User talk:Wizardman/Archive22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wizardman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Happy New Year!
Dear Wizardman,
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,
Happy New Year!
|
Dear Wizardman, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
Well done on your election Wizardman. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! Happily retired from AC.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
RFA-related request for more eyeballs spam
I'm asking a few RFA regulars (no offense intended!) to review two threads I'm thinking of posting to WT:RFA at User:Barneca/RFA sandbox and give me a little feedback on:
- Whether you think I'd be wasting my time
- If you can think of any drastic improvements I could make prior to posting this
- Which option you think I should pursue (I don't think proposing both, and having people "vote", is a good idea; far too easily sidetracked)
- If you think there's a good Option 3 that I haven't considered
- Any other feedback you're interested in giving me
I'll probably post something to WT:RFA next week, after my schedule eases a little bit, so no critical rush to reply; you've probably got 5+ days before I post anything anywhere. If someone comes up with significant changes I think are good ideas, I'll probably delay even longer.
If you're interested, please post to the sandbox's talk page. If you are not Wizardman, but one of his talk page stalkers reading this, you're welcome to comment as well; I'm not trying to hide this from anyone, just iron out any obvious kinks before it goes live, to prevent minutiae from sidetracking the discussion (that seems to happen quite often). I'm hoping against hope that this leads to actual change, rather than fruitless discussion, so I really want to try to get all my ducks in a row before springing this on WT:RFA.
Thanks in advance, and sorry if this spam is unwelcome; I won't bug you again. --barneca (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of George Perring
A tag has been placed on George Perring requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DougsTech (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Mashrafe Mortaza
Thanks for the Doug Ring review. As for Mortaza, see this for more details. Plain forgetfulness over the festive season on my behalf. I plan on finishing this evening AEDT. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
2008 Philadelphia Phillies season
Thank you for reviewing this article. I will make every attempt to address and alleviate any concerns you may have. I appreciate it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
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) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A note from the GACC
|
The Good Article Collaboration Center has been restarted, and since you are a member, we are asking for your help in making the articles Seinfeld, Sarah Palin, and President of the United States good articles. We hope to see you there. Cheers. --LAAFansign review 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC) |
- Notice delivery by xenobot 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Illingworth
Thanks for the review. Good to have a non-cricket person to hlep make it more user friendly. I;ve responded. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Scientology full-protection
Hi, you full-protected Scientology on November 25. I was going to reduce it to semi-protection, but as I'm not familiar with the disputes on that page, I wanted to check with you first. Cheers,--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratualations
I am back after taking a few month to let the dust settle after you closed my sanction, and upon reviewing this year's arbcom election results I see that you made the cut! I am not surprised and I am sure you will make a fine arbiter. :)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA Q
Are you going to take this up, or perhaps you already have and are staying out? I've done some work myself but it's really not my forte. Frank | talk 15:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was dropping by to ask the same, but Frank beat me to it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I actually forgot about this. If i don't get one up with 18 hours of this post, someone else can, i dunno if i'll have time. Wizardman 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead and do it myself, for better or for worse. Frank | talk 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
MyRfA
Wizardman, thanks very much indeed for the extra nom. Since it's a bit of an unusal RfA would you be able to guide me through the etiquette a bit? Is it acceptable for me to respond to comments people make when they oppose, if they seem to have misunderstood? Can I expand on my answers even more? (e.g I know far more about copyright law than is good for anyone, and my answer to q6 just restates policy concisely, so if someone wants to ask me something else concrete about copyright I'd be happy to answer). Can I put in diffs to show how friendly and helpful I was to user:Ottava Rima to try and resolve a huge storm in a teacup? Should I ask for more questions, till I get to 25? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been following your RfA really, so I can't really offer advice, but from what I've seen you might want to take a look at this essay.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Did I miss an extra nom other than mine? Frank | talk 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my recent successfully closed RfA! --Kanonkas : Talk 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Move request
Hello. Are you able to please move User:PartyDude!/Sandbox to Dance Party, and Dance Party to Dance Party (album) -- PartyDude! (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, on proposed remedy 4, "Martinphi restricted" in the above arbitration, you say "Martinphi's indef-blocked, so this is essentially moot now." Yes, essentially, but remember that, for instance, he could be unblocked with the permission of the blocking admin, or by consensus in subsequent discussion in an appropriate forum. It might be in the interests of Wikipedia for the arbitration committee to specify the conditions under which he may continue to edit, should he be unblocked. --TS 00:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Another point is that is might make admins happier to unblock, if they're convinced that adequate controls for his previously problematic behavior are in place. It works both ways. --TS 02:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My (failed) RfA
A big thank-you for your help and enouragement. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete/Block Request for Attempted Duplicate Article
Dear Wizardman: Last year you kindly deleted and blocked the "Michael Aquino" article on me, which for years previously had been controlled by character assassins. An apparently well-intentioned person has just created a "Michael A. Aquino" article at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Michael_A._Aquino. Would you please delete and block it so that the vicious editing doesn't start all over again? Thank you very much, Michael Aquino —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maquino (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Heartfelt Appreciation!
