User talk:Savidan/Archive 3

RfA Results and Thanks

Savidan/Archive 3, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tips about citing sources and how to run inherency attacks and a disad. I now realize that there is a similar page called stock issues. How would I delete the page titled stock issue? Thanks again. Jim16 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Stock Issue

Hello, this is Jim16. How is the fact that if you attack inherency, you cannot run a disadvantage bullshit, exactly. I would really like to know. Thanks. Jim16 03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cimarron article split

You recently suggested that the Cimarron article should be split. I have no objections to this, as long as the split is done correctly. Someone had previously split the article without any discussion and had made a mess of the three articles (no introduction to individual films, did not change links to match pages, etc.). Since I've been the principle contributor to the article, I thought I'd give you my opinion. Volatile 01:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life / Pro-choice

Hi, I saw that you saw my edits of Pro-life and Pro-choice. I invite you to review the discussion about my proposed changes at Talk:Pro-life#Proposed overhaul and Talk:Pro-choice#Proposed overhaul. I would appreciate your comments. --Hyphen5 07:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I did not try to justify my "controversial" changes (i.e., NPOV changes) by cloaking them with grammatical changes. I simply said that the article needs overhaul because it is both biased and grammatically wanting. I fixed what I thought was wrong with it. I should have done it piece-by-piece, like you said, and that is what I intend to do. --Hyphen5 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Shaaane

Hey man. --Okund 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - re "Transhumanism"

Thanks for your promotion of the transhumanism article to good article status. I expect that it will be nominated for featured article status some time soon. If at any time you have thoughts about how to improve the article further, I'm sure they'd be welcomed by its contributors. Metamagician3000 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Committee

I have moved all the templates to "Committee". It's not a good idea in the long term to use a misspelled version. -- Curps 06:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there were any double redirects, just single redirects as far as I could see. There was a problem with the first edit, which created some redlinks, but after that I think it was transparent to readers of the articles. -- Curps 07:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The usual Wikipedia article naming standard omits the use of "Sir" in article titles (for instance, Winston Churchill). In the case of Alan Budd, there was already an existing article, so I've redirected Sir Alan Budd to it. -- Curps 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You can use

<includeonly> ... </includeonly>

to do what you want. Note that <noinclude> does the opposite. -- Curps 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Francis Burton article

I thought you were a little harsh on your criteria for failing this. The only sections that lacked citations were the lead (which usually doesnt' have such) the timeline (which doesn't need such) and the section on his early life (which could perhaps use a citation in one place).

However, I wanted to question you on the moving of quotes to wikiquote. I think they looked rather nice in the article and added a flavour of the man. Is it a necessary thing to put them only in wikiquote? I prefer the look of the article with them in place. --Richard Clegg 09:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The early life, early explorations, exploring the lakes of central africa, and Kama Shastra sections are still entirely unreferenced. This is not even an issue of in-line versus references citations. The article only has inline citations so the sections without them are unreferenced.

It's fine if you want to retain a few of the more important quotes in the text of the article. If you do this please, use the {{Quotation}} formatt or a similar style and please give the quotes some context with text discussion their significance, etc. Wikipedia is not not just an indsicriminant collection of quotations, or any primary source material for that matter. Also make sure that they are duplicated on Wikiquote, as readers there are unlikely to read through the entire Wikipedia article. If there is a quotation section, then the Wikiquote link should be moved to that section as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In early explorations I reference Burton's own work, I would have thought this would be more than adequate "He describes the harrowing attack in First Footsteps in East Africa (1856)." Because it is his writing I have not used a cite notation but worked them into the article (since his writing of the book was part of his life). The Kama Shastra section is already mainly a discussion of Burton's writing -- it would seem odd to require a citation for this since it is a list of books. The quotations I provided were not indiscriminate but were selected to give an impression of the man himself, I picked them as the most descriptive of many dozens of quotes I could provide. (You just cut them and dumped them into wikiquote causing issues with the formatting and duplicating one quote already on wikiquote -- I have since fixed that and someone more familiar with wikiquote has reordered them properly). I know you were reviewing an awful lot of articles in a hurry but... Anyway, I will take the advice you have given to try to improve the article. --Richard Clegg 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

