User talk:Picaroon/Archive 2

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Đuro Kurepa, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Đuro Kurepa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAG

I swear this was in response to something, but now I can't remember for the life of me why! I've reduced it to sprot (was previously there) for now. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

gracias

thanks for creating the catergory for the Nigeria project, I hadn't considered creating one (and congratulations to you as the first user-who-isn't-me to edit my page, a glorious honor no doubt!). I'm hoping the project will get off the ground in the near future, which seems to be happening now that more people are involved (as the impetus for this conversation attests); i'm going to be in school so I won't be making any major edits but I'll attempt to aid in project organization, the 2007 elections, and preventing the more prominent pages from degenerating into amalgamations of spam links and falsities. I'm also impressed and excited by your creation of and work on the Bayajidda article; that should certainly go on the Hausa people page, which I will integrate in the near future if you don't do so first. thanks!--gozar 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Anytime, Gozar - and yes, I'm quite honored! I'm currently in the middle of copyediting the project page itself.

Also, thank you for the compliment on Bayajidda! I'm still quite surprised that, even thought it's been around for a while and been linked to from the main page, I'm the only one to have ever edited the article. I hope someone gives it a thorough, second-party copyedit someday... I hope to see you around, whether on talk pages or while collaborating on Nigeria-articles. Picaroon 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Would you please send me a link to the Wikipage that explains how to make categories? If you don't recall the page, a quick explanation will serve. Sorry to bother you for something so stupid but exploring Wikipages is one of my least favorite on-line activities. House of Scandal 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the help. House of Scandal 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note

No, that's good. I deleted the Help page then thought better of it and restored, unless you beat me to it; I haven't looked. Thanks for creating the redirect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to "User:160.7.251.169"

No problem. I forgot about the substing, thanks for fixing that, and I appreciate your effort for writing the user a personalized warning. Algebra 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland italics

Hmm, that's odd, it didn't at the time, but I went ahead and removed the single quotes and now it displays fine. I remember thinking that they shouldn't have been necessary. I guess it was just some one-time glitch or something. -Elmer Clark 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Many thanks for pointing that out. --Midnighttonight ^(rendezvous) 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Asha-Rose Migiro, was selected for DYK!

On January 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asha-Rose Migiro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Picaroon 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction!

I've always had a bit of confusion in the use of the terms "hanged" and "hung." Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Vynredner 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Vynredner

I'm glad to have been of help. Picaroon 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. As for your other comment in the RfA, so far the servers are holding up okay. :) Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

VP image

Done :)  Glen  23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination Sub Page

It is weird, I did create it. Saved it and even have the copy in Word with the answer. It seems to be gone now. Can you help me understand that? Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/judae1 Juda S. Engelmayer 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I certainly wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing it out. I think I only learned about date and year missing cats back in September or so, so I'll do a quick search for all article contribs of mine which have the word "cat" in the summary and see if I've made any other mistaken taggings. Again, thanks. Picaroon 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tipton Academy

I understand... However, there has been some vandilism and it was well on its way to be deleted anyways. I just figured I would blank it... Do you think you could get Tipton Academy deleted please?

Thanks,

PulsHrd 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This archive shows comments for me on my user talk page from 02 February 2007 until 10 March 2007. It is my fifth (number 5) archive.

Arbitration template

I saw your edits to the template. FYI, with regard to the Naming Conventions case, Eagle101 opened the case, but Cowman109 closed it; I don't know which is better to list in the template, since rarely would anyone want to speak with the Clerk in a closed case; but as someone who's informally helping out a little bit with the clerking, it's nice to know that there are people who care about such things. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I'm halfway in between someone interested enough in the arbitration process to notice such things and just a regular old perfectionist. I was about to point to the subpage where I mentioned my change, but it seems you found it already. Picaroon 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I could have used you around to check my work the other night, then. I was asked to help out by opening a new case, and of course it had to be the one with 12 parties and the committee accepted part of the case and rejected the rest and it was hard to tell where the dividing line was, plus my first time using the templates.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Save one thing - I have no clue how to format a case. My attention level seeps into the distracted, subdued peanutgalleryism phase between the opening and closing of cases. I've never really paid attention to whatever goes on on the various subpages. Picaroon 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a fair amount of work for those who labor behind the scenes at it—formerly, Tony Sidaway, among others, and most recently a team led by Thatcher131. One of those jobs where you're unnoticed until someone wants to quibble over something. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's anything you'd like help with which you think I could positively impact, I'm quite willing. However, I reserve the right to refuse to stick my head into the WP:ANIRC situation and anything else that looks vaguely similar to pre-December Mogadishu and/or the Congo. Picaroon 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just an informal hanger-on, and I think there are enough official clerks plus a couple of "trainees" that everything is under control at the moment. But if you are interested in being called on the next time a need arises, you should let Thatcher131 know, as he's the one currently coordinating these things. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry for the long response time. Picaroon 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: CFD/TFD

Hey, I just wanted to stop by and reply to your message. I can agree with the nominator of discussions if I want to. I do not do that for every discussion anyways. Just because people who have discussed the reasons for deletion before I got the chance to, doesn't mean I'm not discussing. I agree with their reasons, and maybe I don't sit on Wiki all the time and get to the new discussions first to state my opinion. Other people add "per nom" or "per (this user)" besides me. So, why don't you go bug them too. Don't take this message to offense, I'm just stressed out right now, and don't need someone breathingdown my neck. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Diabetics

Regarding the diabetic categories,[1] you might want to see what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says on the issue: "Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not." [2] Wryspy 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you could have just left this note on the cfd page - instead of sending it to me and everyone else who differs from your opinion. Second, you're mistakenly categorizing the proposed guideline WP:MEDMOS under the guidline WP:MOS. I'm going to assume that you were merely unaware of its status (which you'll find right at the top of the page), and that you aren't deliberately trying to be dishonest. Picaroon 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Time for RfA?

