User talk:ReyBrujo/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
edit

external links for the Super Nintendo page

I was wondering if it would be possible to add a sort of 'FAN site external link' to the Super Nintendo page. The external link I added was removed (which I totally understand, my site not being official or anything of the sort). But I really would like Super Nintendo fans to know a bit more about obscure japanese games and maybe help them discover hidden gems. My site is not a blog, not a shop, not a forum, just a database covering several video games systems including the Super Nintendo/Super Famicom. Thanks for your time, my initial intentions were not to spam the page, far from it. Shall I also discuss this in the 'Super Nintendo' discussion page ? thanks :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lkermel (talk • contribs) .

Replied on the user's talk page. [1] -- ReyBrujo 03:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick, and great reply. I'll contact the 'Super Nintendo' discussion page as soon as possible. Thanks :) --Lkermel 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My corrections

I have made the following changes

  1. Changed the license in Image:Wikiblock.jpg
  2. Changed the license in Image:TvMCEmblemColourWeb.jpg

I will follow your advice regarding the name change and words used in AFD discussion. Thanks a lot  Doctor Bruno  00:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [2] -- ReyBrujo 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I did all that you have suggested. I must thank you, your attitude has been very friendly and you have been very helpful! :) Cbrown1023 02:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor review response

Hey there, I just wanted to say thanks for giving me your feedback. It's really helpful to have an external perspective on what I'm doing.

I'm not really in any rush to go about setting contribution records. I think the biggest change was quitting the addiction that is World of Warcraft. It's certainly freed a lot of my time to go about other things. So I don't think steady edits from here on in will be much of an issue. I can certainly see what you mean by bursty edits though. Consistent contributions are obviously preferable.

On the note of edit summaries, I've pretty much always been putting them in for major edits, but had neglected to do so to minor edits. After it was suggested that I do so, I made sure to update my user preferences to warn me if it wasn't there. Shouldn't be a problem after another 100 minor edits or so. :)

The reverts should also be covered when I finish WP:WikiGuard, as I'm building in functionality to respond with appropriate summaries and templates. Big hopes for that thing.

Anywho, thanks again for taking the time to look over what I've done. It's much appreciated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From Infobox Idol to Infobox Musical Artist

Rey,

Your "quick fix" on all of the MoMusu/H!P infoboxes didn't work - all it did was make them look like shit, leaving out the photographs and much of the information because Infobox Idol wasn't a letter-for-letter clone of Infobox Musical Artist.

Please go through all of the infoboxes you changed, using Reina Tanaka as a guide (the one I barely have time to fix), and the proper syntax for the Infobox musical artist as seen at Template:Infobox musical artist before some less informed numbnuts at Wikipedia marks all of the current MoMusu/H!P photos for deletion because they're not showing up on articles due to your "quick fix".

--CJ Marsicano 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [3] -- ReyBrujo 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Rey,
I'll do what I can, please try to do the same at your most immediate convenience. --CJ Marsicano 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [4] -- ReyBrujo 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Map Links for Video Games

Hi, it seems most of the feedback has been alright with having links for maps on Video Game pages. Is it alright for me to put some links up for Maps, and then if anyone finds a better map site for the game that I linked to the link can be changed? Thanks Snesmaster 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [5] -- ReyBrujo 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I could not figure out how to do a Summary link that you refered to. I put a link in for Zelda II. Could you please add the code you were talking about and then I will use that for the other map links I add. Thanks for your help. Snesmaster 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [6] -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I see you doing a lot of good work at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. You've said that you currently don't have a need for admin tools [7], but you spend as much time on suspected copyvios as other admins do. Might you reconsider? I'd offer to answer any questions you might have, but I think you may have more experience and may be better qualified than me. Maybe admins as a whole are a subject of controversy sometimes, but if there's one kind of admin we need, it's wikignomes who quietly work away at reducing admin backlogs. --Interiot 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [8] -- ReyBrujo 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I read your reply... I actually came to your talk page to offer to nominate you, too. I think a lot of editors (including me before I became an admin) have this idea that other admins or the community in general is going to be disapointed if you don't delete 100 articles a day, be a fixture on AN/I, or whatever as an admin every day that you have the tools. It's simply not like that... no one is going to be following you around making sure you use the tools "enough". You can become an admin and hardly ever use the tools, and if anyone even notices, they aren't going to even complain about it. I'm sure you'd be one of the 100-200 most productive admins anyway just doing your normal WikiGnome stuff, and we need all the help like that we can get. Adminship is really no big deal for editors like us, I encourage you to accept a nomination from me or Interiot or self-nom or someone. I'm sure that you'll find being an administrator isn't dramatically different than being a responsible Wikignome. --W.marsh 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [9] -- ReyBrujo 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen Image:En-admin-vs-article-growth.png, but there are a fair number of semi-active and even inactive admins. (plug some of the admins you know into Special:Log, you might be surprised) IMHO, activity level is only mentioned at RFA to compensate for/hedge against the few admins who may damage Wikipedia. Ultimately, as long as someone is polite and doesn't do controversial things, adminship really is no big deal. A number of admins I know work on admin tasks sporadically or when there's a large backlog... we're all volunteers, so it's entirely appropriate. On the other hand, because there are a number of admins who do this, we need more polite hardworking people who can help clear away a backlog once in a while. And you're one of the hardest-working polite non-admins I've run across in a while, so I encourage you to accept a nomination from somebody too. :) --Interiot 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [10] -- ReyBrujo 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SF Symphony Keeping Score page

