User talk:Ed/Archive Apr 2007

Fenian Swine

Here here. Thanks for the vote.--Play Brian Moore 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT accusation

Would you care to substantiate your accusation at WP:RFCN with some proof? Thanks - RJASE1 ^Talk 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I make lots of comments and accusations on that page. Which one are you referring to?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap...please allow me to apologize for being a gigantic freaking moron. It wasn't you, it was someone else, and I misclicked in the discussion. Peace - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael S. Greco, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fat Buddha

The fat guy seen in statues that people often call Buddha is really Hotei. Interesting ehh? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment about starting a Wikiproject

Like I said I saw your comment, how do you go about doing it, because I've noticed that instead of each project page saying user page, or article, they say project page. I want to start a project for Kaballah; please leave a message for me. Thanks. Lighthead 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you started up a project somewhere I can't remember where; but nevermind I already started it. You're invited to join, here's the link. Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah. Thanks. Lighthead 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI

As you appear to be active at the moment and are in the Wikipedians from Chicago category, could you check out this thread if you haven't already? Thanks :) Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No policy

This may be a case similiar to the pedophile proposal. There aren't enough cases to justify it, it may be better to know then have users hide it and really do it, and theres probably WP:BEANS concerns here. -M^ask? 05:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That was kind of my point with the it'd be better to know then have the editor hide it" part of my message. If we have a policy against it, it's much more likely that they'll not say anything then mention it or come to someone for help. -M^ask?

Foreign relations

Hi. Just to let you know, I have nominated the project for deletion. My reasons are given on the discussion page, but as a courtesy I am informing you as the project's creator. Regards, Vizjim 05:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

EA

As a rule, simpler=better, particularly when, in my opinion, the alternative seems a little peculiar. "...due to the arguements that Esperanza's stress alerts program would be able to help out all of the stressed, ill, or departing Wikipedians." Did anyone say that? If so, I missed it completely. As far as I can remember, the main argument against stress alerts was that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site or a support group. Similarly, I don't think that "* Esperanza was a nice and well-intentioned idea, but it was simply impossible to implement by means of formal processes and a bureaucratic organization" really reflects community consensus, which was pretty much that Esperanza couldn't work at all. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

Ed, you've broken the three revert rule on the above page, would you please revert yourself back to the version before you last edited it so you no-longer infringe, thank you Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't revert back far enough there, but someones edited the page since so you don't have chance to now, the version it should have gone back to was the version by User:Dev920 at 16:04 UTC. Please make no further reversions to the page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1st revision, 2nd revision, 3rd revision, 4th revision. Thats breaking 3RR to me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is my revision as of now acceptable to everyone? I strongly advise all to accept this compromise. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You added Noted complaints against the organization included: into the 4th revision, same as the others so its still 3RR Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but those were different words. The first three involved Dev's version, the last few edits involved Moreschi's version. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." It doesn't matter whether the material is the same or different: edit warring is still unacceptable, as the policy makes clear. You should know better. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

After previously warning you regarding 3RR, I have blocked you for 24 hours, if you want to appeal the block, please place {{Unblock|reason for unblock}} on your talk page. When this block expires, please discuss before edit warring Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

These edits are very much different--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, anyone can see that. Stop wikilawyering. – Steel 17:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Foreign Relations WP

I would say don't panic yet, many of those have been up since January. Maybe you want to link your proposal at the talk pages of articles like Diplomacy or State Department or United Nations. But I certainly support your broad scope, and if you want to be bold, I have done that with two other WikiProjects. :) Chris 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you know what? I have been thinking about it. Be bold! You've got a great start on a project, and it will garner more. Chris 04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that this project will likely necessitate extreme vigilance to maintain WP:NPOV standards. I applaud you effort, but advise extreme care and caution in your endeavor. Best of luck, and happy editing! SkipperClipper 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Do you think that NPOV should be emphasized on WP:WPFR?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)" I think it should be, at least for now. My main reason for bringing it up it that the main page for the project doesn't exactly explain the purpose of the portal. I apologize in advance if I don't articulate this well, but basically I'm left wondering: Is the project solely an attempt explain and document foreign relation methods and participants, is it an effort to offer (in a neutral manner) the effectiveness of certain methods or participants?, or some combination of both? You don't have to answer, and I likely won't be policing you, just trying to provide some food for thought. SkipperClipper 04:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I'm trying to make the fixes you're making, at WikiProject United Nations, trying to make their stuff better, even though it is an inactive project right now. But I can't get the articles to fill into a category, like our template now automatically does. Help? Thanks, brother. Chris 19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. *sheepish grin* Chris 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

United Nations merge-in

Brother Ed! I have actually been thinking the exact same thing, but

• I haven't the beginnings of ideas how to do it
• we first have to beat the bad-faith deletion nomination

We can probably do it by actually renaming the UN project pages, but I don't have the tech skill to make it a subproject or a workgroup. Chris 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

Ed, I know you haven't got into another edit war over esparanza, but I am requesting that you discuss all changes to the page before implementing. I have said the same to Dev, it is going to get serious soon Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation

I have created a mediation page for Wikipedia:Esperanza in the above link, please read the instructions on the top of the page and right your statement of what you wish to do to the page under the appropriate heading. Regards Ryan Postlethwaite 11:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I think you should have firmly in mind that Ryan's mediation offer is the last step the Community is likely to indulge in this matter. The latest thread at WP:ANI has raised the need for you to be banned from editing Wikipedia:Esperanza in future. It is only Ryan's mediation offer that has prevented the matter being moved to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard. That said I hope your discussions with Ryan and Dev will be productive and that the issues can be resolved amicably. WjBscribe 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My sig

I don't actually go to VA Tech; I was just changing my sig in memory of the tragedy. I've clarified it now. But thanks for being a good person and caring. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial

Hi Ed, I saw your question about "Wikipedia is not a memorial" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. It's listed under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" on WP:NOT: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The shortcut for it is WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Hope this helps. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move for deletion discussion

I recently left a comment about your move request for the Esperanza deletion archives at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals. If you want to go forward with the request, please take a look. Thanks... Dekimasuよ! 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Still_Pending AfD deletion review

Hi there. You assisted me back in March with an article I edited for the young band Still Pending. There was some dispute over the images I uploaded with permission. The article and images were subsequently deleted and I never had a chance to participate in the AfD discussion. Would you mind lending your opinion to the deletion review discussion currently underway regarding this article? The discussion is here: WP:DRV#Still_Pending. Thank you. Stampsations 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you indicated an Overturn for the Still_Pending article. Will the article's original history be restored if overturn is the final result? Stampsations 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation‎

Ed, I'll get back to you tomorrow regarding your mediation statement, I've got a very poor internet connection tonight (I'm stealing it off next door!) so I haven't got enough time to address your concerns. In the mean time, any chance you could get together a proposed new essay Esperanza? Put in it everything you would like to see in it - but please don't completely change it. We can put it to the community if required. Please note, I took a long hard look at your statement before commenting, I read it quite a few time. All the best. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, seriously, the mediation can wait, I'm not going to close it or make any proposals till I've got your proposal in. Concentrate on your work, forget about wikipedia completely if needs be, real life is far more important. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Still Pending

Hi,

Request completed. :) Whenever an article is restored, the undeletion of its talk page is permitted. I usually don't do it automatically, because talk pages mostly harbor clutter. Whenever anyone asks, though, it's not a problem at all. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation and adoption

Hi Ed, I've gotmy final year project at uni in for thusday so I really haven't got timeto give full analysis on the mediation, is it ok if we wait till then? I don't want to give a poor response, it needs to be done properly. I'll get back to you on the adoption question tomorrow as I want to check the users contribs. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP lists

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists The Placebo Effect 14:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re.

hi ed, sorry but im leading the mediation on esparanza so im not willing to comment on what should be included. When i said no major changes what i meant was the odd gramatical change here and there not adding extra community views. I suggest you go back to the mediation page and take a look at other proposols that have been put forward so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)