User:Fvw/TalkArchive/10

This page has been archived, please do not edit it. New talk and comments on this talk go on my talk page.

Sorry

My apologies for this edit at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. It was careless of me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it was bold. These things are bad when the issue is one of disagreement over meaning, but language errors don't matter, that's what the whole collaborative editing is for. for trying to improve WP:3RR. --fvw* 02:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Molovinsky

Michael Molovinsky - Any reason why you removed nn-bio? --NeilN 05:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Running as a mayoral candidate could be seen as a claim to notability. When in doubt, VfD. --fvw* 05:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think he does have a claim to notability. He is an official candidate who's name will appear on the balot. He also will participate in the debates with the other two candidates. In Allentown he is gaining popularity and regular appears on local talk radio.

are you cool and funny? i like cool and funny people... why did you try and delete my entry? i was just researching blog law.

RFC

I've deleted that RFC; it had hardly any response, and seemed to have been abandoned within hours of its creation. Radiant_>|< 10:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Hello. Well, he did present Have I Got News for You a couple of times, which would mean he's eligible for inclusion in Category:British television presenters. However, being a "panellist, not to mention an interviewee" does not qualify him for inclusion in the parent Category:British television (otherwise that category would be full of politicians, because they've been interviewed!). I'm trying to recategorise articles in this category into their relevant subcats (if you feel like helping ouit, I'll be more than happy...). If you still think that the presenters cat is inappropriate, Johnson will have to be removed from the hierarchy altogether. The JPS 11:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I've reverted myself. Thanks for spelling it out for me. --fvw* 11:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, do we want to put all the guest presenters in the presenters cat? It does kind of dilute it with lots of people who aren't really presenters but just happen to have done something where they're really more of a guest but doing it in the formal style of a presenter. Still, I'll leave that up to you, you've obviously given this some thought. --fvw* 11:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well none of the other guest presenters are in that category (having just checked the list at HIGNFY - other than those, of course, who are presenters in their own right), so I guess it would be best to remove him. The JPS 11:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Vincent Venom's Creature Feature

Yeah I think you're right, it isn't a quickie (but vfds are so slow I sometimes interpret the quickie policy a little liberally...) Cdyson37 12:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

WikiThanks

Aw, thank you so much. The comments regarding my early RFA voting were long overdue. I have to go down the list of my first contributions to see if I offended anyone else. x_x Thanks again. :P Acetic Acid (talk) 12:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hi Fvw, I wanted to inform you that your edit to the Kraftwerk article ([1]) was reverted because I believe a compromise has already been reached. And btw, it does say that they were influential in the Guardian article, just see the 7th paragraph. ;) Regards, Andylkl ^(talk) 13:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Valladaras

Hi Fvw. Let me clear up some points

• A "consensus" to delete implies a general agreement, and to me, a single voice cannot really constitute that, so when I close VFD debates without any votes apart from the nomination, I send them back to VFD for further discussion. It is not a way of saying that your reason for wanting the article deleted is wrong.
  • Yup, I totally agree with that, sorry if that didn't come across. While it's true that not only did I have consensus but I was unanimous, more opinions are necessary, especially for something that isn't exactly clear-cut.
• I decided to mention the subst:vfd vs vfd because I noticed that the link to the debate was red. That was a reminder targeted at everyone, and not just you.
  • Ok, I still don't agree but by all means remind those you've convinced.
• There are about a thousand articles around with VFD tags on them, and it is a load on the server if all of them need to be transcluded.
  • Not that much really. VfDed articles get very little traffic on the grand scale of things, if you want to talk major load savings, try substing stuff like {{current}} and the main page templates. We could subst in lots of templates, and yes it would save CPU cycles, however in the long run the software is working for us and not the other way around. Transcluded templates are the right thing to do design-wise. If using this feature causes load problems (which it doesn't, the load problems were caused by people editing meta-templates that were included on huge numbers of pages like the meta-stub template) we need to either fix the servers/software or decide that for stuff like tags transclusion isn't technologically feasible (which would be bollocks, but at least we'd be consistant in our bollocks).
• It wasn't my idea to start a revert war on the VFD template... I have never edited it.
  • Nope, I didn't mean to imply that, just venting a little, sorry you got in the way.

Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Pretty much everyone's, --fvw* 13:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed that you were going through vandalism problems, so I'll put your page on my watchlist.

Could you please change my username from User:Dbraceyrules to User:V.Molotov. Thanks, D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! re: User:Andres.

I'm not sure that WP:AIV was the correct place to report that. For future reference, where should I report such impersonators? Was WP:VIP the right place? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For the clear-cut cases like this WP:AIV is fine as far as I'm concerned, if you're a little flexible in reading Wikipedia:Vandalism you can include imposter usernames as either sneaky vandalism or changing people's comments. If it's not absolutely crystal clear that it's an intentional impersonation WP:AN/I would probably be the correct venue. --fvw* 19:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

subst:vfd

Can I just remind you to subst: the VfD tag? It's especially important at the moment as the templates are being changed fairly often and not-substing means the links break when the template is changes. Thanks. -Splash 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There were quite a few of your nominations with redlinks in the VfD tags. I've cleaned them all up. subst: is always good for VfD, but especially at the moment.-Splash 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Everybody subst:s the vfd tag! Even the instruction on WP:VFD ask for it to be subst:'d. It reduces server load and, at the moment, circumvents any revert wars on the templates. I'm not sure I quite understand. Not subst:ing must have produced nearly 10 broken VfD tags yesterday. My comment was not a comment on the current rename question, just a reminder that we are asked to subst: the VfD templates, so I'm not sure of why the section 3 up from here is related. -Splash 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A little further down in the rant, I meant this bit:

• • • Not that much really. VfDed articles get very little traffic on the grand scale of things, if you want to talk major load savings, try substing stuff like {{current}} and the main page templates. We could subst in lots of templates, and yes it would save CPU cycles, however in the long run the software is working for us and not the other way around. Transcluded templates are the right thing to do design-wise. If using this feature causes load problems (which it doesn't, the load problems were caused by people editing meta-templates that were included on huge numbers of pages like the meta-stub template) we need to either fix the servers/software or decide that for stuff like tags transclusion isn't technologically feasible (which would be bollocks, but at least we'd be consistant in our bollocks).

--fvw* 13:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok. You evidently don't like subst: for some reason. But lately redlinks in VfD tags have resulted in split VfD debates and confusion among newbies over why they are looking at either a redirect for editing or a blank page. Since the templates seem to have stabilised, I suppose the problem has largely gone away. Although I suppose you must have been subst:ing vfd2 and vfd3 (or not using them) since otherwise the VfDs wouldn't have been editable by non-admins. -Splash 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with subst, but only for stuff where it's necessary and labour-saving, not for all tags. This wouldn't have caused any trouble with the namechange if people hadn't been so overeager to change the name and thought it out first. (The correct order of doing this was 1) bot-move all discussions from VfD to AfD leaving the redirects 2) change the template 3) optionally remove the redirects if nothing links to them. That way no links would have been broken and that nasty edit war on template:vfd presumably wouldn't have occurred). As for vfd2 and vfd3, you're right, I don't use them, I find it's less typing to just type and copy+paste the header myself. If I did use them I'd have no problem with substing them though, because as you point out, there's a technical reason why it's necessary. Hope that clears things up. --fvw* 13:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. And you're right about how the VfD namechange should have been done. Some people are a little to...err...bold. -Splash 13:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Omega Red pic

Heya, on what grounds is Image:OMEGAR.JPG a speedy deletion candidate? --fvw* 05:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T-1000"

I think it is a copyright violation. It is Dave Dervies' personal artwork (not a comic cover or panel), of which he plan to sell on his website. Nobody asked his permission of whether or not it could be on wikipedia or not. T-1000 02:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you'll have to take it to WP:CP or WP:IFD, speedy deletion is just for pages that fulfill one of the speedy deletion criteria. --fvw* 13:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cameron wilson