Hi Picaroon, thanks for your ideas, I just wanted to tell you that I've fell on your editor review, in which you said that you were thinking of standing for RfA between November and January. Well, now January's nearly finished and I think you would make a great admin, so what do you think? If you're willing, I'd be happy to nominate you, unless you've got another name in mind as nominator.--Aldux 23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Aldux - in fact, I think you're the first person who's brought it up. As you noted, I've been considering applying for a while, but it dropped out of my mind after my three-week long November-December wikibreak, after which I refocused myself on article writing (specifically, that which is related to Nigeria, but, by expansion, the rest of Africa). Nevertheless, I have a reasonable amount of things I'd like to help out with, so I'd accept a nomination. Picaroon 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then, if it's all right for you, In the coming week I'll write the nomination, so you can then prepare your awnsers to the questions. Take particular care in compiling them, because good and thougtful awnsers is one of the most appreciated things among those who vote at RfAs. Good luck!--Aldux 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks very much. I've got the as-of-yet nonexistent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Picaroon9288 on my watchlist, so I'll be ready to answer questions once I see it pop up. Picaroon 23:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the Comitato arbitrale was not aproved in the italian wikipedia

But I discovered that 5 minutes ago ! (I'm going to sleep !) --87.7.212.172 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC) --Giancarlo Rossi 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 18:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

^-^

6000? Wow, you had an all-powerful vote! – PeaceNT 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I did. I'm quite disappointed that my electoral fraud has been uncovered. And I thought I was so sneaky... Picaroon 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky? I don't think so :P PeaceNT 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Opa

You're quite right, that is the wrong word. I should really investigate more carefully before I change something next time. However, 'gone' doesn't quite have the right connotations, and 'lost' is already used. How about "lost one tenth of his army, with 7,500 troops killed and 1.5 billion dollars worth of military equipment was destroyed or captured." - Francis Tyers · 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for your support on my unsuccessful RfA. Drmaik 11:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Picaroon,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN change

At least one of the well-known elements including (a) Chicago, (b) Florida, (c) Miami, and (d) Super Bowl should tip off readers to the country in which Super Bowl XLI took place. I don't think adding United States is truly necessary, but I won't make a federal case over it. -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right, Chicago and Florida give it away - I'm just in the habit of adding state and cities, because so many other Americans (I'm one too) assume the rest of the world knows where Oakland and Durham and so on are. But by this logic, "Iraq" following "Baghdad" isn't necessary either - it is as internationally known or more, no? In the long and the short, I'm just trying to avoid systematic bias, but I wouldn't object to being reverted. Picaroon 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA!

Congratulations!

Wield me! Wield me!

Well done on passing your RfA with 100% support - you must be very proud of such a fine achievement! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need any advice about using them. I will do my best to answer you. Best wishes and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. By random coincidence, I'm editing a page related to admins right now. Anyways, thanks for the message, and I'll certainly keep your suggestion in mind. Here, bureacrat, bureaucrat, bureaucrat... Picaroon 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! :-))) 0 oppose votes is really an incredible result you should be very proud of it; I'm only frustrated that I, the nominator, was only the 29th to vote support - uhh, that was embarassing... And let me also express my admiration in awnsering to the questions posed; they were extraordinarily well written.--Aldux 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for nominating me; I doubt I would have had the courage to do it myself. And don't be embarassed about the numbering. I did, after all, take more than an hour to answer them, and by that time, it was quite late in Italy - I hope I didn't keep you up! Also, I recall Crz being the 42nd support on a nom he made once, so it's not like you set a record. Picaroon 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done, great work - all the best. Hope to see you at DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I promise not to add any of my own hooks unless someone else already selected them! Picaroon 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've promoted you to sysop. Congrats. Make sure you are familiar with our policies before using the shiny new buttons. Raul654 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Save test-deleting my userpage (this'll be fun), I'll give the relevant pages a re-read before making any actions. Picaroon 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done on getting through with unanimous support, you truly deserve it. Mallanox 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your, and everyone's, confidence in me. Picaroon 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And here I came over expecting to see a new userbox on your user page. Congratulations! It is well-deserved. Whenever I feel that I've finally got the admin thing down, I re-read User:Mindspillage/admin to give me some perspective. It's highly recommended. - BanyanTree 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep the page in mind - the idea of only blocking on request if you would have made the block independently and without prodding seems a good idea, so I'll try to abide by it. The rest seems pretty straightforward, but still good advice too. Thanks for the link. Picaroon 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Intersting page, I had never read it. Even if I find it far too conservative for me; I'm much more the WP:ROUGE type. ;-) Anyways, don't worry Picaroon, I won't try to convert you to the ways of darkness ;-)--Aldux 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But look, I'm already in category:rouge admins - could I have set a record for going over to the rogue rouge (why is my spelling only correct when it isn't supposed to be) side? Picaroon 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the mop and bucket! :-) Regards, Húsönd 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Picaroon 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Right choice?

Hi aeropagitica. You said to come here if I have any questions about adminship, and I've got one about a user I just blocked, 72.200.166.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I was responding to this RFPP request, and it seemed he was the main cause of disruption to the article that was wanted semiprotected. While his contribs aren't blatant vandalism, they amount to repeated misinformation addition and unexplained content removal, and he was warned and reverted multiple times. By random coincidence, you blocked him only a month ago - for vandalizing the same set of articles, no less. Was blocking him the right choice? Picaroon 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your question! Looking at the contributions of this particular IP editor, I think that this, this, this and this all amount to vandal edits to the database in a twenty-four hour period. To me, this would be enough for a final warning on their Talk page and as they have been warned and blocked before, I would then push it to a block as they should have learned their lesson the first time around. The twenty-four hour duration of the block is quite adequate too. You made it a soft block in case the IP address is shared by multiple editors? You can check this by using the tools available at http://centralops.net. In summary, I don't consider your decision to be out of line when considering the evidence available in the editors' contribution history. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors never occurred to me - I didn't think much about the boxes, and the blocking help page wasn't of much use. Of "Block anonymous users only [ ], Prevent account creation [ ], Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from [ ]," which should I have checked? Picaroon 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the choices can be confusing, can't they? this link may give you some advice. When I make a choice to block an IP editor, I tend to choose 'block anonymous users only', in order to allow registered editors originating from the same IP address to pass through the block unaffected. I choose the other two options and not the first when I block persistent vandal-only accounts. I am sparing on the 'last IP address' in case the account originates from a school. You can very quickly tell which edits are coming from schoolboys or girls, as they tend to follow the same patterns, both in contributions and time frames. To summarise, choose option 1 only for IP vandals; choose options two and three only for persistent non-school vandal-only accounts and choose option two only for logged-in schoolboy vandals.

I must stress that these are my personal guidelines and I wouldn't expect any other editor to do as I do without question. I make mistakes like anyone else and I am happy to receive constructive criticism to this effect. If you find that my guidelines are inaccurate then please do let me know so that I can change them! Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fenersetn

How come you removed Fenersten from the RfA? Many feel he's a meat or sock of Dino or Bryan, and his actions directly related to what's going on. - FAAFA 02:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed him because we can make a conclusive list of Bryan's socks during the arbitration case. The thing that is being done now is just an attempt to summarize the dispute so the arbcom can decide whether or not to accept it. Picaroon 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature Explanation

I shall explain my signature. Mussolini ha sempre tarche means "Mussolini is always right." This is a reference to Benito Mussolini as you suspected. The statement "Mussolini is always right" was a common statement on his propaganda poster. Due to the ineptness of Mussolini, I intend this signature as an amusing statement and poking fun at the dictator of Italy. Sorry if you misinterpreted it. Maybe I should change it. :/

Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It is too risky. I will change it. Thank you for catching it before someone else did that would get angry.

Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the new signature:

Captain panda In vino veritas 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for telling me about this.