GA candidates and inline citations

Are you aware that inline citations are not among the criteria for good articles? In the future, when you oppose GA nominations, please do so accordingly to generally accepted guidelines. Mstroeck 10:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that in-line citations are required. The criteria just say "referenced" which de facto has become subjective to different editors. If you (or anyone else) disagrees with my decision, you are free to promote the article to GA status as well. I don't know exactly which article you are referring to, but usually if I fail an article it's because it has no references or very few, or far too many which appear to be dumped from google scholar. Perhaps in the comment that you are referring to, I mixed up my actual GA vote with suggestions for the article in general, which I usually make as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please just reply here, splitting up discussions gets annoying quickly. I was referring to Dromornithidae. That article has loads of references, practically all of which where used in its writing. However, when I started it, inline references weren't as standard as they are today, so I'd have to basically go through the texts again (most of which I don't have easy access to anymore) to find the exact passages. Effectively, you are saying that there are too many references in the article? If I had deleted some, so that it does not look like a "reference dump", you would have promoted it? That does not make a lot of sense. BTW, no, I can't make it a good article, because 95% were written by me. Mstroeck 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, don't delete them. Even just organizing them by any method other than Scientific/Popular would probably be OK in general, even if it didn't comport exactly the organization of the content of the article. Specifically, the Discovery and Extinction sections need specific sources in a few areas, particularly when you allude to controversy or use words like "many scientists" and "significant disagreement". Lastly, when you attribute a certain finding to an author not in the references section, you need to give the (or a) secondary source where that claim can be followed up. Hope this helps. If you do these things, I will almost certainly be willing to promote the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Thanks for your comments. Could you pass a neutral eye over the article and if possible give further suggestions to get it to GA status. Ta.Logan1138 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, theres some good suggestions there to work on. Theres some things you've mentioned (the disclaimer thing which was fan speculation of the type seen in all too many comic articles) which have/are going to be dealt with. I'll try to work on this over the next week or so Logan1138 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i edited the panel as it never really did anything for the article, if anything it belongs in the Evey Hammond page which has sprung up. I'm trying to avoid the look of 99% of comic articles which are a mass of images which don't help the article much, if at all. I have my old Warrior's sitting about which i can use to scan more images in ( the B & W images work better i feel) if we can get the basics of the article up to a GA standard. Anyhow, thanks for the comments, i have to nip off to the pub but the article is something i'll try to batter out this week. Logan1138 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Monetary Policy Committee

Is this you? I'm a bit confused about the potentially-useful template showing MPC members; where are the details sourced from? For example, Sir Alan Budd left in 1999, but appears to be there to October 2000 on the template that appears on the DeAnne Julius page. Also, some instances need trimming (like Budd's did); are you doing all of them? Help! Carbonix 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seemed useful to me. These people set the British pound, one of the world's major currencies. The composition of the Board at any given time is important, much like Supreme Court Justices, whom I modelled the template after. I got the information from the Monetary Policy Committee article. I thought I got all the errors on the template last night, but I was mistaken. I'll get rid of the remaining Budd's; let me know if there are any other errors. Sorry about the template's size. I like it best on articles like Paul Tucker, but I do intent to expand the articles of most of these people, as they are all notable as economists and other things. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good; I also agree that even the larger templates (eg DeAnne Julius) will look fine when the articles themselves are expanded, as indeed is already the case with Sir Alan Budd. I'll check for accuracy when I get the chance. My only reservation now(!) is that the heading is a bit off-key; (1) Notwithstanding the Supreme Court inspiration I don't think anyone ever refers to 'The George Bank' when refering to Eddie George's time as Governor, short and to the point though that is! (2) Also, the Title (The George Bank) and the 'subheading' within the panel showing the Governor's name and years in office seem somewhat repetitive, and (3) It may not be immediately clear what the panel covers, especially where the person has had several roles in life (again, as in Sir Alan Budd's page).

To improve all this, can I suggest we either:

• Change the heading text (in the blue border) to read: Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee Members, only having one blue panel even if the member served under two Governors (as in Paul Tucker's page), and expand the subheading in the panel itself to read something like Governor: Sir Edward George (June 1997–June 2003); OR
• Change the heading text (in the blue border) to read: Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee Members under Sir Edward George, with a blue panel for each Governor, and then remove the subheadings showing the Governors' names.

