User talk:NonvocalScream/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, can you take another look at OTRS ticket #2008022410005584 and make a response to the ticket (which you own) and, if you see fit, to further edit his article? Half the stuff complained about (i.e. the Nazi stuff) is still there, although it is sourced, so I don't know what should be done. Someone from Daniel Hannan's staff contacted me on my talk page, but I wasn't really involved in this article beyond protecting it. - Mark 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I had replied to that, I'll double check and reply. I will also further check the article NonvocalScream (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Inbox
You should have an e-mail from me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I acknowledge your letter, but I do not agree with your deletions of my messages so I have reinstated them. Those were to Doc to read and reply to me. From what I have seen he or she, whichever applies is abusive of their authority and needs to be told. I kept it as restrained as I could, given the need to tell it straight. I would like to see this administrator dealt with, censured at least would be alright. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your tone was something that needed restrained. Please review the two links I posted to you. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, see you before arbitration then. I consider this harassment on your part. And I will reinstate my messages over your objections. I think your brother administrator Remember the dot would unblock me if you try to block me. He sounds like he allows a fair hearing before he acts.ESCStudent774441 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
CSD tag removal
Thanks, I don't know how I didn't think of a redirect for 'backbacks'. It must be late. (Clearly, as I missed the comment about reaching the top ten, sheesh I'm off task today...) αѕєηιηє t/c 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- These things happen. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
your proposal
- I encourage you to think of a more sophisticated proposal. And when you do, its well to discuss it first at CSD before advertising it, to get the initial comments of the regulars. Please don't be discouraged. Its the repeated suggestions of reforms that eventually brings them about. DGG (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for coming by. :) I had a similar thought, that perhaps I should have tossed it around on the village pump, or WT:CSD as you suggest, before I posted to the four corners of Wikipedia. You exactly correct. Next time, I'll get some feedback and have something a bit more thought out. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we conflicted on editing that page. I was trying to archive the old discussion to Talk:Don Murphy/Archive2. I'm not sure what happened! -- Flyguy649 talk 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I appears we are all busy bodies! I thought I blanked the page and tried to undo it. I'll hands off it until its set, stable. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Bizarre
What is this? Do not make silly accusations [1]. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see that I immediately reverted myself. O_o. Back away from the trigger. :) Sorry that happened. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did but after I left the message and was coming here to say that. I ma keeping a good eye on Murphy as a regular editor there. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It happens. Its getting a little more vandalism here lately then normal. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, the other editor who you reverted is now indef blocked which in this case is very appropriate, I think. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It happens. Its getting a little more vandalism here lately then normal. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
F on Murphy
F means that even if he is claiming that a specific detail causes him distress it isn't obvious to me that we have any good reason to take that claim at face value. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not clear how that relates to his acting in bad faith having anything to do with content. Could you clarify a bit more, I apologize for my density. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The argument for removing the content is that he says he doesn't like it. Given that he's acting in bad faith I don't see a good reason to trust him on this claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Will you trust a claim that he makes, if such a claim is evidenced reliably, regardless of his actions? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Probably; I don't think he's passed the point where statements become less reliable by him asserting them (very few humans are in that category), I just give close to zero weight to his claims when they are related to Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't want an article on him, but that's been confirmed by his actions repeatedly. Beyond that I don't know much. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your clarification. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Probably; I don't think he's passed the point where statements become less reliable by him asserting them (very few humans are in that category), I just give close to zero weight to his claims when they are related to Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't want an article on him, but that's been confirmed by his actions repeatedly. Beyond that I don't know much. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Will you trust a claim that he makes, if such a claim is evidenced reliably, regardless of his actions? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The argument for removing the content is that he says he doesn't like it. Given that he's acting in bad faith I don't see a good reason to trust him on this claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up. Unfortunately, an unavoidable commitment has surfaced. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Question, and a plea.
On AN/I, you posted in relation to an administrator blocking a user: To take to an extreme, if an administrator asked me to stop broadcasting, I would certainly seek the input of others before reinserting my message. Good block.
Which others would you seek input from, if you didn't have "friends" on Wikipedia, and didn't really believe policy indicated that they were a necessary part of participating fully in editing Wikipedia?
