User talk:Glen/Archive13

This page has been archived please do not edit it. If you'd like to discuss one of the topics below, do so by clicking here

Monobook Issues

Hello Glen S. As you noticed I am having major monobook issues. I've lost all the Lupin rollback links unfortunately but that is not my biggest concern. Everytime I have tried to refresh my monobook, my browser (IE 7) freezes and my comp literally crashes. I'm in a bit of a pickle as to what may fix this issue.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I have not changed a thing! I'm literally stumped, I may consider Firefox if I truly need a backup browser for such monobook lockdowns :P...but as you said, I thought IE was pretty darn compatible with everything?!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Fix a Busted Monobook in a Busted IE Browser: 4 hours
Telling a Friend About Your Busted Monobook: 10 minutes
Downloading Firefox: 2 minutes, Installing Firefox: 2 minutes
Being Turned Into a Firefox Convert Just Because of a Encyclopedia Website: Priceless.

I think you get the message ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Perosi -back

Glen, amazingly it appears one last unblocked straggler sockpuppet of our good friend LorenzoPerosi1898 surfaced today.[1] The account is named Just an onlooker (talk · contribs) who was revealed to be a puppet of Messenger2010 (talk · contribs) - who has been linked to Yankeesin2007 (talk · contribs) - who is a puppet of LorenzoPerosi1898 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure how this puppet was missed, but it shows he's still around! Yankees76 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups.-gadfium 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of blanking

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Whew, it seems that footie-obsessed British nitwits are out in force on WP right now. I wonder why they don't just watch the telly or play video games or something. (Please don't bother to reply. Unless you really want to, of course.) -- Hoary 09:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last time

Glen

since only lawyers and accountants are still on holiday in Akl I'll presume you are back and will give it one last go (regret find this too complicated for a senior citizen) I submitted a revised Orriel Smith Operatic Parodist ( as best following on from your guidance ) on January 9th. Can you advise if it went through please? If not I will lay down my pen and thank you for your assistance Cheers, MikeMshep 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glensshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Glensshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Britannica-wiki.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Britannica-wiki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed

Ok, I hadn't noticed that you warned him as well. I agree in that case. I just had to semi-protect four pages because of him yesterday too. Khoi khoi 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen I have cut and pasted below (reads pretty good to me! See what you think.if not suitable then no need to advise/reply as is my best shot.) Cheers and thanks for your patience and time mike

[edit] Orriel Smith Operatic Parodist Orriel Smith ( www.orrielsmith.com) is the latest in a select group of operatic parodists who use their very real talents to amuse.Orriel Smith represents the even smaller niche of "animal opera singers"-in her case an "operatic chicken" The difference between "naive" parodists like Florence Foster Jenkins (who for all her seeming naivety well knew what she was on about) is that Orriel Smith can not only sing but can hit high E's and F's which have reviewers drooling e.g. www.muzikreviewz.com/Media/orrielSmith.html) and Nichols E.Limanksy at www.divalegacy.com. The arias on her CLUCK-O-RA-TURA Cd (www.cdbaby.com)are well chosen,not only for the opportunities they give for Orriel Smith to exhibit her carefully thought out clucking "phrasing" but are immediately recognisable as part of the "operatic cycle" to the cognoscente. This is a second aspect to the career of Orriel smith.The first was being part of the Dylan/Baez led folk boom in the early 1960's.Her Columbia Lp "A Voice In The Wind" won acclaim not only for the obvious purity and beauty of her voice but,at a time of "protest folk",for presenting classical Anglo/Irish folk songs for their beauty and not their message. Orriel Smith's mid 1970's work has also been recently rediscovered.She collaborated with noted composer Phillip Lambro to do the vocalisations for the movie he orchestrated "Crypt Of The Living Dead" (which soundtrack and DVD has just been released (see www.amazon.com/Crypt-Living-Dead-Phillip-Lambro/dp/B000E3CHVA). Trunk records,which specialises in the unique has just released a compilation of what they describe as "quirky folk songs for children" in a CD titled "Fuzzy felt folk" (www.trunkrecords.com/turntable/fuzzy_felt.shtml)Orriels two tracks-sung in a little girls voice have received enthusiastic reviews with "Winds of Space" which borders on the psychadelic being singled out for the remarkable way a difficult syncopation was dealt with —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.160.167 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Revert on Alexander Fleming

Hi Glen S, I hope your last anti-vandal revert of Alexander Fleming went at least back to the revision as of 08:52, 28 January 2007 by MER-C[2] that seems to be the latest without recognizable vandalized content. Thanks. -- Túrelio 10:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...

Heh, just noticed we're from the same country. Erm, New Zealand incase you didn't know... Anyway, just thoguht I'd leave that random message... :) Spawn Man 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowclan Sockpuppets

This article seems to have many sockpuppets supporting it and will not allow another AFD. "shadowclan" is an online gaming guild not notable. Bobbythebuilder 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I'll go ahead only if you think I'm ready - I think I can trust you to tell me if you think I'm not :) riana_dzasta 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a legend :) riana_dzasta 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block notification

Hello! Could you tell Users when they've been blocked? It means that other editors won't leave irrelevant warnings on their Talk pages, and other admins won't have to go through the proocess of blocking in order to find out that they didn't have to, because it's already been done. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sig

How about this: I'll close with </span> after my four tildes. This will keep the formatting of the date. I hadn't noticed this problem on any other places I've put my sig. I was assuming the wikisoftware automatically closed the span tag. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FSM

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate regurgitator of every joke that Henderson makes on his web page. Please see WP:RS on the subject of self-published sources. Thank you! Weregerbil 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are an admin?! And you leave threatening messages[3] for removing material in conflict with WP:V and WP:RS? That's kind of worrying. Weregerbil 11:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) I already stated its a primary source b) I never "threatened" you (someone else blocked him - I - as I said above) unblocked him (how is telling you I unblocked someone a threat?)

Please read messages more carefully before jumping to childish conclusions. Glen 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen I hope this is the place to follow up with you. I'm following developments with interest because your sourced material remains deleted from the article. Weregerbil has not been warned, as far as I can see. What is the next step in situations like this?MikeURL 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you discussed blocking just for fun. Like you would discuss the weather. You meant nothing by it. Smalltalk. Oooo...kay...

You keep teaching me how admins are supposed to behave: the first thing in an edit disagreement start talking about how other people get blocks for similar edits, and your "childish" remark. I keep getting surprised by your lessons. Weregerbil 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warn

You mean vandalism? I used to warn vandals, back when I had a block button at my disposal. I don't feel there's much point to it now that I'm toothless. I just focus on keeping the articles clean. Everyking 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kimmcginn.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kimmcginn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3391kc (talk · contribs)

Sorry, but how is this not a "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers or of extended repetition of a particular character."? Cheers, Random Hippopotamus 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this by saying that whether or not you block this name is, quite honestly, of no impact to me. I just can't see the logical progression or coherence of the characters. Obviously the example name you listed breaks the policy. Perhaps someone should change WP:U to reflect this for users like me. Random Hippopotamus 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks for responding. If I do think of better wording...well...it is a wiki :). Coincidentally, I just got thanked for a comment on my userpage. Any chance of deleting it per CSD U1 (CAT:CSD is around 300 right now)? Thanks! Random Hippopotamus 10:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. It's always appreciated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[4] Weregerbil 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Glen 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call it overreaction on both sides, forget and move on. Happy editing! Weregerbil 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! If an imagined block is cause for a complaint against an admin I wonder if my real indef block should be raised in the same way. Matt blocked me indef with an implied caution that I not cross him on the discussion page.MikeURL 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re stalker

InstaTornado is the person who created the turboface page. Please send me an email about it educationalreplies@yahoo.com , I can provide police references. They have been activley seeking this person for the last year for multiple warrants. Send me a talk page. He's using his wikipedia account to create search engine spidered links to improve his link popularity on google. This account he create4d is for personal attacks.I can provide MORE then enough evidence. His old username on here was CUMBERBUND , search that user's history alkso,, you'll see it was also an attack account 65.184.20.38 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS His ip address will be 68.155.245.99. It's a permanent ip belonging to the Greensborough library. Email me to talk to the officer in charge of his case. Thanks. 65.184.20.38 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Heh, thank you. That's my favorite barnstar of them all. :D I've been trying to work on deletion analysis recently (although not on-wiki, I'd prefer to keep my findings to myself until I'm ready to back it up). Some of the stuff I've been voting in is pretty clear cut...the Gundam articles, on the other hand, are such a hot button that, no matter how bad some of them are, I'm not sure I want to keep listening to the paranoid histronics of people claiming we're forming some kind of article-slaying wikideathsquad.

I just try to do what I can. I might make a few stubs on some economic stuff, but I'm working on a fairly large article now and I'd like to finish that up first. Looks like you're doing good...

Elar a girl has smiled at you! This smile is given in the hope that you would also like a hug. Hopefully, this smile will improve your day and make you feel better about both me and the Wiki. Support the WikiWub and your local chapter of the Deletionist Cabal today! Happy editing! --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Clarifying on the RFA

I shouldn't have even mentioned the oppose, but rather eschewing forgiveness. That's the thing that bothered me. Just H 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I'm sorry, I just scanned that quickly and thought she replied there rather than you. I'm terribly sorry for the mistake there, I changed it. Thank you for letting me know and preventing me from further embarrassment. Just H 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger

Hah, I know. :) Although, the people at CZ seem to be having an easy enough time rationalising it all. More power to them, I suppose. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 05:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riana's RfA

Hey Glen, I looked at the noms a bit closer and I agree it probably doesn't really matter. I've just seen people hold bizarre things against people at RfA. But Riana never accepted the nom and everything's there in the history so it's not like anyone can say it was a cover up or anything. I don't understand what's going on with the "Riana_dzasta2" and "Riana_dzasta 2" versions. Spawn Man didn't start both of those...he only seems to have started "Riana dzasta2" and Michaelas10 created a duplicate of it for some reason. I think we should delete one of them. What do you think? It seems ridiculous to have two identical RfAs noms. Cheers, the reigning nomination queen, :) Sarah 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Glen. I went ahead and deleted the "Riana_dzasta 2" version started by Michaelas because that one seemed to be the duplicate of the one that Spawn Man actually started. I'll tell you what's most bizarre about those two noms: after Michael duplicated Spawn Man's page, he wrote in an edit summary on the original version by Spawn Man: "lets avoid all these duplicates"!! lol

Anyway, there should now only be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta. I think your comment under general discussion about the previous nom should be sufficient. Even if someone does have a problem with it, it would be pretty outrageous to hold it against her when she had nothing to do with it, but then again RfA is a strange beast at the best of times. :) Cheers Glen, Sarah 09:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great, thanks so much! Although I think you flatter me when you say I've created 'many' articles :) Trying to answer the questions now. riana_dzasta 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, what seemed so stressful back in December doesn't stress me out anymore... Q3 is going to be the toughie :) riana_dzasta 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Spawn Man originally started a new nomination at the directory of the previous one. I've noticed it and moved the nomination, while Spawn Man, probably unaware of the new directory, created a duplicate. On a different note, congratulations for the nomination Riana! It looks like a success. :) Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my page get deleted?

Why did my page get deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B Scorpio (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for informing me.

Thanks for informing me of the result. Smee 10:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yay!

Yay, I've never had a barnstar before =P w00t. LibLord 10:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Quick Protection!

Thanks for the quick protection of Ogrish.com! Real96 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Popups

Thanks for noticing, but I can't seem to get the "actions" tab to work on my computer...for some reason. --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Thanks!

Thanks for including my nomination & everything, considering I was the one who did it & all & I made it abundantly clear that I wanted to nominate. Now I can't even co-nom cause voting's all underway. Really niiiice of you. Thanks Glen..... Spawn Man 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I notified you the moment I completed the nom, and hours before she accepted. Sorry this wasnt acceptable to you Glen 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought the agreement was that the nomination that I had made was going to be superimposed after Riana accepted. The nomination you created was over the first declined nomination, which I was told should be kept for historic records. You even used the exact wording I used on my nom - "Nominator support - Of course!" What I see as blatant underhanded tactics to make yourself nominator & cut me out completely was all too obvious & it angered me deeply, considering I was the one who nominated her first both times & then I'm left out altogether completely! This was not acceptable to me & I'm glad you apologised, but it doesn't change the fact that you cut me out completely. I would have been quite happy co-noming if you had advised me first.... Spawn Man 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here since you state you're not replying to messages on your talk page.

Whomever you made this "agreement" to superimpose your nomination with it was not me, so perhaps you should vent your anger out on them
I nominated because I offered sometime before and then was asked to not as any underhanded tactic thank you very much
Your original nomination (that was declined) has not been deleted, and, in fact was even referenced in the new nomination. This agreed to as the best way to handle it after much discussion on Riana's talk page here and Sarah's talk page here
I think maybe you should calm down and start assuming good faith.

Glen 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me to calm down, becasue I am very clam. Just because I make a viable arguement with negative wording, doesn't mean I am in fact uncalm. I assume no good faith right now, as I did in fact tell you that I wished to nominate or co-nominate many times on Riana's talk page. You said you understood this, & even after Riana petitioned on your talk page, you said to me it was still alright for me to nominate. However, you had expressed before hand that you had wanted to nominate & it's funny how your wishes came true through a series of underhanded & quickly pushed along tactics. 1), You said it was laright for me to nominate. 2), You then drafted up a nomiantion for yourself full knowing that I wanted to nominate. 3) You then inform me 1 hour before you then place the nomination on the RfA page. If you really wanted to allow me to co nom, you would have told me earlier. The agreement about the superimposing of my nomination was on Riana's talk page, of which you commented on below it. So you were aware of my intentions, but did what you wanted anyway. I have nothing more to say. Quite frankly, you aren't going to change my viewpoint as I admit I'm in an unchangalbe mood right now & I know you used underhand tactics to gain your own way. And again, I'm very calm, & my messages are civil with no personal attacks other than accusing you of something other than good faith. Spawn Man 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im telling you to calm down as you've stated repeatedly here and on your own talk page about how angry you are. I stated I never made any agreement to superimpose your nomination, because I didnt. I knew you wanted to conom which is why I told you immediately after I completed the nom, and this was hours before Riana accepted. And I didnt transfer Rianas nom to the RFA page she did. This entire conversation is ridiculous and I have no idea why you keep stating I used underhand tactics when Riana asked me, as her admin coach, to nominate her, which of course I did, then moments later notified you. I still cant work out why you're so angry when this should be about doing whats best for Wikipedia, and the RfA is going really well and thats what really counts. I've apologised, and this isnt acceptable to you, so as far as Im concerned you can take your bad attitude elsewhere. Glen 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me like that please. I have made no personal attacks on you, no profane language, & only made a very well put arguement. Indeed I am angry, but I am not expressing it in my writings to you. Do angry uncivil people say "indeed"? I doubt it. I made abundantly clear I wanted to nom, & I thoguht you understood that, as you did say on Riana's talk page that that was fine. Just because she asked you didn't mean you had to do it. But becasue you actually really wanted to, you gave no thought to if it would hurt my feelings & went ahead with the nomination. Make no mistake, I'm angry with Riana as well, as she also knew my intentions. You posts on Sarah's talk was intriguing as well, as you state that I created 2 more RfA pages for Riana "immediately" after the declined one. I only created one, & that was 2 months later. So don't mistake internal anger & external calmness with anthing else. You both hurt my feelings as I made several posts about how I wanted to nom or at least co-nom. Riana could have waited as I'm not on here 24/7 as I too have a life to live. I would have easily waited another day for someone who not only nominated me first, but was also my friend, before superimposing on the RfA page. But again, I think you & Riana have different standards to mine & had no problem hurting another's feelings... Spawn Man 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, "I have no problems letting you guys nominate her first" - this is what you call "no problems"? Glen 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you said after that that it was in fact fine. Besides I only said that because you were pushing that you wanted to nominate. I never thought you'd be so cruel as to not actually let me nominate... But anyway, it doesn't matter now. I'm trying to distance myself from the situation. Spawn Man 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Mates, I'm sorry, this is all my fault, I forgot to include Springeragh's nomination statement as well. I've been incredibly busy and not really giving my full attention to the RfA, because I have a dad dying in hospital. So if anything is amiss, it's all my fault, please don't blame Glen or Sarah, Spawn Man. I've just had more important things on my mind than RfA (I'm trying to have a look from time to time though!) Sorry about the trouble, Glen, I'll leave Spawn Man a message on his talk. riana_dzasta 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother Riana, I'm not responding to anyone right now... Spawn Man 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought, Glen :) Don't worry, I'm not gonna make a fuss about it on-wiki! But I just thought you guys needed something to excuse my neglect. Anyway, thanks again. riana_dzasta 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Glen. It's just bizarre...I had no idea any of this was going on and I've never seen anything like it. By the way, that little "about me" at the top of the page is really cool and very interesting. Cheers, Sarah 07:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah... thats really nice of you to say! (not used to nice messages being left here today - everytime I see the new messages bar my blood pressure shoots up! ;) Glen 08:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More blood pressure - you, I, Sarah, everyone except one person seems to acknowledge that this is certainly not your fault, but rather Spawn Man's. If you are feeling in the least bit guilty, don't. You did nothing wrong; on the contrary, you nominated a soon-to-be-admin (probably) which means you have done a great service for Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant 10:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to give you another orange bar induced blood pressure rise, Glen, but I just wanted to second Daniel's comment above. You don't have anything to feel bad about. Spawn Man could have added a nomination at any point up until his melt down. He's obviously just made up his mind that he wants to go out in a "look at me everybody!" hail of wiki-bullets. It's a shame but it's not your fault or Riana's fault. It's Spawn Man's choice.

I like reading a bit more about other editors and it's also really nice to be able to put a face to a name. And it's great to know another '70s baby! :) Sarah 11:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've left & everything, but would you guys please stop talking about me! I know you all think I'm mad right now, but it really had very little to do with the RfA. I'd appreciate the behind the back comments to stop please. I may be leaving, but I'd still appreciate a little respect & you can't say you're not acting a little less than highschool gossips. I didn't want any attention. Just stop talking about me k? Spawn Man 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacer Stacktrain

Hi Glen, I see you nominated Pacer Stacktrain for speedy deletion. Can you downgrade that to improvement needed? The company pioneered double-stack rail services which was a huge breakthrough in transportation. Thanks. Synesthetic 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the others who used your talk to vent their wikihate. Sorry for the confusion... Spawn Man 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Ooh, first post, too! :) Thanks so much for your nomination, mate. It passed last night, so now I'll be sweeping the decks with you. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind keeping an eye on me for the first few ~~days~~ ~~weeks~~ ~~months~~ however long it takes? :) Thanks a lot, once again. Cheers, riana_dzasta 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I should be, shouldn't I? And I'll really regret this tonight when I fall asleep in the middle of my friend's party ;) riana_dzasta 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail :) I probably won't read any responses til late arvo. riana_dzasta 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen, Sid Haig did say just what I said on a promo for TCM regarding 'Night Of The Living Dead'. I have just never been able to find it, so I obviously will not re-add it until I can show proof of that. But some of his fans know this to and would rather suppress that information and feed into the myth of a hip Sid, rather than point out that outside of working in the field, he really has no knowledge of the genre.

Schizophrenia article

Hello, just bringing an issue regarding the Schizophrenia article to your attention because you were the mediator in the most recent MEDCAB case. Since the case was closed on 2007-01-30, Mihai cartoaje (talk • contribs) has begun revert-warring to add a {{POV}} template to the article. Attempts to discuss the issue on the article's talk page have proven unproductive so far (see related discussion) and attempts to contact Mihai via user talk page have also been unsuccessful (he continues to blank his talk page). The issue is reaching a point where attention from an admin may be necessary. I thought it prudent to contact you personally before pursuing more formal channels (WP:AN, etc). Regards. --Muchness 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]