User talk:Caulde/Archive/32
My case[edit]
Hi. I know I am not popular there. I am in the political minority on a controversial issue. And I know that I am on a tight rope. My activity there has been drastically reduced though. Look back in the archives back in the Spring or Summer and you would see me posting there a lot more than I am now. Also keep in mind that they're trying to ban me because of my edits on talkpages and not on the actual articles. Talkpages and the articles are two very different things and I take NPOV very seriously. For example, I started this article from scratch (which has since been turned into a redirect), see how I started it here: [1]. You can judge for yourself if that is the work of an unproductive troll (who has donated two different times to the WP foundation by the way). I admit that I have been in edit wars (and on the international reaction article usually it's with the same editor). However, if I am dealing with more than one person then I will stop and give up because I know that I will not win. I will also admit that I have lost my temper on a few occasions. Not to make excuses but when you are outnumbered you tend to get even more defensive. As someone who strongly supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, the situation that Serbia is dealing with is upsetting to me and that probably tends to leak out on my talkpage comments. There is only one person on that talkpage that I geniuely dislike. I get along well with Ijanderson, who disagrees with me on the issue. Finally, I think my presence there is crucial to the article staying as NPOV as possible. With me gone, there would really only be one other editor who is pro-Serbia that posts consistantly. If there is any more information that you need from me, feel free to ask. --Tocino 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection of Mitt Romney[edit]
Aloha. Yo semi'd the Mitt Romney article last February apparently without setting an expiry date. Do you think it might be excessive under current circumstances? Sincerely, the skomorokh 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Ironholds RFA oppose[edit]
It was the oppose. Saying that a user with 450 edits requesting adminship because it's no big deal annoys him is pretty bitey, and the way he said it... eeek! SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks[edit]
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
|
Thank you[edit]
For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise talk 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback[edit]
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- You'd also expressed concern about my report of User:Fullyang to WP:UAA. I had actually created that account per an Account Creation request as part of my duties on the account creation team. I didn't notice until after I'd created it that the e-mail address was using the Fullyang.com domain name. Do you still think the UAA request was wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa[edit]
|
|
Caulde/Archive, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.
I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe |
--Efe (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.[edit]
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 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) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
CHU[edit]
See Wikipedia:Changing_username#Medievalista_.E2.86.92_Xaverius Pls move to CHUU. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is already there. Original CHU requester went to USURP 13 minutes after making request at CHU. Useight (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like Useight got it in one. Caulde 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Happy Caulde/Archive/32's Day![edit]
 |
User:Caulde/Archive/32 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Caulde 11:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Thanks for your quick and frank responses to the questions at your RfB. To be honest I would expect a candidate for bureaucratship to dodge the question or parrot uncontroversial and politically correct dogma, so kudos to you for being forthright. Regards, Skomorokh 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I have a strong sense it will fail, but at least there is always tomorrow to look forward to. Kind regards, Caulde 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, this portal has been sitting at WP:FPORTC for two months now, could it be closed? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I was just about to support with the following argument...Oppose per no reason provided and [2], but support per approached discussion like a discussion, [3], and [4]. Three to two means the support wins slightly! :) Also, although the candidate has been blocked several times, they all seem to have been unblocked as well. So, anyway, if it makes you feel any better, you would have had at least one more support. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. As you say, it's of no significance now; given that the RfB is closed, but I appreciate the sentiment nevertheless. XfD isn't really my strongpoint if I'm honest, but then again it isn't that important for bureaucrats' in my opinion, unless of course there is an undeterminable mass on either side and discretion is important. With regards to the blocking thing, all of that was related to the nicely-called "cousin hacking incident" - it wasn't because of any policy-violating behaviour during my normal tenure. I hope to see you again some time. Regards, Caulde 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Sportscity (website)[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sportscity (website), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportscity (website). Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Opted to delete; see XfD. Caulde 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Schools[edit]
Now that Portal:Schools has the support of RichardF, Cirt, and SusanLesch, would it be possible to get a decision? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will soon, apologies for the delay. Caulde 16:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick close[edit]
Just bringin' this up with you; I had closed Realist2's RfA due to his withdrawal, as indicated by the strikeout of his acceptance and statement of withdrawal. However, if you think he just had misgivings and needs to reconfirm I'm not quite sure what to do; reopen it? Just bringing this up to see what you think. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Re-closed. Caulde 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, you supported Sgeureka's RfA twice,[5][6] so I indented the second one. Best, - auburnpilot talk 21:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Kind regards, Caulde 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This time of year =][edit]
·Add§hore· Talk/Cont is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
RfA thankspam[edit]
|
|
|
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! |
Re:Recognition[edit]
Thanks, mate. I appreciate the kind words! :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit problem[edit]
Hi, I'm sure it was accidental, but this edit [7] appears to have removed another editor's contribution. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aah, I will amend it now. Apologies for that, it was unintended. Caulde 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, looks like someone else has fixed it. [8] DuncanHill (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Something small[edit]
I inadvertantly removed your comment regarding the Moreschi case on the RfArb page - I would like to state here it was unintentional. There's no beef on my behalf. Kind regards, Caulde 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- No hard feelings :P.
