This is the sixth page of my talkpage archives, dated between November 2005 to early-December 2005. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave a message, click here! :)
Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy(talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Kua! Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently deleted the article Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, and I was wondering if you could give me the text of the delete so that I could rewrite the article into something more closely resembling an encyclopedia article. Understandably, the game's information is practically non-existant, but we do have articles here that are based entirely on circumstantial evidence that do just fine. Thanks! TomStar81 06:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a working rough draft compiled from some of the other articles that I remeber conatained information on RA3, and did manage to incorporate some of the deleted text. The text of the rough draft is here, if you want to take a look at it. Do you think this would work, or would it end up getting deleted again? TomStar81 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
You called that one right. Not even a month later and its already under attack. I feel how fruitless must be any attempt of mine to save the article, so I'll just say I apreciate you help and I'm sorry this last round didn't work. TomStar81 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the AFD was no consensus. Thanks for all of your help, and your recommendation to cite sources. For now, at least, the C&C Red Alert 3 page is safe. TomStar81 11:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Mamsaac recently modified the archived discussion of the AfD for Golden Sun Password despite the closed/archived notice. Since you originally closed the discussion I thought I should contact you. I'm not sure how serious (if at all) this sort of thing is, and so I figured I should contact you just in case.Some guy 05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Kua, thanks for your message on my talk page regarding my stress level. I've been stressed over real life a little (and maybe some vandals were getting to me a bit), but thanks to you, I feel a lot better now :) (hopefully I'll be all right by the end of the week). Thank you! RobertT | @ | C 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Was browsing through the AfD page for November 9th, and noticed that you'd closed the AfD vote for Model Citizen as "delete", but didn't actually delete the Model Citizen page.
Your merge templates were a perfect solution - Just to let you know that I've started to use them in closing debates since today as a trial basis (and hopefully it all works well). :)
- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for contacting me! I've seen these used by a couple of other sysops so far, and there don't appear to be any problems.
I designed {{afd-mergefrom}} for placement on the article's talk page (hence the "CoffeeRoll" coloring). My reasoning is that it's appropriate to add a large, colored tag to an article that's intended to become a redirect (just as we do with {{merging}}), but it's preferable to avoid adding such a banner to the surviving article (which generally is in no danger of deletion).
Thanks again for using my templates and taking the time to write! —Lifeisunfair 12:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned above (in a section that I just restored from your archive), I designed {{afd-mergefrom}} for placement on the article's talk page, not in the actual article. For this to be changed, the wording and coloring would need to be modified accordingly. Do you believe that this should be done? —Lifeisunfair 21:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for not seeing the message. I've noticed it now. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem! I realize how easy it is to overlook messages on a cluttered talk page. :) —Lifeisunfair 04:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mailer dialbo,
I am back again :). I need some help with an image I uploaded. Actually I uploaded a screenshot of Donna Reed from the movie It's a Wonderful Life by the Image name DonnaReed.jpg. There was no image on the Donna Reed page but when I tried to link my image a different image came up. That means that an image by the same name was already existing in the database. Please take a look at both of the images and kindly let me know whether the image uploaded by me qualifies under fair use. BTW accept my wiki thanx for always entratining my queries.
Thanx once again for the quick response. I find the fair use guidelines quite ambiguous and it has also undergone some drastic changes recently which now makes it even more ambiguous. But probably I cant do anything abt it. bbye Gaurav1146 10:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Mun San from The Straits Times. I'm working on a story on SGpedians and wonder if I could interview you. Do drop me a line at xxx@sph.com.sg or call me at 63195xxx. Thanks!
(Email and number removed for spambot/privacy reasons). - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
You deleted the article on 'Marcus Edström'. The motivation was that it did not 'assert the importance of the individual'. I'm a bit curious on how you define a sufficiently important person. Would be useful for me to know in the future.