Let me explain the reason for my question. I'm in a situation right now where an administrator has demanded that I stop posting to Talk: Countering Systemic Bias and Talk: Gender Studies regarding my questioning of their principles and actions, questions she has described as "open-ended" and "philosophical." I reject this description of my questions. I am motivated by an impression that the projects' assumptions, statements, and actions may violate policy. The admin posted a notice on AN/I, and solicited help from an editor from one of the WikiProjects who I've also had altercations with in the past, who in turn solicited help from yet another apparent friend who apparently has helped the projects in the past, and who I also have a history with and who looks at me with disregard. These three are the only others to have commented on the AN/I thread. The admin is now demanding that I open an immediate WP:RFC on the matter, or take the matter to WP:MFD. WP:MFD especially seems wildly inappropriate; I have never suggested the projects be summarily disbanded, and her advice seems to suggest that I have. She has stated, to my absolute shock and dismay, that I am a malicious troll; and that any action I take on this other than the options she presents (or indeed, any inaction!) would absolutely prove that I am nothing but a troll.
To take this matter to RFC or MFD without any discussion seems completely inappropriate to me. To do that seems to convey the exact image this administrator wishes to paint of me -- someone who shuns discussion, preferring to disrupt more people sooner. Presumably, if I did such a thing, the three others involved would "mention" it to a few other "friends," and the exponential array of editors accusing me of "campaigning" and "trolling," combined with the almost complete lack of discussion in Talk about the matter, would make for a farcical outcome to the RFC/MFD. By accusing me of "campaigning," it seems that I'm being set up such that any alternative seeking of outside opinion, or indeed continuing the discussion at all, such as posting to the Village Pump, would be interpreted as improper forum-shopping. On the other hand, some editors have responded in good faith to my posts, and now I'm being barred from responding to them. What can I do in such a situation?
Thanks for reading this far, and I look forward to your advice if you have the time and inclination to give it. If not, I understand. Blackworm (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for coming by. Unfortunatly, right now, I am unable to devote the required attention to this at the moment. When I'm able, and if I have anything new to add, I'll come by your talk page. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Replied. FYI, Murphy's fans call themselves stooges. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Er I think you misunderstand. Fans call themselves fans. This isn't what Murphy calls them (although he does also). It is the term for Murphy's fans. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps. You are a longtime contributer, and I'll assume GF here. Please be watchful, because we all don't know these things. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not templating the regulars
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The public face of GBT/C 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- ;-) The public face of GBT/C 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know what happened. Elfs in my laptop. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Awarding Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks
Thanks for the heads-up. Orderinchaos 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Apology
Please accept my sincere apology if it appeared that I was attacking you in any way in my recent comment on this MfD. I assure you that was not my intention and my comments are entirely confined to your actions and statements with regard to this one article/incident and not reflective of a larger opinion of or attack on you. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I accept your apology, and thank you for posting on my talk page. Its times like these when I'm reminded that for the most part, editors like myself and yourself are really focused on the project, and the community that edits it. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
But I really do think that "There are more projects besides the English Wikipedia. You are at least aware of that? The English Wikipedia is not the only place one can establish trust" and "I edit using no other account name than NonvocalScream", taken together, give the (false) impression that you meant that you are an established user - with a longer history than your account's (Feb 2008) creation here - on some other wiki, under the name "NonvocalScream". I'm not saying that you intended to mislead, just that it's a possible effect (and, indeed, I was in fact sidetracked by this), so I thought it might have contributed to Lawrence's confusion. --Random832 (contribs) 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can see how that is confusing, there are more projects such as OTRS, and whatnot. Of course, anyone may not (and probably should not) be able to glean my identity from that. I'll go ahead and set a few things straight since there were some questions on wiki and via my inbox. I have edited under a previous account here on the English Wikipedia. However, after some personal concern, I had decided to start over. I first obtained permission from the arbitration committee to do so, and they are aware of my previous account that I no longer edit under. So, I only use this account, and it is currently unified to every project. My contributions to other wiki project were so very limited that I did not see a need to request permission from those local arbcoms. Like I said to Lawerence, I am not under any sanction and have never been, here, or any other project. The block log on the previous account is clean. I did not expect to be so closely scrutinized (I would expect to be if I were undergoing RFA or something similar). However, I was scrutinized, and I think it is best that I just let this much out. As far as verification, an arbitrator is free to verify that I am in good standing. I would ask however (no directed to you or anyone in particular) that no effort be made to identify my previous account that I no longer use. I hope this helps. With regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is that people do get jumpy when an account they don't recognize shows up in some controversial area. And maybe that is a problem with the system, but I don't think it's fair that people (not you) are blaming Lawrence personally for it. --Random832 (contribs) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I probably should not have commented on that (NTTW), however, I felt a little strongly about it, and I thought the community felt the same way. It was a learning experience.
