Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Does the 'C' by any change stand for Conrad? ;) Morwen - Talk 12:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Yup, I'm me and all that. :)

Username stands for Conrad Bertrand Dunkerson.

Are you the Morwen of AFT / RABT, wielder of the CHOKLIT sword?

No. I used to post to AFT/RABT but not under this handle. ;) Morwen - Talk 13:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, well good to see you. I've actually dabbled in Tolkien topics around here off and on for a couple of years, but the earlier edits are under various IP addresses.

You'd deleted a brief entry I'd made for Ed Hannigan - a comic book writer and artists. Would you mind taking a look at the revised entry and let me know if this is how I need to handle these types of things in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Hannigan

I'm also interested in finding out how to add images to some of these listings.

Thanks, Keith

Actually, I don't have access to delete articles. What I did was tag it for someone else to check. The new version is much more consistent with Wikipedia standards... still kind of short but there is enough included that it won't be marked for 'speedy' deletion. If someone decides it isn't notable enough they might mark it for discussion of possible deletion, but in that case you'd have time to respond and expand it if needed. You might want to explain what 'provided pencils' means. I'm guessing it is an industry term which means he was one of the artists, but it sounds like he let the writer borrow a couple of #2 pencils. :]

On images, you can just put a link in the article like;

Image:Smiley head happy.png|35px

(place double brackets around this like other links)

 

Wikipedia has a huge library of images to choose from and (once the currently ongoing server upgrade is complete) you can upload your own. Just be careful not to use copyrighted images. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 07:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your helpful comments earlier. Now, I submit another article for your approval and/or critique prior to making an official article of it. See my user page Blooferlady for more on Nox Arcana (previously deleted). Blooferlady 08:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Are you sure that the re-created Joseph Vargo article was 'substantially identical' to the previous attempt? I didn't see the original copy, but I know Blooferlady sought advice on changes from the admin who first deleted it (User: Cleared as filed) before putting it back up. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 02:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm sure. Rewording, wikification, and expansion don't make the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo any less applicable. —Cryptic (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please read my latest comments [here] and also the discussions I mention in my comment. I ask for your vote for undeletion based on the facts stated. Blooferlady 15:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

Hello, CBDunkerson/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Heh, thanks. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 02:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi CBDunkerson! My name is Dennis Nilsson. I just saw you fixed a vandalism on the WW2 page, good work. I saw you are a member of the Anti-vandalism team, and I wonder if you mind having a chat with me on a private wikipedia irc channel. I would like to talk personally to someone about something I am concerned about, and I do not know where to turn. If you have time, please leave a message on my talk page. I will respond immediately. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 03:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding. Could you start a private channel? Reply on my talk page. Regards Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 09:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, that is the first time its been vandalized! — Wackymacs 08:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why has no-one blocked me yet?!?!?--80.47.65.9 12:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ok, there you go. You're blocked. Congrats. --CBD ✉ 12:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Stop trying to sabotage my edits, I am trying to help you and others!

Your 'edits' are to vandalize my user page and post a fake image to Gary Oldman and James Dean. This is considered vandalism. Please stop. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 15:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The image of Jmaes Dean is not fake.

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's something of a large discussion page, so be prepared. For a quick run-through of what's been said and done, see #rehashing) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

No problem -- Francs2000   21:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

...for reverting that vandalism to my talk page. I appreciate it. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yep I know. Ral, who is one of the more respected admins, was freaked out by the idea of GWB being semi protected permanently...and I'm like...if it isn't...what's the point? I mean the whole idea is to stop having to revert vandalism every 4 minutes (literally) on that article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just saw your edit on the temp page. Shivraj Singh 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, not really. I just saw some info about the conflict and was trying to come up with some neutral phrasing. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Portals got one on Sports or Narnia. --Jingofetts 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have moved this page to User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox2 to turn it into a subpage of your user page, and deleted the redirect. --cesarb 20:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You opposed my candidacy because you seem to think that I "Need[] a break from dealing with ArbCom and other Wikistress." Frankly, I can manage my stress without assistance (which is why I'm currently on a break from ArbCom until the end of the month, due to stress from work). If that's your only reason for opposing, I'd ask you to reconsider. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You cite a nasty case of admin abuse on the WP:AAP... I think this should be addressed in RFC, would you agree? I'm not sure which case you're talking about but it sounds bad. Radiant_>|< 22:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to thank you for fixing my userboxes. :•) --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thanks for the nice comment about my userpage. You have FireFox to thank for it as it was he who designed it.--Ali K 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ta for changing that :) IainP (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Death to the INTJ'r infidels! We of the INFJ faction are the only True Wikipedians! Well, now, let's take a moment to think about this. Wouldn't want to be hasty. It's important to see all sides of the issue. I think it's possible that both groups have something to add to the debate, even if they do tend to jump to conclusions. Perhaps we should set up a WikiProject to look into this more deeply. ;-) FreplySpang (talk) (INTP) 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I bow to your superior sarcasm. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah thanks, I've fixed it now. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my change on the image link for this picture. I saw that it was on commons, but neither that version nor the one here display anything when I view or link to them... which is why I changed it to the version that actually shows a picture. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's odd. Both versions show up fine for me. It may be an image cache problem; you could try purging the cache with this link and see whether it helps. -- Solipsist 11:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Very strange. I tried loading the page in Internet Explorer and I can see the image, but not when I use Firefox... even after purging the cache. Well, so long as most people will see it at Portal:Featured content that should be fine and I'll just try to figure out why Firefox has problems with it. Thanks. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

If it helps, I'm using Firefox 1.06 and see it OK. I'd be surprised if there were anything particularly special about this jpeg, so it could turn out to be something else. -- Solipsist 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I figured it out. It was the 'adblock' extension. The image is displayed as screen element 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Natto_mixed.jpg'... adblock was detecting the '/ad/' and suppressing the image because that's a common advertisement identifier. D'oh! First time I've run across that problem. Sorry for the confusion. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Double D'oh - now you mention it, I recall someone else having trouble with an Adblock extension and a similar image path issue. I don't think it was the same image though. It was probably discussed on the Commons village pump, and someone may even have requested a code change to for a different hashing algorithm to avoid the problem in future. Well done on figuring it out though - not a trivial thing to spot. -- Solipsist 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You made an edit on my user page and listed WP:AUM as the reason. I read WP:AUM quite a few times, but I still don't understand the difference between a / and a |. Could you explain it to me? I'm just curious, that's all. - Hbdragon88 02:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd be grateful for your help at Template talk:Taxobox on these two issues. Gdr 15:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - any particular reason why one of your sandboxes (2) has turned up in Category:Stubs? Any chance of subst'ing the template and taking the category off the page please? :) Grutness...wha? 07:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just deleted a bunch of taxonomy redirects you created. I prefer the red links to show they are articles yet to be written, instead of making it look like there is an article already there. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do an experiment. Use Wikipedia's internal search for Piliocolobus, one of the links I just removed. The search should tell you the pages the word is on. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's considered wrong to make a redirect from taxon A to taxon B unless you plan for B to cover A completely (e.g. A is the only subtaxon of B, or B covers closely related subtaxa A and C). The benefit of having a red link to tell editors and readers that we don't have a page on that taxon outweighs the disadvantages.

You always have the option of making a stub instead of a redirect. Gdr 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right, but of the eight options listed under 'Piliocolobus' they are most likely to end up at Zanzibar Red Colobus, which is only one of a couple dozen in the genus. Still, not that big a deal to me. I just thought it would be easier for the users. I'll table my plan to go through all of mammalia with redirects and skip ahead to the 'next phase' of creating stubs as Gdr suggests. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yay stubs! *grins* Do take a look at my contributions of late, particularly to where I've editted your stubs to make them consistent with taxobox usage and proper bolding and italicizing. Thanks, and keep up the good work! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice set of stubs. Some notes on Wikipedia style:

• Sentence case for higher taxa (thus "four-eyed opossums") but title case for species (at least in some projects, like mammals), so "Gray Four-eyed Opossum".
• Authorities are easy to discover for mammals, e.g. at ITIS.
• Generally stick to the seven major ranks unless the details of the article require otherwise.
• Make redirects from scientific names, common names, and alternative capitalizations.
• Don't forget the phylum! and the family!