Personally I prefer the first option. Sorry all this is so long, but I hope I have at least explained it clearly, and that any change adopted won't cause too much work! Will be interested in your views; this template is an overdue initiative - thanks again. Carbonix 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How about chaing the heading to Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee and adding "Governor:" to the small link, and changing the color of this row to a slightly lighter blue. Then "The X Bank" can be removed. This is likely to be nontrivial, so I'll make sure that you are OK with it before changing it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a fine solution. Just to show that it'll work, the current page for David Clementi doesn't even mention the MPC, but after these changes all will become clear! Note that if you put the dates of Governorship in the template, Eddie George was Governor from 1993 to 2003 (that is, before the MPC was started). Thanks for asking my views; given the work involved, do you want to do it for just one page before committing yourself to doing the whole lot (not sure how it all works!)? Carbonix 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The template is shared by all the pages so that's not an issue. It's on my to do list. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

May I politely butt in? I was thinking of saying myself that "The George Bank" is not quite right: what's there now is better. Could I also suggest that the table is compressed a bit? I would cut each name down to a surname only (failing that, and following the SCOTUS example, initial and surname). As this box is already huge after just 9 years of the MPC, I think this would help to make it more manageable. Also bear in mind these people do not "set the British pound"!! Gabriel R 10:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there; yes, a much improved layout by His Excellency Mr Savidan. The ability to work out who was on the committee at the same time, and to jump to their entry, is now exemplary.

OK, OK, so they set sterling interest rates, not exchange rates...; I think Savidan's point above was simply that the people were important. The article itself is accurate.

I take your point that the box is "huge", but I would have thought that shortening the names will only compress the table horizontally - and all nine names fit on one line already (even with long names, see June 2000-September 2000), at least for 'normal' screen settings. And for clarity, there surely needs to be one line per change of committee? As I feel the full names are much easier to assimilate, and they fit on one line already, I think the template actually works better than the SCOTUS example.

Also, if it makes you feel better(!), the box is only huge for the MPC page itself (where there should be a complete record) and for a few important long-standing members (ditto). For most members of the committee, the box is quite short (e.g. Alan Budd, Howard Davies) and the box will be less dominant when we finish writing the text for all the newer pages (such as for Ian Plenderleith) ! Carbonix 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Carbonix. They are much appreciated. I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to change it to surnames only, although I don't think that would address Gabriel's issue with the vertical length. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding actually that the box does break over the line in several places, so I think that cutting the names horizontally will make it shorter vertically. It will also just make the thing look less cluttered. The names are easier to assimilate in full, but they are also listed in full above on the MPC page. The idea surely is to work out who was on the committee at any one time, which is a good idea but not one that has to be so expansive.

In a worst-of-all-worlds situation, I've started cutting the names back, and then run out of time tonight. I tried leaving the name in full when the person joins the committee, but I'm inclined to say we should cut even this as it doesn't add much. Have a look and see what you think.

Can I also suggest that we continue this discussion on the MPC talk page? In that spirit I'm putting another suggestion over there, to try to kick this over where more people will see it and to prevent this proliferation of opinions not joining together. Gabriel R 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued at Talk: Monetary Policy Committee. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

GA/N Reviewing

When you review articles applying for WP:GA on WP:GA/N, please remember to follow all the steps in the process. I am specifically talking about the nomination for Softball, in which you forgot to remove it from the list (confusing me when I got there in the list). -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the new procedure confused me. I think I've got it now. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Savidan. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

Hello. Thanks for your kind comments in regards to my work on the Wikipedia and within the Scouting realm on it.

The current Order of the Arrow article and the safeguard issues are governed by consensus arbitrarily decided by the Scouting WikiProject and several administrators who camp out on the article. Unfortunately, you won't be able to budge them on the secrecy/safeguard issues. I've tried for a long time to do so, which is why I'm sure you're talking to me.

Personally, I think the article needs a rewrite, but I'm not too sure that it would ever be accomplished. What I'd like to see at Order of the Arrow is something similar to what I did with Firecrafter, but who knows?

If you have particular ideas you'd like to float, feel free to drop me a line. KC9CQJ 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So, what in particular do you have in mind? KC9CQJ 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have IM capacity, feel free to send me one using KC9CQJ as my screen name or use kc9cqj|AT|gmail.com. I'll be around for a bit.KC9CQJ 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued on Talk: Order of the Arrow. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

Barnstar Brigade The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date: "Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Information Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The last AC meeting (full log) The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly. A plea from the editor... The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

I understand your annoyance at what happened on Pope Pius XII but the solution you tried, namely wholescale removal of controversial text, always invariably is like throwing a lit cigarette into a gas container. It usually makes edit wars worse. From experience over 4 years I've found that the best solution is to leave the original article alone and create a forked article as a copy, and work to achieve a consensus through line-by-line in the forked version. The extremist headbangers usually don't go near it; they usually keep their inane fighting to the main live article (a touch of ego or something to see themselves live). Usually the serious people on both sides work on the draft and more often than not achieve a consensus. Then when the draft is ready, propose a vote to replace the original live version with the new one, combining the edit histories.

