User talk:Wizardman


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #234

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Wizardman/Archive6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

Archive 1 (Apr 2006-Jan 2007) - Archive 2 (Jan 2007-Feb 2007) - Archive 3 (Feb 2007-Apr 2007) - Archive 4 (Apr 2007) - Archive 5 (May 2007) - Archive 6 (June 2007)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Wizardman, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
ÃÂ· AndonicO ^Talk

Baseball-Reference

I saw your comment here and just wanted to make sure you said what you mean to say. From my understanding, we agree that b-r should be used as an EL. I do not think this prevents it from being used as a cited source. If you did indeed mean that, don't feel obligated to respond. Cheers.//Tecmobowl 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Sir James Paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Sir James Paul 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration review case

Please be advised that an arbitration matter on which you commented has been accepted as a review case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta/Review. You may present evidence on the case page or additional comments on the talkpage. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Lewis

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Flag of Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MRM 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you X 100

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up on WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive - I'd already logged over 500 assessed since June 1 anyway! Cheers, Yamara 09:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :)

Thank you for all that you have done!
How much love resides therein!
All one's gifts are never gone:
Not seen, perhaps, but stored within.
Kindness is an inner sun.

Your unspent heart a message sends
Of grace and sacrifice hard-won
Upon which happiness depends!

Thank you so much, dear Wizardman! :)

Love,
Phaedriel
07:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

C.G-I

No, only arbitrators can comment in that section. Comment and proposals by others should go on the talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK updating

Hi Wizardman,

On June 24, you updated DYK. I'd like to thank you for your efforts, as it hadn't been updated in twelve hours (it should be updated every six).

But you didn't add the entries to the archives, notify the article creators and nominators, or note the DYK inclusion on the articles' talk pages. This leads editors to wonder what has happened to their nominations, which they won't find out unless they sift through pages and pages of page history. I can understand if you just want help DYK without doing all this. But could you please leave a note on the next update page, if you don't do the notifications, etc so another editor can take care of this?

Thanks,

--Carabinieri 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

Can you protect my username page to prevent recreating? A Link to tha Past

I meant big-time protection. You know? Is someone there? A Link to tha Past

Thank you for your comments about the William Stacy article

Thank you very much for the welcome, the "pat on the back", and the barnstar! Very much appreciated. I'm glad to have ventured into the land of Wikipedia. Sincerely, ColWilliam 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback?

Why did you roll back my changes to 1990 New York Giants season and 2006 Cleveland Browns season? I recommend that you read up on our Wikipedia:Non-free content policies before you revert good-faith edits to help bring us in line with our own policies. Also, isn't the rollback supposed to only be used for vandalism? (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Wizardman. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.

Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoplight

I believe the article for Stoplight is legitimate and deserves a place in Wikipedia. The AfD debate was flawed to begin with, basing it on a premise that shouldn't apply to the article. I quote this passage of specific importance:

"See Kayfabe. That is the closest explanation I can find. You can't deem Stoplight a hoax or nonsense by virtue of his accomplishments simply because the entire idea is that they have been staged, worked, or somehow otherwise choreographed. Thus, I think the entire premise of this AfD debate is faulty to begin with. I will certainly volunteer to rewrite this article in order to better fit the Wikipedia standard, but to delete it completely is showing ignorance and intolerance of other, less mainstream cultures."

Unfortunately, my defense came far after the swift hammer of Wikipedia mob justice came crashing down. It seems that nobody paid any attention to my argument regarding the legitimacy of the Stoplight article. While I appreciate the efforts to keep Wikipedia clean, at the same time, we shouldn't be so blinded by our pursuit that we ignore valuable articles just because they don't conform with our narrow vision of world culture.

As for Stoplight not being notable, how exactly do I go about proving this? I had this discussion once before with another admin. I provided sufficient sources, and yet people are still crying foul simply because they don't like the premise of the article. What more am I supposed to do? Scan the pages of the articles and upload them? Because I certainly can do that.

Please get back to me so we can discuss what steps need to be taken to see Stoplight return to Wikipedia. StreetballazCrunk 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)StreetballazCrunk[reply]

Well, that's the thing. It didn't fail based on notability, it failed based on WP:Hoax. Here's the relevant section:

Delete does make quite the enthralling story but it seems like a WP:HOAX to me. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, agreed, it does seem like a hoax. Too bad actually. I'll give a shot at verifying it, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Most likely a hoax. Too bad. --HAL2008 talk 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Acalamari 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Obviously a joke. Indef block the creator. --- RockMFR 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedier delete. Hoax, though a bit elaborate. Also move for block of author. Realkyhick 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense Corpx 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete Hoax, nonsense, and doesn't cite any references. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not really 100% sure what I'm supposed to do at this point. It wasn't deleted by virtue of not being notable, it was deleted because everyone thought it was a hoax, despite my defense explaining why all of his "accomplishments" seemed outlandish. Again, I think the biggest problem is that the entire premise of the AfD was flawed, because it forced everyone to look at it from a hoax/not hoax standpoint.StreetballazCrunk 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)StreetballazCrunk[reply]