Gdr 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ack! Lots and lots of little formatting details. Are there standards for when to and not to include an authority? It seems like sometimes it is only the 'bottom level' taxa, but in others authorities are given for several different taxa. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You'll get the hang of it, don't worry. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage but don't try to remember them all at once! The general rule is to give the authority for the taxon that the article is about, and any monotypic higher taxa (i.e., all the taxa given in bold in the taxobox), except that there's no need to repeat the authority when two taxa were named in the same publication (this is typical in case where a genus was named at the same time as the only species in it; see for example Kowari). Gdr 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

...for the info on how to edit a "categories" page. Thought it must be something simple like that. Jeeb 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

All of your recent map uploads from the turkish wikipedia have no proper source or copyright information. If they are not correctly tagged they will have to be marked for deletion. The image pages on the Turkish wikipedia (eg. [1]) seem to claim GFDL but it sounds a bit far fetched to me that the Turkish government releases these images under the GFDL. I have asked for some native turkish speakers to translate the copyright page for me. At the very least the description pages here should contain all the information the Turkish ones do. --Martyman-(talk) 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The first image I choose to get translated (image linked to above - translation on my talk page) turns out to be a work that has been derived from a Turkish government map (used with permission) and released under the GFDL. The legality of this is pretty questionable, and for it to pass muster on the English wikipedia it should include a copy of the permission email from the government contact stating exactly what terms the image could be used under, including if it could be used to make further (freely licensed) works. Even if the permission was leanient enough to allow derived works under free licenses the description page on the English wikipedia would still legally have to contain all the information from the Turkish page (also translated) to comply with the attribution requirement of the GFDL. The second image I tried to check up on Image:Usak map.gif, I can't seem to find on the Turkish wikipedia at all. I know you are also an experienced wikipedia contributer what are your thoughts on this matter? --Martyman-(talk) 11:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

These images were copied over as part of a requested template move from the Turkish Wikipedia. I changed the image names to English in the process. Replace 'map' with '(il) harita' and 'location' with '(il) konumu' to get the corresponding names on the Turkish Wikipedia. The names vary slightly in a couple of cases, but they can all be traced from the 'What links here' of the template in question - [2]. I don't speak Turkish, but from there I was able to trace them back to the original Turkish government website and find the source images - [3]. I listed that on the image pages, but didn't put a copyright status on the images because I didn't know what it was. I'm hoping to get that information from User:Carlossuarez46 who requested the move. The user who uploaded the images to Turkish Wikipedia in the first place may also be able to provide a provenance. --CBDunkerson 12:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what the copyright status of the Turkish images, I assumed that they were vetted at tr.wikipedia; they appear to come from Turkish government websites but I don't know if -- like US government maps -- they are public domain. We would need someone who knows Turkish law to get an answer. Carlossuarez46 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have uploaded 50+ untagged images. A list can be found here. Please correct them. Let me know if you need further help. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up my references. I use WikiBib, not sure what I did wrong, so if you'd let me know, I'd appreciate it. Another newbie question: how do I add a brief explanation of an edit to the History page, the way you did? CSReader 22:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please weigh in on this subject here. - UtherSRG (talk)

I created a 3rd row of feature boxes and made them empty. As soon as I emptied the boxes, they no longer held their widths (55% and 45%, respectively). (Erase the headings and the templates from a row, and see what happens). Is there a way to make empty rows that will keep their widths and have nothing but white space (with the same background color and borders as the other rows)? If you can find a way to do this, then it would provide the basis for a method to line up the headings horizontally while retaining the columnar format of the current Main Page. I tried using hard spaces, but that provides a minimum height to the boxes of 2 lines (due to wrapping and variable text-size settings). I need the boxes one line in height, without using dummy text as a place-holder, if possible). --Go for it! 06:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :) was blind not to see that tab hehe lol :) —This unsigned comment was added by Peacer gal (talk • contribs).

I accept your offer to help placing the browse links. Also, FYI, the category tags are only in place up through May 5, (using the form [[Category:Tip of the day| 2006-05-05]] so that they sort chronologically at the beginning of the category). So if you could also add the cat tag to the tips you process, that would be appreciated. --Go for it! 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for designing and adding the browselinks to the Tips of the day. I had fun with the template you designed, and added another pair of browselinks via "includeonly" to display with the tip itself. That's a cool program. Therefore, I think you deserve the...

See User talk:CBDunkerson/Barnstars

It would be great if you could check out and comment on the proposal for clearer language in the process description for RfAs that I posted there. Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk)   02:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Awww... You could have left it for at least 1 hour... It's a talk page <grin>

Hi Conrad. Could you please unprotect template:book reference? It is deprecated and not in in heavy use any more. Thanks! --Ligulem 08:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I forgot: while you are at it: could you please semi-protect template:cite journal? No need to let anons edit that. (is already done on cite book, cite web and cite news). --Ligulem 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've taken care of these, since I was here giving congrats.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, didn't take long for the requests to start, did it? Congratulations, good luck, and if you ever have any questions let me know. I look forward to seeing some great mop wielding from you! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking into those UtherSRG. I've been sending 'thank you' notes while reading up on how one actually does protect and unprotect.

Back to the 'thank you's. Evilphoenix, you're at the end of the list since you pulled that funky 'nominator at the end' switcheroo thing. :] --CBDunkerson 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh noes! This was meant as the first admin job for Conrad! :-) (thanks anyway to UtherSRG). BTW, congrats to Conrad from me too. --Ligulem 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Cough) - Template:Book reference is still fully protected... --Ligulem 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heh. Done. Though actually that's my second admin job. I did a rollback on something earlier. --CBDunkerson 13:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a thing I do, instead of trying to be the first vote, I like to try and be the last vote on my nominations. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Community Portal was recently reverted to a version that appeared months ago. Therefore, I've called for a vote to restore to the Community Portal the version that had developed here up until that reversion. There are three drafts competing for the privilege, each representing entirely different approaches, including the current revert version. To show your support for which design should be displayed as the Community Portal, VOTE HERE. Sincerely, --Go for it! 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed someone wanted an Interwiki added to {{switch}} (see Template talk:Switch#interwikis). Normally I'd just slap {{editprotected}} on the page, but I don't want the template accidentally broken by someone unfamiliar with templates. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 01:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Conrad. Do you want to keep {{Reference}}? If not, please speedy delete (you are the creator) or userfy. Thanks. --Ligulem 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I deleted it. Still finding little things like that to clean up. Original intent was to build an 'all in one' citation template, but I'm not sure that we really need one. The name and style are now outdated in any case. --CBDunkerson 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Another candidate for an all-in one citation template is {{citation}}, an effort started by SEWilco. I'm working towards consolidation on category:citation templates, but I'm not sure if it is good to merge cite book, cite web, cite journal into one, but we will see (as a prototype, {{citation}} is certainly interesting). The name of the called template in articles also carries some useful info. I'm always reluctant to remove info from Wikipedia. --Ligulem 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey CBD, I don't know what I was thinking, but I accidentally created a talk page at Talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/archive1. Is there a way you could delete it? —Mirlen 16:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Poof. :] --CBDunkerson 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're a lifesaver, thanks CBD. :) —Mirlen 16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mikeabundo continues to spam Numa Numa with a link to his nonnotable forum. He has been warned repeatedly that consensus is against him (see Talk:Numa Numa), but refuses to comply, has an RFC against him right now for self-promotion, and refuses to take his repeated warnings seriously. Please block him for at least 24 hours. Thanks. KI 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for redirecting Wesley Smith to Central News. Only problem is that someone has since merged Central News to their owner: Central Independent Television so, Wesley Smith is now a double link. Can you send it directly to Central Independent Television? Thanks! Avraham 15:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Two users with the same account methinks: Abdullahazzam and Abdullah Azzam. The user posted at the M-E WikiProject things to do page as Abdullahazzam under the account Abdullah Azzam, as to erase evidence of me pointing out his mistakes (that we all make) and to follow the policy — which is evident from here to here. Would he be blocked, or would this be a case of an exception beause he's new? See, I'm unfamiliar with what do in cases of sockpuppets, but since you're a sysop, do whatever admins are suppose to do in sockpuppet cases. —Mirlen 18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I should've checked the logs — I'd forgotten that you could make a link to a unregistered account. *smacks head* Anyway, I think this is why I need some coaching from experienced users or admin, like the program they have over at Esperanza. Not sure if I want to be an admin, but I still feel like a newbie — so I want to improve myself to be better. Anyway, thanks CBD, if there's anything I can do for you (which probably isn't that much), but if there is, please tell me. You've done so much for me, I feel like I need to do something! —Mirlen 10:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't mean that I wanted to admin now, I just meant that I wasn't sure if I wanted to be. I was talking about this admin coaching they had at Esperanza, so that's why it came up. Now that you've confronted me with the possibility, I don't feel ready at all. I feel...unworthy and undeserving of the position. (It's sounds so self-deprecating, but it's true). Not yet — I still feel like a novice. But thanks for the advice and encouragement, CBD, it's means a lot to me. :) (I'm working on the redesign of the Standards page on my sandbox — still starting on it, but do you have any suggestions or standards that I might add?) —Mirlen 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello CBDunkerson, I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. You might want to voice your opinion on the matter. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, may I ask why you replaced the infobox being used with an inferior looking template ? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I figured an admin might be of some help here... User Ulf.dietrich uploaded the picture that's now on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fifa_world_cup_org.jpg. It's a good picture of a hard-to-photograph item, but it's very small, and in the comments he says it's also available in full res (3008x2000). People have left comments on the talk page, here and at German wikipedia, but is there any way to email him? Do you have access to that? Can he be found through his IP address at least?