- Seriously though, I wouldn't have noticed had you not inform me. :)
- -- Cat chi? 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Great! I look forward to working with you on other cases. Caulde 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seth's RfA[edit]
I NOTNOW'ed seth's RfA, but I decided to get broader input on it as he is apparently an admin on two other projects. I've asked him to come by and expand his rationale for the bit here... but since I noticed that you !voted there after I closed it, I wanted to let you know that I reopened it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder[edit]
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you came across this when you looked through recent vandalism. My edit was neither recent nor vandalism. Anyway, the reason I redirected it, is because the Angry German Kid is mentioned on the school page so it seems reasonable to point people in the right direction. The protection avoids anyone from recreating it. The redirect in question serves at least 50 people on daily basis. Not much, but it proves the redirect is helpful. I'm not seeing the advantage of deleting it. - Mgm|(talk) 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I figured it was something like that. Just no sure what you were patrolling based on your initial comment. How did you put those notes above this edit box? - Mgm|(talk) 16:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey-hi Caulde.
I've offered a rebuttal to your comment on WT:Bureaucrats regarding the page's procedural instructions. If you have time to offer more detailed thoughts on why you dislike the instructions, I'd be grateful.
Happy holidays to you.
AGK 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Replied there. Caulde 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Protection of Eoghan Quigg[edit]
I think it is generally unwise to protect an article that is both tagged for cleanup and at AFD. Many articles get imprpoved while at AFD to the point of being kept (See WP:Hey), and your protection prevented such efforts. I am not saying you were wrong to protect it, as I have not reviewed the article history to see what extent of vandalism was happening; I just wanted to let you know about the special care one should take for cleanup articles at AFD, in case you had overlooked it. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, when I protected the page (the request will be in the RFPP page history somewhere) the consensus on AfD wasn't clear cut as to whether to delete, merge, redirect, keep etc. so until that motion would occur I thought it might be best to protect until at least we know what the immediate future of the article would be. I have unprotected now given that the AfD has been closed on the premise that it shall be cleaned up - which, more often than not – and as you say – is done by anonymous editors. Regards, Caulde 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
RE:lugister seth rfa[edit]
You shouldn't understand it, because it is a HO. A HO is a "humble opinion". Some people don't think that's true, but in my HO it is true because he is a experienced candidate. HTH, MHLUtalk 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I do think RfA is a discussion; and, that editors should expect to have their statements challenged. However, I think you are correct; I got a little too involved. I'll back off. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome to an opinion, just as much as the rest of us. I just thought it was slightly intimidating to keep replying to each oppose, as if they must change their mind. That was only my impression though, you may of course do whatever you wish! Regards, Caulde 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're right. I was getting too involved. Thanks for the heads-up. I don't normally get so involved in RfAs; I guess I had a strong opinion in this one. Regardless, thanks for the note. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:Happy Anniversary[edit]
Indeed, thanks :) That year did go by extremely fast... seems like only a few months ago, really. jj137 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto. Mine is a year on Jan. 11th - unbelievable! I am also at a loss to why so many administrators are leaving - seems a shame, really. Caulde 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah blah[edit]
"Blah blah blah" and "kiddie admins" are verbal abuse (or rather, messages that can feel like verbal abuse). You handle yourself very well, but it's not necessary to respond to crap like that. If they stop, we can all forget it, and if they feel some kind of need to continually insult minors, we can deal with that at ANI. Either way, not your problem. Keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- You get used to it over a period of time, as I have done. Thank you for your comments though. Caulde 11:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible praise[edit]