Hey there, I see you just closed the AfD for Ragamuffin, replacing the page with the cat article as per the voting. You seem to have deleted the old content without adding it to the Wiktionary article, however, which remains fairly bare... UkPaolo 14:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
my apologies, it wasn't there when I looked... perhaps I was still viewing a cached page. cheers, UkPaolo 15:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, I think maybe you were reading a little quick when you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarrazu. You closed it saying it was being sent to WP:CP, but (as I explained in the summary) it was already listed on copyvios and someone claims permission. But rather than seeking permission I was listing it on AfD to be sure we really want the article in the first place. Thanks. --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 15:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a second look. In your renomination you said that the copyright violation has been resolved. That's not quite right, we have not yet verified permission which is the last step in dealing with copyright violations. In this case (as with some others) we are listing them on AfD prior to seeking permission. So, officially this is not yet a resolved copyright violation. My guess is this will almost certainly be deleted and so in this case the difference is merely academic. I'm just warning you, because we will increasingly be nominating articles like this. I just want you to keep your eye out for them. If you're interested, see our discussion of the matter. --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 20:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
No worries, we just want to let everyone know what's going on since this is a little different than the usual. Any amount of effort is worth it if we can pass the buck :) --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 15:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expertise Ireland while running my bot this morning. In it, you closed the debate as a delete, though it looks like a clear keep to me, and the article has neither been deleted nor had the afd tag removed. Could you please finish the close, one way or the other? (Just to complicate matters, the first revision was a clear cut-and-paste copyvio, and the rewrite's an equally-infringing derivative work that will also almost certainly need to be deleted on that basis, but I'll handle that end.) —Cryptic(talk) 16:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Just Me recreated the article Evan Lee Dahl. I've marked it for speedy delete. An anon user also edited the deletion discussion for Evan Lee Dahl after you closed it. I reverted those edits. I expect we will hear more from this user. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey there. My WP editing now occurs in fits and spurts, but I was just checking on this close and wonder if you could walk me through it? The page is a definite copyvio as it stands, true. However, if a page also does not meet article policies on Wikipedia (for example, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V etc.), it can be deleted for those reasons if a consensus to do so arises on AFD. Where this is possible I personally feel it's best to delete it that way, because WP:CP is quite possibly the most severely backlogged process on WP, and anything we can do to relieve the strain on it is welcome. This article had 4 opinions: 3 were clear deletes. The fourth (Banana04131's) was also a delete, but I'm slightly uncertain of its validity because of his statement: he has in fact not edited that article, as both his contribs and the article history show. As such it is quite possible that he intended that vote for an adjacent AFD or something, but plonked it down in the wrong place (or there could be another explanation entirely). I would ask him to clarify. However one counts it, though, there is a unanimous delete decision, so I think it's safe to delete via AFD rather than going for a renewed listing on WP:CP, don't you? If there was no clear consensus on AFD, then I would have gone ahead with the copyvio listing, yes. (Unless someone rewrote the article—which I suspect would be virtually impossible to do in accordance with our article policies because the subject is so unnoteworthy that there aren't multiple independent, reputable sources in books, monographs, theses, newspapers or magazines that one can use to source per WP:V and WP:NOR). By the way I think your closes are excellent; the only reason I'm asking about this one is I don't quite understand and am just wondering if there was some kind of unintentional error? Kind regards encephalon 02:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Mailer, I replied over there. Thanks encephalon 12:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm spending little time on WP these days, mostly because I'm busy in the earlier part of the rigmarole of moving house. (And unfortunately I don't seem to have thrown anything away since I moved where I now am, so I have to go through mountains of mostly-but-not-only-junk.) -- Hoary 03:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mailer, I replied over there. Incidentally, I quite agree with Hoary. Furthermore, the separate question of whether "Knovi" (or at least the current version of "Knovi") merits a page on WP was decided on the AFD. Anyway, cheers! encephalon 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
So that's you, huh? Interesting, and I swear there has to be more than 10 Singaporean Wikipedians as mentioned in the article. When did the Sunday Times contact you, by the way? NSLE(讨论+extra) 02:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
You are a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, so I am turning to you for help. You were the one who announced the deletion of the Jason Gastrich Page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Gastrich. Well, there is another page ... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jas. Well Jas is not up for deletion. All of the fans of Gastrich (all 1 of them under 5 names) went to that page in error, created the page, left their comments there, and now I have no clue what should be done about that page.