Captain panda In vino veritas 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice

Hello, Picaroon/Archive 2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me, but my only contribution to that article seems to have been the reversion of vandalism from months ago. I'm uninterested in joining the project. Picaroon 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pavao Kukic

Hi there -

You deleted this article as a speedy. What I always do, before I delete a {{db-bio}} is to check whether the articlename and the username are the same. If not, delete, byebye. If so, I move the page to a User:page, and leave a message with the user (using {{userfied}}) that I've done so. Just a thought to keep from biting the newbie.

Cheers, Denni^talk 01:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me - it didn't occur to me to userfy. Will do next time. Picaroon 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How long do you plan on leaving the CNR for? Picaroon 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter

In "de-creepifying" this page, you changed the statement that RfA is "not a ballot" to instead claim that it's "not a vote." This was incorrect, as a "vote" is not necessarily indicative of a system in which a numerical count is the sole determining factor; it can simply refer to a formal process through which opinions regarding a particular issue are expressed. —David Levy 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your partial revert right before logging off, and intended to ask you about the difference between the two - I changed it to vote because it's a more commonly used word, and, in my experience, the two have been synonymous. Thanks for explaining the difference. Picaroon 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ballot" implies a lack of discussion; people simply file in, mark their choices, and file out. As noted above, while the word "vote" often is used as shorthand for "majority vote," it actually has much broader meaning. RfA is a vote. —David Levy 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:NATL1's RFA

Sorry, I guess its an error with my browser. I wonder what it is? Well, at least Viridae has fixed it.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Well you're right, but hes going to revert me anyway. Artaxiad 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way theres info here, [3] if you want to help or add some changes. Artaxiad 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the image

Is this about "Well we've had World War III or IV or whatever"? Because that's just nonsense. It's practically impossible to make a statement in this world without someone disagreeing with it, but we can't worry about people who espouse nonsense or we'd never get anything made. Sorry but there it is. Herostratus 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK. I posted a notice about it on the article's talk page, let's see what others say. Herostratus 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Superseded pages

Hi David. You seem to be pretty involved with the system of templates that outdated Wikipedia space pages are tagged with, so I'd like you opinion on my idea for a new one: template:superseded. {{superseded}} would be used on replaced-but-not-rejected pages like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research after their replacement by Wikipedia:Attribution; Wikipedia:Attribution, meanwhile, could have a similar template along the lines of "this page has superseded X, Y, and Z." Good idea? Bad idea? Redundant to something else? Cheers, Picaroon 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, they are currently using handmade, non-transcluded ones. Picaroon 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I created the tags {{superseded}} and {{supersede}}. Please let me know what you think. —David Levy 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaim

There was a decent article on a windows instant message client called Shaim that you deleted. You deleted it because of "CSD A7" which after some research I found out means that you didn't feel it was important enough. This is actually a fairly popular and sufficiently developed (and actively developed) application. I'm not the author/developer of this application, I just don't think your reason for removal what just, simply because you've yet to hear about it. Rappo

Another Wikipedian tagged Shaim (view) with a template suggesting it be deleted according to CSD A7. When I came across the page, I endorsed the decision of that user because the article, like the user claimed, didn't assert notability. I have reread the article, and stand by my decision to delete it. Articles need to assert notability, by citing reliable, independent sources, for CSD A7 to be inapplicable, but the article neither asserts notability nor cites reliable, independent sources. Picaroon 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would assert that shaim is in fact notable for at least two reasons: First, it is the only multi-protocol instant messenger client written in pure .NET (ref. List of instant messengers). Second, it is the first instant messenger client written using Windows Presentation Foundation (same ref.). The user who tagged the article makes the point that the author of the software should not necessarily be the one creating the article; however, I contend that there is no one better qualified to comment on its notability than the author. Moreover, the author is not the only person to have contributed to the article, nor was the author the first to even contend its deletion. csammis

random Naija question

greetings again! I was contemplating Nigeria-related articles to create as stubs and I decided the Kaduna mafia might be interesting. Querying this on google nets several thousand fracticious results that don't offer any substantial information. can you enlighten me regarding the nebulous and nefarious group (a few of the links I actually checked out indicate the group is an actual mafia, in the tradtional sense, rather than merely some informal cabal behind the Nigerian "throne")? I suppose I can further ask whether you've been to Nigeria or lived there for extended periods of time. Area boys might also constitute a decent stub but in the intervening time,I must study and cease my rambling here. thanks!--gozar 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gozar! Unfortunately (or is it fortunately?) I've never heard of such a mafia, nor have I ever set foot in Nigeria - I'm just another American interested in Africa, so your Google-based research with regards to the mafia is as good as mine. The words "Area boys" sounded familiar, but I'm not sure where I've heard of them before - this link, coupled with one or two more articles turned up by Google, could easily make a good stub or even start class article on them, and I would be glad to help you with an article on them. Picaroon 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you beat me to creating it, make sure you make Area boys a redirect to Area Boys, because they seem to be referred to with both letters capitalized. Picaroon 02:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

HI when fulfilling or declining requests on the page please use the templates as described on Template:RFPP as this enable the bot to remove fulfilled request and update the various lists thanks Gnangarra 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so that's the point of them. Will do. Picaroon 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting

Elnurso is indeed probably a sock, he registered a day before Dacy69 registered on English Wikipedia and the same day he registered on Russian Wikipedia. I don't think it is a sock of Grandmaster, it is either Atabek, Dacy69 or AdilBaguirov sock. I don't imagine Grandmaster using a sock, he is an established member it would be foolish for him to sabotate that by using a sock. Besides nothing prevented him to revert, there is no reason to use a sock like that. But I am sure he knows whos sock Elnurso is. Fad (ix) 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aray

I don't remember making this article. Artaxiad 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From special:undelete/Aray:

1. 03:09, February 22, 2007 . . Artaxiad (Talk | contribs | block)
2. 03:08, February 22, 2007 . . Artaxiad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with ''''Aray''' was a pagan war god of ancient Armenia. Also known as Ara ("the beautiful one"), it is likely that Aray has origins in common with Ares, the god of w...')

Picaroon 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah I see, forgot about that sorry. Artaxiad 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

How is this a attack? "Grandmaster you don't get a vote first of all, second these are all Turks so obviously they would want this deleted.Artaxiad 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)" number one he doesn't get a vote since he nominated second everyone who voted delete were Turks and? this is a attack now? I've seen Dacy and the rest say worser things this is not a attack I never knew specifying peoples ethnic backgrounds are attacks. Artaxiad 14:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"I think everything is pretty clear and evident here, no need to play innocent dumbfounded angel here. You've manipulated evidence, by deliberately misquoting Mr. Kaye to present a sentence from a Russian manifesto" thats from adil can you please monitor this page? I added a quote with a reference they accuse me of false references which is on google books, its on two pages the quote the guy is going crazy and he is being uncivil I told him to go check also. Page on Erivan khanate.