Dear Rey, I want to let you know that it is perfectly OK for anyone to post a wikipedia entry about our television series Keeping Score that utilizes language from the San Francisco Symphony's website and/or press releases. I sent a note stating so to permissions@wikimedia.org earlier today. Can you tell me how long it will take until that note is processed so that an entry can be posted without raising any GFDL flags? Thank you! Yours, Louisa Spier SFSCommunications 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) SFSCommunications

Replied on the user's talk page. [11] -- ReyBrujo 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Screenonline

Thanks for that, I've told them. Yes, screenonline.co.uk is a very good resource for information about British films & film people. I thought it was worth a template - the first one I've tried creating -- SteveCrook 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spamstar

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to ReyBrujo for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia
--A. B. 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

editor review thanks

Hello ReyBrujo

Thanks for talking the time to comment on my editing.

  • My ambition for now is indeed to turn the Roman Republican coinage article into a good article. I do not yet consider it "close".
  • I have used the db-user thing a few times already; thanks for this.
  • re: Images - thanks especially for raising this, I am somewhat confused and could use some advice:
    • watermark usually refers to some invisible signature in the image. I am unaware of any such. The images do have a logo in them. I prefer that logo remain. Is this a problem in some way?
    • creative commons: Image:Cr 20-1 Obverse.jpg has been uploaded to the commons. Is this what you mean?
    • what I really want to do is:
      • require others to link any usage to the original images where the logo and my WP name both appear.
      • I do not want my real name attached at this time.
      • I may some day wish to attach my real name. If so, my understanding is that all I need do is request an administrative change to my ID, and all links to Curtius will automatically be linked to my new name.
    • will this work?
    • does this in some way restrict the image's utility in WP and the commons?
    • Where or to whom should I go to get detailed copyright questions answered?

Curtius 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [12] -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hello,

I Tried posting a story and spent an hour putting it together for it to be deleted within 5 minutes of it being saved? There are many other articles that I have found that are in the same context of the one I created dudepost.com. So Im pretty confused as to what I did that was wrong.

Any help would be great. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tluckett (talk • contribs) .

Replied on the user's talk page. [13] -- ReyBrujo 05:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent link deletions

Your recent deletions of reference links from Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and Freakazoid! are unwarranted. Those links do not promote sites; they're there because the articles they point to are good references for various aspects of the shows. Weinman is a well-known writer about TV animation. In addition, the external links cleanup tag on Animaniacs wasn't warranted, either, as those links are all to reference pages. I have reverted all of your changes. Please discuss them on the articles' talk pages before you redo them, if you intend to do so. Jay Maynard 08:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [14] -- ReyBrujo 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, Rey! Thank you very much for participating in my review. The time and detail you put into it was very generous of you. A few clarifications, questions, etc.:

My User Page Yeah, I noticed this a few days ago, before I read your review. I believe I fixed it. Thanks.
Administratorship Yeah, I didn't mention it, but yes, I'd like to be an administrator, and this review was a step in that direction. WOW, 2,000 a month? Geez. If you have any further advice on an administratorship, don't hesitate to give it.  :-)
Make every image count I'm guessing this is a reference to some of the images I uploaded but ended up not using, right? I think the only instances of this have been were I later tweaked the image, and re-uploaded a modified version, thus not using the previous one. I’d delete the old one, but I don’t know how.
RV/Revert Vandalism Got it.  :-)
Fair Use Images I believe I tagged all those Real World images that I modified and re-uploaded, didn't I? Did I miss any? And what is the orfud tag for?
Harmon Meadow Map That pic is of an actual free-standing Directory at the Plaza, much like the other two pics of the Plaza in that article. Is this acceptable? Or does the same principle apply?
Image sizes Sorry about the large Blood & Water image. I'll get around to re-uploaded a smaller version. But the Flash image is only 280K. Isn't the Fair Use limit 500K? (There was no mention of image size on the fair use criteria page you linked to.) Let me know.
Edit Summary Usage and Minor Edits Okay, I'm kinda lost here. What do you mean about the first sentence regarding 35% minor edits? Also, you stated that I should mark minor edits as minor edits. I've been using that checkbox more often lately, but not as a habit, partiarly because I'm not always sure which edits are minor. What is the criteria for minor edits?
Vandalism The vandal in question has been targeting the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles (as well as others) for some time. The particular nature of the edits on his part that you point to would not be seen as vandalism at first glance, but taken in total with his other behavior, the countless sock puppets he posts under, and his refusal to engage in any discussion on these matters, makes his intentions clear. I described his actions in detail on the Administrators noticeboard and the Intervention against Vandalism board, but my post on the former is now archived and I can’t find it, and the one on the latter was removed. The best place to get an idea of this guy’s actions with your own eyes is here and here. Nightscream 13:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [15] -- ReyBrujo 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on the Minor edits and mathbot (I was surprised to see that I only used Edit Summaries 35% of the time; I thought it was closer to 100!). But the part where you say, "A 30kb jpeg with a resolution of 1024x768 could be considered too big, while a 900kb of 300x300 can be considered fine" has me totally lost. I know what kb is, but how do I determine the (X) x (X) resolution? When I use the "Get Info" function on an image file on my computer (as in this example), it shows the KB but not the (X) x (X). And how can determine if that resolution is acceptable? Is there a Policy or guideline page for this? Thanks again! Nightscream 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [16] -- ReyBrujo 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again. :-) Nightscream 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

Sorry I haven't had the time to respond to the editor review, I was away for like a week. Firstly, let me say that it was very, very good. It looks like I'm getting a lot of the same thing; less time socializing, more time in AFDs, etc. The WikiPlomacy thing was brought up in MFD and deleted per my consent, I wasn't all that aware of the limits on Roleplaying and games on Wikipedia. I really try to get to the AFDs, they do seem interesting and fun. I'll also try to RC patrol. I sometimes forget to warn people of vandalism, as the tool I use has a revert function and a warn function, which must be used separately, so I revert but sometimes don't go back to warn. As for minor edits, that is my big problem; I usually forget to use that. Though I plan to. Edit summaries are another thing I'm trying to use, both because it's important to other users and I find myself, when RC patrolling, that I say to myself "Well, that has no edit summary...best check it out". So, then, I plan to get to work immediately; I'll be visiting AFD and maybe some RC patrolling...I have the day off tomorrow so I've got plenty of time to work tonight. Also, about me calling you "role model", I understand why you wouldn't like that label; I was trying to point out how influential and important you were in my early days of editing. You'll remember how unsure I was about removing a stub from Tanis Half-Elven...seems funny now, doesn't it? Unrelated, though, I love your new talk page! Looks good. See you around! DoomsDay349 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I changed the article...please reconsider the copyvio. You caught me fast! Sr13 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [17] -- ReyBrujo 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Shane's World

The text i posted was written by me. I work for the company. So it is copyrighted ... but by me =) I am new to this but trying to figure it out. Is my layout OK?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meggie7801 (talk • contribs) .