- I observed a good deal of opposes referencing his interaction with me, but little mention of him talking to me on my talk page. That was a motivating reason for me to examine his contributions and comment on his adminship fairly, and I think I was fair. I think he will do fine. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is that people do get jumpy when an account they don't recognize shows up in some controversial area. And maybe that is a problem with the system, but I don't think it's fair that people (not you) are blaming Lawrence personally for it. --Random832 (contribs) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
archiving
How often you want it? Lawrence § t/e 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome :) Messages older than seven days should go I think. Is that the norm? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- 30 usually... I added the config from my page, look up top. Make the subpages, and then just tweak the date ranges. It's pretty straightforward. :) Lawrence § t/e 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I'm horrible with most things template related, unless its spelled out to me. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- 30 usually... I added the config from my page, look up top. Make the subpages, and then just tweak the date ranges. It's pretty straightforward. :) Lawrence § t/e 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:
I don't think it counts as a WP:PA since I didn't know the user in question and as such wasn't commenting on the user but on the contribution. I still don't know the user in fact, I haven't read the AfD nor its history. BTW, talk about quick. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks for catching that typo, how embarrassing. And I still have a hard time believing it can be a WP:PA without being targeted at anyone I know of. It is simply saying that that edit was awful, though if you're the editor and are offended - my apologies, it wasn't intended to offend, and I am very surprised it has. Love, kisses and unicorns, +Hexagon1 (t) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- :) I replied on your page about how to phrase those. It will help you out in the future. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Did you want me to comment on the talk page? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit to RfAr
I undid your edit to the Arbitrators opinion section of the RfAr. Please feel free to put it back in the section for your statement, or to NYB on his talk page if necessary. Avruch T 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Apology
"I don't work for the parents, if they like, they can police the site" is the line that caused me to refer to your attitude toward the problem. I do not agree with that attitude. I do not mean this in the sense of "you have a bad attitude," but rather "A state of mind or a feeling; disposition"
I added a note to that discussion to clarify this, because I did not intend any offense, but simply to express a disagreement with your approach to the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Dear NonvocalScream,
The last time I looked, you weren't an administrator. Please do not speak to me in a manner that makes you come across as if you are.
Thanks.
--InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Per a previous note to you (the page that I made it on escapes me, at the moment, sorry..), I've struck the above. I again offer my apologies. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thx for the heads up
File:ANI lolcat.jpg⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I love lol catz, do you have a gallery somewhere? :) NonvocalScream (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Swatjester/lolcats has the ones I created with roflbot, and a link to the commons gallery. Also, might want to try I can haz cheezburger!, which is always a good source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As much as I hate to say it...
but you should consider withdrawing from RfA. Unless you are looking specifically for feedback from opposers, it is highly unlikely that your Rfa will pass, right or wrong. Your choice, your stress, your RfA. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) No stress, I may leave it open, who knows what may happen. Best! NonvocalScream (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there Scream, when I saw your name pop up I was both excited and worried at the same time, and unfortunately found myself in the neutral section. Me, like Keeper, recommend that you probably withdrawal sometime soon. I hope that this RfA does not damper your great contributions to the project, or stop you from having a RfA in the future. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you :) It will not. Everyone has been well worded, civil, and encouraging. I did not intend this to turn into an editor review, however, the feedback is extremely useful. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there Scream, when I saw your name pop up I was both excited and worried at the same time, and unfortunately found myself in the neutral section. Me, like Keeper, recommend that you probably withdrawal sometime soon. I hope that this RfA does not damper your great contributions to the project, or stop you from having a RfA in the future. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Lying about your name?