Artaxiad, suggesting that they want the article deleted because they are Turks is a personal attack. The no personal attacks policy is not negotiable. And with regards to your other comment, have you ever gone fishing? Not all the fish are caught. The arbitration case will sort things out. Picaroon 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay than, but what are the consequences I personally only have problems with Adil he is very aggressive Grandmaster you can reach a comprise with him. Is it possible we can be blocked? or something my first case sorry, thanks. Artaxiad 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To you, Grandmaster, and all the other parties: for the duration of the arbcom case, I won't block any of you except in exceptional circumstances. I also want to make clear that I'm involved in this situation not because I know something about or care about Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and whatnot, but because I want to end the disruption this fighting is causing to the community at large. If you want to speed the matter along, you can start presenting things on the /workshop page of the arbitration case. Picaroon 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they waiting for me or something? I'm not interested in adding stuff the page is too confusing, Fadix has enough but I'm just waiting to defend my self since they accuse me of baseless accusations including HayasaArmen my first account I never knew what a sockpuppet was until now, that account is unneeded, if possible I would like to defend my self the ArbCom helps but it will also do possible permanent damage to each users we're accusing each sides of things, that may affect users in the future in talk pages and comprises etc. I also don't have the nerve to deal with Adil anymore but I would still use the talk pages, its just a case you can't handle or I can't im trying to take WikiBreaks as much as possible hopefully I wont burst out saying stuff one user has already he was blocked by Dominic already , ROOB323 thats just an example how stressful this is so I don't want to stress this but hopefully reach agreements with users, in there talk pages etc. I'm seeking to defend my self thats all, I don't want to accuse users of such things, although Fadix has covered alot of things on them that is all I need on my part for him to do, also Adil takes things to offensively so I tend to joke around including Tigranes the Great to ease up the disputes if thats okay (I know the not funny joke thing too so no worries) thanks. Artaxiad 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to revert on March Days no one wants to reply in the talk yet Dacy reverts, can you give me advice? Artaxiad 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it is absolutely essential to the integrity of Wikipedia to revert, do so, but only make partial reverts. Also, it might be helpful to make your changes in multiple edits, making the least controversial changes (like typos, fixing messed up quotes etc...) first and controversial things the others are very likely to revert last. A full explanation for each change goes a long way towards legitimizing your revert. However, please don't stubify the article again - not all of it is questionable. Only remove what you think you really must. Picaroon 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interupting, if it were for the intergrity of Wikipedia, every articles involved should be locked until the case close. It seem extrem, but from an experience of over 2 years in heated articles. I can predict it won't be long that socks will continue the job, it already started in the other articles by this guy named robert. What sound as peace now is only a façade, it is the moment of peace before the storm. Fad (ix) 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the last version is very neutral the new version is horrible, bias and offensive its basically calling them barbarians, I should focus on verifying the references and seeing if its reliable or not, I'll take your advice on the partial reverts thanks. Artaxiad 01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, multiple reliable sources are a good foundation from which to change the article. On controversial topics, the more sources, the better. Picaroon 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy for third party sources? the article is flooded with them. Artaxiad 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with third party sources? Maybe I'm getting my vocab mixed up, but aren't those the best kind? Try reading the new policy Wikipedia:Attribution, it probably mentions them. Picaroon 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I ment like we need to use them, since the whole article is filled with Armenian and Azei sources no Third party thats what I ment. Artaxiad 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I highlighted his sources, he says "massacres" no such thing I knew it he is adding in BS stuff to the article the article states pogroms and perishes no massacre, nothing like that its also POV to him, since he wants it that way. Also no where it says Armenians did such thing only Bolsheviks another thing he is mis-referencing he needs to reference everything correctly because it is wrong. Artaxiad 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no scholar on Armenia or Azerbaijan. For the most part, the only sources I'm capable of evaluating are linked websites; there are only a select few articles I'll go to the library for, and they're related to my favored topic area, Africa. It would be silly for me to jump into something I know next-to-nothing about and can't verify the sources of, so, I regret to say, all I can do is halt the revert-warring and appeal for cooperation. Article writing is up to you guys. Picaroon 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the exact text from his reference to March days in the talk page, he is making up words, can you please do something? they also need to know what NPOV is if I removed something they accuse me of vandalism, because I modified a referenced term, I added a tag they reverted it they need to learn they don't own the article. Also I'm no expert on this too, references are the only way here, since truth doesn't matter as quoted by Wiki(thats how we know if its the truth references), saw that somewhere if you have references than its acceptable right? I also request third party sources since the article has none what so ever, but I have never seen anything about them, thanks. Artaxiad 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also please note these users are always on a rush to revert, as if they want people to see something on that article and learn, I also linked Adil and Atabek together two Azeri editors, one Adil works with the Turkish media whose from Virgina, second Atabek is from Irvine, California (identified by his ips) I found him online there both old buddies, thats not acceptable not to mention they used socks and they deny it I used it once and I admitted it a admin granted me free, they are very bossy they don't like to resolve things with us, I really can care less I'm not nationalist I just want peace (liberally uhm). Artaxiad 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

English

"Sound good" means you are telling be to use my vocal apparatus in a fashion that is wholesome. Of course the question mark at the end is inappropriate in that case. If you wish to question me whether I assent to your proposal, you should ask "Sounds good?"

Your section title reads "English," but you're speaking some sort of foreign language in your comment. Picaroon 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know where to start. I suppose words like apparatus, wholesome, inappropriate may sound foreign to you, in which case I would direct you to www.dictionary.com. Let me make this simple, "sound" is a noun while "sounds" is a verb. The question you directed to me required a verb, not a noun. A noun followed by an adverb (good) makes no sense in the English language. Hope this helps.

I wish you the best of luck when you create grmr.wikipedia.org. Picaroon 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I also wish you the best and hope you acquire an education someday.

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Phyrst

I have no idea what the message you sent me mean. All I know is that I filled out the upload form and answered the questions correctly and uploaded. Mr. Anderson will have no idea what to do with what you told me. He took the picture and wants us to put it up on the phyrst webpage. Regards, Idg101 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Area Boys, was selected for DYK!