Thank you very much again, Wizardman! - Michael Aquino —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maquino (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I have had to recreate this category again, having spotted that it had been (again) deleted subsequent to being de-populated (again) by an anonymous vandal with an obscure grudge against the admirably knowledgable (sadly former) editor user:Bill Thayer. See User talk:87.6.194.103, and in particular the anon editor’s threat: ‘Or i smash your face’.
Its members (currently (Bevagna, Cantalupo di Bevagna, Limigiano and Mevania)) are small places, but ones with historic and artistic importance. It is standard practice when an Italian municipality (comune) has articles on several of its so-called frazioni to group them in a municipal category.
Unfortunately when the admins (user:Kimchi.sg, user: Anthony Appleyard, user: Wizardman and user:Alexf) have previously deleted this category, they have been unwittingly perpetuating these acts of vandalism by the anon bully.
Happy Birthday!
|
Happy Birthday, Wizardman/Archive22, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
2008 ACC Championship Game GAR
Changes have been made. Out of curiosity, why did you delete all the N-dashes? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pass. I've made additional improvements: adding a subsection, standardizing the citations, rewording awkward sentences, removing dead links and disambiguation links, and have submitted the article to be a Featured Article Candidate. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate any additional comments you'd care to add on the review page. Since you just finished reading it, anything at all you'd care to mention would be really appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review request
This AfD is really worrying to me. First, for such a large number of article deletion, it was not at all a consensus. Secondly, the delete votes seemed to be based on notability issues. Please check the recently expanded List of Metallica concert tours to see that at least half of those articles are actually notable. What do I need to do to request undeletion of those articles? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight
Ron Halcombe
Just wondering if you forgot that you reserved this GAN. Also I have a sports poll that might interest you. :) YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Wizardman. I don't understand how voting can start [1] without the independent review of the evidence by Arbitor Cool Hand Luke being completed [2]. Isn't that totally against proper procedure? I am afraid this is not fair at all... Cheers PHG (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitor Cool Hand Luke has now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been said. Isn't it then highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, rather than pass a fair judgement about my work. I strongly appeal to your sense of justice in this matter. Best regards PHG (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Sorry, but could you check this out? A while back you concluded Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter with very clear advice. Posturewriter has done none of what was requested, and is now back in action, in relation to the same disputed article, with the same hostile obfuscating behaviour; and furthermore arguing that the RFC conclusion is invalid and that you retract it. [3] Help/advice appreciated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thx for your reply. I've initiated an Arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just to note that I'm pleased with the way you took the hint and responded to my comment; very appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Help with Date delinking
I don't know how to ask this, but can you please take a look at WT:MOSNUM? Greg L (talk · contribs) is attempting to start another RFC asking similar questions to those already asked in the middle of constructive discussion on fixing the date auto formatting the community supported (by a majority) in the prior RFC. Greg has also been incivil at that talk page, linking to offsite pictures of whining children and engaging in personal attacks. Tony1 has also engaged in behavior that's been unhelpful at moving the discussion forward. Any advice or assistance you can provide at mediating this or getting things calmed down would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- ...or you can see WP:ANI#Disruption by Locke Cole. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- ...which I've renamed to WP:AN/I#Issue with new RFC at MOSNUM since Greg L enjoys creating drama-inducing section headings. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy Adminship!
