Chairboy
For past discussions, please see: User_Talk Chairboy Archive (Oct-2004 to Sep-2005)
Welcome to my user talk page! Please sign your messages with "~~~~" and use ":" indenting on replies for clarity. Please leave a note as to where you will be looking for responses (eg, whether you have bookmarked this page or expect responses on your own talk page). Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to Girl!
|
For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Chairboy, this THANK YOU.
|
A friendly howdy from an anon IP
in all seriousness WHAT THE FUCK HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH A BIO ON THE CREATORS OF HABBO HOTEL ??? - Unsigned by 220.235.248.71
- Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please consider creating an account, you may find it easier to track the status of pages and conversations you're interested in. Regarding your message above, I'm not quite sure I understand. Could you please provide some context? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
What does "mantain" mean? You might be interested in Prince Emmanuel de Cériz, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind, I figured it out, somebody vandalized your vote. I've fixed it. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
"Mediaeval" (better, "mediæval") is the correct spelling. U.S. English has turned the "ae" into an "e", but this article isn't in U.S. English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Cindy Sheehan
I know about the whole Cindy Sheehan thing, and I said "True" pov, as a joke, I knew someone would take it the wrong way. But really it was just for joking purposes, so I'm sorry if you didn't like it. Also I fixed my message box thing, I forgot to do that, when my username switched. Private Butcher 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, roger that. It's not that I 'didn't like' it, it just wasn't obvious as a joke, especially considering the heated nature of the Cindy Sheehan edit history. Just a friendly wiki-editor trying to help out, hope you didn't take offense. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Simon Keynes
You put an db-bio on Simon Keynes. I removed it. A department head and occupier of an endowed chair at Cambridge University certainly sounds notable to me. If you want to AFD it, go ahead, but I don't believe A7 is appropriate. Dragons flight 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake, I didn't realize he was department head! Thanks! CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You tagged Homelander Generation for speedy deletion, but neither "Neologism" nor "Original research" is a reason for speedy deltion under the speedy deletion criteria. I have removed the speedy tag and placed this on WP:AFD. DES (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops! You're absolutely right, time to re-review. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Thanks for doing RC or new page patrol. By the way, when tagging a non-notable bio with {{nn-bio}} you can now notify the creator with {{nn-warn}}. I think it can be a good educational tool. Also, please take a look at the current proposal to add a CSD for blatent copyvios. It is linked to from WP:CSD. DES (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks for the tips! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Thanks for doing RC or new page patrol. By the way, when tagging a non-notable bio with {{nn-bio}} you can now notify the creator with {{nn-warn}}. I think it can be a good educational tool. Also, please take a look at the current proposal to add a CSD for blatent copyvios. It is linked to from WP:CSD. DES (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for your note about my contributions on functional zoning. I do have an account, but still forget to log in. 209.145.162.130 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) aka TMS63112
proxy bot
Howdy! Your open proxy bot is a cool idea, great going! My question is regarding the time of day that it is being run. It seems like WP is usually pretty busy around now, and I've read guidance on the bot page that bots should, when possible, be run at off-peak hours. I'm not looking to wiki-stick you, just interested in your thoughts on this issue. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- A fair question, but is this wiki busy time? I thought the peak was US evenings? Hold on, I'll go see if I can find some pretty mrtg graphs. --fvw* 17:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- According to this report from October 2004 (and I would guess the traffic patterns are pretty similar even today) 1600 GMT is pretty busy. I'm going off the number of edits I see in RC Patrol too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- What d'ya know, we are sort of climbing the hump right now, at least on the squids. I'll shut it down in a minute, just let me kill a last bug. --fvw* 17:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- There, all squashed. --fvw* 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- What d'ya know, we are sort of climbing the hump right now, at least on the squids. I'll shut it down in a minute, just let me kill a last bug. --fvw* 17:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- According to this report from October 2004 (and I would guess the traffic patterns are pretty similar even today) 1600 GMT is pretty busy. I'm going off the number of edits I see in RC Patrol too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
SPI Redirect
Sorry about that SPI problem. I was sure I had the redirect code down right. Thanks for helping me out! :) I'll think about creating an account. - unsigned by 212.147.17.97
- No problem, just remember: Show Preview means that you're the only one who sees an error. :D Keep up the good work! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for spellcheking my user page! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hallefant
Thanks for speedying Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hallefant, but I was going to.