On March 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Area Boys, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for doing the prod on Cat Osborne. A lot of administrators working CSD just remove the speedy tag and move on. You rock for going the extra mile! RJASE1 ^Talk 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for the compliment. When I saw the article, I could tell that it should probably be deleted, but it asserted a small amount of notability (which just barely got it above CSD A7). Therefore, I decided to do it the safe, if tedious, way. Picaroon 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Emily Brogan

Can I ask why you've redirected this please? There's actually a twofold problem with the article, firstly she's non-notable, and secondly I can't find any reliable source that says there was an IRA member called Emily Brogan. Under the circumstances I'm slightly uncomfortable about having a redirect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that since she was linked from List of members of the Irish Republican Army, she was merely a minor figure in the organization who Wikipedia could be served better by having as a redirect, rather than a redlink. With WP:AGF in mind, I didn't suspect a hoax. However, looking at the article more closely, it seems the list was compiled after the article on Brogan was created; furthermore, you're correct that Google turns nothing relevant up. I'll delete it shortly, and if the one on Etheridge too if it turns out to be similarly unverifiable (and I get to it before someone else.) Picaroon 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that, I have never heard of either of them.--Vintagekits 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There were quite a number of female IRA members, many of them ended up in Armagh (HM Prison). But I couldn't find any information online or offline about either of them, I couldn't even verify they existed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Livoti article

It looked like an attack page, but (when I prodded it) it actually tried to defend Livoti’s actions (and those of others in superficially similar cases) and attacked the media and the public at large. I think that neither this, nor the bias throughout the article, qualified it unambiguously for G10 according to its letter, although your deletion certainly complies with its spirit. Anyway, it would never have passed AFD, so the result is the same in all cases. —xyzzy_n 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment from someone

hey man why did you delete my article i was just getting started. Please let me finish the whole page it is good.

1. Articles on Wikipedia must assert the notability (importance) of the subject.
2. It isn't your page.
3. Please don't write articles on people you know.

Picaroon 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your comments on my my recent RfA in which I withdrew because the oppose votes were almost equalling the supporters. I then decided to leave my account (Tellyaddict) and start fresh under a new username, however I quickly decided to reconsider after another user persuaded me not to leave the account - I am now glad I did reconsider because leaving that account and creating a new one was too hasty so I've decided to improve rather than starting again! I hope we can remain civil and that there were no negative feelings caused. Again, thanks for your support even though you opposed and I withdrew it, your vote is much appreciated! Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining a positive additude throughout and after your RfA. Picaroon 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PROD clearing

It's good that you're clearing out PROD backlogs. I hope you realize, however, that the way the template seems to work right now, any article that was prodded on March 6 is going to display the red "five days" expiration notice at 00:00 UTC March 11, regardless of what time of the day it was actually prodded. That means that a prodded article deleted early in the (Greenwich) day may actually be closer to four days old than five. For instance, you deleted Wolfcraft magic at 03:48 today, but it was prodded at 22:27 on March 5, so it was actually about 19 hours short of 5 days. I don't have any issues with any specific entries you've deleted, I just wanted to point that out. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It never occurred to me, so thanks for pointing it out. I just click the links on User:Cyde/List of old proposed deletions, and the red notice is always there. If someone wants to fix (read: knows how) the template to only display the red text after a full 120 hours, I won't contest their efforts. However, as things stand now, I regret to say that a sort of Somebody Else's Problem field comes into play here - I was made an admin because people trusted me to clear PROD backlogs (among other things), not because I'd remember to check the timing on every PROD I'm about to delete. I'll try, but no guarantees. Picaroon 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Cyde's list doesn't show the times, it would be fairer to use WP:PRODSUM. That way, you could not only see which prods have really expired, but work your way from the prods that have had the longest opportunity to be contested to the most recently expired. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, PRODSUM lists them in order by time? That sounds like a good idea. I'll switch to it. Picaroon 00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:-)

Hilarious! and I totally agree! :-) (→Netscott) 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do my best. Picaroon 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria

Thanks for the point about the nigeriacongress.org website. Does it seem to be reliable, though, even if it's not official? Thanks! --Larrybob 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. 206.183.149.2 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My "anonymous" stalker

From User talk:NagornyKarabakhian.

Why not edit under your main account? Picaroon 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, obviously he wants to escape the scrutiny of the ArbCom members. He is hiding his main account's edit history. From the fake Armenian name, it's clear that this person is neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani, he's unrelated to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute. So he's someone who has had disputes with me in the past, and he has a score to settle with me. The only person I can think of who fits the profile is User:Jidan who has a history of edit-waring, disruption, and sock-puppetry. [4] [5] . --Mardavich 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

End copied material.

He's only made one edit, and it might be his last; we might have scared him away. Don't rush to assumptions about who's behind it, though, because wrong assumptions won't help anyone except the person behind this account. So for now, don't mind NagornyKarabakhian, because the arbitrators wouldn't have been elected if they didn't know what an SPA was. Picaroon 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Hudson & The Library

Hi, please can I ask why you have deleted the above article, and its sister article A Tale of Two Cities (album)? Thanks, GiantSnowman 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged as not asserting notability, and I deleted it as such, because it didn't assert notability. Let me go check the other one. Picaroon 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No assertion of notability there, either. Picaroon 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about Mr Hudson and the Library; if you check the talk page, the article's notabilty was noted. GiantSnowman 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was - I wouldn't have deleted had those three things been mentioned in the article. If you'd like me to restore Mr. Hudson & the Library and its talk page, I will. Sorry for not looking carefully enough. Picaroon 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would, please could you restore the page, and also the A Tale of Two Cities (album) page. Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Three pages restored, two de-tagged. Thank you for bringing this up calmly and civilly. Picaroon 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, knew it was probably an honest mistake. Thanks for having the guts to admit your own mistake and rectify it. GiantSnowman 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ochlocracy

Why are you considering adding applicable internal links to ochlocracy as vandalism? This was not done with the intent to be "funny" but instead to serious attempt to add links to this topic.

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Ochlocracy&limit=500&from=0 you will see that the following all are redirected to it:

1. Mob rule
2. Mob action
3. Mob justice
4. Mob Justice
5. Mobocracy
6. Angry mob

I was trying to add links on those terms (did a Google search, like this to get a list to work from), but instead of adding a link on the redirected term, I piped the link to the actual article. Again, why is this being called vandalism? -- 12.106.111.10 17:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the logic which dictates "angry mob" → "[[ochlocracy|angry mob]]" is absurd in the highest degree. "Ochlocracy" is a government form, and links to it should be in the context of government; you were adding links to "ochlocracy" willynilly, in articles that had absolutely nothing to do with the government. In addition to the fact that piping redirects is unnecessary (you'll get to the same article in the end), you added links where there were none in the vast majority of your edits - that isn't piping redirects, that's disruptive. I'm glad that your actions were in good faith, but they were completely beyond the specter of what could be considered helpful. Picaroon 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly absurd that angry mobs, while generally a localized and short term phenomena, are not taking actions that are normally reserved to a government; that's one of the key differences between a riot and an angry mob/mob justice/mob action/mobocracy; instead of being governed by proxy, the members of a angry mob are participating in a form of direct rule. An angry mob normally has a specific grievance (or set of grievances) and takes extralegal action(s) (ie becoming a law, or "government", unto themselves) to satisfy that grievance (such as killing a targeted individual or group, to use one specific example). Once the grievance is resolved, then the normal rule of law may recommence, but if social institutions have been too far damaged, revolution, anarchy, or warlordism (to name just a few possibilities) may also result. Trying to limit ochlocracy to only describe longer term phenomenon such as the French Revolution tremendously truncates the meaning of the phrase. Forms of government do not have to be long term or wide spread in order to de facto govern; ochlocracy has been, and remains a mostly temporary (and sometimes transitional) form of government.