Use this link. --CBDunkerson 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cool; now can you unprotect it, since it's no longer on the main page? Thanks. --Zambaccian 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail.  :-)

I've filled July with a selection of tips from the tip authoring page, revisions of previously posted tips, some brand new ones, and some combinations. If you would be so kind as to look them over before they hit the mainstream Wikipedian audience, I'd really appreciate it. --Go for it! 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the members of the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:

totd task list template

--Go for it! 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You are listed as having expertise in image tagging, and I wonder if you could possibly find time to have a look at User:Guinnog/gallery and help me figure out why only some of he images display for me (and presumably for others). If you can see a simple way to make it work better, please just go ahead and edit it. If you can't, can you suggest anyone else who might? Thanks a lot if you are able to help. --Guinnog 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I'm reluctant to turn off my ad blocking software to test that theory (all right, I admit it, I've forgotten how to!). As long as you are able to see all of the images all right I will stop worrying about it. --Guinnog 12:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't gotten to removing the links yet, simply semiprotected the vandalized page...then responded to a comment on my talk page...who's the newbie?[4]--MONGO 11:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The ip address / Free iran (presumably the same person) just began editing - hence 'newbie'. In any case, removing NPOV tags is not vandalism. I told both users not to edit war and suggested that page protection be requested. Semi-protection seems like a good idea, but full protection may be needed within a few days if discussion doesn't start. --CBD 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I already lifted the semi protection since it's been a little while since he edited the article and he started it as well, which I hadn't noticed until after I semi protected it.--MONGO 12:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and just in time for a little editing :-) Nice to know people are checking the unblock page. Skittle 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The backlog is for deleting those protected pages that has been protected for over two months unless recreated countless times. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

re: Category:Administrators open to recall — Please consider yourself asked to re-enlist! Haven't got to your answering email yet—nor my dinner now 2.3 hours cold! Cheers! // FrankB 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ooopsie!!!

User_talk:Lar#I.27m_confused ... just in case it wasn't obvious! Cheers! // FrankB 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heh. No problems. I wasn't sure what you meant, but your note got me to look at the page and find out about the CfD ongoing there... so it worked out well. :] --CBD 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I am a wikibee (wiki+newbie=wikibee). I would like to have my own mediawiki installed. It would be named AreWiki (As far as I know Wikipedia is running on MediaWiki). I wanted to have same templates available on wikipedia working on my wiki as well. I tried to just copy / paste template pages, but it was v.tedious and i made often mistakes. Then I tried to use the Special:Export/Import. However there were some problems with xml - when i have exported a template and then just changed occurence of wikipedia into AreWiki I was not able to import it into my wiki (i think maybe it is problem with Unicode, UTF... but am not sure).

In short I would like to hve maintenance and text formatting templates (just to automate some tasks) availalbe on my wiki - how to do this?

Thx in advance and if there is any prize or voting for best admin just let me know.

Aretai 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm kinda new to this wiki thing so I apologize if this question is a little absurd to you, and yyou don't need to answer it. Recently I have tried to convince my friend that wiki is actually a safe source to use. He thinks that any person can just go ahead and vandalize any page and it stays like that. Now I told them about anti-vandal bots etc. I also heard from him that recently like 100 students got all F's because of info they got from wiki. Now I doubt that story is true, but how can I show my friend to trust wikipedia?

Why is User talk:Ryulong protected? I want to contact this user! I thought this wasn't even allowed! Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Template:CURRENTHOUR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. っ 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I stole your cool talk page header for my talk page. Hope you don't mind. -- Jordi·✆ 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not at all. Theft of cool formatting is a proud wiki-tradition. I myself stole the concept from here about a year ago. :] --CBD 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Citizendium might be speeded soon. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to become a member of wikiproject Writing Systems? After basically designing {{Infobox Writing system}} and the Gaelic script debaccle, you've done a lot for this project. I feel bad that I didn't ask you earlier. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invite and no worries on timing. I hadn't signed up previously because, other than Cyrillic, all of my (non Latin) writing system knowledge relates to various dead and/or fictional scripts... most of which I think have been covered pretty well. I'll look around and see where I could help out. --CBD 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's okay if you don't plan on being a die-hard member....look at most of the people on this project. Many of them want to work on certain things. If you would want to join, but you feel that you won't spend a large amount of time with the topic, you could write "part-time contributor and template manager" ;-) Anyway, thank you all the same for what you've done so far. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howdy! I've created Wikipedia:Administrator Review as a process proposal, and I would like your thoughts on the subject. You and I have regularly disagreed on subjects related to admin interaction (I'm still waiting for that diff above, btw, but that's a seperate issue). I'm trying to figure out a way to make it easier for users who feel they have been wronged to get immediate, organized feedback from the community that will either satisfy them that an abuse has not happened or gives them the foundation for a legit RfC. I'm sure you have some thoughts on the matter, I'm trying to make WP better, but if it's not a good proposal, I'm counting on folks making that clear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Generally seems like moving the place for 'informal complaints about admins' from AN/I to this new area and putting more process around it. Dunno whether it would be better than the current system or not... the added complexity of the process (as opposed to just writing a note) might deter some users. I'd probably go with something more like an 'intervention help desk'... you are focusing on whether "an abuse has not happened or ... the foundation for a legit RfC". Most of the time arguing over 'who is more at fault' just exacerbates the issue... there is a disagreement and people are unhappy. We should generally acknowledge/discourage repetition of mistakes on all sides, but be trying primarily to resolve the dispute rather than deciding who to blame. --CBD 12:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baglung_District&diff=81581488&oldid=81113104

Probably all NP districts got this edit. Can this be roled back? Assume only admins can do so. Looks like template code was put in pages. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks like they just substituted a template onto the page blank... which isn't useful in any way that I can see. I just deleted the template info. This can actually be corrected by anyone with a normal revert or edit. Since the substituted logic added things to Category:Country subdivision infobox templates that category can be used to see the pages it is on which aren't 'Template:' pages and corrected there. --CBD 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can do one by one. But I thought you can roll back the 20 or so edits by the user. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The only 'special' admin ability in this regards is the 'rollback' button... which is basically a revert with an automatic edit summary. Just saves a second or so over doing it manually. However, rollback is only supposed to be used on vandalism... and while adding blank infoboxes isn't helpful it could certainly be well intentioned and does not appear to have been a deliberate effort to cause problems - ergo not vandalism and rollback shouldn't be used. I've just been undoing them manually. --CBD 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

My new sig has received a complaint. It's 6 lines of wikicode. Is there a way to reduce the code and achieve the same visual effect?

  The Transhumanist  

Thanks for your answer on my talk page. It helped a lot.  The Transhumanist   02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 22:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Conrad. I must stop getting distracted by talk pages. I think perusing something above led me to a recent (September) contremps at AN/I, and this led me to start my personal wiki-philosophy page with the following:

• Lead by example.
• Always be civil - especially to people who are uncivil.
• Never edit when angry.
• Always take the time to explain things.
• Don't use lack of time as an excuse - if you don't have time to do something well, leave it for someone else to do.

Partly inspired by this mess. Wouldn't it be nice if all admins could be like this. Carcharoth 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping I can get my previous accounts consolidated into my current one, but I'm not familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia. I look forward to your reply.  The Transhumanist   01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You asked why the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mattisse case was run? My motivation was to put a stop to the repeaded acusations of sockpuppetry such as [5]. The fact that an acuser actually filed the RFCU is of no concern, indeed if you see the talk page for case the clark said his should not be considered as WP:POINT. --Salix alba (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi CBD, it's me again. In the spirit of "whirlwinds" and "going for it", I've created a new forum for intermediate editors to ask questions and receive guidance from more experienced users and admins, called Wikipedia:Admin school. Someone has nominated it for deletion, but in addition to this, went around and removed links leading to the page, including its notice on the Community Bulletine Board, thereby denying access to the deletion discussion of the very people the page was designed for. Is this appropriate? Based on the way the person is aggressively going after the page, it appears the person may have removed the links to improve the chances of deletion. I don't know what the policies are concerning this technical and politically sensitive issue. Wouldn't removing such links be considered manipulation of the deletion discussion process? Your assistance and oversight would be appreciated. Sincerely, 02:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanket removal of the links prior to conclusion of the MfD was unnecessary / confrontational, but I wouldn't worry about it. I think alot of this is over-reaction to a new idea being 'sprung' on people. When I built Wikipedia:Featured content (as a portal originally) I didn't tell anyone about it... it was just sort of there for a while and people (you, for instance) stumbled upon it and started making changes / telling others about it. People could have reacted badly... 'hey, who are you to create a top page for all featured content!', but by leaving it be I think I gave them time to get used to it and adjust so that they liked it. Obviously this took a few months and 'hey look at this!' may have been quicker, but I tend not to go that way unless something is going to be obviously accepted right from the start... which is almost never. :] I think the open discussion board on editing / adminship could be very beneficial, but would suggest allowing it to grow naturally rather than trying to 'jump start' it. --CBD 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment on that MfD page. As an editor, I really appreciate the sentiments in what has been a frustrating discussion for all involved. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been assigned a couple of students in Esperanza's admin coaching program, and have set up a coaching subpage in which we are holding a virtual classroom of sorts. Currently, we are comparing user interfaces, and I was wondering if you'd stop by and share with us what programs/tools/features you use to make use of Wikipedia. And any and all suggestions are also quite welcome. (And perhaps make sure I don't steer them in the wrong direction).    The Transhumanist   23:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, CBD, for sharing you methods. Your posts helped a lot, and I enjoyed reading them.  The Transhumanist   03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might be interested in knowing that Interiot has posted some interfacing tips on the Virtual classroom page.  The Transhumanist   03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why do some links show a padlock instead of the external link arrow? Example:

Tab Mix Plus extension

Just curious, and I figured you'd know the answer.    The Transhumanist   22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The links that start "https" - meaning they are "secure" links - hence the padlock sign. Let's try an example... (Hope you don't mind me butting in here, Conrad). Carcharoth 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can't get through to your example, but the link I provided above works fine. What's going on?  The Transhumanist   23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I used www.example.com as an example, forgetting of course that it probably is a real webpage. Try www.example.co.uk, and it asks you for a password! I'm thinking that typing random URLs into browers might be a bit dangerous. Carcharoth 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As Carcharoth said, it's just an identifier that the link goes to a 'secure' (https) web site. Also note that not all browsers display the arrow/padlock. --CBD 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, we've moved on to our second lesson in the Virtual classroom, though each lesson is continuous so we may see more additions to the interface share and compare discussions as well. The current topic of discussion is "stubbing," with a short course to kick things off provided by our resident expert on the subject, Grutness. Please feel free to add your comments and questions.

To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page:

Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom again soon.  The Transhumanist    14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

At the Virtual classroom, you mentioned that you use "Excel for formatting or building something which follows a formulaic progression." Could you provide us with some examples?  The Transhumanist   09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did these examples materialise? I have some examples as well, if they would be helpful. Probably very inelegant, but I find the examples useful. Carcharoth 14:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not yet. I have to make some updates to the Featured content page that will involve Excel and hope to write up that as an example then. Hopefully tonight. Please go ahead and post up anything you have in the meantime. --CBD 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hey CB, I need help with another merge if you don't mind. I helped to creat the page for Gary S. Paxton. This page was created [6] and I feel it would be better to put these two articles under Gary S. Paxton and just create a sub heading in the article that outlines NewPax records. What do you think? If you agree, could you help me merge this into the Gary article? Thanx Junebug52 13:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• CB I went ahead and included the info on NewPax Records on the page. So I guess we could just redirect the NewPax page to the Gary page. Thanks bud. Junebug52 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The usual way to merge pages is to change one into a redirect with an edit summary linking to the new page and then add any new content to the other page with an edit summary linking to the old. The reason for this is to preserve attribution... the 'merged in' content was originally developed by other people, but so long as there is a link to the prior page someone can go look at the history there to see who did what. I made a redirect and set up this cross-attribution so this page should be all set. --CBD 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It look like List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), is going to be on the Featured Content page. Where is the page that list what is on there when in the future, akin to the FA main page nominations page? Rlevse 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Featured content page doesn't work like the Main page. Rather than having one article/picture/list per day it shows randomly selected items each time the page is refreshed. If your browser is set up to reload on every page view then you should see different content every time you visit/refresh the page. Otherwise, there is a 'purge' link in the description at the top which will force a refresh. Since there isn't a fixed schedule there is no page corresponding to the 'article of the day nominations/coordination page'... just a randomly selected list at Wikipedia:Featured content/Lists. Eventually all of the featured lists will be include in the choices for selection, but it takes a little time to set each of them up and we haven't completed the process yet. --CBD 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User:Melanochromis has done a great job getting the Fish Portal up an running. At this point, more sets of eyes can help make it even better. If you can offer some tips on the portal talk page about how to improve Fish up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 13:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You recently made an edit to List of London Underground stations with the edit summary: "Adding inclusion tags for use of this featured list on Wikipedia:Featured content. See Wikipedia:Featured lists for discussion."

Additionally, in a hidden comment as part of the edit you included "See Wikipedia talk:Featured lists for an explanation of this and other inclusion tags below"

However, on neither of those pages can I find an explanation of, or discussion about, what your edit means? Thryduulf 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have done a lot of extensive work (and so has Rfrisbie) to Portal:Business and Economics. I would like to bring it to Featured Portal status and I am seeking your opinion! Please leave your suggestions at the the Portal talk:Business and Economics about how to get this portal to featured status. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nishkid64 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, based on your previous good deeds, please consider becoming one of the portal review volunteers and adding your name to the list. :-) Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi, I've had an article waiting to be approved for a while. I was told not to repost until an admin had seen it. Glen S(admin staff) helped me initially but doesnt seem to be replying to my messages. Could you take a look at the page and tell me what else needs doing to it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:I-to-i/I-to-i I-to-i 11:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Looks like Glen hasn't edited at all for a few days so apparently not around. The primary issues here are establishment of notability, which I think you have covered, and avoidance of 'advertising'. It is always difficult for people involved with something, as I presume you are based on the name, to write about it in a 'non promotional' way. I made some adjustments to the text in an effort to sound more 'dispassionately descriptive' and less 'enthusiastically supportive'. Basically trying to keep the same information with toned down adverbs. :]

One outstanding issue is the 'User:Glen S/Title' template which Glen added at the very top. That basically hides the normal page title behind one which has been specifically formatted - in this case to show the correct lowercase 'i' rather than 'I-to-i' as limited by the Mediawiki software. If/when we move it back out to the 'article space' that'll have to be removed because that template is considered kludgy and only allowed on pages in the 'user space'.

You may want to further tweak the wording, but I think we can move it back to an article any time. I can't guarantee that someone else won't disagree, but it seems like a solid article to me at this point. Let me know if you want help with moving it or have other questions. --CBD 12:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, if you could move it into article space for me that would be great. Is there no way of having the title in lower case? Its not that important but it would be better. I-to-i 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, no. It's a fundamental limitation of the Wikimedia software that page names cannot start with a lowercase letter. Fortunately, if someone types 'i-to-i' into the Wikipedia search box or links to i-to-i they will still get to the right page... just the title on the page itself is capitalized. This may be fixed in a later version of the Mediawiki software. Also, as you can see from the link in the earlier sentence, I have moved this back to the article. You can continue working on it there, but just try to keep in mind that it should be written as a description of the company from a neutral party. --CBD 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for your help, I'll work on making it more neutral soon. cheers I-to-i 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does my userbox violate this?--Viridis 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

CBD, about your recent protections, what criteria was used on these pages to qualify for your "Heavily used meta-template which is seldom updated. Protected due to vandalism concerns"? A specific example would be: Template:Country alias Saint Pierre and Miquelon, this "template" is used on all of 6 pages? (please reply on my talk) — xaosflux ^Talk 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Part 2) Is there also a reason that these are not being tagged with {{hprotected}}? — xaosflux ^Talk 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See the recent discussions on this issue here and here. Ligulem, Metros232, Naconkantari, Luna Santin, and others were protecting these templates piecemeal. As that sometimes leaves gaps, which had been used to vandalize the article of the day each of the previous two days, I took a more systematic approach to protecting as many of them as I could find. They should be marked with a template, but many of those which were protected by others also are not. Thus, I wanted to complete protection first and then go back and (again systematically) apply templates - including to the ones I didn't protect in the first place. All of which may change if a suggested redesign of how these templates work (to drastically reduce the number of them) is accepted. In that case I'd concentrate on converting to the new system and then deleting all of these. --CBD 11:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for interposting here. These templates should be protected due to their complex usage and because they are part of a complex template scheme. If these are vandalised chances are quite high that nobody understands what is affected and how. Or the other way: it's difficult to track a penis on a page to such a template. Combined with the rare cases where one of those templates has to be changed, there is little reason to keep them on default open for everyone to hack around. Per adding a "this template is protected tag" I would propose to add {{permprotected}} to talk pages. For example there is little purpose to add these more than 1'500 templates to a category, besides that these are not templates in the common sense but data points in an array. Or you could say "variables", mostly "constants". If there is anything to change on these, requesting edits per {{editprotected}} seems efficient enough. See also my admin log. --Ligulem 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for your reply, most of these templates seem like a pretty cludgy way to get something done, reform would be welcome! What brought me to this is that without these being categorized as hprotected/permprotect/etc they have caused flooding on Wikipedia:List of protected pages. I'm going to go take a deeper look at the Ideas_for_reworking section and see if I can help out there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per the flooding of Wikipedia:List of protected pages, I suggest consulting with User:Voice of All how to avoid listing these templates there by his bot. It makes no sense to list these templates there. --Ligulem 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Adding one of the templates explaining the reason for protection would cause the bot to remove these. I think we need to either do that or change the structure to reduce the number of templates. I looked at Special/Allpages for these templates and it turns out that we have only covered a small fraction thus far (though I went through five different 'list of countries' pages with these icons and protected all of those). --CBD 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes I know. But that behavior of VoA's bot should be improved. But opinions on the usefulness and organisation of Wikipedia:List of protected pages vary anyway :-) --Ligulem 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, someone has been affected by the T-Mobile range block. May I ask why it was done?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you evidently discovered there was alot of vandalism coming from that range. Mostly Cplot. Dmcdevit blocked it entirely, but that was hitting several actual contributors so I changed it to an anon-only block. This was previously discussed on AN here. --CBD 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe a featured gallery would be the proper analogue to the featured topic. Sorry to hear the logic of featured template. I had thought the featured content is as important of an interal motivational and signalling device as it is an external signaling device. TonyTheTiger 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Conrad. The Husnock case is moving quite quickly now. I've commented at the proposed decision talk page and at the Workshop page. I linked to the evidence you provided, and I thought you might like to know that I found another example where Husnock stated very strongly that one of those posting was not a sock puppet. It seems relevant to the evidence you gave. My post is here, though note that one edit later I corrected one of the links. Carcharoth 03:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blech. The whole thing is a mess. If he would just let it go... I was trying to push for swift closure with fairly minimal sanctions. Oh well. I think it'll shift to the 'Proposed decision' phase soon and then its the arbitors' problem. --CBD 08:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, is it possible to put tracking codes on the outbound links on this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-to-i I'm assuming the answer is no, but I thought I'd ask anyway?