Replied on the user's talk page. [18] -- ReyBrujo 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Stanley-Wilf conjecture

Sorry, the recreation was mine, not User:Sr13. It is my belief that small articles are better than red links, as anonymous can expand stubs but can't create articles. However, I understand your position, and thus I am sorry for having recreated the article. -- ReyBrujo 22:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point of view as well but an encyclopedia article that offers nothing more than the product of a Google search isn't very useful! We're all dedicated to helping researchers, so we just need to educate those editors who don't understand the process of article creation when the opportunity arises. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for your editor review; I'd appreciate help with some articles! The thing is, I see so many AFD's in recent changes, I take part in them! Thanks anyway! --SunStar Net 12:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, sorry to bother you but can you check my work on Jay Garner? An anonymous user on my talk page reported plagiarism and I found that 5 paragraphs seem to be copy and pastes, so I removed them. But I dunno, something seems fishy here... can you double check? Thanks a lot. --W.marsh 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, the offending diff appears to be this. --W.marsh 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [19] -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the explanation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripolymer, it was very clear. --Nehwyn 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [20] -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

I appreciate your editor review of me earlier today. The reason I have slowed down is that I am busy on the food science and technology, an industry I worked in before I got into cosmetics in 2005. I know some of the people involved in this industry and am gunning for more of a quality rather than quantity approach. Additionally, the information on early food scientists over the Internet is limited or nonexistent so taht is why i am taking my time. I do plan on pushing a few good articles and peer review on this in the near future, but I am more interested in getting as much of the redlinks out as I can. Stubby articles I don't mind, but I can't stand redlinks so that is why I push as hard as I can to get redlinks eliminated. Again thank you for your review. Chris 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [21] -- ReyBrujo 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I do have a lot of books at home and magazines and will be able to cite when needed. Again. Thank you. Chris 19:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stand Out Riot copyright issues

I am the owner of the copyright of the Stand Out Riot website, and the information I have used is not directly lifted from the site either. Does this mean I can add references to the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Francishunt1 (talk • contribs) .

Replied on the user's talk page. [22] -- ReyBrujo 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stand Out Riot copyright issues II

ok, there is nothing copied from any websites on there. how do I cite references? as the help topic doesn't seem to help. plus, what do references do I add if none are from things like the BBC etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Francishunt1 (talk • contribs) .

Replied on the user's talk page. [23] -- ReyBrujo 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for removing that stuff off of my review from Waiting4, I didn't figure it belonged there but wasn't really comfortable removing stuff off the page myself. Seraphimblade 23:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric Schoenberg

You placed a speedy tag on Eric Schoenberg. There have been some improvements to the article, and in my view it now demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [24] -- ReyBrujo 02:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Regarding Johnny Contardo

That sounds like a good idea - that way the claim of authorization can be verified. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [25] -- ReyBrujo 04:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Thanks a lot for your review. I am still trying to figure out how this works and so any feedback is greatly appreciated. Remember 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [26] -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for my editor review

thanks so much for taking the time to review my performance in wikipedia, i really really appreciate it. thanks! and also, i admit that im having trouble about tagging my images, but believe me it is my good intention to add images on my subject article to make them more informative, ill do my best to be vigilant the next time i upload them. again, thank you and more power! =) †Bloodpack† 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [27] -- ReyBrujo 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'd just like to know if you're interested in doing a peer review of Mario here. —The Great Llama talk 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [28] -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Abaana

Thankyou for your comment. You are right the comments I initially made were not too civil (I was very cross at the time), but if you look at the discussions on User talk:Nishkid64 the discussion has since been relative civil. I still think the admin in this case is in the wrong firstly for speedy deleting an article that was at least borderline notable and secondly for not informing the User (User:Abaana), who was obviously writing the article in good faith, that their article had been deleted and the reasons why. Cheers Lethaniol 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Be Nice to Noobs

I would like to raise a suggestion with you, especially as you have made a tool to expand edit summaries to help new users. The background - when talking to User: Nishkid64 I stated that I thought it is wrong to delete an article and not leave a statement on the user (who was editing in good faith) as to why. Nishkid64 replied (on my talk page, that: "There is no rule saying I have to leave a message on the user's talk page about deleting the page." Now I went to WP:CSD and he was right it was only a suggestion that users should be told (in Procedure for administrators "Also, in some cases the article's creator should be notified."). Now though he may be right it is not at all in the spirit of WP:Bite. Now I know this is not a one off (not of this admin but in general) and that Noobs do get bitten and they get frustrated and either leave or vandalise.

What I want to propose is that the official WP:CSD policy be rewritten to reflect WP:Bite in particular that when deleting pages, a reason is normally to be given on the User's talk page, and in the exceptional cases not (e.g. persistent vandalism where ban is being organised, or does maintenance deleting). This will likely use escalating test templates for vandals, or an explanation and/or templates statement reasons for deletion as well as welcome template on testers, non-appropriate articles (in particular notability).