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the Cameron Wilson article as speedy, do you think you could do the same to his original Cameron wilson? Otherwise, from what I've seen of this character he'll probably revert the redirect that's there now back to his 1,000 word eulogy to himself. Thanks in advance PubLife 14:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I've been forgetting to check what links here far too often. Thanks for your vigilance! --fvw* 14:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for getting rid of the Ego so switfly! PubLife 14:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bavarian Reaction 1920

Okay maybe it's not a quickie (in fact looking at the criteria it isn't - I'm sorry), however I do strongly believe it should be deleted. The original article was a one liner and totally incoherent, and subsequent edits are antisemitic. Perhaps the Kapp Putch page should have something about Bavarian reaction on it, but not this - there's virtually no content and no reason to suspect any degree of accuracy. -- Cdyson37 14:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There's more than one tool in the box. Why not merge the content that's there and turn it into a redirect, or if you see nothing salvagable, take it to WP:VfD. --fvw* 14:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

VfDed. I've left the merge suggestion there, we'll see what people think. I promise not to use speedy without citing a specific valid criterion in future! -- Cdyson37 14:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Grumpy Old Man

I don't understand why you removed the CSD tag on this article. It's clearly an attack on elderly gentlemen. It is flooded with stereotypes. There is a movie called Grumpy Old Men, which would be fine to write about. But this isn't a movie. It's nonsense. Acetic'^Acid 16:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

POV violations aren't CSDs, and I don't think this qualifies as an attack page. We have lots of pages describing stereotypes, many of which have passed VfD. Still, feel free to give it (vfd) a shot. --fvw* 16:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll leave it alone for now. I just don't think the editor's intentions were good while writing it. As for AIW, I'm surprised I haven't been kicked out yet after all the speedies and VfDs I've done. :P Acetic'^Acid 16:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Don't let this stop your from VfDing it, I'd be the first to agree that as it stand it's a terrible article, it's just not a CSD that's all. As for the AIW, come to the ADW instead, our parties are much better. --fvw*

ADW? Ew... :P I've been invited by a few people to join that long acronym association. That will probably be my next move. But I have to memorize the name first. Acetic'^Acid 08:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Ok Fvw I understand, but how do you know if a person qualifys for notability. - Nathparkling

More efficient handling of indefinitely-blocked users

Hi fvw,

Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#More_efficient_handling_of_indefinitely-blocked_users. What do you think?

Images on commons

Heya, images on commons aren't speedy deletion candidates, tag them with {{NowCommons|Image:newname.ext}} instead.

Why's that? I transferred all the information there. --Eleassar my talk 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure to tell you the truth, I've been away for half a year and wasn't here when the matter was discussed. If you want to change it, the best place to take it up is Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion. --fvw* 23:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Soviet coat of arms.jpg

The new image in Commons is Image:Soviet coat of arms.png. I uploaded Image:Soviet coat of arms.jpg in a moment of weakness and I would like it deleted, please. Alr 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So it is, when I checked this afternoon it wasn't there, I might have typoed though. Moved to commons isn't a speedy deletion candidate by the way, you should use the nowcommons template for that. Still, as you're the only person to edit the page, you're entitled to a speedy delete of it, as it would appear has already happenned.

On a marginally unrelated note, I notice the version you uploaded to commons is significantly smaller in dimensions than the previous version is. Is that on purpose? --fvw* 23:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Soviet COA

No it wasn't on purpose. I just uploaded the first version of the image to replace the incorrect, though better looking version uploaded by User:Berkut. I didn't really check, I'm afraid to say. Alr 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on my Talk page; however, I'd prefer to leave up the unexpurgated version for a little while longer before dumping it into my archive. No offense, I hope. --Calton | Talk 02:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, it's your talk page. --fvw* 02:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"userfy"

hello. what is "userfy"? Kzzlfy 04:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Voting_shorthands. --fvw* 04:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

what would be the easiest way to userfy?

