User talk:It Is Me Here/Archive 2

Check out...

... this RfA. I think the only difference is the number of edits. Look at the comments where people are lauding the candidate for having thought about her answers instead of studying for the RfA. I think if you'd had more edits when you tried, the result might have been very similar. Keep up the good work.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's interesting how Moni3's answers have inspired both Support and Oppose votes (in a similar fashion, I would say, to my answers to Kurt Weber being called both indicative of "admin material" and "extremely un-adminly" - go figure). In other news, I think you'll be pleased to hear that I've now got over 1,500 w:en: edits, so I'm slowly inching towards that unspecified, yet compulsory, target of threethousandorso. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of House at 536 Park

Hi. I see you nominated House at 536 Park for speedy deletion. I realize it was a minimal stub at the time, but looking closer, it's clearly worthy of a Wikipedia article as it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is dedicated to ensuring that all of these have articles behind them. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Right-o. If it's now a worthwhile article, then so much the better - as you yourself said, it didn't look like much when I added that tag. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

health and safety law

Hi there - I noted when I logged on that you have instered a notice onto the page - blimey that was a bit quick! This was a holding page which I was working on last night - UK time - and I dont really think I want it inbto wikisource. I have now re-edited this (deleted all and replaced) and I would be grateful if you could remove the notice you have put on there - I take your point on the old content by the way - but the actual legislation is already covered on another page - this is now I hope just an encyclopedia entry on the subject - albeit one that could do with some input from those knowledgeable about the law in different jurisdictions.

Trollhobgoblin (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I see you removed the template yourself, so there is no need for me to do so as it is no longer on the article. As for old content, I'm afraid you've lost me; what are you referring to, exactly? Also, if you are working on a page and you want to avoid immediate scrutiny from new page patrollers, you can prepare it beforehand in a personal subpage (just add [[/Sandbox]] or [[/Sandbox 1]] or [[/WIP]] or something to your user page and click on the link after saving the page). Alternatively, you can use a template like {{Underconstruction}} or {{WIP}} on the article itself to alert others that it is being heavily edited. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PCG article

Sorry, I don't have the March issue and the April one doesn't have the article. All articles are listed in that table. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyway! It Is Me Here (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Refdesk template.

I just reverted your change. For some reason it breaks the link. I'd have fixed it myself but I couldn't figure out what was wrong. However, it definitely makes the image un-clickable. Sorry. APL (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, strange - could you bring it up at WP:VPT for us? It Is Me Here (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They knew instantly. Smart people over at the pump. [1] APL (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff - glad to see the matter has been resolved. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Evreka

I am not sure if the article fits under {{db-noenglish}} because I don't think it's on a foreign article. It does need to be translated, but I'm not sure what tag is used for that. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll add {{Translate}} templates, although I thought that w:en: editors were more keen to delete such articles rather than translate them to discourage creating pages in the wrong language Wikipedia? It Is Me Here (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for placing the tag. To answer your question, I wanted to get an article in the same situation deleted not too long ago, but I was stopped by an admin. I just want to follow the rules. Thanks. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 15:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As you wish :) It Is Me Here (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, User:Istanbul ogretmenim's cont. are mostly spam and advert. He opened articles like theese on tr.wiki and we deleted them. I think he don't want to make a good things. :) Kind regards--Mach (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's a shame. Could you re-tag his contributions as {{db-g3}} / {{db-g11}} etc. as necessary? It Is Me Here (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of that knowledge, I've just nominated the other Turkish-language articles by User:Istanbul ogretmenim (Özel ders and Evreka) for speedy deletion. But I want to say, It Is Me Here, that I appreciate how patient you were with User:Istanbul ogretmenim here. Bravo! -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gea

As I explained in the "reason" field of edit page, Gea is another name for Gæa or Gaia, used in romance languages. I do not understand why you say it is uncostructive. It is a fact, a data. It is not a matter to be contructive, but exaustive. By the way, I am not new to Wikipedia. I am here since January 2006.--Dejudicibus (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I had no problem with that aspect of your edit (I am not in a position to comment on the correct spelling of Gaia's name), but rather with your replacing "Uranus" with "fuckkk". However, on closer inspection, it appears that you had just accidentally put back in place an edit by 24.113.253.82. I can see it was unintentional on your part, but please be more careful in future. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry but I simply undid the previous change. I did not realized that by doing that, such a vandalism would be reverted too. Of course it was not intentional. Thank you.--Dejudicibus (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass Reverts