Correction. Jas was deleted in 2004. I don't recall what was on it, but the deletion project page is not connected to the deletion since this is a very new project page.. Harvestdancer 20:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of help at WP:CP we need it! Backlog or not, however, I like the policy of sending some copyvios to AfD. We are I am only sending those pages where there is a claim to permission and we think the page is unlikely to survive AfD. This is really only very few copyvios (I think I sent four out of all the copyvios in September). The reason is outlined at our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Basically, its embarassing for the project to send an email that basically says "please give us permission to use your content" and then a month later the article goes to AfD and gets the insulting treatment that so many articles get on AfD. In addition, getting permission is very time consuming, a process that in some cases is totally unnecessary. Either way, if you want this to change, say something at the above talk page so that others can chime in. --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 03:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying again to bring an issue to your attention. Please read the section above entitled AfD Merger Templates (which I assume you've overlooked). Thank you! —Lifeisunfair 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 15:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It's Thanksgiving Day, too... so once again a big thank you! Have an awesome weekend! (If you celebrate Thanksgiving, that is.) I will do all I can for Wikipedia, to protect it from the alien scum of the universe... I mean, uh, from Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia is Communism!
Hey,Mr Kua!Saw you on newspaper,some part of it mentioned my edits,too.Thanks for voting my pal,Hmib in his RFA!Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 10:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem. But how do you know I wasn't just doing it to pad my edit count without any original thought? lol. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
North Shore is in San Bernardino County California. Cities in proximity are Blue Jay Village, Crestline, San Bernardino (9 miles away, but it's where everyone who lives there works)
You recently deleted an article on an organisation called 'The Confederacy of the Concealed Hand' believing that it was a hoax. I personally was mentioned on the article as a whistleblower. I can categorically state that you were entirely wrong to delete the message; this is the kind of behavior that I would have expected from the hands themselves and not a neutral observer. It is only through open forums such as Wikipedia that people will ever learn about societies like this, and actually have some sense of the reach they have within society. Admittedly I have some sympathy as to why you deleted the article. In fact your surmise that the confederacy is a hoax comes fairly close t the truth. It started as a hoax, it started as a bunch of clever school kids dossing about looking for funny things to, school kids who liked to joke about taking over the world and such things. People who would begin conversations "when I am prime minister". Hence the name: it wasn't meant to be taken seriously, it was meant to sound both sinister and slightly stupid.
However it was when Azure, the identity of our internet hoster, got involved that things changed. The web forum at first was like a discussion site. Things soon progressed however and before long the confederacy had become more serious, more formal. There was no one moment when it went from being a joke to reality, rather it happened in virtually unnoticeable increments and before long everyone was knee deep in the whole business. Via the internet membership had expanded under the cover site hosted by Azure.
It was only when the original core left for university that things really took off. It was amazingly easy to "recruit" people to our quasi-masonic organization. People fell for it like mad; across the country it was of there was a hunger for exactly this kind of secrecy yet sense of belonging and security that the confederacy conveyed. Believe it or not within a few years the confederacy had roughly 1000 proper members- all of whom took it extremely seriously. As the founders the original Norwich people were treated with a certain degree of reverence and naturally were inclined to cultivate this sense and further expand the organisation for their own benefit. It had become more like a cult in that respect.
Yet the growth of confederacy had a more worrying implication in that all of its members were talented graduates who had just moved into professions and were already helping one another out. For example one member who had an internship at a well known investment bank was able to sabotage other entrants applications to ensure the successful entrance of another "hand". It dawned on me that things were out of control when an HQ - essentially an old but large church hall- was purchased in Norwich, where people would make "pilgrimages" and arrange deals.
Meanwhile expansion was still occurring, and the reach of the confederacy actively growing. I know it may seem hard to believe but people everywhere were eager to sign up. It was at this stage, a couple of years ago, that I left. Zealots had grown up in the ranks, easily angered by my humorous take on the whole thing. I began to see it as some monstrously swollen practical joke, a nightmare slowly becoming reality.