I-to-i 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you mean tracking where people go when they leave that page then no, I don't know of any way to do that. Inbound Wikipedia links to the page can be viewed here. --CBD 10:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I phrased that badly. We have codes that tell us how much traffic comes to our home page from specific links. Can we put a code into the i-to-i website link on the wiki page so we can monitor how much traffic is coming from the wikipedia site? I-to-i 12:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, so far as I know there is no way to track destinations for users leaving Wikipedia pages... either to a specific site or in general. You could ask at the Reference desk or Village pump, but I don't think there is a way to do this. --CBD 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just did a null edit to your user page to fix the Category:Administrators open to recall which wasn't displaying properly on the category page (see WP:VPT#Category problems). You might want to check this to make sure it's correct, since these categories are only supposed to be added by the user concerned. Tra (Talk) 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for opting not to pile on Hypnosadist at a time when it seemed like a happy bandwagon to join, I think it helped ease the situation a bit. KP Botany 03:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should anybody need to transclude that list it would only show the season 1 list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding these tags to Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal, I'm now trying to get my head around how this is of benefit & will be used. I've looked at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#Proposed_change_to_all_featured_lists & think I understand what is going on & why there is a bit of text & an excerpt from the table, but I'm still unsure where this rolling/random presentation would appear? Also, will you be doing this for List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset or do I need to learn how to add the tags?— Rod ^talk 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. These snippets are displayed on the Wikipedia:Featured content page. Every time that page is loaded/refreshed it displays a randomly selected featured article, picture, portal, and list. You may have to scroll down to see the list. You can see how this will look for the page above by using {{list preview|Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal}}. I have been formatting featured lists to do this in groups and will get to 'List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset' and the other outstanding lists eventually. --CBD 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Starting today user Metros232 began editing the Cumberland, Maryland page. He put up several "reference" tags (some information can't be referenced like past history, utilities, and notable natives/residents), I tried to meet him in the middle with the reference tags, but he would not hear it. I referenced many sections even though I doubt they are proper references. Some information was deleted from the page entirely including the very large links section which had be discussed in the Cumberland, Maryland talk page. It was decided that the information in those links was local and many people spent ALOT of time looking those links up, so the links stayed. This is another point on contention. I moved the links to it's own page to appease Metros232, he quickly nominated it for speedy deletion.

To me it feels like Metros232 is out to undermine and ruin a page that many people work very hard on cause it doesn't meet his standards and it puzzles me as to why he is doing this as Cumberland, Maryland doesn't seem to be a section that he has ever edited nor something that he would go to (by looking at his contributions).

I just feel that Metros232 is overstepping his power as an Admin (whether he is one or not) and ruining a page without talking to the people who wrote it, following the talk page, or at least meeting someone in the middle on some things. I have done all that I can to keep the Cumberland, Maryland page as it is, but I feel that it will get, in my opinion, vandalised by Metros232 further in the coming days as I continue to find middle ground on this subject. PLEASE help!

Thanks....SVRTVDude 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will add this to the Cumberland, Maryland talk page so everyone can take a vote on it. I was not aware that there was such a site. I appericate your help and am glad there are admin that are helpful. Thanks very much!

Rock on....SVRTVDude 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you've worked on the flag icons templates in the past, and wondered if you were aware of the debate here? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have seen it, but I don't really have strong opinions on the use of the flags... I've just been looking at options for simplifying the template system used to produce them. Though there's alot of confusion / discussion around that as well. --CBD 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou so very much for your hgelp, I would have been heer all afternoon. Viridae^Talk 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, CBDunkerson.

IMO there is nothing to discuss about the deletion of a lot of sourced statements and of a whole section: It is Vandalism.

To make things worse, Episodiod used the more sofisticated Vandalist technique of mixing the deletion of sourced stuff with the addition of new material.

Episodiod is not a naive new user, CBDunkerson. IMO, Episodiod is a POV-pusher. A big time POV-pusher, to put it buntly.

Thank you for your kind note in my talk page, anyway. CU Randroide 12:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Please allow the redirect of 'Gamble Rogers' to the article on 'James Gamble Rogers IV'. Having only one author does warrant removal.

Thanks,

Machawk1 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey CBDunkerson

why did you deleted the HD DVD release list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.40.93.140 (talk • contribs).

hey Conrad, what happen to the HD DVD list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P924s88 (talk • contribs).

Actually, I didn't delete the list... just a broken redirect to it after the list had been deleted following this discussion. --CBD 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.

• Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.
• Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
• Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
• Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
• Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet [7]) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed on another editor's talk page that you said that warnings should not be restored to a user's talk page. Why can't the warnings be kept? If the user vandalizes in the future, his previous malicious acts should be seen by those who protect against vandalism so they can take stronger action. The user in question is 89.150.150.59, who did this. Feedback would be appreciated regarding this user. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Warnings are kept. In the page history. Forcing their display on the talk page is a mis-use of the page... it is there to allow communication with the person. Not to embarrass, harass, or keep a log of misdeeds. If you want to talk to a user and try to get them to stop causing problems or work with you on something you use their talk page. If you want to see if they have caused problems before you check their block log, contributions, and/or user page history. Restoring warnings does nothing to stop bad faith users from continuing to be disruptive and serves only to aggravate good faith users who disagree with you. In neither case does it serve a needed purpose or comply with Wikipedia policy. --CBD 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your timely response. I had been under the impression that warnings were supposed to be kept on talk pages, as I thought I saw somewhere in the past that there were warning templates for removing warnings from talk pages. I understand that warnings are kept in the page history, but it just doesn't strike me as immediately visible. However, I appreciate the clarification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to point out that I didn't say people should use rollback whenever they feel like it, just that it wasn't restricted to only vandalism. There was a poll on the subject last year, and a small majority disagreed with the notion that rollback is only for vandalism. >Radiant< 10:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I said that rollback was not just for vandalism myself (though originally it was) that's not a matter of dispute. What I was objecting to was your statement that Mel was essentially correct about rollback. Mel had previous to that stated, "There's also a repeated implication or even statement as here that the use of rollback is only authorised for certain situations; that was certainly not part of any policy or even guideline when I becasme an admin; has it been added somewhere since?"

While rollback is not limited to JUST vandalism it most certainly IS limited, and always has been... contrary to what Mel was arguing and you seemed to be supporting. As you say above that you did not say "people should use rollback whenever they feel like it" your endorsement of his position was presumably in reference to 'rollback is not limited to vandalism' and not to his wider 'rollback is not limited at all' claim. --CBD 11:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Yep, I did not mean to endorse "no limits on rollback". But in my opinion, if people are using rollback in an edit war, the problem is not really that they're using rollback, but the problem is that they're edit warring. >Radiant< 12:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi there, i'm not a pro in web. I have edited my user page quite a few times but it is not showing. I coudnt understand what the problem was. I will feel much obiged if you look into the page and suggest me what to do !

Regards, --Padokhhep 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi CBD. The BLP Admin proposal now has been rejected. The rejected template was placed by one of the early supporters, so I think that issue is resolved. I believe this substantial change in circumstances directly affects your MfD as it creates a significantly different issue - should this rejected proposal be kept or deleted? I would suggest withdrawing your present MfD and relisting BLP Admin at MfD to determine whether the rejected project page should be deleted. -- Jreferee 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have deleted the encyclopedia page 'Todd Kessler'. What led you to do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.119.95 (talk • contribs).

I didn't. That page was deleted by Kusma because it had been marked for proposed deletion for six days. I then deleted the 'Todd kessler' (lowercase 'k') page which re-directed to 'Todd Kessler' (uppercase 'K')... since the latter article no longer existed and the redirect did nothing.