Were you lying about your name? At one point in time, as Mercury, you signed your name "Nathan". When people were trying to figure out who "NonvocalScream" was before WordMachine, I heard somewhere your name was Jo(h)n and that name was in your e-mail address. People suspected you were Mercury, but I want to know why you faked your name. This is a sockpuppet account. A Concerned Citizen Who's Been Here Before 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- No fakes. Some people call me Jon, Jonathan or Nathan. My email client and browser will sometimes convert Jon into John. I've fixed that. What kind of response were you seeking? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
re. RFA
replied on my talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
I've added some optional questions. Dlohcierekim 23:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll knock them out soon. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
International Task Force...
Created by User:Wvanhee - the only other edits were the copyvio tagging and deletion. There's literally nothing on it that wasn't verbatim from the website - if you're recreating it, it's probably best not to have the copyvio version knocking around in the history. — iridescent 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for that :) If it warrants inclusion I'll include it. Incidentally, the text is now released under GFDL per the ticket I quoted on ANI. Seems like a good way to solve a copyvio issue. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
RFPP
Sure thing. Even though the recent edits have been mostly vandalism, there have only been seven edits this week. The vandalism is slow and is being quickly reverted, so I considered page protection as unnecessary. It should only really be used when there's an extremely high level of vandalism, or repeated use of sockpuppet IPs etc. But if it suddenly starts up again, relist it. Protecting now would be a bit pre-emptive, and that is against policy. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick reply. I understand. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My mischief
You caught my mischievous edits within about 2 minutes. You have my respect. I promise to behave from now on. Peace. Filmcritic2000 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
for your support on my RFA and for not making your questions tooooooo hard! I trust I won't disappoint! --Slp1 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Scripped page
Hi, could you check it now? A bunch of content got pulled off by another admin, I think you might have seen that and then posted us for deletion. Could I also ask why we are singled out among the list of screenwriting software at List of screenwriting software. When I built the page I tried to model it after these other ones. Thanks. Rbucks (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up goatse. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Mentis
Um. Are you sure that "non compis mentis" is more than just a misspelling of "non compos mentis"? DS (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Village pump conversation you might be interested in
Hi! I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipediakids. It touches on some things you've expressed an interest in before, I think User:Leonard^Bloom would probably appreciate your thoughts. Thanks! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia for children
Thanks for your discussion on the Wikipedia for kids thread, and I was wondering if you could elaborate at all upon your idea. And possibly sign your post. :P Leonard(Bloom) 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Minor request re. Orangemarlin
Would you be willing to merge your Orangemarlin arbitration notice with the other request for clarification below it, to keep discussion in one section? Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll consider it. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin RFAR
Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay
Just a false positive or something? No problem. I didn't even notice. Happy editing. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
your RfA
I suggest bowing out and withdrawing your request, because I think it's going to be SNOWed out. At the moment you've got about 33% of the vote, and unless 30 support votes come in i'm afraid I don't think it'll pass. Ironholds 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lets give it about 24 hours before I consider it. Giving everyone time to wake up, for the time zones and such. Thank you for your concern. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
A question
Sorry, I can't speak Italian, so I'll ask here if you don't mind.
Why did you make this edit? —Giggy 00:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I answered here...
- Translation - I thought that it is prudent to do this thing on the basis of discussion on the English Wikipedia. I know that the two projects are different, that in this case, it makes sense to me. This was not an action of the Foundation.
- Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Tom Slemen
Thank you for your comment on the 'controversy' section of Tom Slemen's entry. I am not entirely certain what constitutes a strong source and a weak one, especially given the rather limited scope of the subjects appeal. I contend that the controversy section gives a more rounded and complete understanding of the subject rather than the slightly biased remainder of the article which is even more lacking in sources. Perhaps biased is a strong word but certainly the article is more than complementary to Tom Slemens work and could be read as an extention of his own self-publicity. I'd be happy to take any pointers from you regarding this, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjm (talk • contribs) 09:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Basically weak sourcing is controversial or negative information with a dubious source, or the same presented with one or two sources. WP:BLP and reliable sourcing has more information on this. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just closed this AfD, rersulting in the deletion of this article. I am, however, against blanking the discussion. Even discounting the participation of anons and SPAs, the result was still unanimous in favor of deletion. Per WP:CBLANK, blanking may be used if harm can be done to the party in question, but I don't see any of that in the discussion. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, the discussion is stating that this star is not really a star, causing distress. Blanking this discussion, is permissible under the guideline. And the discussion has all the unneeded comments about hotties, et al. Please reconsider your decision. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I disagree with your interpretation of the guideline, especially considering that "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare..." (per WP:CBLANK). IMHO, debating whether or not a star is really a star is simply hashing out notability. The whole "hottie" business is, I agree, foolish, but I doubt that it would cause "emotional distress". The whole matter is moot now, considering that Rjd6000 already blanked it out. Cheers, caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will try in the future not to be so liberal with this. :) Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Your RFA propsal
Well, it seems to have gone from "proposed" to "rejected" before I even got a chance to look at it, but I applaud the sentiment. I think Wikipedia could use being 'further democratized'. One way would to hold admins to a very very high standard and start massively de-adminning them for even minor policy violations (such as incivility). Or at the other end of the spectrum would be yours, to massively increase the number of admins, making virtually any long-time contributor an automatic admin. I think either solution would be helpful, and your approach would almost certainly be less controversial. So, keep at it and I hope something good comes of it. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. The policy proposal is redirected to my userspace where comments and rewrites are still being welcomed! NonvocalScream (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Cheers!
J.delanoygabsadds 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Giles Coren
I reverted the removal because the comment gave no indication why it had been removed. Ewx (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Remarked in the history. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Meta
I've replied to your question there. Thanks for taking to time to involve yourself. Regards, Rudget 10:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I see it. Thank you for the reply. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note
When putting resolved tags, please remember to put your signature inside the tag so that complaints don't begin with your signature.... See Template:Resolved. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll do that. Apologies. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thankspam
|
Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks - that'd be my view of self-noms too. Luckily, I can still keep contributing to the project without the tools, and I intend to do so. Be seeing you 'round! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks!
|
Thank you...
...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
VictoriaPynchon.jog tagged for speedy deletion in error
The photo was placed in Wikipedia Commons and, according to the notation on the photo page, permission has been received at WikiCommons by the copyright holder. Please do not delete the photo. It was put on the page, according to Wiki guidelines.AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- The local copy of the photo here on the English Wikipedia has been superseded by the duplicate on commons, which we canb use here. This is why the local copy was deleted. The image still exists on commons for use by all projects, however, the local copy remains deleted. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks!
I think you've been very kind (and to my eye, fair) in explaining my position in all sorts of places over the weekend - it's very much appreciated. I don't want anyone to get upset or stressed about this, so you shouldn't feel like it's a big deal if you just want to drop the whole thing if it gets unnecessarily heated - I'm very thankful for your actions in asking for my restriction to be lifted at all!
I'm not sure that any comment or engagement by me in the AN thread would be helpful at this point (though I have much to say!) - but if you'd like me to respond to anything specific, or if you think it might help for me to make any sort of comment anywhere, I'd appreciate your advice.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the hand. Sorry about removing the BLP watch template; I was working from an earlier version and for some reason didn't get an edit conflict when I saved :( Thanks for catching that and putting it back! Shell babelfish 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
NVS(bot) and MercuryBot
The bureaucrats wish to know why you should control two bot accounts which would do the same thing and are asking about deflagging MercuryBot. I believe I have explained the situation to the best of my knowledge at WT:BRFA#NVS (bot). If I have gotten anything wrong, feel free to correct me. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| 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 (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Steve's user page
Did he ask for this? Users can go without if they choose. rootology (T) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
He actually asked for it to be deleted it appears. rootology (T) 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oops then. When I clicked on the page, some of my usertools that permit me to do a userrights search and various editing pattern searches don't appear on redlinks. I was being lazy in creating the page rather than actually changing the code on my java injection on this computer. I thought a redirect page was the least controversial. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:3RR at Sarah Palin
You've now removed information about her family three times. Please stop. Oren0 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, I counted two. Sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Threats of violence, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here is my move log. I've moved nothing. It is disrespectful to template regulars. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Quote
The quote
You can lead a horse to water, but the drinking, is entirely up to the horse.
would sound much funnier as
You can lead a horse to water, but unless you are willing to drown the hose, whether or not it drinks, is its own choice.
happy editing. MBisanz talk 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- He he he, I'll think about it. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Gustav and beer
Not really, but close... :| Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I added something back. BEst, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Steve's user page
Did he ask for this? Users can go without if they choose. rootology (T) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
He actually asked for it to be deleted it appears. rootology (T) 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oops then. When I clicked on the page, some of my usertools that permit me to do a userrights search and various editing pattern searches don't appear on redlinks. I was being lazy in creating the page rather than actually changing the code on my java injection on this computer. I thought a redirect page was the least controversial. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:3RR at Sarah Palin
You've now removed information about her family three times. Please stop. Oren0 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, I counted two. Sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Threats of violence, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here is my move log. I've moved nothing. It is disrespectful to template regulars. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Quote
The quote
You can lead a horse to water, but the drinking, is entirely up to the horse.
would sound much funnier as
You can lead a horse to water, but unless you are willing to drown the hose, whether or not it drinks, is its own choice.
happy editing. MBisanz talk 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- He he he, I'll think about it. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Gustav and beer
Not really, but close... :| Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I added something back. BEst, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion Closure
I closed that discussion again because the original point of the thread was resolved. There does seem to be a new discussion about what the correct policy is regarding warnings, blocks, etc. but that thread was about a particular editor's block. As the discussion template says at the bottom: "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." Frank | talk 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see new replies in the discussion. Changed topic or not, the discussion is ongoing. And the edit summary was "enough already". NonvocalScream (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks,
for your constructive comment on my talk page. I take very seriously the statement that blocks are not punitive but part of a process for resolving problems. I have been blocked in the past and took it in stride and hope the user I blocked understood that the 15 minute block was solely to ensure s/he would read my comment on his/her user page. I have since left what i intended to be a conciliatory comment on that user's page. I certainly regret it if that editor feels wounded, I just do not think that is how one should respond to a block but if s/he feels that way i hope s/he understands that was not my intention and I regret it. I know this user has made lots of good edits and am confident that nothing I did will change that.
I appreciate your encouragement to start a policy discussion - i am going to cool down a day or two but follow your advice. I see a consensus that has emerged within a huge grey area in policy. I defer to the consensus, but i feel strongly it is misguided and would like to see open and civil discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisting AfD discussions
Hello, you have created a bit of a mess. I realize your intentions were good, but when you relist discussions, it is necessary to comment-out the transclusion in the original AfD log. Instead, you placed invisible text after the transclusion, and left it transcluded. This causes mathbot to still see it as open, and to list it on a few maintenance pages of AfD's that are overdue for closing. I'm cleaning it all up, and ask that you please do it the correct way in the future. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- PS: This seems to be caused by a glitch in the Z-man AfD closing script, so please avoid using it until the matter is resolved. See Z-man's talk page for details. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was all screwed up. I was on the wrong logpage. My apologies. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Bremerton Marina AfD
Would you mind re-visiting your NAC close of this AfD? I don't believe it was an appropriate no-consensus close for a non-admin since almost every other marina has been deleted. There is strong consensus that these aren't notable. I don't believe a non-admin should close such close AfDs. Mind overturning? OTherwise happy to take it to DRV. Let me know, thanks. TravellingCari 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Re listed. However, I'll continue to close AFD as if I had the proper judgement like an admin would. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- You shouldn't close no-consensus ones, though. WP:NAC says that generally, non-admins should only close unanimous keeps, withdrawn nominations, or discussions where an admin has deleted the page but forgotten to close the afd. The last couple times I tried closing as "no consensus", I got reverted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- NAC is an essay. And if a close gets reverted, I'll reinstate it and ask for DRV if I feel is was a correct close. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for relisting. TPH is right here, however. That's not an appropriate closure for a non-admin and I or any other admin could have overturned on the spot. I wouldn't have as it would look like a COI as nom, but it's not an appropriate closure even thought you meant ell. See the creator's talk -- he created a ton of inappropriate pages, which are slowly being deleted. TravellingCari 19:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- This AFD was weighed on the merits of the arguments, not the other articles. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good essay to that end. Please do not propagate the perception that administrators are better judges, and please do not forget that I was an administrator. Having my bit flipped does not mean that I lack the judgment to close an afd, and I'll continue to do so. The correct venue is DRV. Adminship is no big deal. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- An essay but a widely accepted one. I have no interest in debating your acceptance or non-acceptance of a generally accepted essay. I offered to take it to DRV, thank you for not making that a necessity. It's an un-needed step. This article had already been deleted and despite the fact there is no difference in judgement, that a number of admins found that the same articles with the same issues should be deleted is a sign that this one will need more attention. There is nothing wrong with re-listing. I didn't know you had been an admin before, I just saw the non-admin closure on the AfD. TravellingCari 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Mathmo AfD
As with the previous section of your talk page, can you re-open this discussion, since, as WP:NAC states, you should really be leaving non-consensus ones alone. I also don't understand your justification for closing the issue and deciding that it's not a DictDef. In what way is it not?! Mrh30 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, NAC is an essay, and can you link the AFD your talking about? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Found it. The AFD was closed on the discussion, not my personal opinion. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- But it is your personal opinion. You even say: "I find the policy agruments stronger in the case of keep and explanation of applicability to Dicdef.". This literally means that it's your opinion. Mrh30 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- What that means, is that the keep arguments were more convincing than the delete arguments. In any case, I did not find a rough consensus existed. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Mathmo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mathmo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mrh30 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Btw, sorry if you got the wrong impression about my intentions, I'm not trying to have a personal argument with you about your actions, I just feel that there's a pretty high chance that you've made a mistake with it, so I want to be sure. There's plenty of sources out there that list the term as a slang term from the University, such as http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Misc/jargon/CUjargon-M.html - I understand that despite the fact that I'm actually a 'mathmo', I'm a primary source! As I said, not trying to have a fight about it, just felt that you might have misread some of the evidence, since none of it actually seems to establish any notability for the term beyond it being just that - a term! As I said, no offence intended! Mrh30 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Bit
Hello. You are requesting advice on getting the bit back? I see only one, unsuccessful, RFA. Were you an admin under a different name. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD closure script
Hi, I noticed from your comment on the Mathmo DRV that you use a script to close AfDs - is this a publicly-available one, and if so could you point me to it? I don't find myself closing AfDs nearly as often as you do, but that script could be a useful thing to have hanging around. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca t | c 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
On "personalizing"
I thought your point at WT:DPR was reasonable, just not something the community is ready for. I'm sorry Guy and Anthony made it personal--I didn't see any reason to think that. For what it's worth. Chick Bowen 02:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your words. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
honest answer to mentoring thing is 'I dunno' !
hi nonvoc - I thought I'd swing by here and try and clarify a bit more what I meant by the 'kinda sorta' (which yea, is a bit useless as an answer!) - the truth is that Lar posted his sugggestion for how we'd work it, Durova responded, and I replied like this; User_talk:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden/A_threefold_path_to_enlightenment - the conversation then pleasantly continued without nailing anything down further, and general agreement that we should write something up 'on wiki' - to avoid this exact situation I guess! I've asked for us to focus on BLP matters only from now on, and you'll have seen that I think there may be some merit in the arb.s clarifying how they see things (for example, how technically the mentorship will lapse) - I think it's best that I take responsibility for any of these confusions (after all, Lar posted, and I didn't clearly respond) - and (of course) I'm happy to chat stuff through with you anytime anywhoo :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok - clarified in RFAR. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
OTRS
NonvocalScream, thank you for your constructive criticism at my OTRS application. As I said earlier, I remain committed to discussion and feel that what you have seen is not indicative of who I am. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the application at meta, sorry I'm late. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not enabled? rootology (C)(T) 05:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Pinged. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Extenstion clearing
Re this on PM's RFAR clarification: ", I will clear the extension from the arbitration case page Log of blocks and bans in a few days time. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)". See my clerk note on that request. I strongly recommend you wait til the arbs rule on the matter and specifically asked them to do so. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed new at RFAR. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank you for your participation at 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 act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
- No problem, good luck! NonvocalScream (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD on Xidan
May I ask why you think Xidan is not a notable page? Most of the sources I have cited describes a place as a bustling commercial center in Beijing, the capital of a pretty important nation (comparatively, to some other nations). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Remember that favor you owe me?