I'm sorry. I figured out how to set the templates up step by step. how does one set up a template linked to a category under one's user page? McVonn 04:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for a category as it's only for your page anyway, no need to clutter up the template namespace. You can include subpages of your userpage just like you include templates, make sure to specify the entire name, including the user: part. --fvw* 04:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pittenween

Pittenweem is a tiny village in Scotland. I created the article because it is refered to at my article Unreformed House of Commons. I mistakenly typed "n" instead of "m". That's all. I don't mind what you do with it. Adam 04:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your rapid reversion of my user page. I've been quite busy and haven't been doing much RC patrol, so it's been a while since my page was vandalized. I was beginning to feel unloved. Although it was nice of this vandal to leave my WP:MCOTW and Cleanup Taskforce templates in place. Anyway, nice to see you around again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

hola

JK said it was cool to use dzl lang code. [2]. I'm going to bed for tonite. I'll be back tomorrow evening or the next day. McVonn 06:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was a miscommunication or he was mistaken, you have to put it as a subpage of your user page. --fvw* 07:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

Thanks for saving me the hassle of reverting that odd little bit of spamming/vandalism/whatever on my talk page. I'm agog at the fact you did it within four minutes of it having been posted! What witchery or dark art is this?!
Cheers, Silverhelm 06:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The trick is reading Special:Recentchanges. --fvw* 08:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

sorry about that

Sorry, somehow my anti-willy pagemove block bot got you, even though all admins are supposed to be automatically excluded. My apologies. -- Curps 07:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what it was. Cool, but you shouldn't be running it before getting Wikipedia:Bots approval though. --fvw* 07:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to exclude all admins... somehow I left your name off the list. I'll go back to Wikipedia:List of administrators and make sure I've got everyone. I realize it's dangerous to run an automated block bot, but it's extremely effective against Willy. It's blocked the last 11 or 12 incarnations, usually after less than 20 or so pagemoves. The last time a traditional block of a Willy incarnation was done (User:Dieseldrinker), he made about 200 page moves before he was stopped and it took hours to clean up. -- Curps 07:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I did post about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Basically the Willy pagemove vandalism was getting to be an emergency, he's now capable of doing about 90 pagemoves per minute. Traditional blocking with a reaction time of several minutes doesn't suffice anymore. We really need pagemove throttling... can you look into it? -- Curps 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, on the day that "Dieseldrinker" struck (August 26), Willy attacked no less than 8 times. I think he really planned something massive that day. -- Curps 07:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good idea, my point is just that AN/I is not the place to get permission for it, Wikipedia:Bots is. Page move vandalism is annoying but it's not that big a deal that we need to ignore all rules to put a stop to it. --fvw* 07:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Willy has ramped up his attacks, he's automated them to go much faster than before. I did mention about 90 pages a minute, no?

Cleaning up the Dieseldrinker mess took several admins and non-admins a couple of hours. Just ask User:Ahoerstemeier how much fun it was. And when it was done, Willy tried to strike again. That's just too much to cope with. It's a full-scale emergency. I did not seek approval at Wikipedia:Bots, I just announced it at AN/I, and believe me, nobody involved in the Willy cleanup objected. See the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anyone_else_getting_tired_of_this.3F. I do plan to continue running it, even when I'm not around to supervise it... it's simply a necessity. If you wish to raise the issue somewhere, you're free to do so.

PS, I think the problem was, you're still listed as "inactive" on Wikipedia:List of administrators. I'll add every admin there to the no-block list, including the inactive ones. That should fix it. My apologies once again. You must have been using an automated process to do that many page moves, I set the threshold quite high. -- Curps 07:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was on the cleanup, that barnstar on my user page isn't just there because it looks pretty. I'm still going to have to ask you to get permission the proper way and disable the blocker until then. And no, I was manually moving pages. --fvw* 07:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm declining to do so. I will keep running the block bot. I have now set the threshold considerably higher, this should be sufficient to avoid triggering on any manual page moves, and I've added all the "inactive" admins to the do-not-block list. This should be enough to prevent nearly all collateral damage.