I have restored Todd Kessler since you appear to be objecting to its deletion and the 'proposed deletion' policy allows restoration in such cases. However, the original deletion was on grounds that the article was a hoax. I'd recommend locating and adding references to support it or there will like be a deletion discussion followed by more permanent removal of the page. --CBD 12:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Having returned from my January vacations I discovered that you have deleted a template linked from my user page. Now I have to replace it with an alternative template of inferior quality. I hope that you will reconsider your deletion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, if you read the link you attached above you will see that I deleted a redirect which no longer went anywhere. The actual content you are looking for was deleted by Nihonjoe here. --CBD 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi CBDunkerson. I'm curious why you deleted 802.15.4, which was a redirect to IEEE 802.15.4. It seemed like a perfectly valid redirect; in fact, I attempted to access IEEE 802.15.4 by going to 802.15.4. Mind if I restore it? ~MDD4696 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, see the deletion log. I deleted it because it was a redirect to IEEE 801.15.4... which doesn't exist / isn't correct. Creating a new redirect to the actual page would be fine. --CBD 09:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Conrad, my name is Chris Yates, a sculptor and designer in Boulder, CO. I make the photography-based comic Reprographics, that has been published on the site www.chrisyates.net/reprographics. You recently deleted a quite comprehensive and accurate wikipedia entry about this project, it's relevance to other artists and cartoonists, and it's contibution to modern-day fumetti.

While I understand that it is hard for various wiki editors to discern between what is relevant and what is not, I will put humbleness aside and tell you that the Reprographics (comic) entry was an important one, albeit for a pretty narrow audience. Yes, it looks like one of my fans penned the whole thing, so was that the criteria for deletion? I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want to delete an accurate encylopediac entry on a my fairly popular project, that has nuances that were explained clearly here at Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time

Chris Yates superyates@hotmail.com www.chrisyates.net/reprographics —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.179.111 (talk • contribs).

Actually, I deleted a page which contained nothing except, "#Redirect [[Reprographics (webcomic)]]"... which was a 'broken redirect' because the Reprographics (webcomic) page was deleted over a month ago. That page was deleted because someone proposed it should be deleted for failing to cite why the subject was notable and nobody objected. Since you are objecting now I will restore the page for you. However, note that it may just be deleted again unless third party references to the comic's notability are added. --CBD 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi CBDunkerson , you say about yourself: This user is happy to help new users. Leave a message here.

I am a new user and I need some help and some explanation, can I ask you some questions???

22:38, 23 February 2007 CBDunkerson (Talk | contribs) deleted "Alisport Silent 2 Targa" (content was: '#REDIRECT Silent 2 Targa')

ciao
Dansco2903 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Assuming that your question(s) may be related to the deletion you copied above... as stated in the description the page I deleted was a redirect to Silent 2 Targa, which does not exist. Redirects that point to non-existent pages are deleted as a matter of course. The 'Silent 2 Targa' page itself was apparently deleted following this discussion. The general objection seems to have been to the 'tone' of the article not being neutral and a lack of independent references to the craft's notability. --CBD 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for answering. I do not understand well the process of page deletion. I my case, for the page: Silent 2 Targa, I had no chance to discuss, no chance to change it and no help when I asked for. I made another page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisport_Silent_2T and again it is up for deletion, but this time there is also a comment to keep it. Would you please read this page and express your opinion? And make some constructive observations? I am frustrated because of many incoherent facts, I make an example: when on the page I did use the word UNIQUE, it was pointed out that that world was improper, like very nice, good. However UNIQUE is the right word to describe a glider like no other one, with at least one notable difference from all the other, a glider that implements some genial concept to eliminate undesirable condition and increase safety. Dansco2903 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nevsehir_location.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nevsehir_map.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!	Writing system articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total   FA 1 1 1 3   GA 3 3 3 3 12 B 16 84 93 187 18 398 C 17 76 91 221 30 435 Start 4 136 363 1,024 62 1,589 Stub 2 21 482 51 556 List 2 12 14 426 1 7 462 Category 330 330 Disambig 13 13 File 29 29 Portal 2 2 Project 6 6 Redirect 10 30 60 203 303 Template 439 439 NA 1 36 37 Other 7 7 Assessed 42 324 616 2,405 1,066 168 4,621 Unassessed 1 1 Total 42 324 616 2,405 1,067 168 4,622 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 14,243 Ω = 4.76
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I realize we've disagreed on most issues in the past, but I'd like to thank you for your recent comments, most of which I couldn't have said better myself. —freak(talk) 01:02, Feb. 26, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. People will always disagree about the best way to do things, but the occasional recognition of goals and ideals which are shared goes a long way towards preventing disputes from becoming adversarial. I think you're mostly right on this one. We may disagree whenever the next blow-up comes around, but it's all good. --CBD 12:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have made a couple of changes to Commons:Fan art and would like your further input. Thanks.--Pharos 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Well, that's off the wall. --TT

Long time, no see...

I'm having trouble with {{LBT backlink}}. It's a backlink to the page Lists of basic topics, placed in the upper right-hand corner of the page. The link it presents needs to be placed so it fits in with the formatting of the members of the page Lists of basic topics (we can ignore other pages). For example, see List of basic philosophy topics, List of basic cooking topics, etc. The only skin this placement doesn't work on is the Nostalgia skin.

My question is: Is there a way to test for the user's skin, and vary the placement based on that?

I haven't been able to find any information on that, and I figured if anyone knew the answer, you would.

I look forward to your reply,

The Transhumanist (AWB)   23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi TH. So far as I know there is no 'magic word' or equivalent for identifying a user's skin. However, if you think about the problem 'backwards' there may be a solution... every Wikipedia user with the 'Nostalgia' skin has their display configured by the MediaWiki:Nostalgia.css page. So theoretically a class could be defined on Nostalgia.css to change the position of this link just for users with that skin. That said, since these MediaWiki pages impact all users of the skin it is sometimes difficult to get agreement on them. It looks like Nostalgia has been 'blank' for over a year since it's contents were merged into MediaWiki:Common.css (which covers all skins). You could test out changes on User:The Transhumanist (AWB)/nostalgia.css (note the lowercase 'n' for nostalgia) to verify they are working before applying them globally. See User:CBDunkerson/monobook.css for some examples... for instance there I have the 'spoiler' class set to not display. Since that class is set on Template:Spoiler and the like I don't see the 'spoiler warning' notices they would normally display. If I added the same line to MediaWiki:Monobook.css then nobody with the Monobook skin would see spoiler warnings. You should be able to do something similar to alter the position / format of this link. --CBD 12:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That gives me a starting place. Thanks! The Transhumanist   17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again,

I've got another question for you...

MediaWiki:Monobook.css has the following code to remove elements from the Main Page:

/* Don't display some stuff on the
main page */
body.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
body.page-Main_Page #siteSub,
body.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
   display: none !important;
  }

I can't make heads or tails of it. Is "body.page-Main_Page" an HTML tag? Whatever it is, I can't find where it's defined nor any documentation on it. The same for "h1.firstHeading".

Can the above method be applied to any other particular page? And if so, how? And if not, do you know of a good way to do this? The Transhumanist   18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why do you want to remove the title at Lists of basic topics? Imho, it's in normal articlespace, and should be left consistent. --Quiddity 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Save your objections for the proposal.  :-) The Transhumanist   22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys. See Help:User style for some documentation on the various page elements (body, h1, et cetera) and examples of how to use them. Also important is Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes, where alot (though not all) of the locally defined classes are documented. The 'body.page' is a defined section of every Wikipedia page, '-Main_Page' is defining the specific page to apply this to, and '#lastmod' and the like are specific items in the body of the page. Just '#siteSub { display: none; }' should cause the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (the '#siteSub' element) to be suppressed on all pages. --CBD 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried using the above chunk of code in my monobook.css with 'User:The_Transhumanist' to define the specific page, and it didn't work. The Transhumanist   22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you are active in featured content. In fact, we have hadprevious discourse You may have seen some of my more recent comments at [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_content. I know you have been active in refining WP:FC for WP:FL inclusion. I thought you might have some comments or editorial contributions on my current draft of a revised proposal to revamp WP:TFA at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal. I would appreciate any commentary. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thoughts, I have been hectic, but I finally replied on the talk page.

You've probably noticed it, but your box of userboxes is unreadable. Just sayin... --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It actually looks fine at my screen resolution, but apparently not at lower settings. --CBD 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi CB,

I made a proposal on the Village pump to add Wikipedia:Contents to the main menu (on the MediaWiki:Sidebar), as "Contents", right under "Main page".

The consensus is approval, and now we need an admin to add the link to MediaWiki:Sidebar.

Would you do this, please?

The proposal, including a snapshot of what the menu will look like with the link, is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: add "Contents" to Wikipedia's main menu.

I figured you'd know how to do this, or could figure it out fairly easily.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist   06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good.