You are correct that I was not very selective in adding the internal links to articles. I simply looked for the existence of the specific terms and linked on them. The terms linked on, such as angry mob, have a specific meaning; I was not intending to sift through to see if the terms had been misused in the articles, though it would seem that if the term riot or other similar terms would have been a better fit for what was being described, adding the link should have highlighted this, and hopefully cause someone to improve the wording. If this is line of reasoning is in error, I am sorry, but I do not believe this action to be vandalism, maliciously, or disruptive.

To your other point, I did not mean to be unclear in my explanation of my actions above; instead of adding links directly to such things as [[angry mob]] I added piped links, like [[ochlocracy|angry mob]], where specific terms I listed above had no previous links. This was intentional (as I mentioned, there are existing redirects on those terms). I have seen many instances of people going through and piping redirected links to the real article, but I was unaware that this was not considered appropriate. I will not make that mistake again. -- 12.106.111.10 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make links to "ochlocracy" in SpongeBob SquarePants episodes even remotely right. While you may be right about there being a broader definition then I usually connect "ochlocracy" too (I think French Revolution, racial riots in Singapore, etc...), the definition you employed in linking is unquestionable too broad. Angry mob, while its Wikipedia page redirects to ochlocracy, isn't always meant to signal any sort of government form, just displeased rabble.

To the redirect fixing point, see Wikipedia:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken.

Having heard your reasoning, I consent that your actions weren't vandalism and apologize for the accusation. However, I maintain that without further explanation, it was a very reasonable assumption to make. Remember, be bold, but not too bold. Picaroon 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my clarifications. I can see how my actions (without the further explanation discussed here) could easily raise red flags with more experienced editor like yourself. At this point would you be willing to strike through (no need to actually remove) the previous warning you left at User talk:12.106.111.10, and add a couple of words stating you have withdrawn the vandalism notice?

Also, what do you think about changing the "Angry mob" article from just a simple redirect to "Ochlocracy" to instead be a stub (to start with) that indicates the differing usage and meanings for that term, with the appropriate links on words like Ochlocracy, Mob, riot, rabble, etc? I could probably come up with a paragraph or two to start with, though I probably couldn't document all of the sources this week. Doing this would seem to make internal links to Angry mob a bit more useful in most (or maybe all) cases. I can't see doing this on the other items that were in my list above, as the redirect on say "Mobocracy" is really the best fit, but a separate article might be useful for Angry mob. -- 12.106.111.10

With regards to the comment on your user talk, I've done as you requested - certainly a reasonable request on your part. With regards to "angry mob," an actual page might, as you say, be helpful, although I don't think paragraphs would be necessary. Instead, it could serve as a dab page which refers people to ochlocracy (noting it is often referred to as a "mobocracy"), crowd, which covers the behavior of groups of people, and mob, another dab page. This would serve to help people find what they're looking for best they could, and would certainly solve the problematic redirect to "ochlocracy."

By the way, have you considered registering a username? An account would allow you to edit semi-protected pages and provide you with more anonymity (by shielding your IP address.) I'd recommend you consider it. Picaroon 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change on the talk page. Actually I do have a user name, which I use at home, but my division here at work currently has a ban on using any type of a login on any external website. As I understand it, the ban was intended to target the use of personal web-mail, online shopping, and that sort of thing, but unfortunately it also means that I can't login WP accounts at work. We currently have tacit approval to use and contribute to WP as long as we're being reasonable, but that may change if it is perceived that we are abusing this privilege (such as vandalizing articles). Also since I work for a large company, and this IP is used by everyone going out the internet gateway, I don't know that I'd want to have the WP account I use at home tied to the actions of others that I can't control, but just happen to also use this shared IP. -- 12.106.111.10 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the change angry mob from a redirect to a dab page. I did add mobbing as one addition to the items you recommended. The dab page looks OK to me, but if you have time could you double check that I did it right -- this is the first time I've made a dab page. -- 12.106.111.10 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - fits in with WP:MOSDAB and everything. Thanks for making it. Picaroon 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

List of films gone

Hi Picaroon, I just noticed that the List of Swiss films was deleted 4 days ago. You must have been the closing admin. I don't find the AfD log. Was there one? Hoverfish Talk 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it under CSD A1; however, I should have said CSD A3. Not a big difference, granted, but there is some. Anyways, the "list" you speak of had been around since December, and had 0 entries in March. To me, that fits the definition of a useless article. Furthermore, there was a mass afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films, back in December. Although the discussion was rightly closed as no consensus (defaulting to keep), many people who supported keeping the articles said their doing so hinged on the articles being maintained and improved. No improvement in four months, plus the fact that it was completely empty, = delete in my book. Picaroon 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the list of Finnish films itself has been edited since. But your book is mine too and I agree with you. I am currently doing my best to fill up the List of French films so that it doesn't meet the same fate and E.S.Blofeld is doing his best to save what he can. We also have help in some more countries nowadays. It's a long story but I will try to put in a nutshell and let you decide how you want to proceed. WP Films does need these lists eventually, but there was a broad rush move by some editors to create them all now in the hope that they would (magically?) get filled up "asap". So a lot of infrastructure was created, with templates, graphics, navigations and all, but then some got distracted in other areas, except now that we start seeing red links in the templates, we are rushing to fill up what we can, (myself leaving some other huge backlogs waiting). I did and still do give the advice that a list should first be worked out in a sandbox and when it is presentable it may hit the main namespace. But I often find myself talking to the wind, so where words aren't effective other consequences are. Well, thanks for explaining anyway. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the table and intro sentence could be reproduced in a minute. Nevertheless, if you'd likeit restored in some subpage, I'd be happy to do it. Picaroon 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article

There still has been no comprise on March Days any edit I make they will quickly revert there sources are good but mine aren't even though I provide, historian, scholar and third party sources but when I remove sources that are not third party they still revert it. Artaxiad 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on WP:ANI. Much appreciated. C ^thirty-three 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. Picaroon 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mavreli

That may be the case with the above article, however in the manner it was written appeared to be rather vandalistic. My subject knowledge on Greek Mythology is limited, and I was questioning it's relevance (or legitimacy). Thank you for clarifying it was indeed an event, and not simply vandalism. NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Elle Nicolai

One of the edits I made today on Wikipedia was deleted by you. It concerns a visionary artist, and her work. I only began to add some of the text and references, and now the system says the information is gone. Please advise. Jim/Los Angeles

It was a copyright violation. Text added to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. Picaroon 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I saw your notes on my entry. I did contact the person for permission to use content, and make this addition, and others, under the visionary art category, to make that section more accurate, in terms of what is happening today in that genre.