| Happy Adminship | from the Birthday Committee | |
|---|---|---|
 Wishing Wizardman/Archive22 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! | ||
Happy anniversary! Voyaging(talk) 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Question
I know what the answer probably will be, but do you think I would have any conceivable chance of passing an RfB? There seems to be a general perception that we could use more crats, and I think I would be able to do a good job as one, but I don't know if there is any way I could pass an RfB. What do you think? J.delanoygabsadds 00:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what happened with this review? There was no commenting for over a month and then the candidate gave up and removed it. I spoke to the reviewer about this article and another article nominated by Efe. I got no response, anyway, I think the nominator deserves some closure on where the article stands, the same for Efe's nomination. — Realist2 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lucky me sought this mess out, Defeated Sanity is now a GA. — R2 05:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| 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 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I made a comment on how the people agreeing on the AFD ignored guidelines. If you're going to ask why anyone would close the debate as a keep, you might want to address that point. Even if 100 people piled on with delete votes, if there is no basis in policy, that policy first needs to be adjusted before a deletion is performed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Happy Wizardman's Day!
 |
Wizardman has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, |
Template talk:Did you know
Hi, Wizardman. Please be aware of my complaint at User talk:BorgQueen#Gresham, Norfolk. Xn4 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your input over there. If I add some more to the article now, should I then reinstate the nomination under a header for 27 January? Or how else would you suggest, please? Xn4 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've expanded it some more and added the nomination back under 27 January. Xn4 (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your words of praise. I’ll glad you liked my work on Carr article, and I most flattened that you considered it ready for a featured article nomination. That was my intention to ultimately take that page up to being a featured article. Almost done with that article, with only a few, unfortunately obscure points remaining to be dealt with. Thanks for the suggestion, and thank you for the praise! You really made my day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Juggling Martin
I thought the fact that the juggling was mentioned in the article would have prevented vandalism from actually occurring. Apparently not. -- tariqabjotu 04:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Foca rape camp article
Hello.
How can I retrieve the Foca rape camp article that you deleted when HanzoHattori was banned? I seem to remember I did a reasonable amount of work on it at the time and it seems a shame it should be thrown away because HH has a bad temper. Opbeith (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that. Not a nice subject, but important. Opbeith (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Nelson Santovenia
|
On February 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nelson Santovenia, 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. |
You have an e-mail from me. Please take a look when you can. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hedgehog Pie
Hi Wizardman. You removed my DYK nomination before I had a chance to reply to Gatoclass. If
... that while hedgehogs are eaten in some cultures, Hedgehog Pie is not a savory pie made with the meat from the spiny mammals?
is not alright, would
... that while hedgehogs are eaten in some cultures, Hedgehog Pie is not a savory pie made with the meat from the spiny mammals, but a 1970s electric folk group from Newcastle-Upon-Tyne?
okay? I really like the idea of tricking people into thinking that it's something it's not, and if we set them straight, then isn't that what DYK is all about?
I'm not going to be around tomorrow cause my wife is undergoing minor surgery. If you think that is okay, would you be able to put it back in under February 3 at T:TDYK for me. If not, just drop a note at my talk page. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Alex Rhodes GAN
Hi there. Thank you very much for the review of Alex Rhodes. You possibly have the page on your watchlist but I thought I'd just let you know I've addressed your queries. Peanut4 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
1998 Gator Bowl GAN
Changes have been made as requested. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I've reduced the resolution of the logo now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Saggers in 1948 GAN
Thanks for the review, I've respondend. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Loxton in 1948
Thanks again for the review, I've responded YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Richard Montgomery
I took care of your concerns for the GA Review on Richard Montgomery.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Chuck Fleetwood-Smith
Sorry, I missed your intitial review entirely and I won't have time to deal with it in the next week at least. Thanks anyway for the review and sorry for wasting your time. -- 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)~