In all honesty I am not liberty to speak about the events that have happened since my leaving. Suffice to say that if I could talk about them I would, only that it would be "inadvisable". However I can urge you to try and publicize this story even more, as I think the whole edifice is close to crumbling under its own absurdity. There is a genuine moral lesson to had here, about just how easily lead humanity can be, about how jokes and dreams can spiral dangerously and uncontrollably out of control and about how ordinary people can let a modicum of power go to their heads. Wikipedia is virtually the only place in the world I am allowed to talk about this on.
If you like I can write you a more detailed and objective history of the organization to include as an article. Currently I estimate that it has around 3-5000 members, reasonably influential, operative in Britain and several more scattered around the world. Sadly I cannot divulge an email address for (I hope) obvious reasons. If you could start a stub i would gladly then contribute.
Yours,
MB
Dear Mailer Diablo,
I am still not quite sure why the article was deleted. In "accordance with policy"- but what does that mean specifically with regards to this case? Also I could not find the article on the deletion querying section. Sorry to bother you with this. At one level its really no big deal- basically jut a bunch of guys running around thinking they are in on a big secret. And, as I mentioned, I feel things are about to fall apart. However I still believe Wikipedia to be an appropriated forum for discussing and learning about such entities. Don't worry- I won't keep on hassling you about this, I've had my fill of it all,
Since the ArbCom case that I was involved has eventually been closed [1], I believe it's time to go forward on how the entire issue can be resolved. What do you think? Would centralised discussion be a good way? — Instantnood 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks anyways.. :-) — Instantnood 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree I was a bit hard on User:Optimus Dime at the AFD for the above article. It was the first AFD that I started that was seriously opposed, and I was afraid it might kept. I now realise that the admin at the end is allowed to sift the evidence and so I have learnt a valuable lesson. I shall not be making that particular mistake ever again!--File Éireann 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did you quietly delete the afd page for "Scale of five" for November 30? I thought all debate was kept for some specified period. After nominating for afd and watching it for a week, I would like to see the consensus and decision. Chris the speller 23:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. It's what I suspected, scrapping the votes instead of the article. Keep up the good work. Chris the speller 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message; I do have a username etc. Somehow the system logged me out (grr!!) 64.81.138... aka D.valued 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Appreciate the message.
Apparently, right now, the "D" in my handle stands for "delete". (Looking through the new pages, it's just.. wow, sometimes. I look at them then see if they look like non-notable bios or vanity pages.) D.valued 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
If you look at my contrib history, you'll see I've been around the block a few times, and have at least rooted a couple notable articles ;) D.valued 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
A user, Tonyk23, managed to pull a singularly amazing feat: two copyvios and a page of links (empty flagged) within the expanse of ten minutes. Dunno what to do. Especially since this user apparrently isn't a newbie. D.valued 03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Followup: Just saw another copyvio page of said user. D.valued 03:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Mailer, it's been grand seeing you kicking around on RC. I've noticed that when you post boilerplate messages (templates) on talk pages, that you don't subst them in, which leaves a less personal effect. Wikipedia:Template substitution#Templates that should be subst'd says to subst in all talk page templates, including warning templates, such as {{test}}, and others. To do this, all you have to do is include subst: inside the first two curly brackets of the template (so to subst in {{test}}, you'd type {{subst:test}}). For more information, take a look at the link I put in above and also m:Help:Template#Subst. Hope that helps! Blackcap(talk)(vandalfighters, take a look) 05:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the revert comment you use (e.g. Reverted edits by 67.86.108.148 (talk) to last version by Mairibot), do you type this manually or do you use a template?
--Peter McGinley 16:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the talk page for a fancrufty Tolkien article (bell..something), and was wondering what the deal with that was. I've always added a note of the outcome of the debate, regardless of whether the article was kept or deleted. Am I supposed to delete the talk page as well? Or just not leave a note on the talk? I've done this so that people won't re-create, or that it will at least be linked, while leaving the article redlinked. Thoughts? Am I doing something I'm not supposed to? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point, and thanks. I think for obvious deletions (like junk and such) there's no reason for the template, but for things like transwiki, and perhaps badly written articles, there might be. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --David Iberri (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Mailer diablo/Archive F" page.