Hypervideo modifications
Please check out the improved Hypervideo article when you get a chance. --Maestro44 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
| Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"
If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:
Blank the page and replace the text with
to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not. |
Have one on me
...That is, a barnstar.
Take care, Molotov (talk) 
02:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I said I would kill myself if everyone in the world were like Fvw - thankfully they aren't. : ) Molotov (talk)
00:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
About "nonsense" tag
Please see my talk page for reply. --DannyWilde 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
An odd message from an Anon IP
84.226.36.188 11:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC):HOW MANY MORE NEO-SEMINOTABLE SAINTS CAN A COHERENTLY FRAMEMINDED WORLD TAKE,......... .......GURGLE-STATISTICWISE? KAREL WITT (SORRY FOR THE SAME Q. IN ARCHIVE!) (ON WITTBEAT, SKYCUTTING, FATEDODGING & OTHER DADAISMS)
- Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure I understand your question, could you please rephrase in the form of a common language we share? I speak English, German, and a little bit of Spanish and Esperanto. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
84.226.36.188 03:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC): JUST USING YOUR DELETION-TERMINOLOGY (CONCERNING WITTBEAT, SKYCUTTING) ON A MOST RECENT ISSUE: THE SANCTIFYING OF CARDINAL VON GALEN (LÖWE VON MÜNSTER) AS A NAZI CHALLENGER. ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD THE COURAGE TO SPEAK-OUT AGAINST THE NAZIS IN '41 (BUT SURVIVED UNTIL '46), THE GENERAL STRATEGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO LAUNDER IT'S HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE PERSECUTION OF JEWS IS SELF-EVIDENT. AS I ALREADY E-MAILED , IT'S RATHER FRUSTRATING TO BE DELETED (WITTBEAT, SKYCUTTING) BY IGNORANTS (BJELLEKLANG) & MAINLY ON TECHNICAL (?) REASONS (GOOGLE STATISTICS). THE IMPOSSIBILLITY OF UNCOVERING THE HIDDEN REASONS FOR HISTORICAL FRAMES & PERSECUTIONS OF MINORITIES IS PART OF MY ART WORK (WITTBEAT). KAREL WITT
Per the payload user guide, the second stage is not reusable. I've pulled an edit that suggested it was. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- You are confusing the Falcon I with the Falcon 5. SpaceX says both stages of the Falcon 5 are designed to be reusable, see [1].--Duk 23:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops! You're right, I did. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Patent Nonsense
You marked Liz as {{nonsense}}. I agree that it may be a candidate for speedy deletion, but it's not nonsense. It's clearly English, and in fact it conveys a lot of information about whatever person named Liz the author is referring to. I might mark this article {{empty}} or {{nn-bio}}, or use {{db|reason}} to provide my own reason (hopefully one that's listed on WP:CSD). -- Super Aardvark 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Copyright
In regards to your comments in my talk page about copyright, there is no reason to argue with you about this. You are talking about "what ifs" that have not happened to justify a policy of destruction of information.
In addition, based on passed deletions, both Duk and TDC use copyright violations as a stick to pursue their own jingoist political ideology.Travb 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Travb, I have no jingoist political ideology. I have never edited this article, except to address the copyright violation. If you look at my edit history you will find no politically oriented contributions to speak of. I have no interest in politics whatsoever. Please don't malign me behind my back. --Duk 17:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Copywrite and fair use
Fair use says "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement."
See [2] for further information.
"RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS
The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. 1. Limit coursepack materials to
- single chapters
- single articles from a journal issue
- several charts, graphs or illustrations
- other similarly small parts of a work. "
from [3] illustrates the principle of extracting part of a work being covered by fair use.
The New York Times itself quotes others.
"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." [4] therefore a quote that essentially lists facts isn't even covered by copywrite in the first place.
Wikipedia primary servers are in the US.
While it would be nice to have no legal complications, the rich in this world are seeking to own everything including math equations (which is what software patents are).
Don't help memes that block the free flow of information. Help memes that promote freedom. Fair use is one such doctrine, law and meme. WAS 4.250 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi you posted a vandalism note on User talk:206.139.211.21 on the 18th, please look at their current contributions Special:Contributions&target=206.139.211.21.
Hi Chairboy
You asked me on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushytails to "clarify what aspect of the "dildo stuff" is problematic". For the purposes of being civil, I'll pretend you weren't being sarcastic, and answer your questions.
And as the RFA is now closed, I'll reply to you here. There is no aspect of the "dildo stuff" that is problematic. The issue was whether an editor with just 1,400 edits had a suitable level of maturity, level-headedness and experience, and the fuss being created by Bushytail's extreme anti-censorship stand seemed to suggest that this was not the case.
The list of forbidden subjects can be found at WP:NOT. Enjoy. And it is impossible to avoid an inadvertent transgression - this is why such a transgression is referred to as inadvertent. If you were able to avoid them, they would no longer be inadvertent. Regards, Proto t c 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Howdy! It is unnecessary to 'pretend' I wasn't being sarcastic, as this is a good faith question. Second, you wrote that your oppose was "per antidildoism". My question was what aspect of that subject was problematic, and you didn't answer, which of course is your discression. I wasn't clear if you were saying that the candidate was not level-headed because he wrote about dildos, or if you were saying that his handling of an issue related to them was immature. If you could clarify that would be great, as I honestly don't follow. Finally, please clarify which item in WP:NOT he violated, as it seems that those who objected to his writing about dildos are unfamliar with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Chairboy. I apologise for not assuming your good faith. As to your questions: 1) I opposed as per the people who said that the user's handling of the issue was not mature. I have no problem with the subject (although I do think it should be kept off the main page, purely on a PR level). 2) I said the candidate was not level-headed because his (her?) handling of the issue was not mature. The subject of the issue is irrelevant, for all it mattered it could have been dildoes or bunny rabbits. 3) I don't recall mentioning he violated any item in WP:NOT. I referred to WP:NOT because you asked me to tell you where the list of forbidden subjects was. That list is on WP:NOT (wikipedia not a travel guide, not a memorial, not a crystal ball, etc etc). I hope this clears things up. Thanks, Proto t c 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there! Thanks for your responses, that answers the questions I posed during the RfA. I wasn't trying to rake mud, I just wanted to understand the basis for the vote (per my concern in the talk page for the RfA) and your response reassures me that it was a legit concern and not a veiled reference to censorship. BTW, the 'list of forbidden subjects' request of mine was in response to another Oppose voter who opposed because Bushytails wrote "gross links", which I'm pretty sure is a censorship issue, but that's a discussion for another day. Thanks again! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains it. I was confused as you'd put it on the same line. I'm not a censorship kind of person. My only personal rule would be not putting anything potentially offensive on the main page, but that's to do with avoiding any kind of fuss / panic / commotion / mass hysteria / complaints. One thing I don't like is people deliberately trying to offend the more sensitive users in order to make a point over Wikipedia not being censored for the protection of minors. But let me emphasise I don't think Bushytails was guilty of this at any point. Take it easy. Proto t c 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Roger that! Have a good one! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains it. I was confused as you'd put it on the same line. I'm not a censorship kind of person. My only personal rule would be not putting anything potentially offensive on the main page, but that's to do with avoiding any kind of fuss / panic / commotion / mass hysteria / complaints. One thing I don't like is people deliberately trying to offend the more sensitive users in order to make a point over Wikipedia not being censored for the protection of minors. But let me emphasise I don't think Bushytails was guilty of this at any point. Take it easy. Proto t c 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there! Thanks for your responses, that answers the questions I posed during the RfA. I wasn't trying to rake mud, I just wanted to understand the basis for the vote (per my concern in the talk page for the RfA) and your response reassures me that it was a legit concern and not a veiled reference to censorship. BTW, the 'list of forbidden subjects' request of mine was in response to another Oppose voter who opposed because Bushytails wrote "gross links", which I'm pretty sure is a censorship issue, but that's a discussion for another day. Thanks again! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Chairboy. I apologise for not assuming your good faith. As to your questions: 1) I opposed as per the people who said that the user's handling of the issue was not mature. I have no problem with the subject (although I do think it should be kept off the main page, purely on a PR level). 2) I said the candidate was not level-headed because his (her?) handling of the issue was not mature. The subject of the issue is irrelevant, for all it mattered it could have been dildoes or bunny rabbits. 3) I don't recall mentioning he violated any item in WP:NOT. I referred to WP:NOT because you asked me to tell you where the list of forbidden subjects was. That list is on WP:NOT (wikipedia not a travel guide, not a memorial, not a crystal ball, etc etc). I hope this clears things up. Thanks, Proto t c 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Edit summaries and adminship
The desire for admins to appropriately use edit summaries is in no respect a violation of WP:POINT. Please see User:Durin/Admin_criteria_comments#Edit_summaries. One of the typical prime duties of administrators is fighting vandalism. Providing edit summaries is one way in which people can make the job of RC patrollers looking for vandalism easier. It is very appropriate to request admins, who are likely to be fighting vandalism, to aide in fighting vandalism. --Durin 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Howdy! As an editor who probably used edit summaries in excess of 95% of the time and who actively fights vandals, I very much appreciate the need for them. My comment was that opposing adminship based on the percentage given seems to be making a WP:POINT as I don't see how that is an indicator of whether or not he would abuse the added functionality. Hope this clears things up! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- I personally find criticism of other contributor's criteria for voting on suitability of nominees for adminship to be out of process and not of use to the RfA process. I understand you feel it is violating WP:POINT. That implies that myself and several others who feel this is an important quality in being an admin are doing something nefarious to disrupt Wikipedia. This implication is, to say the least, mildly upsetting. I would encourage you not to criticize the votes of other people who are making votes in good faith. RfAs should be focused on the candidates, not on the voters. --Durin 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there! I really don't think you're doing anything nefarious, but I have the personal opinion that some of the voters are applying the criteria with a strictness that seems out of proportion to the 'crime'. 64% over the past 500 seems ok to me, but freestylefrappe disagrees, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Ironically, I'm considering changing my vote to neutral for reasons unrelated to this discussion. I'm troubled by the nominee's response to [[User:|hydnjo]]'s question about improving his use of summaries. He first promises 'gradual improvement', then, when hydnjo says "Why not just do it all the time?" he makes a kinda weird sounding "if you want me to say that, I will" type statement. Regarding mentioning other votes in mine, I've considered your point, and you may be right. I'll think twice before doing that again in the future, I definitely do not want to do anything that might distract from the RfA process. Thanks for your time, and I appreciate your insight. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks from Pamri
Hi, Thanks a ton for voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator and I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 03:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Johann Wolfgang's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA.If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Johann Wolfgang [
T
...C
] 15:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Nominator AFD voting
You asked on User_talk:MarkGallagher#Nominator_AFD_voting "I put the text in question into the template, where's MarkGallagher's comment you're referring to? I'd love to participate in the discussion."
Though I don't know where the original remark came from, more recently he stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Noblemen, "Please don't indulge in the silly habit of voting in addition to nominating."
I am interested in the proper protocol to follow when nominating articles for deletion as well (I vote as well as nom). Keryst 14:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, there is no proper protocol. Ben took it upon himself, despite previous discussion (see User:Kelly Martin's comment on AfD talk), to add the "you should also vote" text to the AfD instructions. It has now been removed. So let's not have any talk about uniliterally "changing official Wikipedia policy", please.
- I understand why the "nominators should vote" suggestion was added: because of fears that nominators' intention might be ignored. However, I strongly disagree with it, as I explained on the AfD talkpage. The intention of the nominator should be made clear on this strength of her arguments; if it is not clear, then her arguments weren't very good, and no amount of copy 'n' paste "I, the nom, vote delete per nom" bullet points can – or should – hide that fact. The fact is that a great many votes on AfD are pathetic. "nn d", the stereotype paraded about outside AfD, is quite true. At least one person should be able to explain why an article is deleted, and that person is the nominator. By encouraging the nomination to be Just Another Vote (which we have all seen happen, and not just from the pen of User:ComCat), we are doing a grave disservice not just to the articles, but to anyone who doesn't choose to label themselves as an extreme inclusionist.
- Why am I pointing this out in my comments to individual AfDs? For the same reason I am pointing out every good nomination, and every poor nomination. "AfD is broken", "the atmosphere is toxic", "the community is close-minded", all common refrains on Wikipedia, and not at all unjustified. I am trying to encourage good behaviour, and discussion on bad behaviour. It may not help, but it certainly cannot do any harm. Now, everyone I have asked about this nominator-voting thing has done one of three things: a) ignored the question; b) said "but I don't want my vote to be discounted if it gets close"; or c) said "it's in the instructions for using the template ... isn't it?". 'a' I can do nothing about, 'b' is patently silly, and 'c' is, as far as I am aware, entirely Ben's doing. I am hardly working against consensus; there is no consensus to work against.
- I trust I have answered both your questions, if not necessarily to your liking. Feel free to contact me at any time; if I am unable to respond immediately, however, I may forget (go ahead and remind me if you must). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there! I believe Kelly Martin severely mischaracterized my change, and have left a comment to that effect in the AfD talk. I understand and respect your position, but I still feel that anything that adds clarity to consensus should be strongly considered, especially for something like AfD. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.
The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!FireFox 18:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Emmanuel de Cériz
Hi Chairboy, I just saw the successful vote for deletion that you had put up for Emmanuel de Cériz in September. However, it seems the same user has recreated the page, along with Emmanuel Cériz, Cériz, Prince Emmanuel de Cériz, Transmutalism, Transmutalist Art, at least ten works of this "artist" on commons, and possibly others. Phew. Speedy delete ? (Please reply on my talk page) Ze miguel 08:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Chairboy, if you have just a minute, please check the following images for deletion [5]. Thanks. Ze miguel 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles
Hi, Chairboy - I think we've reached a consensus. I've posted a final comment on the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles page.
Cheers!
- DR1819
23:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Public computers at this IP Adress
This IP adress is the same for about 30-45 computers at Edmonds Wodway High School. What was the deal regarding LOL (Internet slang) - why were the comments posted inappropriate? I happen to know the person that did it - why do/did you keep reverting those changes? 168.99.166.56 23:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there! I removed one unsupported, unreferenced, and demonstrably false claim (namely, that LOL was somehow a misunderstanding of the Japanese abbreviation "loli"). That was the only revert I made. If you know the person who did it, feel free to share my comment with them, and I encourage both of you to create accounts. As you can see, it's been over a month since the revert in question, and it's likely that you would have noticed the message I left quite a bit earlier if either of you had been logged in. Plus, having an account makes it a lot easier to track changes to pages you have interest in! It's a win-win situation. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hello there, you recently reverted some vandalism on my user page. The anonymous user was actually a friend of mine whom I allowed to test out editing on my page. At that exact time, he was asking me (via AIM) "What about vandalism, etc" when you showed up and reverted it in under a minute, even before me! It made for one good example! He is now convinced of the resiliency of wikipedia. Thanks!the1physicist 06:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and your WikiTeach idea sounds remarkably similar to the proposed Wikiversity. [6] [7]the1physicist 06:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sean Black RfA
Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Sources for Space warfare
Hello, good work on Space warfare, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Space warfare? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 20:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've added an external links section with a link to an article on Almaz that I refered to when writing the article. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
BABSG
Thanks! :) New pages patrol is just one of the weirder aspects of Wikipedia. Why people think they rate an article in an international site of these proportions is beyond me. Rather entertaining, actually. Anyway, thanks for the help with the "tags and bags." - Lucky 6.9 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Invitation to the Forgotten Realms project
Hi,
We are working on a Forgotten Realms Project to map Toril (mostly Faerûn, at the present). Since you contributed quite a lot on a Forgotten Realms-specific entry, I'd like to invite you to join the project, so we could improve the “Mapping the Realms” project.
The goal is to create a sort of World Factbook for the Realms. This means:
- A consistent content
- Use of templates
- Entries should be limited to “sovereign places”: states and free cities, as well a moderately-inhabited place such as the Western Highlands.
On top of this, we also plan to cover Lost Empires, such as Pelvuria or Imaskar and, of course, Netheril
- The project is located here
- The Geographical index of Toril is a good start to get a visual of had been done, as well as the Halruaa entry.
Main contributors are presently
If you know some other person who would be interested, feel free to forward the invitation!
Feel free to take a look. We hope to see you soon mapping the Realms with us! Reply to David Latapie 12:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Chairboy, thanks for voting in support of my RfA (I know it was a while ago, but I'm creeping through the list). I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality. BDAbramson T 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Pathoschild's successful RfA
Thanks a lot for your support on my request for adminship; it passed with 23/0/0 (plus one duplicate support and an oppose from a vandal IP). If you're still interested, the WikiProject on User Warnings is doing quite alot lately. You're welcome to join in. ^^ // Pathoschild 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Heya, I just wanted to thank you for the response on Linuxbeak's RFB. It's been an increasing concern for me and I wanted to say something where there'd be a lot of readers without having much effect. I expect that over the next week I'll get responses that aren't quite so understanding, thanks again! Rx StrangeLove 06:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Subst tags
Thanks for reminding me! I use subst tags occasionally, but sometimes forget. With a comment on my talk page, I think I'll remember from now on =) — TheKMantalk 07:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks (AfD Woohookitty)
I was actually in the process of reading those AfD steps and performing them when I realized that the link to the article itself wasn't working anymore.
But now I know for future note. =FaxCelestis 07:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Woohookitty
I deleted the AfD right after I deleted the article as not to propogate the attack. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocked
Since you were rude, you are blocked for 24 hours. Amaas120 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Umm, no, not according to Special:Ipblocklist. You probably shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight, friend. I hope you reconsider your approach to Wikipedia, we've got a great community that you could be part of, and I hope you choose to join us in a constructive fashion. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference
Thanks for pointing out Category:Wikipedians who are pilots!
Thank You
WP:POINT
Hi there! In the Linuxbeak RfB, you asked me why I thought Everyking's vote might be an example of WP:POINT, and I thought I'd bring the conversation here to avoid cluttering the other, especially seeing as how Everyking has changed his mind. To answer a question with another question, would you agree that Booothy was using WP:POINT when he voted against each and every RfA? I believe that community consensus is yes, and for the same reasons I suggested that Everyking's vote may have been the same. Namely, Everyking stated that he was making his vote for symbolic value. I don't believe that whether this specific RfB passes or fails will have any lasting effect on Wikipedia, but using your vote to "make a point" (which Everyking said he did) seems to meet the spirit of WP:POINT in spades. Of course, I strive to learn, and if my analysis is incomplete or has made a wrong turn somewhere near Albequrque, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. - CHAIRBOY (?) 05:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your analysis is incorrect. There is no WP rule against "making a point". WP:POINT is a rule against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; indeed, the full name is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Boothy's votes were silly, perhaps, but were not a disruption, and Everyking's vote certainly wasn't disruptive. If you had just called it a tit-for-tat, I would have said nothing, as I can see it being interpreted as such. But accusing a distinguished member of our community of breaking an official guideline is a serious thing, which is why I ask you again: Where was the disruption?
- Also, Everyking never said his vote was symbolic. Read his comments again, carefully. He said that the position of a bureaucrat has more symbolic value than that of an admin. So, before you jump and throw wild accusations, you should read people's comments carefully, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines you're quoting, and apologize when you find yourself in error. Owen× ☎ 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi there. With respect to Boothy, if you'll review his RfC, you may notice that there are repeated statements that he was violating WP:POINT. You may feel that's not a correct viewpoint, but I did say that community consensus seemed to suggest that he was executing WP:POINT. Based on that discussion, I believe that biting my head off isn't terribly appropriate. I learn every day, and I hope that in the future, you'll be a bit more forgiving for those of us who are continually trying to learn.
- In regards to Everyking's specific wording, I hope you follow up with JTkiefer about the same thing, as he posted "So let me get this right, your opposing him based solely on symbolic value, how does that make sense?".
- Best regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for retracting the WP:POINT part of your comment to Everyking. I'm sorry if I came across as being too harsh, and apologize if I offended you in any way. The RfA/RfB page is one of the most hostile areas on WP, and voting against a massive consensus can be a harrowing experience. This is why it's important to defend minority opinions, even—or especially—when their vote is opposite our own. I'm glad to see this has all been settled amicably, and appreciate you having taken this seriously. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Pilot Cat
Thanks for pointing out or creating the category, but I have one question. I am only studying to be a pilot, and I'm not one yet, but I will be in about a year (maybe less, depends on when i take my solo flight). Can I still be in the category even with this technicality? -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
|
|
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! |
FireFox 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
SRB's
Sorry but I cannot always find a link to back up my knowledge. It is well known that the Challenger's right SRB leak in 1986 caused a deviation in the shuttles trajectory altering it's vector. In fact the force was so great the other engines gimballed to compensate and that caused the srb to crush the expendable fuel tank. It will take awhile for me to find a link for this fact. It is under the Challenger Accident Investigation Board report.
24.44.77.99 01:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lateral thrust from the SRB burn through did not cause a significant flight path deviation. It's true the SSMEs gimbled to compensate for the lateral thrust, but this was well within their limits. The initial breakup was caused by the lateral SRB flame impinging on the external tank, weakening it, and causing structural failure. While that was in progress, the right SRB broke lose from its lower attach point, and rotated into the external tank completing the breakup. More info: [8] Joema 16:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Iemma
Hi, can you explain why you moved Morris Iemma to Lemma? As far as I can tell Iemma (I for Igloo) is the correct version, at least as used on his parliamentary web page [9]. - Randwicked 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Chairboy presumably thought the 'I' was a lowercase 'L'. In actual fact, it's an 'I', as can be seen by picking up any newspaper or listening to a newsreader struggling to pronounce the Premier's last name. I've moved it back. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Chalk this up to the perils of Arial... - Randwicked 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Arrgh, sorry! I are dumb. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Chalk this up to the perils of Arial... - Randwicked 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
hi, im currently a college student majoring in biochem. I am pretty much sure that biology is a law. It can also be defined as a process but more specifically a 'law'. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.106.105.84 (talk • contribs)
- Hi there! Please review WP:3RR. The change you're making is pretty big, and other editors have asked you to discuss this. As a student, you should understand the importance of being able to provide citations, if you can do that for this, it'd really do a lot to help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
haha, sorry for this minor change. I don't have the time to find a citation but I believe both way work so we will stick to your 'process by' then. By the way, this is my first time trying to edit a wikipedia page and i am surprised at how many people try their hardest to keep updating the info. I guess with people like you can make wikipedia a better place :) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.106.105.84 (talk • contribs)
- Nothing to be sorry about, just remember that this is an encyclopedia, and any bold pronouncements that create controversy really need some evidence to back 'em up. It's nothing personal, it's just part of a strategy for keeping the quality of data in WP as high as possible. Welcome to the project, I hope you'll create an account and continue editing! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Review for RfA
I'd be happy to review you! Give me about a day, ok? --Durin 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm starting work on the review. According to Kate's tool, you are a tool. No wait, that's what your userpage says :) You've got 996 deleted edits. That's a lot! Are the majority of these speedy taggings, or what? --Durin 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd guess that about 990 are from speedy delete taggings, one is from a misguided but well intentioned Guide to moving article I wrote back in 2004 before learning what Wikipedia was WP:NOT that was VfD'd (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Guide to Moving), and the last couple are probably articles that I cleaned up or copyedited at some point that were merged or VfD'd after the fact. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wanted to let you know, I am working on your review. I'm nearly done with everything except reviewing your user talk and mainspace talk page contributions (that takes a while). I think I should complete this tomorrow. Everything looks good so far. --Durin 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the update! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten about you or anything. I only got so far on Friday. Time hasn't been in my favor of late. --Durin 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- No hurry, thanks for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Uhg. I was just about to begin the last of it and ran into another situation I needed to address. See my contributions if you want more detail; I was just trying to foster along a new user who was in trouble. I really haven't forgotten about you, and I am trying! Hang in there! --Durin 20:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beyond minor edits, you're first on my list of wiki-things to do. Some real world things are greatly impacting my wiki-time. I'm trying; really, I'm trying! Thank you for your patience! :) --Durin 13:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- In anticipation of the RfA, I created a graph of your edits. Would you like to have this graph included on your RfA? --Durin 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- That'd be great, thanks! I had a bit of a dry spell after my first round of edits because of work, the graph would probably be reassuring to anyone concerned about the edits per day ratio that resulted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- IRC please? I need to talk with you. Just log in; if I'm around, I'll see you within a few minutes and chat to you. --Durin 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I answered my own question. --Durin 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"What am I"
Just wanted to say your "What am I" section on your user page makes me think of Nikola Tesla, especially the electricity bit :) --Durin 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then I'm in good company! Personally, I think that death rays are a perfectly reasonable device for home defense... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Images of one of your kids accidentally tripping the death ray defense system while on the way home for school, kinda like daffy duck getting fried :) I tried chatting you on IRC. No response. --Durin 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Revert
Actually I did catch it, I saw the bit in the 2nd paragraph and went back to revert. After that I'm not quite sure what happened....I reverted again back to the last good version by Bkwillwm but it didn't show in history. I see that you reverted during the same peroiod so it must have gotten crossed up somehow. Rx StrangeLove 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Lilly Greenough
I saw in the intro paragraph that she had been reviewed in some journal, so that to me qualifies as some claim of notability. That's why I sent it to AfD instead. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- A note, the "The Hants Journal" is a community webzine in a small town in Canada. Their top story this week (www.hantsjournal.ca) is about a local music teacher who was given a plaque by his band. :) Again, no biggy, VfD will sort it out in the end. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Your RfA
Finally, it's done :) After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chairboy. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. --Durin 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you're off to a great start. 15-0 after three hours. I'm very sorry it took so long to put this together. Non-wiki events have been dramatically affecting my available time. Thank you so much for your patience! --Durin 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that Deathphoenix has added questions to your RfA. This has been a recent pattern on a number of RfAs. You should take time to answer them. --Durin 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Great answers! (and 57-0 as I type! Woo!) --Durin 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply to message on Star Trek
I put them in there initially anyway but then realised that it has a subgroup so I decided the best thing to do would be to revert it back, that's all. --Pally01 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Great answer!
I read your comment on your RfA about your frustrations on Wikipedia. I was very impressed by your answer! I think you're very right in your analysis that Wikipedia is still being run as if everybody is still going to feel as connected with Wikipedia as in the beginning. But what can you do? I wouldnt know where to start! Any thoughts? The Minister of War (Peace) 12:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
CongratulationsCondolences on adminship. I hope it works out ok for you :) --Durin 15:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats ^_^ Deckiller 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- And another. Congratulations --pgk(talk) 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations and welcome to the wonderful world of admin abuse. Please apply to be "suitly emphazi" as soon as possible. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)