The Transhumanist   18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nevsehir map.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi CBD. I think the closest we've come to direct interaction was here, but I've seen you around and respect your judgment. I'm seeking an uninvolved admin to review the block of FNMF by FeloniousMonk. FeloniousMonk has a long history of content disputes at Christopher Michael Langan, and one this week involving FNMF. The admin who declined the unblock request, JzG, has also been involved at the article. For details, see my post here, and the rest of the relevant section at FNMF's talk page. Input from an uninvolved administrator would be very welcome there. Best regards, Tim Smith 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think you made the right call, and it's appreciated. Tim Smith 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for looking at this block and deciding to unblock. I do understand what you mean by not inflaming fraught situations, but I also feel that there have been some longstanding and serious problems with the editing of the entry.

Specifically in relation to the issue of references, I would like to point out a couple of things. First, that the original decision to remove those edits was made as an immediate reaction to the intervention of Mr Jimbo Wales. Second, that there was extensive discussion of the issue by those defending the inclusion. See, for example, here. Very little actual argument was given in response to this. And third, that an editor who removed the references was the very same editor who restored one of these references, when he wished to include a (corrupted) quotation he considered backed up his argument against Langan. This editor was none other than IP 151.151.21.103, whom I referred to in the comment you mentioned. I am confident that a review of this user's edits will provide evidence to support the contention I made about the editing practice coming from this user.

I only mention all this because I would be interested in your view of what has been going at this entry. From the looks of things, you have a lot on your plate, and may well not have the time for an adequate review of this ongoing problem. If you were to find the time, however, it would be interesting to see what conclusions you reached. Thanks again for removing the block. FNMF 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

Thanks for jumping in. --Michael Snow 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks from me too as I am in exams this week. I will return to doing this next week. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. --CBD 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have made a proposal for a review process for administrators. I realise this is not an original idea, however I thought you may be interested in the proposal and the discussion following on from it. There is a fair bit to read, and you may well disagree with me, but if interested you can find it here. FNMF 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I read it earlier. I've supported (and written) various past efforts along the same lines. I think some sort of 're-certification' of admins would be highly beneficial and that there are easy solutions to all the objections commonly raised (i.e. 'will be used for harassment', 'good admins make enemies', 'would take tons of time to review', et cetera)... but it isn't going to happen without a directive from above. The ArbCom has become more willing to de-sysop and that, while not always consistent/reliable, has served to discourage the worst abuses. A community review would still be better IMO, but I think admin behaviour has overall improved in the past year and there are other ways to encourage that to continue. --CBD 11:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw your commnents and agree with them. The article seems biased to me. But no one seems to be able to change the article. I am new here and don't understand. Seems like a few editors or administrators contorl this article. I have watched it for about 3 months. Most who go against the status quo get banned or are accused of disruption, vandalism, or trolling or sockpuppetry. How can this be solved? Wiki is usually an excellent source. This article is one of the few that are so biased. And all the auxillary articles like Creationism, Support of evolution etc all to me seem to be a soapbox for anti-Creationists. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.101.205.82 (talk • contribs).

This is a frequent problem with emotionally charged topics where a majority of Wikipedia contributors hold a particular viewpoint. It is very easy for people to mistake their own viewpoint for a 'neutral' one - and when enough people with the same view get involved they tend to support a collectively held bias. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with this is with the utmost civility and patience. Try making small changes one at a time and be prepared to explain why it is more neutral. If people object leave that issue/page be for the time being and try making improvements somewhere else. It is a tedious and painful process, but slow improvements are possible. If you lose your cool you'll get blocked - majority rules and all that. It may not be equitable, but it is reality. --CBD 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding a voice of reason. There should be a Wikiproject on bias. If one happens, sign me up! Gnixon 18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there is one. See WP:CSB. --CBD 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm embarrassed I didn't find that yet. Gnixon 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

... but i responded to your note there. just wanted to let you know and feel free to immediately delete this note.

best, r b-j 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was wondering if it would be possible for me to remove a copyvio notice that was prematurely placed on Sid Haig's page. As you will see if you would be good enough to have a look, the bio is licensed for use here and that license is cited on the discussion page. User Quatloo placed a copyvio notice on the page without so much as checking for a citation on the discussion page, and even when told explicitly where to find said citation, could not seem to understand it. They then went completely silent, but left their copyvio notice up. Since this is a case of someone simply jumping the gun, and not one of a copyright violation (I am the holder, I licensed it for use to Wiki, it's visible via the link on the discussion page), may I remove the copyvio, or must I wait for an Admin to do it? I ask because the one week period is almost up, and I would hate to see an article I worked so hard to get NPOV and up to a B class rating (thanks to help from admin Glen S) get deleted due to one person's inability to research a claim before making one. Please let me know if I can take care of this or if I must wait for an Admin. Thank you. Spirot 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

That wording works for me. I'll have to have our webmaster do it since I stink at php fusion, but it should be done within 24 hours. Same link. Thanks for the help! =) Spirot 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

DONE! =) Spirot 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wish to pursue a case in arbitration regarding the actions and comments of several editors. If I try to post it I will be blocked in order to prevent it from being discussed. Would you be willing to assist me - specifically in undoing punitive blocks? Administrators are trying to reinterpret WP:BLP to keep people from expressing their opinion. See [8], and [9] for examples. I was recently blocked by El C after I requested that SlimVirgin be blocked for these posts in which she accuses me of engaging in libel[10] and personally attacks me.[11] KazakhPol 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your response seems double-standardish. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are allowed to repeatedly complain on the talk page about how I have not showed al-Durrah adequate respect but I am not allowed to call him a fake? They are opposing views and I should be able to express my view in response to SlimVirgin's. At this point I am holding back only to let Kzrul's RFA finish and El C's current arbitration case be decided. KazakhPol 14:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can of course take whatever action you think best. I gave you my thoughts and suggestions, but you don't seem to have understood them. Nobody is 'allowed' to be disruptive. The fact that some people do it is not a reason to do so yourself... and so long as you are doing so yourself you are in a weak position to demand that others stop. --CBD 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as subpages of Tobias Conradi have been deleted because of soapboxing issues before, I've decided to speedy delete this page. If anyone wants to help him restore non-controversial material feel free to do so. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [12]

--- no policy for this action is cited. The deletion was proposed 2007-04-17 06:39 by User:ShivaIdol.

The deletion log does not show when this deletion was carried out. [13]

As of now it only shows:

• 05:22, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (229 revisions restored: finish undeleting accidentally deleted page)
• 05:17, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Tobias Conradi" (1 revisions restored: oops--wrong page)
• 05:16, 13 October 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Tobias Conradi" (To undelete non-copyvio revisions)

A clique of admins tries to delete any evidence of their admin right abuses. Collections of such evidences are deleted. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

is there a way to get a list of all pages I created that were later deleted? May include pages that now exist, but my originals are not in the history. Is there a limit in time, maybe the info can only be retrieved for the last to years or so? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There used to be a way to do this, but it was being used to insert personal info, vandalism, et cetera into edit summaries which would then be shown on the list of deleted edits. The option was therefor removed and I'm not aware of another way of getting a list of such edits. --CBD 11:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:CreamyPeach ^(talk) was given his/her last warning, but continued to vandalise Wikipedia. Could you block him or something like that...? Sorry to annoy you.
--Andrew4793 ^t _c 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blocks are used to prevent ongoing vandalism - since the user hasn't edited in a few days there is no immediate problem. If they return and resume vandalizing please place a message at WP:AIV. --CBD 11:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi CB. You may recall a little while ago we had a user named Quatloo on Sid's page that couldn't click the right link to see the license for the bio and thus decided it did not exist. That got settled, and we thank you. However, the same user is now back and playing more games. Please see the edit history and discussion page for the article. User Burntsauce has joined in, too. All the information these two say they're after is readily available and highly visible. Why are they allowed to continue to do this? Is there any way to stop them? Block warnings? Something?? This is crazy. Spirot 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, this is odd...user CyberGhostface got blocked for reverting the deletions made by Quatloo. How does that work? I'm not being sarcastic, I am honestly asking, as the one time I deleted something I was firmly chastised. Yet now this user Quatloo seems to be getting away with whatever it is they're doing, and the one who tries to help gets blocked? Why is the approval from Glen S back in November all of a sudden not good enough? Spirot 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Thank you for your efforts with the page [14]. I do see what you mean by the "gun-toting heavy statement" being too personal. I have NO problem whatsoever copyediting it to be more NPOV, and adding as many resources as the page can handle. I just need to know how to cite those sources, but I can always get help on that. So, once things settle down and the page is unprotected, I will get to work on those issues. I think that, for the moment, it would be prudent to keep it under protection. Appreciate all your help. Spirot 04:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been rummaging through the "Today's Featured Article" archives, updating the images there where they have been deleted. I also noticed that some of the blurbs are very out-of-date, such as the ones at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2004. I've been replacing deleted images on the basis that this will improve the appearance when they are reused at WP:FC or when people are browsing the archives. I am not too concerned that this doesn't preserve what the "box" looked like when it appeared on the Main Page (that is what the history is for), but this has made me think that the use of "include" tags to tranclude a few lead paragraphs from featured articles might not be a good idea, as then the history of any changes is back in the original article. In this case, I'm also thinking that people who see Obama come up at WP:FC will see an out-of-date blurb, but I suppose the date at the top should tip them off. Still, something to think about. If an "include" tags system had been in operation, then the blurb would have updated automatically over the years, to the point where it would look strange under the TFA date heading. What do you think is the best way to cope with this? Have "archive" featured blurbs, and "current" featured blurbs as separate systems? My feeling is to leave the archive text alone and write a separate blurb if such articles are featured elsewhere in a different format. Carcharoth 11:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

