, and I can easily customise it from here. Cheers, and happy editing Fritzpoll (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like the result. You can probably give your talkpage the same treatment if you want. Let me know if that would be useful and if you need a hand with it. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Trophy Scars

Hey Gazimoff, looks like we both stumbled upon the Trophy Scars Vandalism at the same time, the edit that I did is from the last known good article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumjubeo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I see your also of much higher authority than I am on wikipedia, my apologies for the edit conflict. Have a great day! (Bumjubeo (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC))

Nope, I'm just an editor killing some time by doing a vandalism sweep and doing my bit to help out. Nothing special here. I'm glad we were both on the case though - it's reassuring to know there's more than one pair of eyes on an article! Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with a template.

[1] Simply put, I need the template to not have dead links, and to be able to assess articles' importance. Can you help? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, should work now in the same way as the original oneLet me know if you need to change the grading or other settings. Also, you might want to create subpages on the proj for the different aspects, like peer review, cleanup and so on. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia ratings seem fine, although maybe, since it's the simple Wiki, we may want to try something like:

1. Stub = Short Article (since the Wiki uses Short Article instead of Stub)
2. Start = C (consistency with B and A)
3. GA = A (as in, switch GA and A around so GA is the second highest rank)
4. A = GA (above) - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, seems reasonable. DO you want to check and see if there's any general article rating system they have there, just to make sure before I change the template. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked, I didn't see any assessment scale.

Also, with Stub, when typing in the class, calling it Stub would be preferred. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okies, I'll be calling it a night soon, so I'll work on it tomorrow. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Help

Thanks so much for the very prompt response. I think the cemetery for military people is quite important to them and their families so if you can fix the Template to allow it then that would be appreciated. Jonathan Logan (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do. As the template's editprotected, I'll need an admin to change it for me. I'll put the info on the talkpage and go from there. Hope this is alright.

Many thanks for your help. Jonathan Logan (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad we managed to get it sorted for you.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Thankyou but when I tried to do it with white on my user page it diddnt work can u help me? Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, what colours would you like the box to be? I need one for the border, another for the background. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could I would like the whole background (including border) white. to blend in with the center thing i have.Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It should work, but there are messages on your talkpage that are causing problems. If you can archive the contents, that would be great. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you think that i want to change my talk I meant I want to change my Userpage. Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, this is already the case. Your userpage already has a white background, with the symbols in the centre. Is there anything else you're after? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok its might just be my browser. but for your help you deserve this.

ElectricalExperiment 02:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I use FireFox 3, so that might explain any differences in the way the page is rendered. Anyhow, best of luck!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titans (Crash of the Titans)

Since the nomination, I have found articles that deal exclusively with the Titans, such as this one. I also added an out of universe section on Titans_(Crash_of_the_Titans)#Creation. I believe that I can make still further such changes and therefore hope that you may reconsider your stance there. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you've done some great work with cleaning the article up, and I can appreciate your efforts. The trouble I have is in distinguishing the content here from what you would find in an ordinary strategy guide or strategy wiki. I'd be concerned about the sourcing, as one links to youtube (copyright issues), one links to deviantart (probably not a reliable source) and two link to freewebs (not a reliable source). Is there anything in interviews or reviews that critically analyse the monsters so that you could talk about their reception?

At the end of the day, if a merge with the main game article happens then it's fine. I think I owe it to the other AfD participants, although I know some have been quite vocal (and possibly uncivil towards you, something which I find concerning), to let it run until close. My primary concern is an entrenchement of opinions, leading to no clear concensus and no definite direction going forward, while the article is left in a state of limbo. I hope this helps.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Soshiro Hokkai

Hi Gazimoff,

I saw what you added to my talk page (probably a while ago, since I haven't really been contributing for a while), but I've since decided that I have very significant disagreements with Wikipedia's notability guidelines (as well as some other guidelines and policies). Do as you see fit. I see that the article has already been deleted. I won't go back and change that, although I feel that (1) the fact that he wrote the music for a well-known videogame qualifies him to be notable, and (2) even if that does not count as notable, it still counts as significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, which I believe should be a repository of as much information as possible.

~GMH talk to me 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Usually I prod an article after I can't find sources to help demonstrate that the subject is notable - but it's always open to challenge. If the subject is covered in multiple reliable sources, then mention them here and I'll happily ask for the article to be deleted and add the sources. Deletion is never permanent and articles can be recovered if sources come to light. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Open Review proposal

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on GA process reform at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform. Based on the suggestions made, a proposal has been set out (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#Open review proposal). Your further input would be very welcome, as there are a number of areas that may need more discussion before this proposal is put to the wider community. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look and give you my thoughts shortly. Many thanks for the notification! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That was fast

Thank you for your lightning quick response--Blueturtle01 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem! Any more questions, feel free to give me a shout! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

I've tried to help out the newbie at licensing parents. Apologies if I trod on your toes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ach, no worries. As long as there are people prepared to help a new editor out, it's all for the best. No complaint from me :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Review

Have you been watching? the watchlist message appears to have done the trick. Hope you weren't planning on reviewing responses single-handedly! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching, and reading each and every comment single-handedly. There's a huge wealth of information already emerging that can only grow with time. I'm not going to start pulling the next phase together until the Question phase is finished, but the initial thoughts are very promising. It's already gleaned a couple of responses at my editor review - feel free to stick your oar in if you think it's appropriate. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For finding a way to make our templates more user friendly MBisanz talk 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope the changes work for you. Let me know if you have any problems.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 09:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help with Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for a speedy reply, which is not at all confusing. I had simply not seen the fair use aspect, but it is fairly logical (when you know it). Thanks again. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to help out. If you get any further questions, please feel free to ask!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you & some questions

Hi there. Thanks for welcoming me. I'm new. Wikipedia is becoming more popular, so I thought let me join. I've few questions about this place. How many people are there on Wikipedia? I also found talkpages. Is it like a social networking site or just an encyclopedia? I know people who have used Wikipedia, but I haven't talk with them about Wikipedia. I am interested in sports, mainly in cricket. I've edited cricket-related articles & I want to contribute more. Cheers! The gen-X (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say how many people edit WP, as it's deliberately designed to allow anyone to edit it. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, although in the course of doing work on it editors tend to talk to each other about a variety of subjects in order to further their work and build links. Atricle talkpages are usually used purely to discuss the content of the article itself, while user talkpages such as this one are used to talk about a variety of subjects - have a flick through the archive here if you would like more of an idea. Editors also band together to form wikiprojects - small workgroups that specialise in a partucular area. There's one on cricket that you can find at WP:CRIC. You might want to team up with them, offer your help and see where the current areas of focus are. I'm sure your help there will be appreciated! Hope all this helps, but please feel free to drop by if you have any more questions. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a cool place. I will follow your advice. Cheers! The gen-X (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article WayForward Technologies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Vishnava _talk 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Glad to know it got accepted! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maressa Orzack, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Vishnava _talk 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Could you merge {{Verror-mn}} to {{Verror-m}} like you did the other templates? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. {{Verror-m}} has now been updated with an article switch. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Flush Left

Thank You for the advice. You still didn't answer me if it is possible to flush a Template to appear at the left side, either in the template or at the article place it is placed. Shoteh (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true! I'll give you some examples, using a photo I took. [[Image:Nash Point West.jpg|100px|left]] places the image on the left, as so:

While [[Image:Nash Point West.jpg|100px|right]], places it on the right, like so:

Hope this helps!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)