But I understand your concern, because it was not indicated anywhere in the text that it was reproduced with consent from the artist. I will build the pages a bit differently now that I am becoming more familiar with the system here, and will see to it, to email or write here, if I insert text authorized by the source. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Jim.

Ochlocracy & Angry mob x2

Mermaid from the Baltic Sea (talk · contribs) has reinstated the problematic redirect to Ochlocracy on Angry mob, which we discussed earlier, without explanation. I'm going to point out our previous discussion about this and ask why the revert was done, but as that user is an admin I'm not going to make any changes back at this point. Perhaps you could weigh in? -- 12.106.111.10 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. My page doesn't say that. Why did I redirect? For one thing, the concensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angry_mob had been a redirect to Ochlocracy, a fact which I discovered in the course of trying to untangle why I was being sent in circles when I was on the unredirected page and I selected from the disambiguation list "mob, an unruly group of people" I was sent to ANOTHER disambiguation page at mob, and then when I selected "Angry mob" I was sent back to where I had started it all. You see the problem with two disambiguation pages which just send you back and forth between them? You end up moving in circles. Plus, talking between just two people on a user talk page usually doesn't supercede a concensus formed from an AfD discussion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MftBS, and I'm sorry that I was mistaken in my statement above about you being an admin. Also, while you may not be a admin, Picaroon is, and when I made the change you reverted, I was following his recommendations after asking for his advice. The issue being addressed by the AfD was separate; here is what they were getting rid of; I agree with the descriptions that it was "nonsense" and "contain[ed] nothing ... other than some foolishness about baseball bats and AK-47s." The fact that mob is also a dab page was noted by Picaroon in the discussion between us, and after he looked at the dab I did, he said it "fits in with WP:MOSDAB and everything", including the link out to the mob dab page.

Picaroon, I could use some clarification. After reading a little about AfD's it is my understanding that the AfD that MftBS is refering to is binding on the issue of getting rid of the origional "baseball bats and AK-47s" text, which I agree shouldn't be reinstated. I can't find any process, procedure or other method where a review is needed (or even available) for later changes to the redirected page, so I can't find anything barring the changes you recommended. The only thing I can find has to do with the case of someone (for whatever reason) wanting to re-instate that origional text. Am I missing something (again)? -- 12.106.111.10 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, me being a sysop doesn't mean I know any more about policy than you or Mermaid. I, too, wasn't aware of the AfD when I supported your proposal to turn it into a dab page - adminship isn't an all-seeing eye! Nothing much has changed since the AfD, so I'm wary to say consensus has changed with regards to what the final outcome of "angry mob" should be. While I'd like to see it remain a dab page, Mermaid has a point about the AfD's decision. We can't exactly call another AfD on the spot, seeing as I don't think anyone wants the page deleted, but until then, overruling the consensus from the original one should be done with care. Picaroon 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN archiving

I've archived the discussion you deleted here.[6] Also started a thread on the board's talk page. Didn't mention you in particular - I appreciate the sentiment of removing trolling. Since community banning is still fairly new and undergoing refinements it's good to have an archive of threads that try to game community banning. Also, if a particular editor does this repeatedly it may be necessary to cite frivolous threads as proof of disruption. Durova^Charge! 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Page history? Picaroon 22:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. This message is in case you don't have my talk page on your watchlist, or you are an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. --TeckWiz^Parlate Contribs_@

Yes, thanks for the message. I'm an IP who doesn't have a watchlist. Picaroon 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My take on this

Well, you asked for it, so here it is:

My RFA opened, so Sarah added it to the RFA section of this page. (as have many other users in the past, with other RFAs) That section of the announcements page has been around for almost a year and a half, long enough for it to have become commonplace for Australian RFA candidates to be listed there. I don't see an issue with it myself, but I understand gaillimh's concern. One thing I'd like to chip in though, is that there is no link between a user's nationality and a pile-on support. Just as easily as somebody could go over there and support, they could also show up to say "I have worked on articles x and y with this user, and I can tell you that he does not understand policy z (a few diffs maybe)". In my opinion, it's similar to deletion sorting, but in a less organised manner.

I'm posting this here to avoid clogging up the RFA page. Cheers. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The BJAODN MFD

Hi, I'm in the UK so I'll be winding down for the evening soon and off to bed. If later on there's a clear consensus building that folks would prefer to have a block nom, and if you're around, I give you permission to withdraw the nomination on my behalf pending relisting of all but the central BJAODN page. Otherwise, we'll let this one run and see what happens as originally planned. I want to do whatever process the community wants, although I'm adamant that keeping all this garbage is not good for the project :) Thanks for your help and suggestions. --kingboyk 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be online for at least another hour, probably two. But shouldn't it be the central BJAODN page which the nomination is attached to, even if the goal isn't to delete that? Picaroon 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because that's the one to be kept. Only the pages for deletion get tagged. Of course the nomination can be advertised elsewhere but won't it just attract a flood of anons and newbies saying keep? I don't know how to draw the line between fair advertisement and opening up the floodgates to people who think bad jokes are nonsense are somehow important (reverse ballot stuffing, if you will).

If you can think of a better way, or if you want to ask around at WP:AN for how best to do this, I'm all ears, though. --kingboyk 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so are you proposing 60 separate deletion debates? If so, we're certainly not seeing eye to eye here, because I think that would be a monumental waste of time. Picaroon 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. You know how bundled debates work don't you? Every page nominated gets a tag, but they share a debate. --kingboyk 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how they work. That's what I was referring to by "attached to" in my initial reply. I think we should just tag the main page and create the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (2nd nomination), regardless of what the desired final outcome (in this case, not total deletion, just serious trimming) is; that's the only convenient title, no? Picaroon 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the flood of newbies you suggest would be attracted: as if the closing sysop would take their "votes" into account. If policy and common sense say one thing and process and consensus say another, guess who wins? :D Picaroon 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conceptually there is no real problem with a BJAODN page, or with adding things to it, or with knocking them off when a new, funner one comes along. The problem is the other 59 BJAODN pages, and the Best of BJAODN, and no doubt the Featured BJAODN Criteria, and the less rigorous Good BJAODN process, and... well, you get the idea. Time it stopped, really. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a good idea at core, and when kept small. I recall one entry where a vandal changed references to the Islamic star-and-crescent to "Pacman approaches his prey" - that was laugh-out-loud funny. Unfortunately, people have been taking "bad" far too seriously, and adding the stupidest things ever - things you see while doing rc and newpage patrol, and didn't even laugh at the first time. Add to that, there are tons of fair use images. What do you think about the package nomination, Guy? Which pages should we tag? Picaroon 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who's prepared to do that much work on the off-chance should, I think, tag all but the original BJAODN, leaving for now the best-of. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Look, if that's considered the best way, I'll tag 20. Picaroon said he'd do 20. I can ask somebody else to do 20. The special collections should perhaps be done seperately or at a later date. --kingboyk 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, if you have list of 20 pages you'd like me to tag and have the code to use (seeing as {{mfd1}} won't work), I'll go ahead. Picaroon 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is {{not a ballot}} in order at the mfd? --Iamunknown 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Picaroon 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Wilno (1939)