You may disagree, but please think very carefully before taking any action to block the bot (which by necessity runs under my account, as it needs admin privilege)... abstract principles are nice, but there is an urgent need to prevent massive vandalism on a scale that we simply could not cope with.

Once again, we are no longer dealing with the traditional Willy pagemove vandalism from previous months. He always used to stop after about 40 or so pages. Sometimes we didn't even block him in time, he just stopped of his own accord. Some say that he was simply loading pagemoves into Mozilla tabs and doing a series of 40 or so manually. However, the "Dieseldrinker" incarnation ran at a rate of about 90 pagemoves a minute and did not stop until blocked. This is far more than we can cope with using traditional methods. We urgently need some kind of pagemove throttling or pagemove undo.

If you wish to raise the issue anywhere else other than at AN/I, feel free to do so. An RfC perhaps, if you wish. In the meantime I will keep running the bot. I urgently request that you do not block it (me)... if you did, I would most likely unblock myself.

-- Curps 08:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and no, I'm not volunteering to write the mediawiki limit, I'm not even editing here anymore, I've just lapsed slightly. --fvw* 07:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your barnstar, yes I'm certain you have participated in past Willy cleanups, as have I and many others. However, I just took a look through your contributions history and I notice you were inactive most of the day on August 26. It's that specific day I'm referring to. Please page though Special:Log/move for August 26 and see what happened. He launched eight attacks, the first one moved 200 pages, and the other seven were all blocked by my bot before they could do similar damage. Take a look at just how long it took to clean up Dieseldrinker's mess... several users and admins took a few hours to clean up what he did in only 2 1/2 minutes. Once again, this is not the traditional Willy pagemove vandalism... he has taken it to another level. -- Curps 08:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for getting rid of the vanadalism from my user page! --G Rutter 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

delete/vfd

My apologies. I didn't realize {{delete}} is for speedy delete, it seems a bit wrong since I'd think most things would be vfd candidates and not speedy delete canidates (it's been a while since I've used either). I saw the box after saving the page and figured it had to be right :P Ash Lux 11:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

re: 3RR

If you're referring to my reversions on Urdu language, I believe the edits I reverted fall under 'Sneaky vandalism - Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.' They were done by anonymous IP's with no explanation whatsoever and using misleading edit summaries (such as [3]). - ulayiti (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how "clean" is a misleading edit summary, though you may disagree with it of course. Whether edits are made anonymously or logged in has no bearing on whether they are vandalism. Everyone who edit wars thinks that the opposing party is adding misinformation or misleading content, otherwise there wouldn't be an edit war. We have plenty of methods of solving disagreements, WP:DR is there and if you want to avoid an edit war you can try WP:RFPP. Being right or disagreeing with the person you're edit warring against doesn't mean 3RR violations will be tolerated however. --fvw* 21:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re. CSD

My apologies. I saw the history, but I misinterpreted CSD criterion A1. In any event, I've VFD'ed it, and my guess is that it will be deleted. We really should have a policy on news articles, whether it be to transwiki to Wikinews, or something. ral315 13:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bike Friday

On WP:VFU, you wrote: In hindsight, it wasn't a speedy, mea culpa. If anyone wants it undeleted and VfDed post a message to my talk page. --fvw* 08:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC).

If it wasn't a speedy deletion candidate, please undelete it, and place it on VfD (AfD) if you think it should be so placed. DES ^(talk) 14:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Dbpsmith has already replaced it with an excellent article, but I've undeleted the two revisions in history. --fvw* 22:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fordson high school

Hi, this article that you listed for deletion yesterday has been extensively rewritten. Thought you might like to look at it again and comment. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: bureaucrat

Hahaha, thanks! Andre (talk) 18:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sandbot

Whee... the Sandbot has a set of tools to play with. It can rake the sandbox for you now! --AllyUnion (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, glad to see it back. --fvw* 22:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

He's back!