e-mail to you is bouncing. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

As soon as the page got unprotected Quatloo began mass-removing the article yet again.--CyberGhostface 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. As can be seen above, I said I would be more than willing to copyedit this article to fit what was mentioned as being POV and such, and to cite sources. But today I see that the mass deletions continue [15], the harassment continues[16], and it appears I am now the subject of a "witch-hunt" [17]. Yes, I am his Publicist. And??? Many people in this industry have their PR people write their bios. So what? I have shown that I am willing to edit it to conform to Wiki standards (as I did previously with Admin Glen S - who knows exactly who I am and has not had issues with it at all), so why does it matter who I am or what I do for a living??? If I was demanding that the copy stay exactly as is, or throwing around legalities and such nonsense, then maybe I can see why they might get all in a tizzy about it, but as it has not caused a problem thus far (save for Quatloo and pals), I fail to see how it is in any way an issue. I ask that the page be re-protected, since obviously these users are just waiting for it to be unprotected so they can start this up all over again. Thank you. Spirot 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am so sick and tired of these editors who seem to lie in wait to pounce, so I have posted the end all beat all of verification. A photograph, that I took about an hour ago, of Mr. Haig holding up a sign verifying the article content. If this isn't good enough, I'd like to know what's better. I really have had it, and I think I have been MORE than patient with these people. This has to end NOW. Spirot 00:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I edited it again for NPOV. Please let me know if further editing is needed. My point throughout all of this has always been that deletion is not necessary, simple editing is, and that has now been done. As for sources, see my last post above. The harassment continues and one more has joined in the "fun", so I am logging off now. I've done the work I said I would to get this thing done and over with, so I take my leave. I hope this mess can come to a suitable conclusion...and one that does not entail my crucifixion. Thanks. Spirot 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, apparently they are having tons of fun at my expense [18], and continue to enjoy ransacking the article. I give up. The article was fine by everyone except this little tribe, whom I am fed up with trying to please. I gave them what they asked for, and it was never good enough. Now they have me in their jokes section??? How nice. It's over. The mob wins, apparently. Thanks anyway. Spirot 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I appears that admins are now making up rules on the fly. Andy Mabbett 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear CBDunkerson,

You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi there, i notice u deleted the redirect from Guadalcanal Revolutionary Army to Isatabu Freedom Movement. why so? i want to do another redirect from Guadalcanal Liberation Front (linked oin the Harold Keke page) to the IFM page. i know theres not much info on the pages yet but i am slowly sorting it out... basically the groups split and reformed, except for the GLF which remained active after the Townsville peace agreement. wot do u think should be done to the pages if not redirect? Paki.tv 06:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, when I deleted Guadalcanal Revolutionary Army back in January it was a redirect to Isatambu Freedom Movement, which had been also been deleted because it was a blank page. Redirects to pages which don't exist are deleted by default. If you want to set up redirects to Isatabu Freedom Movement that should be fine. --CBD 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I note your comment here, which I largely agree with. To my knowledge though this is the second positive contributor who edits through Tor to be forced off the project due to m:NOP, the other being a member of the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish if interested. WjBscribe 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey CB, I am wondering if you can give me a little help in regards to the Billy Gilman article. It seems that we have an over abundance of users that want to vandalize this page. We find ourself continuing to go in and fixing what the vandals are doing. Can you take a look and see if we should ask for a partial protect on this article? Junebug52 18:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It looks like it has been quiet for a couple of days. I'll keep an eye on it for a while and put up semi-protection / blocks if need be. --CBD 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks man. Can you please help me get my talk page fixed? Another user or vandal hijacked my talk page and redirected it and I undid the edit, but now it takes me to a redirect? Can you fix it or tell me how to do it? Thanks bud. Junebug52 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a mixup in the pagename. You had it at Talk:Junebug52 rather than User talk:Junebug52. Should be cleaned up now. --CBD 12:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Duff requested that I post a message on his/her behalf. He/she is using TOR, and thus unable to post here directly, but is able to edit User talk:Duff. Anyway here is the comment:

-Pete 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please semi-protect the pages for Godsmack and Lamb of God (band) because un-registered users keep coming and reverting my edits to the infobox, This is anoying me because I am putting a (<!-{- -}->) message in the infobox and they are not listening on Godsmack and on Lamb of God (band) un-rregistered users are adding genres unsourced and un-needed because of an on going genre edit war. Thank you for the help. Skeeker 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, because I know you can read German, could you please be so kind to come to read this page ([19]). I do not know, if copy rights are violated. Kind regards--KarlV 09:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Unfortunately, I don't use my German much and haven't ever had cause to learn the German words for various copyright and technology terms. However, from what I can gather, Wiggum was arguing that since the user (sockpuppet?) in question wrote the text they can re-use it if they wish so long as they cite the copyright. You then asked where a copyright citation appeared on the page and Wiggum said they didn't see one. Do I have that right?

If so, then the issue is really GFDL compliance. As applied on the English Wikipedia the GFDL requires that any text to be re-used on Wikipedia have been explicitly released under the GFDL or possibly some other license which is considered compatible. If there is no such explicit waiver of rights then the text cannot be used regardless of who is adding it. Likewise, text in Wikipedia should not be used elsewhere without citing Wikipedia as the source in order to comply with the GFDL requirements.

Wiggum seemed to be suggesting (again, I could be translating wrong) that merely by the act of adding the information to Wikipedia the owner was putting it under a GFDL license and no explicit statement of such was required. That is not the way it has worked on the English language Wikipedia to date, but the standards on the German language site may be different. One of the primary reasons for requiring the originating website to show a GFDL copyright is to prove that the allowance for re-use is coming from the owner. If this identification could be proven in some other way then maybe it would be ok to take their re-use of the material as implicit agreement to release it under the GFDL... but even then I wouldn't suggest it. They might not realize that the text they were copying would then be open to editing by other users and could try to assert ownership over it based on a pre-existing copyright notice on their site.

In any case, I'd suggest taking the matter to the local copyright discussion page (is that what 'URV' is?) and letting the experts there sort it out. --CBD 21:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your answer. I think the GFDL compliance rules are the same for Germany as for other Wikis. I have studied the German site of Metapedia and posted now the findings at the German WP-Site for GFDL-issues (you are right, it is URV)([20]). The reason for telling you this was also, that Metapedia is a Swedisch website and is building up other languages sites. I do not know, if there are more issues regarding GFDL comliance in other languages there. But anyway, thank you very much for your time. Kind regards from Munich.--KarlV 07:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:PER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in commenting on, or assisting with, this proposal to merge {{Infobox Person}} and {{Infobox Biography}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, on 28 January 2007 you deleted Millipore Corporation which had earlier been made into a redirect page in a move to Millipore Corp. That page was subsequently deleted as a copyvio. Consequently somebody then hijacked the Millipore disambig page instead. This is one of the largest companies in the world, a long-standing S&P 500 company. As part of the Wikipedia missing articles project, I intend to rewrite the article with refs as a stub, as Millipore Corporation, and to restore the disambig page.Steven Russell 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you obviously know already (having commented in the discussion), there's an editprotected request on {{coord}} about the addition of a {{{name}}} parameter to the template that adds microformat markup. I'm trying to establish whether consensus exists for this change at the moment, and it's unclear to me what your viewpoint currently is. Could you make a further comment in the discussion, to explain whether you would currently consider the change to be a good idea? --ais523 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me what the image use controversy over this page is? Every time I put a picture on this page someone takes it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee5435 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

See the discussion on the article talk page and the fair use policy. Basically, there are limits to how copyrighted images, such as still shots from a television show, can be used in Wikipedia. In this case the objection seems to be against having an image for every character. --CBD 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could I get some assistance, this is the second complaint and he's beginning to escalate: [21].--Crossmr 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

and yes on the paypal talk page he was reminded twice about npa and civil, not that he should be unfamiliar with it given his block history.--Crossmr 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The disruptive thing about this edit [22]. is that he's restoring material which does not have proper citation. Instead of tagging it with fact tags like he suggests I do, he simply restores the unacceptable citations and then tells me I'm editing in bad faith. He's reverting simply because of the dispute on paypal and seemingly wants to disagree with any edit I make to either of those articles.--Crossmr 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also there is a previous arbcom case against this individual for this exact type of behaviour. I've updated AN/I with information about this.--Crossmr 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just thought you should know, there is an ANI thread about you. See the thread. And on an unrelated note, you really need to archive this page. Mr.Z-man 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the barnstar a while back. :) —Mirlen 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Notification of unblock request against a block you instigated, just for your information. I like the layout of your userpage by the way, very neat. SGGH ^speak! 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply