User talk:PeaceNT/Archive 8
 | 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. |
My RfA :)
 Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
My userpage
Thank you for poinying this out. I changed the color of my sig yesaterday, and, as you may have noticed, have typed a semi-colon somewhere rather than a colon. Do not have time to fix it now, so have added a redirect.--Anthony.bradbury 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorted properly now.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot of editors and I are having troubles with a mergist wikipedian (all he does is merge and delete), who calls himself User:TTN. I speak the truth. He is making thousands of editors angry, including User:King Wagga, User:Vilerocks, and myself. He claims to follow WP:EPISODE but does his merges with no approval to do so, and does such "edits" with very little warning. Here is a short list of the shows whose episode articles were unjustly deleted:
- Code Lyoko (one of my favorite shows)
- Ben 10
- Sailor Moon (another favorite)
This is all including, but not limited to, several video game and character articles as well.
I really hope something can be done about this. TTN has been rather rude to me and my fellow editors. Thanks in advance for helping me.
Angie Y. 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, those were long ago, and two of those were fully discussed. This user is just quite obsessed with having these. I have stopped redirecting beforehand at this point anyways. Any other complaints are just from fans at this point (Vilerocks is complaining over a fully discussed merger for example). And as a note, I will be redirecting more episodes soon, but all have had open discussions since the 30th (as I will note in my summary). TTN 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't mean you won't back off. Anyway, PeaceNT, I really hope that you can do something about this. I could show you evidence if you want.
For one, he has criticized me and several otrhers on their talk pages.
Angie Y. 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
Can you give me a simplified version of adding pictures. Thanks --Tdjzcsdrpf 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm back!
Zeibura has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Dear Peacent, thank you so much for your support and for watching over my user page while I was away. I'm back now, as everything in real life has got a lot less stressful and I've now made a recovery. I hope you're okay, and you have a nice day! - Zeibura Talk 04:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Aw, thank you dear Peacent :) It's good to be back. Take care - Zeibura Talk 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey
A belated well done on your RFA. I'm just back from the land of rum and salsa and need to sleep, somewhat urgently! All the best for now, hope you're enjoying the new buttons...! The Rambling Man 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
User page protection
Can you please protect User talk:King and Philosopher he is using it to promote vandalism on his talk page. thank you Momusufan 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
re: Thanks!
No problem! He got me, too. I guess he didn't like the criticism of his contributions! Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Colours
Where can I find the web colours to use on text and stuff. I can't seem to find it. Well actually i can find it, but when it comes up, its a blank page. Please help me. Note that my computer uses cable Internet and is Core Duo. Efansay talkContrubutions 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- One problem. The page kind of works but the tables saying the codes for the colours are blank. Efansay talkContrubutions 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't get it, which table? :) Peacent 11:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The one with the codes to enter into the text. I jsut need the numbers. Efansay talkContrubutions 11:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This gets stranger and stranger. Now i can only see half the table and the codes on that side. Oh and one more question, you know the contributions link on my signature, how do I make it goldenrod. The code is DAA755, but when i input it, it makes no differents to me. Efansay talkContrubutions 11:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
'Tis a glorious day! :)
Yeah, I saw it down to 3 pages today, but when I went back after 10 minutes, it was back up to 15 or so... I've never seen it empty either! A rare sighting, you are very lucky :) Riana ⁂ 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:redirect#What do we use redirects for?
The reason I added {{db-reason|Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings, Misspellings, Tenses and Capitalizations}} to western sahara, is because Other capitalisations... states:
- (Articles, including redirects, whose titles are either all initial caps or only first word capitalised are found via "Go" using a case-insensitive match.)
- Note: Related redirects are needed only if the article title has two or more words and words following the first have different capitalisations. They are not needed, for example, for proper names which are all initial caps.
Please see examples; frankish empire was deleted for this reason.
Cheers, Pædia 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Paedia#Re:Wikipedia:redirect#What do we use redirects for?
- Sorry, I didn't know about that. The redirect has been deleted. Thanks, :) Peacent 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. This could be avoided if I were an administrator. Pædia 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sysop?
Do you think I have a chance of becoming a Sysop? —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | 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 02:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
Dear PeaceNT, Thank you for your warm welcome!:-D I am normally pressed for time but still would like to learn more about the Wikiverse and it's community, get a userpage up, and contribute to Chernobog's page. Until I can carve out more time to read page after page, (where do I start?) I feel that I need to keep my Word first/look after a priority and then have fun exploring. Any help that you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again and have a great day! :-)Sincerely,--Linn-bun 04:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My recent RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
Hello :-) Thank you PeaceNT for your candy, it means a lot to me, I'm not so annoyed now. Thank you — your're really kind. The Sunshine Man 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi, just wanted to say thanks for blocking the user threatening me on my talk page. I was just wondering, how common is this stuff, and what is the appropriate manner for dealing with this, anything other than the standard WP:AIV reporting? A little scary in his wording too. Ahh! Eliz81 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me! Just a few words of reassurance were very comforting :) Eliz81 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, so you can see why I was so worried! I appreciate the indefinite block. Eliz81 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- ummm good grief! these vandals do take being reverted seriously. does the reverted vandalism on my main user page (User:Eliz81) count as a direct threat worthy of blocking too? Ack! Thanks! Eliz81 10:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- and how nice of you to make wikipedia safer for the vandalism patrollers! :) Eliz81 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, so you can see why I was so worried! I appreciate the indefinite block. Eliz81 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Another Thank You
For the archives link for the wiki reference! I'm amazed by the volunteer spirit and generosity of these resources on wiki!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.103.162 (talk • contribs)
User:Ned Scott swearing
Ned Scott has been swearing on a talking page for Category:Wealthy fictional characters plus some talk pages. Just to let you know, he is one of TTN's supporters. Angie Y. 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh no!
I call your attention to this!: [1] Angie Y. 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think you could better explain your position to Angie? She seems to think that you're some sort of force that is ready to hold me back and strike me down at any turn instead of an advocate of discussion. She needs to know that that you're not out to get me, only that you're sort of trying mediate things in a way. TTN 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Pekojan
Yahoo !!!!! Now !!!! Im waiting for you. ~
Deathly hallows
Don't add controversial material without reaching first a consensus. Indeed, the material you're constantly re-adding has previously been removed by general consensus, and not even providing clear reason as to why you would re-include it, and not even bothering to answer to people who have explain why they had removed it (and I remind you of your nonsensical and scandalous edit summaries, "fix"), is even more disrespectful.
If you're starting adminship like that, be sure it'll not last long.
I now ask you not to re-include anything without discussing it first. If you judge that material that was removed by consensus should be re-added, the first think to do is indeed to explain why, and to see what others think of your position. If you cannot provide any other reason than "fix", or not even bothering with others' explanation, your edits are likely to be unencyclopedical, and thus there's no reason they could remain in the article, whether you're an admin or not.Folken de Fanel 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - In my opinion, there has been no formal consensus reached in the Sandpiper-Folken edit wars, just a lot of arguing back and forth. Most other editors, aside from random anons, newbies, and perhaps a few intrepid veterans trying to keep order, have been ducking out of the way to avoid getting caught in the crossfire. No consensus "vote" of the "keep" vs "delete" has been tallied and resulted in any sort of conclusive "ruling" in the matter. Apparently Folken claims a consensus based on the volume of the material on the "delete" side, which is mostly his own. You would have to dig through several archives (there are 13 of them I think just in the Deathly Hallows talk page) to find the lengthy discussions and attempts to mediate and reach RfC consensus. It always seems to come down to opposing dissertations on the opposite sides of the issue, with no real progress toward compromise. There have been parallel "debates" and reversions in the talk pages for R.A.B., Horcrux, Black family tree, Kreacher, and just about everywhere that Sandpiper and Folken lock horns (check their contributions for commonalities). You can also see most of their arguments in the edit summaries in their nonstop reversions of each other. Often these reversions fall short of the letter of the 3RR rule, but in my view it still it clearly constitutes edit warring that has become quite uncivil at times. In short, as I see it, Sandpiper wishes to document, in various HP-related articles, some of the major "fan theories" about what "really" happened in the first 6 books, and what can be expected to happen in Book 7, as part of the general phenomenon of the closure what may prove to be the biggest book release and the largest-selling series of books in history - a huge summer for the HP franchise. Sandpiper's sources are largely Mugglenet editorial articles (but not the fan blog pages as sometimes alledged) and those from other similar HP sites, and the "self published" John Granger books and web site. Folken insists that these are not reliable sources, and the stuff constitutes original research and self-published fan speculation, and is thus disallowed. In the process of the battles, much relevant information, including some that was posted and agreed-to by consensus before the war, has been dragged on and off the article pages on a nearly daily basis. I think Sandpiper's justification is that WP:FICTION and WP:WAF require secondary sources and editorial analysis, and that Mugglenet, Granger, et al provide this service. Folken's is that since nobody knows what happens in Book 7, except Rowling, then any discussion of what happened or is expected to happen is disallowed as fancruft, OR, Cryrstalballing, and unverifiable speculation (unverifiable in the sense of vs. canon - Rowling's works). It is a classic inclusionist vs exclusionist (or deletionist) battle that has not seen much give on either side, as I see it. By the way I am not formally representing either side in this war, just calling it as I see it. I made several attempts to organize and mediate the disputes, and attempted to stay neutral on the issues, but the RfC attempts and mediation, and coaching and counselling pretty much failed to produce anything fruitful. If I have misrepresented the views of either side in the matter, then I apologize in advance. I know this is treading on thin ice, but I thought some points needed to be clarified while you get up to speed, in case you have not been observing the battles which have been raging on and off for 2-3 months now. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 05:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I very nearly posted a reprimand on Folken's page for the tone of the post he made here above. But I didn't, perhaps because there would by now be an element of 'pot calling kettle black'. There is only so much you can write on a subject before you start to tire of attempting to see the other person's side and bluntly disagree with them. I have little respect left for Folken's view on editing. You have probably already seen this, but for example, while we here argue about whether fan theories regarding the locket ought to be in the RAB article, on the french wiki Folken attempted to get the whole article deleted. I take this to mean it would be his desire to do the same thing here, and similarly to drastcally reduce many articles. There have been other examples along the way. I have no respect and little give and take in editing for someone whose objective is to whittle away at articles paragraph by paragrah.
- I continue to hold the view that websites about HP, particularly those recommended by Rowling, are an excellent source for information about what fans think about HP. This is not a trivial issue: Rowling has actively encouraged the process of reader participation in second guessing how the books will end, and this process is now nearly complete. Serious people have become interested and put an enormous amount of effort into this research over the last few years, so that these books are now just about as analysed as it is possible to get, at least on the question of what happens next. I look forward to Rowling hopefully becoming more willing to talk about her work and explaining where some of her source material came from, but for the time being and for very obvious reasons she is only able to give hints about her books.
- Mostly, Folken and I have disputed horcruxes. This seems to be the theme. I have no idea what he changes on the non-HP series he edits, but he seems to have a combative style there too. He does not want any mention of any theory regarding horcruxes, except those mentioned specifically in the books. Again judging from the french wiki, and given that he is fluent in french and english and familiar with the HP articles on both sites, I take it he has no interest in adding anything from this website to the French one. The content here is considerably more extensive. From time to time I have seen him make informed incisive edits, so presumably he would be well able to extend articles on the French wiki.
- As to other souces, Michael Sanders first started quoting Granger, I presume because he happened to have a copy. Introducing sources like this in the articles is not something I was entirely happy with. Not because there is anything wrong with the content, but because it is unfair on all the books not mentioned when one example is mentioned. Granger is by no means unique in writing about Hp, and does not deserve the sole credit in an article, as if he was singlehandedly responsible for the work. However, Folken has insisted upon sources, so Michael started the ball rolling, and I have addeed a couple more. David Langford is just about as good a source on the topic of fan theories as you could possibly wish for. His business is writing about this sort of stuff professionally, and he has written for other encyclopedias, and won awards. His book is pretty much what you might hope an ecyclopedia article on this subject would be. It is his own book, so he puts forward his own views, but he is writing as an expert who has considered the available debate and is presenting what he considers to be the main points.
- People here have often shied away from reporting theories about the books. There is a perception that an infinite sea of speculation exists which would flood articles. In one sense this is true, but the point of having editors is to make choices about what should be included. Failing to report this widespread phenomenon of others anticipating the story is just as much a fault as over reporting it. Does anyone edit these articles seriously except because they have an interest in the books and how they will turn out? Just so amongst readers of wiki articles.
- Perhaps we should create a barnstar for people who get involved in the F-S campaign. It will be interesting to see where we are in a month or two. Sandpiper 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you very much for wishing me a happy birthday, it made my day that little bit brighter. I got a great dressing gown. How are you going Peacent? All the best, Dfrg.msc 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ck lostsword's RfA - Thanks
|
Thanks very much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed successfully at 40/2/1, making me Wikipedia's 1,250th administrator. Your comments were much appreciated, and I will endeavour to fulfil your expectations as an admin.
|
| File:Ck lostsword copy.png |
ck lostsword • T • C 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
my RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
La la la
Hey Peace, just dropping a note to say hi, and was just cruising over the deletion log, and am loving the work you're putting out towards getting the damn backlog down a bit. Keep up the great work as usual! Jmlk17 06:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Untitled
Hi Peace! Thanks for your kind message. I have some family stuff to take care of. May be back eventually with a new account. All the best...Stellatomailing 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2007 in music and IP 61.94.xxx.xxx
Hello ... Would you please protect 2007 in music for the same reason you protected 2008 in music last night? The anon. vandal from Jakarta using 61.5.92.xxx is back, using 61.94.193.201 (talk · contribs) and 61.94.192.85 (talk · contribs) this time ... we had identified the 61.94.xxx.xxx range as a "companion", but I believe that only 61.5.92.xxx was blocked yesterday ... and I see that the block must have expired, because 61.5.92.136 (talk · contribs) is back to their old tricks!
Please see User talk:72.75.70.147#Brooke Hogan where it was discussed at length with another admin and editor, which led to the protection of the 2008 article ... I guess that the 2007 just fell through the cracks. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thnx fer the block; the only edits I have ever done to that page were to revert "vandalism" by newbie fanboys like the one(s) from Jakarta, so being excluded is Not A Problem for me ... as for registering, I guess you didn't notice some other links at the top of my talk page:
- Anonymous WikiGnome, or Sockpuppet? ... for when I have to come out of the closet.
- My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ... why the Senior Partners say it's OK for me to be an anon-IP editor, period.
- Anywho, it's all just another symptom of my OCD, not any altruistic dedication to Wikipedia ... remember "codependent enabler", OK? :-) —72.75.70.147 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you very much for your support and your congratulations, as you may have read, I've enabled e-mail, you were obviously right to point that out. Many thanks! DrKiernan 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | 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 09:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your support, your congratulations, and for consistently being a positive presence around Wikipedia - at least wherever I see you :)--Kubigula (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just saw that you declined a request posted at WP:UAA to block User:Allyourbasearebelongtousomg. I have to say that I agree with the user that reported him because I think a username that is 25+ characters long should be blocked. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken. It's just that I've had shorter usernames blocked for being long. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool
I have tried it, but I'm a bit retarded when it comes to figuring out the monobook stuff...I've actually never used it whatsoever. I copy/pasted it into my monobook from the link you gave me, but a little confused as to the next step... :) Any help would be appreciated. Jmlk17 06:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)