Doing it that way usually can achieve a consensus. The fact that it isn't live keeps the headbangers away, and people usually are less likely to revert and more likely to consult and work together. I'd suggest that approach rather than simply mass deletions of the original. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The best tactic is to leave the version as it was, and start afresh on a fork page to work on it there. If you do changes and then do a fork, people go to the fork for a fight over the edits on the main pages and it starts off on the wrong footing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Would you mind if I added One-letter English words and List of two-letter English words to your AfD nom for List of three-letter English words? I think that we should make a group decision for these. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to list them of course, but please don't add them to the already running AFD. I've found bundled AFDs to be nothing but trouble (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination)). Also I think there's a bit of a quality gap between the articles. --kingboyk 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Succession of Nobel laureates

I think such a relation would be better be served by a list/template rather than a succession box. Like a collapsable templated listing all the nobel laureates for a particular discipline by decade.--Jiang 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

LOL, I'm with you simultaniously. T K E 06:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

VFV images

The table was broken on my browser (Safari), I checked another computer as well, at it was distorted on that too. Both were Apple's, and were maximised. Chances are all the cast images will be removed later on anyway, if images are put back into the plot, as there would be too many, and thus pple would bitch about it not being fair use. Cheers Cvene64 07:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by this: but I think that the section breaking we have no is irreducably bad as well. Cvene64 08:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what your getting at here..but anyway, when the finch image was added and floated...the table was thrown all over the place...hope that clears things up. Cvene64 08:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know the section line is cut short...but that is better than the entire section being in a mess. Cvene64 08:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. When I came accross it, it had the third image as well as being floated, so I dont know, I can find out, but will have to later on as I gotta go, so I will get back to you on this. Cvene64 08:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Project

I am glad you joined and appreciate your input, but Scouting Project members don't generally put stuff up for deletetion/merge/etc via normal Wiki processes because non-Scouters usually don't understand what we are trying to accomplish and haven't read our talks. We prefer to use: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Todo under "current issues" OR the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Todo. We've often had non-project people try to change articles/delete cats/etc and they often don't know what they're talking about. Chris (the guy who created the articles you object to) has been a major contributor and was acting upon a previous Scouting Project decision to structure things by country. I see his point that so what if they're cookie cutter--articles have to start somewhere. I also see yours. The only other proposal I've seen on that afd that makes any sense is by Xorox. The others don't understand the gestalt of our project. In the future, please make such proposals within the project's own pages. Rlevse 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC), Scouting Project Coordinator

No problem. Like I said before, I can see both sides of this. And I admit, Scouting in the Vatican City is a stretch, so I would not object to that article going, but I don't want the other ones to go, or alternatively, to use Xorox's proposal. Rlevse 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Savidan-All I am saying is that the World Organization of the Scout Movement is pretty specific about which countries don't have Scouting. I can't say about the Vatican, I would agree with you. But I have evidence of Scouting in the other countries you propose to delete, in the form of their national badges, which I plan to scan up when I get the computer working. I know those all have the same info, I planted them as seeds to encourage others to add to. Chris 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That would defeate the purposeful and very intentional idea that someone from those nations would seek out and edit the article on their own country, and it will make incomplete the lists, articles and templates that the Scouting WikiProject has been so diligent on compiling and completing.

A corellary to this would be that since Scouting in Vermont and Scouting in South Dakota have essentially stock articles at the moment, with nothing to set them apart, would we create an article "Scouting in places without very good articles"? No, it would leave gaps where there is a political entity with Scouting. Recognized or not, this is also the case with the national articles.