Well, would you mind giving a thorough copyedit of Burundi in order to make this article a GA? Thanks. miranda 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
ANI archiving
Hi.. I'm curious as to why you changed the archiving of ANI from MiszaBot to your own bot? MB was doing the job fine.. // roux 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I hope you won't mind the change while I set this bot up. It was not broken and I was not fixing it. I'm sure that since the code is identical to the coe that MB is using, there should be no problems. I'll be altering it later as well. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Um, what I don't understand is why you would change it. MB was doing the job fine, so there was no need to change. I'll be changing it back, now. // roux 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, you changed it back already. Please don't change it again; MiszaBot works fine. // roux 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using that page to ensure that NVS is archiving correctly. I see no reason not to change it. I'm not breaking anything. I will be changing it later today again, unless you can think of a reason other than "MB works fine". Don't break development, my bot has a bot flag and is bag approved for this task on ANI. I am in contact and have been in contact with MB. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- The phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind, but whatever. I don't care that much, it just seems like pointless change for the sake of change. // roux 19:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using that page to ensure that NVS is archiving correctly. I see no reason not to change it. I'm not breaking anything. I will be changing it later today again, unless you can think of a reason other than "MB works fine". Don't break development, my bot has a bot flag and is bag approved for this task on ANI. I am in contact and have been in contact with MB. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hoooookayy...
Is there some reason why you delete the posts made to your page? Its fairly atypical to do that, and some folk (while I don't count myself as one of them) consider it downright unfriendly; who wants to write/respond to someone who removes their posts immediately? Just my two pence. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I will leave this one up. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
BC RfAR OK
Thanks. I have made my statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Big wow
A tag has been placed on Big wow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been on the project... for a while. ;) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear NonvocalScream,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. And a Happy New Year to you as well. I as well, hope and will work for a better 2009. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
RE:SP
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
§hep • Talk 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama
Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
== User:NonvocalScream has been inducted into the
NonvocalScream was inducted into The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Justin Theroux was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.
The inscription is in the description. --David Shankbone 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!) |
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
censorship
hi there. I'm adding this censorship note in reference to your recent edit here
Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from Australian Communications and Media Authority. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Note that two wikipedia admins issued a final warning to the user who just a couple of hours earlier also tried to censor that material. You can view the warnings he received on his user talk page. thanks. --119.12.170.248 (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not censorship. I don't think that link adds anything, and that is my editorial opinion. To the article talk page for discussion of this! NonvocalScream (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Undo of Remo Mancini Article
Hello. I notice that you have effected an Undo of previous edits of the Remo Mancini article citing: 'Biography of living persons violation: Negative or contentious material must have multiple reliable sources. (OTRS ticket #2009031310056877)'. Please be advised that edits cited multiple, reliable and published articles in the Windsor Star (owned by media giant CanWest Global) which cited multiple sources. In the absence of ALL of the facts surrounding Remo Mancini and his background, this page would otherwise serve as little more than a platform of self-promotion with little or no public interest. Under the Wikipedia rules, you have 2 choices: 1) restore the article to include ALL known facts regarding the subject; or 2) remove the existing article as it is self-promotional, does not contain ALL known facts regarding the subject, and therefore is biased. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.14.111 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't think so. Because of his Cabinet Posts and certain awards, I believe he is notable enough for an article. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Then you need to permit the public to edit the article to reflect ALL of Mr. Mancini's 'notable' background - BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE. The article is NOT a balanced perspective of Mr. Mancini's background. Your dismissive reply comes off more as a Liberal shill than a Wikipedia Barnstar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.14.111 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Steve Crane
Hi, thanks for the message, much appreciated. My personal view is that if a living person doesn't want their biography published, then they have the right to have it removed, basically as a right to privacy. I suspect that it's his current occupation that causes a worry about having such a profile, hence my choice to speedy it (had to check the criteria for that, so have learnt something new today). Thanks again, WikiGull (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, would really like to speedy this, not sure why afd is being claimed to take precedence over my views when I'm the only author, but I feel quite strongly about this. WikiGull (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Format
Er. Did the format change? while I wasn't paying attention? Generally we group all the statements together.--Tznkai (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- All the statements are together. FT2 had originally added the section headers, I just moved them around. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Except FT2's statement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- FT2 is the requesting party and arbitrator. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is a wiki, format it if you have a better way. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Except FT2's statement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q T C 03:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Howdy, I've not visited that in a while. Do you need my help there? If so, let me know and I'll help. If everything is under control, let me know that I've been moved to inactive. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)