I suppose the argument will go that this increases the workload of admins, but I suggest over the long run this will decrease workload as more people stay and do not vandalise wikipedia, increasing our numbers and quality of wikipedia.

Again the reason I want to sound you out on this, is because your tool for expanding edit summaries is much in line with this suggested policy change. I suppose the questions I have is - what do you think and should I start a discussion on the WP:CSD discussion page.

Many thanks Lethaniol 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have time for a quick reply - even if it is to say my idea is stupid - it would be greatly welcomed Lethaniol 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [29] -- ReyBrujo 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your considered reply - I will act upon your suggestions and develop the templates first - again thanks Lethaniol 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Well done on passing your RfA with such a high percentage of approval votes! I'm sure that a Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new admin toolset. If you have any questions about the usage of those tools then please ask, as I am sure that I would like to know the answers too! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [30] -- ReyBrujo 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it's official, you're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Be conservative with them and re-read the policies before acting, especially in anything new. Keep up the good work, and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 17:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [31] -- ReyBrujo 17:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations my friend! Have a great day. ↔ ANAS - Talk 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [32] -- ReyBrujo 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Congrats ReyBrujo! Have fun with your new tools! If you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [33] -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Deserved mate. -- Szvest → Wiki Me Up ® 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, you do deserve the "promotion" (personally always thinking you were). Good luck with it!--Kranar drogin 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [34] -- ReyBrujo 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to congratulate you as well on the mop and bucket. You'll certainly make an excellent admin. Regards.--Húsönd 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
File:Esperanza.Party.gif
Esperanza congratulates you!

Well done! You will do very well with your new tools. Best of luck to you, you will be a great admin! Jam01 08:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats... Cbrown1023 16:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hey Rey! Dunno how I missed this. Congrats on becoming an admin at last! I was beginning to think you didn't want it, you shot down like 3 Rfas, right? It's great to know that such a wonderful editor as yourself has finally become an admin. DoomsDay349 21:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [35] -- ReyBrujo 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You finally became an administrator. That's freakin' awesome. Good luck with your new duties.--SUIT 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Your thoroughness and thoughtfulness will serve you well, and here's something amusing, if you haven't seen it already. Cheers, mate! Dar-Ape 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your new powers

mop
The mop 		Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:

All the best! - Quadell

mop
The flamethrower
Replied on the user's talk page. [36] -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your becoming an administrator and I hope to you see around again. Best of luck! - Patman2648 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Pile-on congratulations! I'm sure you'll be a wonderful administrator. Pssst... review me sometime? :) riana_dzasta 05:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on the promotion!

I might ask you to review me again sometime in the future ;) hehe AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful adminship request, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 06:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Esperanza

Hey Rey. I understand qualms you might have about "people having conversations with little to do with Wikipedia." That, my friend, is the now-deleted Coffee Lounge, which I in fact proposed for MFD. The main problem was exactly what you said; social networking unassociated with Wikipedia. Now then, the idea is to re-create something similar that has it's entire focus on Wikipedia; my proposal for it is a place to discuss Wikipedia policy, events, get people voting in the elections, discussing essays, and writing essays. The plan is to totally reverse it; to make it valuable to the encyclopedia. A lot of the other projects that were non-encyclopedic have gone, but there's still a lot of debate going on. If you're insinuating I'm spending too much time there (don't deny it; you said it at my review, I picked it up here :)) I have no problem with it; I recognize now that I was spending a lot of time at the Coffee Lounge. I wish there was some way to erase them from my edit count; but there isn't, so I have to accept them. I am now totally wrapped up in this debate; I admit that. But, if you notice, I stop by the AFD every so often during lulls and vote, even proposed one recently and am going to propose another soon. It's actually a lot of fun. I also RC patrol off and on. If it seems like I'm neglecting Dragonlance, that's because I have so much to read before I want to attempt doing more editing. I'll probably update Mina (Dragonlance) soon, and definetly clean up the Chaos (Dragonlance) article, which is horribly inaccurate. I'm also gonna begin working on minotaur wars, and possibly start a Minotaur (Dragonlance) article, considering the expansive history given in Night of Blood and all this info about a massive civilization. So, don't worry that I'm neglecting encyclopedia-building; just taking a break until I finish this debate and read some more books. No worries! But thanks for your concern. DoomsDay349 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [37] -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Huzzah! My name is now clear...well partially. Looking forward to working with you again in the near future! DoomsDay349 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your comments at User talk:DoomsDay349. Have a look. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Good luck!

Thank you Rey, it is very hard for me to leave. But as you can see from my userpage, I've got an addiction here :-). I will not rule out a possible return some time in the future, but for now I have to focus my attention on other things. Congratulations on getting the mop by the way! I was actually going to nominate you but you entered a self-nom before I got the chance! - Mike 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Crack

Damn, edit conflict... I was ready to decline CSD send it to AfD b/c I felt the article asserts notability... I'll levae it up to you... - crz crztalk 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [38] -- ReyBrujo 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
First day! Erm... CONGRATS... I didn't realize. I am sorry about this - I had assumed you've been a sysop for a while. Sorry. - crz crztalk 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No DRV. Either you consent to do it, or you don't, and then I drop the matter. I thought there was something very weak there. It's not a big deal at all. You don't need policy to undo yourself. - crz crztalk 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [39] -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I though you left it for me b/c it was my request. Please, please don't kill me! :) :) - crz crztalk 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [40] -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mariusz #2 indefblocked, U1 removed with explanatory note and offer of help. Reply unnecessary. Thx. - crz crztalk 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chancers page

Hi, I made a page on a local band called "The Chancers" which you deleted. When you explained why you used a load of technical jargon which I did not have a clue about....=P. Could you explain why so I dont make the same mistake twice! Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimeToRoll (talk • contribs) .

Replied on the user's talk page. [41] -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

declining to block 24.34.222.139

Hi... this user was also blanking user pages and user talk pages. Moreover, unexplained removals, especially following level four warnings, are typically treated as simple vandalism, not content disputes. Additionally, the claims that she erased content by "accident" are patent nonsense, unless she committed the same "accident" multiple times. --Rrburke 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [42] -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply. You were posting to my page as I was posting to yours: what I wanted to add was that the talk pages and user pages she was blanking belonged to editors she had previous disputes with at Talk:Fräulein, when she was contributing as User:152.163.100.11 -- these could hardly be "accidents". --Rrburke 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [43] -- ReyBrujo 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't have that info when I made the report. And you're right about the sequence of events. No big deal either way. Have a good one! --Rrburke 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:151.188.16.26

Hi! I just wanted to clarify why I said "vandalism only" for User talk:151.188.16.26. As far as I can tell, this school IP has made only vandalism edits; there have been 16 edits (all vandalism) in the last week (10 since the last "final warning"); and the talk page includes the template that notes the IP has been blocked multiple times (which it has) and further vandalism can lead to an immediate block. I understand that the rate of vandalism is low, but there are zero constructive edits from this IP. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [44] -- ReyBrujo 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem! As I said, it's low-level vandalism, so it's relatively easy to just keep reverting it. I honestly wasn't thinking "punitive", though; my feeling was that the IP was continuing to vandalize on a consistent basis, albeit only a few times per day. They had utterly ignored the most recent final warning, justifying yet another one-week block. Anyway, just wanted to explain where I was coming from. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [45] -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, we're good. I just didn't want you thinking the report was frivolous. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [46] -- ReyBrujo 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

hi, can i ask your opinion on this matter? thanks.

Proposal

(Taiwan) as a parenthetical should be included with references to Chinese Taipei. It would look like this: Chinese Taipei (Taiwan).

Rationale:

  1. Large numbers of English language speakers who may read Wikipedia will not know that Chinese Taipei is, in fact, a reference to Taiwan. It is consistent to include information that is helpful to the reader. In this case, it is a simple matter to add a six-letter word as a parenthetical to a term that is confusing to a large number of people.
  2. Opponents will note that it is the official usage of the IOC. This is true that the usage of Chinese Taipei is officially used by the IOC. However, even the Wikipedia page List_of_IOC_country_codes uses Taiwan as a parenthetical, for obvious reasons. Also, those same people do NOT use the official IOC names for the People’s Republic of China, Lao Democratic People’s Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, Palestinian Authority, and Korea, but rather China, Laos, Iran, Palestine and Republic of Korea respectively. It makes sense to include names that are familiar to people alongside the official name if that is necessary for clarity and it doesn’t become too unwieldy.
  3. The term “Taiwan” is commonly used not only in Taiwan, but also in other countries among people and even in the news media. News websites often refer to Taiwan’s medal tally’s, not Chinese Taipei. Not including clarification induces unnecessary confusion.
  4. I realize that most Wikipedians likely know what Chinese Taipei is, but the fact is that most people do now, and it is for them that we are editing. Most will NOT click on the Chinese Taipei link to discover --Ohh, it's Taiwan.

Please review above discussion before making your vote.

07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Votes in Favor

  1. Ludahai makes a good point. For the sake of clarity, I don't see a reason why (Taiwan) can't be included. I don't believe the majority of Wikipedia readers will know what Chinese Taipei is, and there's no reason not to add a little clarity. If only IOC names can be used, then that will also cause some confusion. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm in favor, just make sure every Chinese Taipei has (Taiwan) next to it. If this is opposed, make sure Laos is displayed as "Lao People's Democratic Republic," Iran is "Islamic Republic of Iran," and China is "People's Republic of China". --Howard the Duck 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Undecided

  1. Ludahai makes a indeed a point, but I don't see why (Taiwan) has to be added next to Chinese Taipei everywhere. Yes, the people in Taiwan are against this name, but it's the most common name of Taiwan used in sports. I don't know what most people think, but when I read about something and I don't know what they are talking about I would do research to see if I could find out about it. If people see are wondering what Chinese Taipei is, they will probably click on it and find out themselves. On the other hand there are indeed other countries that aren't named like they are known in the world of IOC, so I guess I stay neutral, at least for now. SportsAddicted | discuss 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Votes opposed

  1. Currently they are participate under Chinese Taipei, and not Chinese Taipei (Taiwan). And we should keep officially, and not to parenthetical.(this statement was posted by --Aleenf1 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
  2. I'm for the opposition. People know Chinese Taipei on the basis that they've seen it alot of times. it is logical to note that when people do not see Taiwan, they will construe that Chinese Taipei is Taiwan. by the way for ludahai why aren't you crying out loud for Timor Leste? isn't it that the more popular name is East Timor? Chinese Taipei is Chinese Taipei and i will stick to the IOC designation because it deserves an exception. i rest my case.

please post reply at 2006 Asian Games talk page. RebSkii 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. [47] -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Israeli-Zionist terrorism

I just created Israeli-Zionist terrorism. However, on second look, I realize this title is illogical, and quite frankly stupid. Please delete the page. KazakhPol 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [48] -- ReyBrujo 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I had not seen that template before. I appreciate your quick response. KazakhPol 02:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm back.

That was quick, huh? Mike 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [49] -- ReyBrujo 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Block

Could you please block A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for repeated violation of 3RR rule ([50] [51] [52] and [53] [54] [55]), simply to suit his own tastes and resolution. Block me aswell if you have to but he has to learn he's not the boss, thankyou

218.101.117.17 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [56] -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wii

Yes, just tag it as cc-by-2.0. ed g2s • talk 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Credible

http://nexgenwars.com/ IS a credible source they have been intricately tracking the course of sales for the 3 systems and their current sales numbers are accurate provide me some evidence that says otherwise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.91.47.42 (talk • contribs) . (from here)

Replied on the user's talk page. [57] -- ReyBrujo 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

External link

You have removed an external link to a forum on The Real People on the grounds that it had less than 500 members - this is their official fansite and is the only active forum I have found for this band, so perhaps you could reconsider? Thanks Jud 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied in the user's talk page. [58] -- ReyBrujo 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply.

The site is listed as the band's website on their Myspace page. They have been inactive for several years and have only just started gigging again. Their fan forum was dormant but has recently been revived, and is now accepting new members (there are now 435!). The topics are not visible to non-members; I have now registered, and the site appears to be very active, well moderated, and with several new posts appearing daily.