The easiest way I know of is to view the last good revision itself - you can do this by clicking the date in the history. That should take you to a preview of the article as it looked at that point. Then, edit it as normal, changing nothing, and noting the reversion in the edit summary. It'll warn you that you're editing an old version of the page, which is fine - that's the plan. Once you save that revision, it overwrites the subsequent edits with the old version of the page. The caveat is that you'll want to then re-add any good edits, but I didn't see any in this case. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, OK, thanks. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFF

A response has been posted to your thread at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Europa Barbarorum. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bettia

I've indented your struck oppose as it was showing up as a double !vote in Tangobot's table. Everyme 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

sco:

Hello,

I cannot see why you would have been blocked on sco:. I have lifted the block and asked Bazza for an explanation as to why you were blocked. I suspect that it was a mistake and you somehow got caught up in a flurry of legitimate blockings of vandals.

Many apologies!

Mendor (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that I am even more confused about this block as (unless sco:'s policies are radically different to w:'s) people are not supposed to be immediately blocked for one month, with no warning and no explanation, as far as I am aware. It was only by chance that I found out about the block, in fact, when reviewing my global contributions. It Is Me Here (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As Bazza has said on my talk page, the policy is different; as we are a small wiki, with relatively very few contributors/admins and relatively very many spammers and vandals, the policy up till now has been to block vandals on sight. There often isn't the time or people to go through a lengthy warning procedure as many vandals can be very disruptive; in other cases there is clearly no point as the user has no intention of constructively contributing.

The problem with this is that if admins don't check edits carefully enough it can catch innocent users in the net, as has evidently happened here. In the light of this, as Bazza has said on my talk page, we will review the policy.

Very sorry again,

Mendor (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. I can only apologise. My mistake entirely. 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (sco:User:Bazza) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza1971 (talk • contribs)

Right, OK, I forgive you. Also, I have understood from the discussions here at w: that you do want my edits and so have edited sco:Template:MPAirtinsRight to once more use SVGs. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PC Gamer

I've been searching for the copy of PC Gamer that you mentioned on my talk page but as yet I've had no luck in tracking it down. I should have it, somewhere. I'll keep on looking for it an if I find it I'll let you know. - X201 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that - I appreciate it. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

this is a school computer

many,many,many,many,many apologies for vadalism. it can be anonymous people. --98.172.89.56 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I suppose there is little you can do other than discouraging those in your school from vandalising Wikipedia. I'll try to get you flagged up as a school, though, following this. Also, you might want to have a look at {{SharedIPEDU}} and may want to add more information to it, such as your school's name or an e-mail address which should be contacted following any vandalism, if your school wants to do that. It Is Me Here (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Costa rica

Hi -- I notice that you tagged Costa rica for speedy deletion shortly before I replaced it with a redirect to Costa Rica (which is what it was, before a bunch of vandals replaced it with garbage). I just wanted to let you know I wasn't labelling your edit vandalism, and to explain what happened. -- Why Not A Duck 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's hard to distinguish these things when using WP:HG sometimes - I should investigate article histories more often, I suppose. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

The discussion which you began on 22 July 2008 has been archived, with very much additional commentary,
at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned).
A related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). Another related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
-- Wavelength (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-o, thanks for the heads-up. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring sound files

I use audacity myself, and have had good results with this method:

1. Find a patch of "silence" - that is, a few seconds that have no sound except for the hiss or crackle you want to remove. If necessary, create a patch of at least a second at the end by copying shorter gaps in the music. Be careful to only include silence in here - not the fading notes of the last chord, etc. 2. Hit cntrl-2, Cntrl-1, Cntrl-1. This will get you at a good zoom level for the next part. 3. Go through, listening to the song, and, except in your patch of "silence", remove as many pops as you can by highlighting and deleting them. Don't highlight too much, or you change the tempo. Check after you removed them, because sometimes this can make things worse. If there's a large amount of crackle, just get the really, really obvious ones and go to step 4. 4. Under edit, choose Select->All, then go back to the edit menu and choose "duplicate". You now have two identical tracks. 5. Select the patch of silence on one of these tracks (you may want to zoom back out using Cntrl-2), then go to the effect menu and choose Noise removal. Hit the "Get Noise Profile" button. 6. Select all of one of your two identical tracks. Home, followed by Shift+End will do this for you. Go to Effect->Noise removal and, using the default settings, remove the noise. 7. You now have a cleaned track and an uncleaned track. This is because noise removal removes information, so you don't want to remove the noise completely. Instead, using the slider bars on the left of each track window, adjust the relative volumes. I find that no change or -3dB to the cleaned track, and -6db or -9dB (depending on how noisy the original was) to the uncleaned is generally a good choice.