I disagree with your action. First, a naming dispute is certainly a normal mechanism for Wikipedia, and I see no problem with people finding out about how Wikipedia works. Second, as you can see, the current name seem to be gaining majority consensus, but there is a miniroty which I know from personal experience will try very hard to dispute that and will be very happy if the can ensure the article doesn't appear on DYK. Bottom line is that the discussion is civil and can only benefits from more comments, and so article should be restored to DYK (I will not revert you to prevent any wheel war but please reconsider).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"will be very happy if the can ensure the article doesn't appear on DYK" is gross ABF. Piotrus just wrote and submitted to DYK another article and I not only did nothing to obstruct the submission but edited it trying to make sure the better and improved version is displayed. The article in question, however, has a controversial title and there is nothing like the "majority concensus" about that. --Irpen 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had two interconnected reasons for removing it. First of all, the fact that newcomers are likely to read the tag (not even the article, just the tag) and get a negative impression of Wikipedia was a consideration; we're writing an encyclopedia for them, not us. How could they trust that other articles are at the right name? Second, links from the Did you know section should be to start or B-class articles which have had their rough edges evened out. Yes, Wikipedia is a work in progress - all articles are - but that doesn't mean we need to link articles with gigantic tags on them from the first page people see. Articles are at different stages of readiness to be presented, and one with a tag that reads "The current title of this article, "Battle of Wilno (1939)", is [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute|disputed]]. Wikipedia articles may have only one unique title; the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page" isn't ready for presentation. I'm not sure if this has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Did you know before, but I'm certain I'm not going to be the only one who objects to linking articles whose titles are being actively disputed from the Main page. Picaroon 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help me

Picaroon9288, Could you please help me add it back. I found the template very confusing. I am a writer, and I dont' understand all the formatting. --Metzenberg 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This is my first experience doing this, and I didn't know how to do it. Could you tell me, have I provided all the information that I need to provide? --Metzenberg 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile and comment

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to 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.

• Hello Picaroon9288:) Keep up your good work here at english wikipedia. If you answer please do so on my talk page. have a nice week and god bless you and everyone you know:) --James, La gloria è a dio 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  You know, having seen this template on other people's talk pages, I didn't imagine it could actually put a smile on someone's face. But, having received one, I've been proved wrong, as this certainly did cheer me up. Thanks James. Picaroon 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your welcome:) --James, La gloria è a dio 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to 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.

05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Trampton

Pallywood

Thanks for your comments on Talk:Pallywood. Perhaps you could add your comments on the outstanding Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions. We have an endless parade of people saying "this is notable" but never saying why other than "it gets Google hits". Let's get the why on the record. -- ChrisO 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Picaroon 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Cats

Thanks, I was afraid of something like that happening. I'll keep it in mind in the future! Thanks again. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Definite article in DRC

Can I ask your help with something? I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Central Africa. Should articles on DRC include the word "The" in their title? I'm thinking of National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and others which have recently been moved. Personally I think yes they should, as this is what english speakers normally say (despite the general ban on articles in wikipedia). Could you let me know what you think by commenting at Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo. Many thanks!! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I thought that project never got off the ground. I think the consensus was to go along with Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa instead. With regards to the country's article, I think it's in the same boat as Gambia - it is referred to without a "the" in everyday conversation, but when writing titles or full sentences about Congo-Kinshasa (which happens to be my preferred way of referring to it) the "the" should be used. Picaroon 21:30, March 26, 2007

Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. Picaroon 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are You A Piccardo?

I really don't know what I am doing. I guess this is some kind of HTML thing. I read the info about leaving a signature, but I don't know if what I am about to do will work, or what it will do for that matter. I only came across your username because I typed in my last name into wikipedia and saw that you had edited the info. And then I got curious and wondered who you were, and if you know more about Piccardo's, if anything at all. 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a Piccardo. I don't recall editing the article, but it seems I did, all the way back in August. The fact that I edited it is either a rather improbable coincidence (dividing my total edits, 6500 or so, by the approximate number of articles from back then, 1.3 million, gets .005) or I typed "Picaroon" into the search bar and found that article. Picaroon 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your moral support on my unsuccessful RFA. I will continue to contribute to wikipedia. Happy editing! Wooyi 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing to you to. Thanks for keeping your spirits up and staying in a positive frame-of-mind. Picaroon 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

I don't mind the manual template for being banned, but if you choose to go that route and keep his page locked, please manually put him the in banned user category. See User:DeanHinnen for the category as he was banned in the same ArbCom decision. I think it's Category:Banned Wikipedia users Thanks! --Tbeatty 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria Government and Politics section

Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for the pointer to Be Bold. I had skimmed the various etiquette guides for leaving comments on the talk page, but my skimming must have been too much because I missed be Bold. Anyway, happy Wiki-ing 2verb 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Patricknoddy/Userboxes/User Presidents (formerly Template:User Presidents)

When doing WP:UM please go back and change the former template to the new one, so that people don't have a "Per the userbox migration (old name) was moved to (new name)." userbox instead of the actual userbox. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that needs to be there so the bots can replace all uses of the userboxes with the userspace version. Otherwise they'll never find it. Picaroon 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD template

Good try with the design, but I think it had been made to the best standards it could in the last revision. The centred text looks a bit odd. --sunstar net^talk 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course it'll look odd - it's been changed. The text centering was to make the template look a bit brighter by exposing some of the background on both sides of it. Lets keep the discussion on the talkpage, so I'll be more able to tell if people would like me to self-revert. Picaroon 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Do I have to reduce its length? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.

Dear Picaroon,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Hex [^t/_c] 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

Please discuss the block on my user page, as the admin in question is explaining his reasons there. -- Fyslee/talk 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything is on my watchlist. Picaroon 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

sigs

Hello Picaroon9288, please see User talk:Netscott/s1.js where I've addressed those concerns. (→Netscott) 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Unprotect my userpage if you will. I see you took advantage of me getting blocked to protect it. When every single userbox showing support for anything is removed from Wikipedia, I'll remove mine. Emбargo 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I protected it because of edit warring. I'll consider unprotecting once you learn a) to assume good faith and b) promise that there will be no more revert warring. Picaroon 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on one-word block rational

Hi. Please expand on the grounds behind the block noted here. Thanks. El_C 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my querry; please see my response. Thanks. El_C 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki BLP violations

The English langusge Wikipedia community makes rules for itself and not for other Wikipedia communities (German, French etc) nor for other WikiMedia projects (dictionary, news etc). WAS 4.250 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)