Having heard from you, I no longer believe this to be a bad faith nomination, but I still maintain even a merger into a bulk article to be ill advised, for the reasons stated above. I must stand against any deletions or mergers, and for the status quo ante. Chris 18:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film)

Hello Savidan, if I'm not mistaken, you were heavily involved with the V for Vendetta (original graphic novel) GA. Which means.... I believe... that you know the technical side of things and are also familiar with the subject matter too! (Me thinks is a rare combination!) :) Do you think you could comment on the V for Vendetta (film) article, from a quality perspective? Maybe veteran tips and what you think the top three things would be with the article that would stop a GA nomination for it, dead in it's tracks? Right now, it's getting hard for us to focus, mainly because of the varying opinions of where we should go next. For example, there is the issue of general structure of the article. As well as how long a synopsis should be. Also, I think it's unclear as to how the Modern Dystopia section should be formed. (Does it seem to POV?) (Does the Political reception sound too POV?) These last two issues I believe are more unique to this article than say something like Blade Runner... which probably doesn't have as heavy of a political component. (Maybe I'm exaggerating the poi componenet here, who knows.) Anyways, any advice would be most welcomed. Cheers. --P-Chan 09:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. In reading my request again, I couldn't help but noticed that I may have sounded a little pushy. Just so you know there is no pressure or anything. The best to you! --P-Chan 09:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Savidan, I have a question concerning Good Articles. If you nominate and article for either a Feature or Good Article, and then fail, is there a penalty for the next time you re-nominate the article next time? I'm guessing the answer is no, and that the only thing preventing you from reapplying would be to make the changes recommended in the review. If this is the case, then I think the V for Vendetta (film) may just be about ready for an GA nomination. However, if there is a penalty of sorts, then maybe we'll go with a peer review. --P-Chan 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. So I'm guessing that the GA nomincation could be another way of gaining feedback and direction for an article. If there is no penalty, then I believe that hte VFV(film article) is at a state that it could be qualified as a GA. If not, we could at least get some feedback. Out of curiosity, I've never seen the original GA comments from the V for Vendetta (Original Graphic Novel) article. (I've only seen yours.) Where do the evaluators post their comments on whether or not a GA article passes or fails? Thanks for your help. --P-Chan 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the GA certainly sounds a lot less daunting than the FA, if it's just one person on the talk page. Based on what you've said, I can't think of a reason not to just have a GA now. If we fail it attracts more expert reviews, it's renewable, and it gets everyone thinking towards in the same direction. I'll launch one for the article in the next 24 hours, if none of the major editors object. Thanks Savidan. (BTW, I'll probably take a look at the VFV article in a few weeks and try to help in the progress there.) At least one of the articles should make FA by November 5th. :) Cheers. --P-Chan 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA and September 11 (book)

Thanks for the comment on your promotion of this article - I worked pretty hard on it, and I think it was one of the more spectacular AFD saves! Have you considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles? You seem to do quite a few GA reviews, which are all definitely appreciated! I also really like the way you've put the "green dots" by your specific contributions on your user page - it's nice to see the GA system finding another use, and I think people should feel proud of the GAs they achieve. Hopefully it will encourage people to write more good quality articles, especially since the green dots can be collected that much easier than the pointy stars! I also like your "newbie-welcoming" userbox - I have been wondering recently, as I have become more aware of the very many different aspects of Wikipedia, whether our welcome system pays too much attention to editing articles (and creating new ones - which often leaves newbies getting "stung" with speedy deletes...) and not enough to the multitude of tasks Wikipedia needs done. We need people to fact-check, people to copyedit, "sorters" who categorize and stub-cat, photographers, map-makers, people with web design skills who can makeover some of our pages... since I haven't really worked on the "newbie patrol", I wondered if someone who maybe did a little more of it also thought we weren't being holistic enough? TheGrappler 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the warnings - it must really put some people off! It's a shame the welcome template (or WP:WELCOME, which isn't in a good state at the moment) doesn't include a list of some of the more popular, currently active projects - I think that might help people find their feet - or non-article-writing tasks available. Then again, there is also the risk of information overload!

Hopefully GA will eventually be turned from proposal to policy (it's been ticking along nicely for 6 months) and then more people will get to know about it. I like the way it works, though. Oh, and welcome to the WikiProject :-) TheGrappler 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter! (or whatever it is that you celebrate)

Just sending some chocolate bunnies from one fellow WP:ME (Middle-earth) member to another. :) —Mirlen 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter! But even if you don't celebrate it (like me), you should still try the delicious chocolate! —Mirlen 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

RfD

On 25 January, you tagged the redirect Al Mkhir for deletion, but you did not list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I have added it to that page for discussion. You may wish to add a comment there if you still wish to see this redirect deleted. In the future, if you nominate a redirect for deletion, please list it. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Flcelloguy's Tool