Give me a poke if you need more help with the Toreador song. =) I can also point you in the direction of some good sites to get public domain songs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll give it a go and get back to you. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have real trouble, I'll do it for you, but we could probably use more people who know how to do basic cleanups =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Account creator tool

Can you please confirm (here) that you applied for the account creator tool with the username It Is Me Here? Stifle (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb^talk 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN of Europa Barbarorum

FYI- The GA Review of Europa Barbarorum has been started and comments have been left at Talk:Europa Barbarorum/GA1. Any questions you may have can be directed there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Europa Barbarorum

I'm sure you noticed my work on the Europa Barbarorum article, and I hope you don't mind it - I've mostly been trying to copyedit the article as best as I can and according to the GA nomination review. If you feel my changes are butchering your work, or having an adverse effect on the article, let me know and I will stop; I also have some ideas on how to improve the article, if you were thinking of bringing it higher than GA (I'm sure it can manage at least A class, if not FA). --VPeric (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC) [I would prefer if any response you might have be posted here; thanks!]

No, no, honestly, I want to say a big thank you for doing this. I do hope you agree that the article as I left it was better than it was when I first started, but I had come as far as I could with re-writing it, more or less, so a fresh pair of eyes are more than welcome. For instance, I agree with you removing that unreferenced thing about not having a version 0.9 (I'd forgotten all about it, actually), and pushing Europa Barbarorum up the assessment scale would be great, so keep up the good work! It Is Me Here (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In regard to image usage- Image:Age ii feudal age celts.jpg in Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings passed WP:FAC with 800 × 600 dimensions. So if the whole of Image:EB RTW unit comparison.png was reduced to something like 1600 × 1200, then it should be fine. To be honest though, I think the preview size of 781 × 599 works well enough, and would further ensure it's within limits. You also may want to trim it down to just a single comparison. Non-free image use should be minimal, and a second comparison doesn't add too much since they are both battles that illustrate units. Hope that helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:RTW_Romans_Gauls.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:RTW_Romans_Gauls.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 02:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Carcosa Seri Negara

Editing my edits and calling them vandalism will only help to conceal truths. Have a good day. Let the truth be known. 60.50.76.72 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is, though, that you deleted most of the existing article in your edit, which is considered vandalism. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting my talk page. Cheers! 69.234.125.74 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you're welcome, but I'm afraid I haven't changed the protection levels of any pages recently (and, indeed, I am not able to), and moreover your talk page does not currently exist, so I can only assume that you have me confused with someone. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Byzantine Constantinople.svg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Byzantine Constantinople-en.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 07:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Fort Pearce

On 6 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort Pearce, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for the nom! Royalbroil 16:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Sorry, I was just sticking to the official guidelines on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact

"You can also add "dummy" parameters to leave a better record for future editors. For example, the following usage might be appropriate to the arguable claim that "Humphrey Bogart is the greatest actor...":"

Not only is it official, it is also sensible. If someone wants to discuss my objection, that can go on the Talk page, but explaining exactly what is being questioned precisely where the issue comes up makes matters easier for everyone in future.89.136.135.51 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. From my empty history page, you can assume I'm a new user (I'm not, but you weren't to know). The idea of Wikipedia is all-inclusive collaboration. Unfortunately, in the last two years it has become an exclusive cult that discourages newbies. "Oh, sorry, you can't do, due to a 1999 ruling on editing stubs on Sundays - see "Wikpedia: Sunday Stubs"". Get real. My edit was within Wikipedia guidelines AND made good sense. Did it ruin anyone's day by not being where you happen to prefer comments to be made? No. So how about you encourage new editors rather than trying to get them to hop on one leg because of your ideas of how Wikipedia should work? 89.136.135.51 (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I will have to admit that I was not aware that you were supposed to leave rationales in {{fact}} templates, and thought that the accepted practice was to leave your thoughts on the article's talk page, so that it would be easier to respond to than on the article page itself. Given that what you did is accepted practice, as I have learnt just now, if you feel that your way of raising issues with articles is better than posting on the article talk page, then feel free to restore your edit. My thinking at the time was that it would make more sense discussing an article on its talk page rather than through hidden comments on the article page as comments on the talk page are easier to respond to. Moreover, as I did not realise that it was encouraged to do what you did, I tried to point you in what I thought was the right direction. If you thought my message was impersonal or rude, then do tell me how I should improve it for future reference. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)