If you are the person in the video (referenced on another talk page), I would like to compliment you on your obvious competencies and abilities to express yourself. If you are 12 years old (or whatever), you are far more advanced that we older folks are, as we hang on to the way things have always been and have fixed views that all should remain the same. Have faith in your instincts, as people always seek to maintain status and stop change. Wikipedia wants to be the EB, which it obviously can not be. It is up to people like you (young, assuming you are) to make the future in a new form. People your age have the best feel for what that is. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not the boy in the video however I appreciate your comments nevertheless. Thank you. Caulde 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Block of Iross1000[edit]
Hi Caulde
a number of people involved in Sri Lanka articles are trying to figure out why Iross1000 was blocked in the first place. His behaviour was not particularly disruptive. Furthermore, there are no warnings on his user page, just an indefinite block out of the blue. I can understand the trouble this user is having in addressing the reasons for his block, given that those have never been communicated to him in a clear way. I would ask you to lift this block on procedural grounds (SPA not a valid block reason, no disruptive editing, no warnings issued).
You can find other users' opinion on that matter here. Regards Jasy jatere (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will reply to this later; I have other things to address in RL. Caulde 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You probably already found out...[edit]
...but yes, I am :). Not a child for long...Sam Blab 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I share your concerns. :) Caulde 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Objection[edit]
Checkuser does not establish innocence, especially with regard to meat puppetry. I suggest you discuss this matter with me urgently. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Caulde,
I would appreciate if you not interfere in sock puppetry cases when you display obvious lack of knowledge about how the Checkuser function works. Ccheckuser can provide technical evidence of a connection, but it can never prove innocence. If you think the user is not a meat puppet, you should explain why you feel so. Jehochman Talk 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)- I must concur here with Jehochman, Caulde. A positive checkuser finding can be used to finalize a case, but a negative one makes no guarantee either way; an unblock would need to be founded on matters other that an unrelated finding with checkuser. — Coren (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've agreed to leave User:Wiw8 unblocked and without any restrictions after discussion on their talk page. The level of doubt is such that I do not feel comfortable keeping the block in place. Hopefully they will not do any questionable editing related to Jonty Haywood, and we will not have to revisit the matter. Also, all observing should note that there is a general invitation on User talk:Jehochman for any administrator to refactor my blocks unless I specifically request that they don't in the block message. My only regret is that you didn't notify that you were reviewing the block on December 23. Jehochman Talk 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I obviously apologise for any misgivings here – I was unaware I had caused any, but that does not constitute "obvious lack of knowledge". I unblocked given that the block for Wiw8 had been implemented for that sole reason – no comment by yourself was given for the specific reasoning for a block for Wiw8, instead only a vague mentioning of the two sock accounts (which I assume is the other two accounts, considering their patterns are much similar to the Kernow account – at least based on my initial research on the 22nd). I understand that an "unrelated" result at CU is very much different to a "confirmed" result – due to the fact that "unrelated" is only based on the accounts that are listed on the CU filing. You are at will to re-block Wiw8; however, given that at the time of the review on the 22nd, there was a convincing argument (and therefore AGF) that the said user would refrain from editing the page, even suggesting that he "[hadn't] edited the article since" and you were vague at best with respect to whether or not you wanted the account to remain blocked, I felt it necessary to wait for CU (which although wasn't conclusive) which was enough, coupled with the short testament on Wiw8's talk page to recusing themselves from editing the article, to think that an unblock was 'the right thing to do' in such circumstances. I admit to making a mistake and I will discuss this with you further if you wish. Caulde 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I understand now that your unblock rationale was, "Insufficient evidence, but I'll ask for checkuser to see if there is additional, technical evidence before processing the unblock." It would have been best while waiting for checkuser to also notify me so I would not be caught by surprise. I had offered to not block or to unblock the user if they stayed away from Jonty Haywood. Since this account accepted that condition, they are apparently not here to promote Jonty Haywood, and therefore they should be unblocked. I have told them that they are free to edit the article so long as they are moving it towards compliance with Wikipedia content policies. Sorry for any confusion. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like an amiable conclusion – you may not necessarily want it, but if you wish, you may feel free to discuss this case at another time if there are any more developments. I apologise for the prematurity at which I unblocked this particular account, however, I do believe the same ending would have occured with your input (which I confess may have been the more preferable option). Regards, Caulde 15:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I understand now that your unblock rationale was, "Insufficient evidence, but I'll ask for checkuser to see if there is additional, technical evidence before processing the unblock." It would have been best while waiting for checkuser to also notify me so I would not be caught by surprise. I had offered to not block or to unblock the user if they stayed away from Jonty Haywood. Since this account accepted that condition, they are apparently not here to promote Jonty Haywood, and therefore they should be unblocked. I have told them that they are free to edit the article so long as they are moving it towards compliance with Wikipedia content policies. Sorry for any confusion. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I obviously apologise for any misgivings here – I was unaware I had caused any, but that does not constitute "obvious lack of knowledge". I unblocked given that the block for Wiw8 had been implemented for that sole reason – no comment by yourself was given for the specific reasoning for a block for Wiw8, instead only a vague mentioning of the two sock accounts (which I assume is the other two accounts, considering their patterns are much similar to the Kernow account – at least based on my initial research on the 22nd). I understand that an "unrelated" result at CU is very much different to a "confirmed" result – due to the fact that "unrelated" is only based on the accounts that are listed on the CU filing. You are at will to re-block Wiw8; however, given that at the time of the review on the 22nd, there was a convincing argument (and therefore AGF) that the said user would refrain from editing the page, even suggesting that he "[hadn't] edited the article since" and you were vague at best with respect to whether or not you wanted the account to remain blocked, I felt it necessary to wait for CU (which although wasn't conclusive) which was enough, coupled with the short testament on Wiw8's talk page to recusing themselves from editing the article, to think that an unblock was 'the right thing to do' in such circumstances. I admit to making a mistake and I will discuss this with you further if you wish. Caulde 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've agreed to leave User:Wiw8 unblocked and without any restrictions after discussion on their talk page. The level of doubt is such that I do not feel comfortable keeping the block in place. Hopefully they will not do any questionable editing related to Jonty Haywood, and we will not have to revisit the matter. Also, all observing should note that there is a general invitation on User talk:Jehochman for any administrator to refactor my blocks unless I specifically request that they don't in the block message. My only regret is that you didn't notify that you were reviewing the block on December 23. Jehochman Talk 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I must concur here with Jehochman, Caulde. A positive checkuser finding can be used to finalize a case, but a negative one makes no guarantee either way; an unblock would need to be founded on matters other that an unrelated finding with checkuser. — Coren (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note: You've an email, Caulde. AGK 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Replied. Caulde 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year![edit]
Dear Caulde,
Wishing you a happy a 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 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009[edit]
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)
Image problem[edit]
Hi, Caulde! Can you help me with an image problem? List of Presidents of India is currently an FLC, and there are some problems with the fair use images. I'm not very familiar with the fair use policy, and most of these images had been included before I started working on it. I have never worked much with images, so coupled with this, I'm a bit confused. Could you tell me what needs to be done here? Also, is there any way to find free images if they are available in external sites (some search etc.)? Thanks in advance. Chamal talk 09:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll review them, but I'm quite busy in real life now. You will get a (more detailed) response in a few hours. Caulde 10:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can only find possibilities for one president; you may have to use OTRS, as someone has already commented about in that FLC. You could explore the following:
- Kocheril Raman Narayanan - there seem to be some images at Flickr, but none of them give a good image (or even a crop possibility) so it might be useful to ask "escapedtowisconsin" whether or not they have any other free images which give a better view. Or, you could use a cropped version of File:KRNwithMandela.jpg.