It should be working now, but I had to change the port, so try the directions at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool#Quick-start directions again. --AySz88^-^ 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm..... So you can't load http://midnightteamspeak.servegameDOTcom:8080/ at all? --AySz88^-^ 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try http://midnightteamspeak.servegameDOTcom:9876/ ? --AySz88^-^ 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Please don't bite the newcomers

Thank you for your message, and I appreciate the concern. Let me assure you, however, that this is nowhere near a case of WP:BITE. I must assume you're not up on history; if you will read the user's talk page, you will see that he just apologized for months of vandalism, both when signed in and when not. Believe me, I will be just as pleased as anyone—and just as WP:CIVIL—to see this editor continue to make additions that we and our readers can count on. RadioKirk talk to me 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Navigation Box color

I solved the problem of using optional colors for {{NavigationBox}}. See Template talk:NavigationBox#Template color.—Markles 15:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius photo

Here is the source: [1] Good luck on the FA nomination.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

oK

But then please stop hating Serbia like you did in article about Milosevic,because those filthy comments are not usefull to anyone.

I will understand and support if you want to add Bler and Clinton to the list of "War Criminals" for all those civilians(over 1000) that were killed by NATO bombsDzoni 01:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:DRV

Yeah, I'm not happy with the result of that DRV as the discussion was characterized by straw man arguments("So you're saying we should call it all German children born during the third reich? That's a bad idea.."). Anyways, try not to get too stressed out. What I do, to avoid stress, is I have a to-do list, and hyperfocus on one thing at a time, so that various arguments on different page don't pileup. Anyways, happy editing, --Urthogie 07:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

wikipologists

I am lost ... what do you mean by that? Agathoclea 05:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing topics

Great to see you doing some great work on the missing topics project. Can seem a bit of a lonely project at times, considering how important it is, so hopefully the membership will start snowballing snow. I have been knocking off topics for several months, so if you have any queries about the best way to handle things, feel free to give me a shout. Pcb21 Pete 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep you are right there isn't much to it for an experienced wikipedia - just select redirect, new article or SFNI for each article. Please create a userbox and I'll put it on my userpage. I do often mention the project in my edit summaries - but so often am I making redirects (which don't appear on special:newpages) that few seem to see them :(. Pcb21 Pete 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Savidan/Archive 3, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

When on a user page or looking at a last edit comparision you'll see a colored band across the top of the frame (right now I can see one stating "Savidan has had no vandalism warnings" - if they have you see something like warn 1n 2 3n or similar with a date telling you what they've had and when. From there you can gauge what's appropriate and then just hit one button (say warn 4n) and it will revert their vandalism, then immediately move to their user page and add the warning complete with the proper edit summaries. One button and presto! ;) Does that make sense? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seem to got the hang of it ok! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it isn't your area, but you might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II, an article on the pretender to the throne of Iran. Iranian monarchists seem to want to ensure the article is an OTT hagiography and don't like even mild criticism being added in. The article needs professional salvage. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi II

Hi, may I ask why you keep removing this part:

":This article is about Prince Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, for Reza Shah, his grandfather please see Reza Shah. For other uses please see Reza Pahlavi"

The guy is called Reza Pahlavi, he is known as Reza Pahlavi, not many people know his middle name, he is linked from Reza Pahlavi disambig too, so can you please explain to me why oh why you would remove this?! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk, that disambiguation note is no longer necessary given the new title. generally such notes are never placed unless it is possible that someone typing in the name of the article would want those articles. Given that Reza Pahlavi is a disambiguation page, this is further unecessary. As you say, very few people know his middle name so if someone typed in "Reza Cyrus Pahlavi" there is 0 chance that they were looking for one of the other two. Additionally, the note is not NPOV because it is an attempt to sneak in the honorific "Prince" even though that is not a title he currently claims. Thought no one would notice, eh? :) savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you spend a few minutes listening to a few of the interviews linked in the article you will realize that almost everyone calls him "prince" but whatever, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If by almost everybody, you mean his supporters or people a decade ago, then yes... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The media (I work in it) always call current and former royalty using words like "prince" for two reasons.

• It helps soundbites sound well.
• While most republicans just roll their heads and ignore such terminology (apart from a hard core who go ballistic) monarchists, as Kashk shows, go ballistic if they aren't used and complain in their hundreds, jamming up newspaper or station lines. Using "Prince", "Princess" or whatever stops this, even when they know a particular individual is not qualified to use such a term. Reza, to give him a credit, doesn't care for such things, unlike some royalty who go nuclear if formal address terminology is not used. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Administrator Coaching The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service. This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. Stressbusters The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome! Note from the editor As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!

The last AC meeting (full log) Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof Problem

I have had that bug too, sometimes if you don't close the JavaScript error pop-ups quickly, and wait a second before "continuing running scripts", it will fix the problem. It usually works after a few tries. I hope this will be fixed in 1.2, along with some other annoying bugs. Let me know if it works (try it 2 or three times). Good luck, and happy editing! Prodego ^talk 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

CEDA-NDT

The info is now here, in a subpage from your account. Once you've finished with it you can always have it deleted under CSD U1. Cheers, Harro5 07:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some improvements

I've improved somewhat the article on Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders to make it more encyclopedic and less for Wikiquote as you suggested. I'll see if it can still be improved further. Suggest you take a look. Thanks. Thomas S. Major 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

About editing BlueFrog article

I'm sorry if I put the message wrong place, because I'm a newbie to editing Wiki, but the topic involved made me hot enough to do the edit first time.

I'm a system administrator and of course I'm also bothered with the spam problem. But the Blue Frog solution to that problem really freaks me out. What they do is using same botnet technologies as spammers supposingly do, with only difference that their bot (client) is installed by user admission. But even if building botnet such way is legal, using it for any purpose is illegal. While BlueFrog is attacking supposed spammers, many intermediate hosts and routers are affected, lots of businesses and individuals expierence technical problems with low or neglected chance to detect the real cause. Using DDoS to stop single spammer site is like throwing a nuke to the city with single terrorist and million innocent people.

I confirm that my first edition to that topic was a little bit aggressive, but I insist on putting that opinion somewhere within the article, because BlueFrog is a definite Bad Thing.

Update: more about "Please refrain from adding nonsense ..." just try to google PharmaMaster and you find it is mentioned only in context with BlueSecurity's initiated report. That's a serious consideration that it is faked up.

Absinthe FAC

You have showed interest in the absinthe article and I thought I would let you know I have decided to put it up for Featured article nomination. FAC Absinthe Ari 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Piux XII

Thanks for letting me know about the issue with the Humani Generis section. I'd copied over an old version I'd come up with of the revision to use as a guide while editing and then forgot to remove it afterwards. Should be fixed now, but do take a look and let me know. Also made a few other changes.Brendanhodge 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews

Hi Savidan, it's to make clear that it's a book title, and not the title of a Wikipedia article, as such i.e. not a statement we would endorse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts)

I have noticed that you have nominated this article for deletion. I commend you in this as I believe that all of the material that is on this page once appeared in On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). Those two articles could be merged with the excerpts constituting the final section of the "On the Jews ... (Martin Luther)" article. I will enter my feelings in the appropriate section when you set it up. Thank you for taking an interest in this article. --Drboisclair 22:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

== Interwiki AWB ==

Copied from WT:AWB#Interwiki AWB

Lets say if I wanted to remove the quote sections of all the articles for a particular TV series, add a link to wikiquote in the external links section, and create a wikiquote article consisting of all the quotes with the link redirecting to the section about that article, would there be any way to do that? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Help:Interwiki linking

[[q:Page Name]]

--E-Bod 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is better done by hand if it it uses Different Quotes, However it if is the same quote over and over again you can move it to WikiQuote and then have AWB find "XXX" and replace with [[q:Page Name]]. However if you wanted to have it create a page it seems similar to things Popups might do, however I don't use Popups so i won't know how to do it there.--E-Bod 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would recomend you do it by hand so you can properly say "Jaksons favorite "quote" talks about X Y & Z"--E-Bod 21:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pacelliordained.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pacelliordained.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...you got me. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert Pic

It's now sourced. SenorAnderson 05:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Friedrich Kittler

There you go.

I get the idea you may know more about Kittler's work than I. After all, you had obviously heard of him, and I have to admit that I hadn't. So, perhaps you could look through the article and see whether I bungled any of the technical language, or somehow misrepresented his ideas. Kelisi 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hello man, I was wondering if you could help fix a crash to the Mafia page. I messed it up royally. It is only showing up to the chart, which is what I severely compromised. thank you for the assistance.

Help 2

Specifically Mafia the party group game page.

Thank you.