I know invision.com boards are frowned upon, but this does appear to be the only site still extant for fans of this veteran band, and as such I believe it merits a mention - even though it requires registration it is (at present) the only way to contact other "Realies" fans and get up to date news. Jud 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [59] -- ReyBrujo 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpike Editor Review! 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hello ReyBrujo, I just saw your message about my signature and to be honoust, I don't really get it? First of all I don't see what is wrong with my signature. There has never been problems with it and it always looks exactly like I want it to look. I always sign a message with ~~~~ like most people and like I've always used, having changed some of my settings to let it look like it's now. Please clarify what you mean, thanks. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [60] -- ReyBrujo 11:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're trying to say why it would be reccomended to change it. I'm not planning to change my signature again, but f course vandalism can always occur. I'm willing to change it like you said, but I have no idea what I have to do exactly to get the same results as I have now. I'm not really a templates hero and I just copied this technique from my nl.wiki account. If you can tell me a step by step procedure I will change it :) Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [61] -- ReyBrujo 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks like it's working now, however I had already substituted it, but in another way: {{SUBST:User:SportsAddicted/Subnotatio}}. I guess what I copied from the nl.wiki and what was told me at that time was a bit of overkill seeing that it could be done this easily. SportsAddicted | discuss 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 Thank you Rey for your birthday message. It means a lot and is highly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck. Culverin? Talk

Fair use in portals again

The amendment has gotten stale (though it's still alive). If you have any new opinions, I would like to hear them. Also, congratulations to becoming an admin! Ddcc 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [62] -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for sorting out my editor review, I reverted the page from my edits so hopefully theres no lasting problems! You could probably say that after the edits to the editor review page now was not the best time to request one!! Thanks again Ryanpostlethwaite 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image..

Hi Roberto. Could you please delete this? Thanks in advance. ← ANAS Talk 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [63] -- ReyBrujo 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Gracias Roberto, have a great day. :) ← ANAS Talk 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you also delete this, this and this? Those are orphan images. Was new. Thanks! ← ANAS Talk 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [64] -- ReyBrujo 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only is it orphaned, it's also a duplicate, so I think it is OK to delete it. *Feels clumsy*. Newbie days, everybody has'em. Sorry for taking your time Roberto. :) ← ANAS Talk 19:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [65] -- ReyBrujo 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
..Appreciate the help. ← ANAS Talk 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuous Vandalism

Hye ReyBrujo, I saw that you have notified the user which contributes with the IP : 82.224.220.38 [66] to stop adding inappropriate links to the pages of Michel Aoun and Free Patriotic Movement : [67]. Well, il seems that he didn't get it at all, he is still doing the same things : he replaced all external links with inappropriate ones : [68]. I see that you are an administrator, can you please the appropriate actions ? Best Regards. Captainm 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [69] -- ReyBrujo 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rey Captainm 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks very much for your extensive review, it was highly appreciated. However, you talked about how the summaries of images I have uploaded aren't descriptive enough. Could you please give me some tips on how to write good image summaries?

Also, you said you were concerned about the cricket bat images I uploaded. Before I uploaded them, I sent an email to Kookaburra Sport asking for permission to use these images. I can forward the email to you if you would like, but how can I confirm using an edit summary that Kookaburra would waive their copyright restrictions? Atlantis Hawk 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sims and Madden missing from Franchise Best Sellers?

The Sims and Madden - where did they go? Seems that the links to these big sellers are missing from your franchise page. Sims is over 60 million now - reference for 54 is up on IGN. Please fix! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.153.4.50 (talk • contribs) .

Hello there. I just checked the article, and both Madden NFL (51 million according to games.ign.com/articles/727/727241p1.html) and The Sims (54 million according to www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htm) are there. Thanks for informing! -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Replied on the user's talk page. [70] -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I am a good friend of User Doomsday349, and i am new to wiki. and d-day said you could help me. I read the First comment on this page. I own a Super Nintendo. I have about 20 ga,es —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuyDoe (talk • contribs).

Advice regarding citations

Hi, ReyBrujo. I noticed your comment regarding citations on the New Contributors page, and I have some questions. I have been making a few changes to pages related to the works of my favorite author, Samuel R. Delany, and I have some information that I'd love to cite, but is actually from written correspondence (both email and physical letter). Several of the pages associated with his novels seem to have pure speculation in regards to his reasoning or the genesis of his characters. Take, for instance, the entry for Hogg -- much of the discussion of the characters seems to be simply the opinion of the writer. I have actual commentary on the characters from the author himself, but it's not something that is available on the web. Can I cite this? How would I do so? TIA, --71.154.223.103 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Whoops! Apparently, I timed out and was automatically logged out before posting that. Here's my proper signature: Kdring 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. [71] -- ReyBrujo 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReyBrujo/Archive_5&oldid=1086420432"