- For another president, I can not find suitable alternatives on the internet - there are no commercial licences available on flickr for of the others, also all of the images I came across had copyright issues as well. You may wish to use one templated example of a request for copyright 'exemption', here. However, you might also wish to state at the FLC that, if I recall correctly, the images do all comply with NFCC, and this should be allowed under FLC criteria. You might be best asking Elcobbola or other user's who review images on an individual basis at FAC, perhaps they will have a better overview of what is compliant and what isn't. Caulde 11:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll work on it. Chamal talk 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Those images on Flickr, is it possible to upload them (cropped or otherwise) to Wikipedia with necessary attribution? This is what I understand, or is it necessary to obtain direct permission from the author anyway? BTW, if you're busy, take your time or just tell me if you're unable to do much. No worries :) Chamal talk 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs[edit]
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, thank you. Caulde 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My conduct at Enigma's RfA[edit]
Please see here to save me typing it all again here. Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh right, sorry. It'd probably be better if you made that clear on the page though, because it does look like the comment was meant for me. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Lightmouse date scripts[edit]
- I see you operate date script written by Lightmouse: A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]
|
|
Wishing Caulde/Archive/32 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Willking1979 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's been a year already! That has gone fast. Thanks Will and Julian. Caulde 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith[edit]
Consider un-striking Eco's comments in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith. I explained the rationale in the "note to crat" that I added immediately after your note. Had he already engaged in the behavior before that edit, then I would agree, the "banned editor" tag and strike would be justified. As it was, as of the date of that comment, he hadn't done anything to deserve a ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever you think is best; I wasn't sure about doing it myself, and would hold no objection to the undoing of my action. Caulde 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Manchester[edit]
Hi Caulde, almost exactly one year ago, which must be very soon after you became an admin, you semi-protected Manchester on the strength of just one instance of vandalism. Prior to that, there had been virtually no vandalism for a few months (which is as far back as I've checked). Unfortunately you set expiry to be indefinite, so the article has remained protected now for just over a year. This does not sit well with Wikipedia's policy of being able to edit an article without being a registered user. Could you have a look at this again, and maybe we could try unprotection to see how it goes for a week or two. Although I can edit the article as a registered user, I'm a firm believer in the core principle of being about to edit an article immediately. Cheers, MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't protect "on the strengt of just one instance of vandalism". CSCWEM initially semi-protected the Manchester article (after an RFPP request, I presume) as the logs show; I unprotected the article shortly after I became an admin in January last year and re-set the semi-protection to the initial period set before I unprotected, which was an indefinite period of time. Also the logs show the article has a long history of being targeted by IPs who either spam/blank/edit war on content etc. Because of that, I am not willing to unprotect at this time since precedent, including my own witnessing on January last year suggest that the article would once again become targeted. You may request at RFPP linking this comment if you wish. Caulde 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam[edit]
|
|
|
| Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2 questions[edit]
I am new to wiki and noticed you were part of the biography project and have 2 quick questions if you don't mind. One - do you think a wiki article can be too long? I looked at the edgar wallace page and it went on for miles..it went into great detail about the circumstances of his birth etc.. I reckon you'd buy a book if you want that amount of detail and it's off putting isn't it? Am I entitled to radically edit the piece or is that a breach of etiquette? I dont want to make too many enemies. Question 2 - it says Wallaces portrayal of Africans might be racist but 'that just reflects the mindset of the time' . But thats rubbish, one example would be Roger Casement who wrote a lot of very critical stuff about the situatuion in Congo..no time has a single mindset does it? Is there a tag I can put next to statements like that that indicate it is a 'point of view' and not gospel? Thanks for any advice you could give meSayerslle (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Whoops, i checked your 'home page' and read that youre a centre-right conservative, so i dont want any advice from you after all, not that you offered any. and youre roman catholic..do you think jesus was a 'centre-right ' conservative - thou shalt not kill, love your enemy etc..that's just like centre-right foreign policy aint it ?Sayerslle (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| 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 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 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) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No content in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJGD[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJGD, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJGD has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JJGD, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 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) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hep • Talk at 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Request for adminship... 3?[edit]
Hi Caulde, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would fully support any nomination that you have; you have improved drastically since the last RfA you stood with. I apologise for the late reply I've had a bad case of the general flu but the future is bright, so hopefully I can resume normal service soon. With good regard, Caulde 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC
- Many thanks for your response, that means a lot. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Get well soon. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem and thank you. Caulde 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009[edit]
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)