You're back, you're back! And not only for one day either. You've been busy for a while, now. I take a little wikivacation and look what happens.  :-) Hmm... do you think it would be appropriate to move you from inactive (#38) to active? SWAdair | Talk 18:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I had lots of important things I had to avoid doing :-). I've moved myself to a more appropriate section of the list. Welcome back from wikivacation. --fvw* 22:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re International Emergency Economic Powers Act

This is the name of the act that appears in executive orders and other official contexts. I'd like to move Trading with the Enemy Act to the formal name, but first the redirect I created has to be removed. Gazpacho 18:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

While I don't think Acid (talk · contribs) is necessarily wrong in moving Milky Way to Milky Way Galaxy, I do think that his obsessive move warring (see contribs) without discussion is disruptive. He's been warned about page moves three times in the last five days on his talk page but TTBOMK the user has failed to respond to repeated queries. Can the user be blocked for disruption, or is there a better way of dealing with this? --Viriditas | Talk 11:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's had enough warnings now yes. There's no reason to block him now however, he may just not have logged in to wikipedia recently. If he returns and resumes the page moves a block would seem appropriate in my view, but let's hope that it's ended here. --fvw* 22:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Steven Kerckhoff

I'd query the aggressiveness of this deletion. Our A7 CSD requires "no assertion of notability" and currently that links to Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which says:

Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

The text of the deleted article said this guy is a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan. This sounds like an assertion of notability that should at least have been examined on VfD. For example the article on Nicholas Humphrey originally only said:

Nicholas Humphrey was born in England in 1943. He received his Ph. D. in Psychology from Cambridge University in 1968. Dr. Humphrey currently holds a School Professorship at the London School of Economics as well as a half-time Professorship at the New School for Social Research in New York.

The current version, needless to say, gives rather a lot more information on what has been an extremely fruitful, if rather eclectic, career.

Anyhow this is the kind of thing I expect to find on VfD, really. I've checked and on the face of it Kerckhoff has some small but serious claim to notability. Along with Gunnar Carlsson, Ralph Cohen, and Jim Milgram, he was instrumental in developing the California Mathematics Academic Content Standards for the State Board of Education, the controversy over which is discussed in Big Business, Race, and Gender in Mathematics Reform, by Steven Krantz (ISBN 0821813986). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Post script: I checked again and it appears that this must be a different Steven Kerchoff (though I did search the Michigan directory and drew a blank). The date of birth given is far too late for the Steve Kerchoff described here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. --fvw* 22:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

derek garcia

please add me back if you can (my name is Derek Garcia) .. i think you recently deleted my existence from wikipedia. thanks! :)

Please see WP:VANITY. --fvw* 22:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Open Proxies

I want to investigate some recent vandalism coming from many IPs, I saw your note on User:Func's talk page, I would appreciate any scripts that help test for open proxies. Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to test a specific IP for an open proxy but you don't know on which port, your best best bet is to search for the IP on the web with google. If it finds something in a "list of open proxies" it'll usually include a port and you can try editing wikipedia through that proxy; if it works you can block it indefinitely. If that fails, you can also try port scanning the host to find open proxy ports. Try nmap. --fvw* 22:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got nmap here somewhere <rummage>. Rich Farmbrough 22:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, Fvw. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I appreciate your feedback and I will try my best to keep your criticisms and suggestions in mind in the future. Andre (talk) 05:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

About my RfA

Hi Fvw, just a quick note to tell you that, though you opposed my adminship nomination, I appreciate the fact that you made public your concerns about me. I have been made an admin nonetheless, and I will of course act my best to prove your fears wrong. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 07:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this is one of those cases where the community knows best, congratulations on your adminship and if you need a hand with anything on the technical side of adminship feel free to ask. --fvw* 22:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)