User talk:Splash/Archive13

Yes, it's the second time I've made the same boneheaded mistake, too. Fixed now, though. Nandesuka 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Might I ask you to consider reinstating the anon-editing restriction on Tsunami? Within hours of your removal of the block, the vandalism parade resumed. The article has been hit 8 times from 6 different networks in only 16 hours today. I have no idea why this article is so popular for vandals, but it appears to need longer-term protection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi splash - its great to see you still around! I have a favour to ask - I may not be around tomarro but I have a couple outstanding page protections -

1. Ron Karenga - semi-prot due to ips putting "convicted felon" in the first paragraph
2. Lolicon - intense lame edit war

If I'm not around to do so (professional obligations) could you unprotect these in around 24 hrs or so if think it is appropriate? Thanks a million! :) (reasons also at WP:PP)

I hope this isn't inappropriate for me or anything...

thanks again :).

Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  - thanks! :) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, in spite of your best intentions, the Koenig sockpuppets are back in force at USAA. I was hoping you'd take a look-see. Thanks. LeyteWolfer 14:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the looks of his contrib page, he's edited two archived discussions, the main page USAA once, and resurrected his POV fork United Services Automobile Association. --Mmx1 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just blocked that particular account and will block others as and when (and if) they are used for ill-purpose. -Splash^talk 16:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking care of this! FreplySpang (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

No trouble. I get the feeling we might be playing cat-and-mouse for a little while... -Splash^talk 17:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, meant to get back to you sooner. I think you would make an excellent bureaucrat, which is why I thought I'd mention it, you seem to have the best handle on closing and consensus going. Steve block talk 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the material contained in this article as well as future pictures to be uploaded soon are a courtesy of the Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The text was reviewed and edited by the Chief of the Secretariat. For contact information please refer to the Permanent Forum website at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii.htm After saving the article, I starting looking for the help page to ask about the copyright disclaimer and how to upload the picture, but you didn't give me time. Man, you work too fast. Please note that there was a request for an article on the Permanent Forum (in the United Nations page, if I remember correctly) and I was simply providing the info. Can we please discuss this before you rush again into deleting the page or restricting access? Thank you :-) --Angelikmeg 02:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re your message: Have sent an email with contact info for the copyright issue to User:Splash. Thanks for checking your mailbox and replying. Cheers, --Angelikmeg 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seems I've stepped on your toes a couple of times already tonight, I'm really sorry - am new to all this and am just a bit anxious to try and clean this up (aren't we all!!).

Sorry again.

Bantersomething 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see that you at some point deleted the article entitled Benjamin James Stewart... This happens to be my name, and although I had nothing to do with the article, I would like to know what went on... can you offer assistance?

Benjaminstewart05 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for clearing that up.

Benjaminstewart05 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that you update your protection js, so that if two+ entries have the same summary, it wont botch it. It also looks a bit cleaner.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, done. To the version current of my timestamp. -Splash^talk 18:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you, but I've posted a question on the village pump technical and no one answered, so, I decided to contact one of the regular helpers in the page. I hope you can help. The question is: How can I make all the cells in a table have the same width? I want the content to adapt itself to the width of the table and not the opposite, like what is happening in the List of municipalities of Portugal, where the width changes when I have longer strings. Could you say something or else point someone who can help if you are unable to aid me? Thanks! Afonso Silva 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I defined a width in percentage, however, the columns have sub columns as you may see in the article, and those are the origin of my concern, as I don't know how to choose its size. Thanks. Afonso Silva 10:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are we still to block backslash-apostrophe-ing IP addresses? [1] -Splash^talk 17:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Splash - could you tell me a little bit more about these backslash things? I have not seen that before, but you seem to be well informed of what it means. --HappyCamper 17:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, thanks for the note. I guess one learns something new everyday! I'll keep that in mind the next time I see that. --HappyCamper 21:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Splash. I would like to say at the outset that I hold great respect for your contributions as an editor, and regret that we have come to a cross path on the above-captioned matter. I apologize if I was a bit flip in addressing CSCWEM's RfA - I wouldn't normally even think to invoke IAR in an RfA situation, but the candidate's withdrawal here only delay's the inevitable promotion of a deserving editor who will not misuse the tools. I empathize with the situation - I had 12 support votes by the time I accepted my own RfA. I had stated many times beforehand that I would not stand for it until December, but a fellow editor chose to create the page a few days before the end of November. No one objected (although I grant you that 12 votes is hardly as intimidating towards a potential opposer as 60), and so far as I know there is no rule that strictly prohibits such votes from being cast or counted.

I admire CSCWEM for taking this step, but had I been in his shoes, frankly I would not have bothered. CSWEM's third RfA will open with a flood of editors confirming the vote they had cast in the second, leading to about the same appearance within a brief time. I understand your concern, and perhaps we should work on establishing guidelines as to votes cast before an RfA is accepted (as we worked before to establish that an RfA can not be posted until it has been accepted, which was a very good step). Cheers! BD2412 T 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seemed, and seems, obvious to me that this was the wrong way to go about an RfA. It must have seemed questionable at best to a good number of others among his supporters. It should have been obvious to CSCWEM. RfA is about putting yourself forward for community deliberative contemplation, not some "zOMG give the user a lolliop coz he's got a good name and a ton of edits and who cares if noone has bothered to do this properly" kind of procedure. If the community is not given the chance to properly scrutinize a request, then the request is fundamentally flawed. Not posting an RfA to the main page clearly (to me, at least) violates this key feature of RfA. It most certainly violates the spirit of the rules, even if not quite the letter. We cannot pretend that the level of scrutiny is any adequate if the only people aware of it are those watching a particular user's talk page. It takes mental contortions to suggest, as some did, that it was not CSCWEM's fault, when the nomination could have been ended by him and done properly rather than being accepted only once it was a fait accompli. I do not think there is a great deal of similarity between your RfA and CSCWEM2. You accepted yours as soon as you could. You did not wait, in full knowledge of its existence, 10 days to accept it. An RfA is either accepted by the nominee pretty much immediately or declined by them likewise. You don't get to dally for 10 days about it. I see someone is already forecasting a bundle to nominate CSCWEM on 1 April, though he has already said the week of 8 April. If people could just handle this with less caffeine in their bloodstream, it would all be ok. I do not understand the rush to promote. The obvious way for him to do this is as a self-nomination entirely in his own time and when he is fully happy and to turn down any and all nominations before that moment.

Anyway, I agree that this kind of thing needs to be avoided. The best avoidance would be to oppose any editor permitting an RfA to continue in such a fashion: Wikipedia is Darwinian about these things. However, perhaps the rules should tesselate better that things cannot fall between the cracks. I would observe that, under the old system, where nominations were posted usually prior to acceptance, this problem would not have existed since it would have been up for scrutiny immediately and if he hadn't accepted in 10 days, he'd not have been promoted. The main reason for the change was to prevent opposes piling up before a declined nomination. Perhaps both problems are fixed by writing, in big, bold, red capital letters underneath the nomination "do not vote before acceptance". People will anyway, though, whatever we do. -Splash^talk 23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3. So far, no one has attempted to vote there. My problem with posting RfA's before they are accepted is that people will oppose based solely on the fact that the RfA has not been accepted and the questions have not been answered (and those people may not check back to change their vote once those niceties have been accomplished). I agree that all of this could have been avoided had CSCWEM declined the RfA as soon as it was posted, but I don't think he could have anticipated the sheer number of people who would jump on it in the time preceeding his intended date of acceptance. As you can see from his talk page, he was getting a lot of pressure from people to accept earlier than he had planned, and I think he was trying not to let those people down. BD2412 T 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, perhaps that would be enough to stop people! Your current adminprod proposal is interesting too. I have not really managed to understand why CSCWEM accepted when he did; had he accepted when he had planned, the situation would have been even further out of kilter. He should just have politely declined the nomination outright; Hall Monitor should not have created it without checking with CSCWEM in the first place, of course. Anyway, there are a couple of obvious solutions to avoid this occuring again (Darwinism included) so hopefully something will come of it. -Splash^talk 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought the simple expediancey of blanking any votes after linking it to the main RfA page would have fixed some of the problems here. - brenneman^{L} 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Brenneman's suggestion would require the notification of each individual who had registered their opinion at the RfA to be notified that their vote had been deleted and that they should register their opinions again. But this suggestion ignores the questionable lapses in regular proceedure regarding Rfa in general and this one in particular. Hamster Sandwich 05:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

All it would require would be an HTML comment added to the template saying that this was the way htings were done, combined with an edit summary like "DANGER!!! BALKNING ALL VOTES!!111!!!" or similar. And I don't understand the second sentance, sorry. - brenneman^{L} 07:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure Kappa is a fair comparison. I've been aware of Kappa's limbo RFA since its creation, and I have it watchlisted in fact, but have diliberately refrained from commenting (even on the talk page) for, um... diplomatic reasons; if I wanted to, I would have. — Mar. 27, '06 [07:28] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Hi Splash. I was the one that posted the JMS quote "'The avalanche has started - it is too late for the pebbles to vote.' -Kosh, Babylon 5." The quote was commentary on what everyone expected to be an overwhelming vote, and not as a means of belittling potential opposers. I intended no disrespect to anyone, but now it is abundantly clear that it was innapropriate and could easily be misconstrued. You were offended by this and I sincerely apologize. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Math is not insulting, especially considering some people may not be aware of how to calculate a percentage. Assume good faith maybe? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Posted here and on the other talk page:

Regarding Splash's edit summary "This is more than a little bit insulting" when removing the formula from the instructions, please not, that it is not! As a matter of fact, the Bureaucrat who closed out AzaToth's vote today did miscalculate. So I think you would do wisely to revert yourself and add the formula back in. Additionally, the formula is good information for those who are new to the process and want to know how the percentages are calculated (i.e., how if at all do the neutral votes count) because that is not at all obvious at first. I also think that you owe Doug an apology for assuming bad faith. --Mmounties (Talk)   13:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

As far as I am aware, 73% does not indicate a consensus to promote to an admin. I believe it is you who have miscalculated, Mmounties. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You need read more carefully and get your facts straight, Talrias. First of all, I did not say that the candidate got 75%. Second, the Bureaucrat who closed the vote, calculated the result at 62%. He's the one who miscalculated. Thirdly, the instructions to the Bureaucrats do not prohibit promotions with less than 75% of support but rather say that the 75% rule is a rule of thumb. There are, by definition, valid exceptions to rules of thumb. Fourthly, this post is about Splash's incivility towards Doug Bell. Ergo my above post stands and I do expect an apology to Doug by Splash for his incivility. --Mmounties (Talk)   13:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh please. I guess you think that this is the very model of civility though? -Splash^talk 13:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the lecture Locke Cole. Suggesting, as both you and whichever comedian added it in the first place did, that people do not know how to calculate a percentage is more than a little insulting. It also appears that both you and whoever added it in the first place are misunderstanding that RfA is closed on the basis of a formula. -Splash^talk 13:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask you to take a cruise through your protection log and see if you have others that got left protected? Thanks. Splash^talk 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Better late than never (I was on Wikibreak), I had no other semi-protections. Stifle 14:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you please tell me why you removed my RfA? Is is because I haven't answered questions? I was getting to that. Funnybunny 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please check your email, I understand the SPFII replied to your message and has sent you the authorization to use material from their website. Copyrights issue solved! Thanks,--Angelikmeg 16:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. I've forwarded the mail to the Wikimedia Foundation who will archive it for future reference. -Splash^talk 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! All I need to do now (not right now though!) is figure out how to insert pictures (because they sent me pictures as well). Will be more careful next time, to get written permission before posting anything. --Angelikmeg 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Splash, will let you know when am ready to upload the pictures. In the meantime, I'll read the article. (by the way, I was trying to find out if whatever material on UN website(s) could be used and was told that it was all public domain so there should not be any problem with copyrights issue. There are however some restrictions (I believe on the use of the UN Logo for example). Will double-check this info and let you know). Cheers.--Angelikmeg 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was curious about your approach to unprotecting pages. With the Shakespeare article I had semi-protected it once, removed the sp, seen a lot more vandalism and sp'd it again with the intention to remove said sp within a few more days. With the KKK article I am mediating an edit conflict and took the less extreme approach of semi-protecting the article instead of protecting it because this was the least inhibiting way of dealing with the issue (while it may not have been technically by the rules, I was trying to not totally restrict access to the article). Anyway, my point is this: I understand that you are passionate about protection issues. However, I wonder why you didn't simply raise these issues with me instead of acting unilaterally. I notice you have raised protection issues with other admins instead of first simply undoing their protections (see [2] Just curious why you treat different admins differently on this issue? Best, --Alabamaboy 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. With regards to Shakespeare, I wouldn't have allowed the protection to last that long (even if that was what some editors wanted). If the article follows the previous pattern, the anonymous vandalism will pick up over the next few days. If it gets unmanagable, I'll semi-protect for a day or two then take the protection off. However, I'd prefer to leave it off and will just tell the other article editors that we have to get really swamped with vandals before I semi-protect it again. As for the KKK article, the protection has put pressure on the editors involved in the edit dispute and I believe we'll be done with the issue within a few days. Anyway, apologies if I came across as irritated or anything. You're doing good work and I'm glad there's an admin keeping an eye out on the protected pages. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the William Shakespeare experiment isn't turning out all that well. I see only edits that alternate between vandalism and reverting vandalism. A semi-protect seems to have a positive effect. On the other hand, I haven't read up on why semi-protects are frowned on. Perhaps there's good reason this level of vandalism is worth the trouble. Rklawton 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not an experiment. This is a wiki. People can edit it. -Splash^talk 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You do realize that this just means more work for you, right? More silly questions, more "Damn, I've really shitcanned things now—Help, Splash!!", more "Yo Sensai, how on earth do you..." Well, I guess you asked for it. ;-) —Encephalon 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your unportection of rajput page is appreciated.

Garuda 09:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Move-warring is not a factor here. Which page(s), among the ones I move-protected, are you implying might be subject to a legitimate move war? If you can think of any, I'll reconsider. I merely perused the list of pages with the most revisions, (which is the same list a pagemove vandal would consult if he wanted to cause the most damage) and move-protected all of those among the top fifty for which there was no plausible basis for moving to a different title. Do you remember what happened the night of December 15? Sometimes, to effectively combat vandals, you really have to think like one. — Mar. 28, '06 [13:22] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

<annoying picture snipped> This fiasco took an hour to recover. There are currently 12 pages with more than 7312 revisions. At the risk of opening a can of WP:BEANS, if somebody were to move all of them at the same time, maybe multiple times each, we'd be kinda fucked. It's one thing to trust people, another thing to leave the keys in the car when you walk in to buy groceries. If somebody is acting in good faith, would they have a problem with proposing it at WP:RM first? Move-protecting the top fifty pages is neither unreasonable, nor on a vast scale, it's common sense. — Mar. 28, '06 [14:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The IP was actually not blockable as it was dynamic and I expect will change again and continue revert warring. No problem, it's kind of a complicated issue and i should have made that pint clearer. I will put the block back on, but I wanted you to know that there was a method to my madness (rare as it may be).Gator (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well reasonable admins can disagree. Please keep it there out of respect for another admins reasonbale decision (even though you disagree). Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will remember. It's on my watchlist for the time being.Gator (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll try but no promises.Gator (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The guy has some other IP addresses at his disposal, so while I can try and block one IP address, he'll likely come back with another and do damage unless it's semiprotected. I'm sorry if I'm not being very clear. THis is not my area of expertise, so the lingo is not that sharp.Gator (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nope, no owning. Thanks for the lesson though.Gator (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

the Phaistos troll uses a major Luxemburghian ISP, so, no, you cannot block him unless you want to block half of Luxemburgh. Sure, you can block his dynamic IP, which will mean he will redial and show up with a brand new IP five seconds later. The entire IP range would require a 10 bit rangeblock, and the severity of the case certainly doesn't justify that. Therefore, for the moment, semiprotection seems the best approach. An alternative would be an admin watching the Phaistos article, slapping every IP the troll uses with a 30 minutes block until he gets tired, but that approach tires the admin too, and most people on Wikipedia, I am sure, have better things to do than babysit grapheus :) cheers, dab (ᛏ) 07:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

An explanation like that makes things clearer. Even so, the article needs to unprotected in a few days time to see if the troll has gotten bored yet. Also, sometimes, not protecting and simply reverting takes away from them the satisfaction of seeing us protect a page against them. They have their fun, get nothing but silent reverts for it, get bored and go away. Depends how determined they are. Anyway, this article should still be unprotected in a few days' time, since that's the only way to work out whether the problem has gone away or not. -Splash^talk 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you think you could do something about his current IP, which is attacking me [3]. --Latinus 11:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have "expressed willingness to provide the text of deleted articles" [4]. I would appreciate it much if you could "undelete" the article Time dilation and length contraction to my user space. I'd like to go through and see if there was any decent information that should be added to the individual Time dilation or Length contraction pages. Thanks. FirstSamson 23:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well just saw this now and thought to follow through with this request. Cheers! --HappyCamper 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. -Splash^talk 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you and your fellow shills deleted the entry on the Hypermodernity Club even though there is plenty of information available on the subject. Dogs bark at what they do not know, I suppose.

Paulambery01 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why don't I ever get complaints this cool? - brenneman^{L} 04:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cool complaints go to uncool people? No, that's not it... Cool complaints go to cool people? No, that's not it either. ++Lar: t/c 05:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Needs protecting again [5], [6]. Arniep 23:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind lending your opinion to a content dispute that I am currently involved in on University of South Carolina. USC has a strong athletic rivalry with Clemson University. I feel that the athletics section of the article should discuss this rivalry, and I feel that this discussion should include a reference to the overall record between the two schools in various major sports. Other editors have disagreed, and feel that the record should not be mentioned. As it happens, Clemson leads in two of the discussed sports and USC leads in the third. I would appreciate it if you would consider lending your opinion on this issue on Talk:University of South Carolina. Thanks! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sensai, can you take a look at Image:Jerry Taylor satire.JPG, please? The image will not find legitimate use on any Wikipedia article. It is related to Jerry Taylor, currently under discussion at the Review. Can this image be legitimately speedily deleted? —Encephalon 05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

We're doing a random double-blind flappines test of those users who seem to be getting a but, um, *searches for synonym* *fails* flappy. Some of your comments lately (while containing the same level of nearing-100% correctness that your fans have come to expect (nay... demand!)) have departed from usual calm to some thing stronger (some would say hysteria (but then we'd stone them!))

Thanks you from the department of convoluted and questionably punctuated sentences,
brenneman^{L} 00:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've noticed that too. I'm not sure why. I will try harder; perhaps I should take a break. (PS: I have a RL friend who calls me Flappy. This is because I like a particular sandwich shop's flapjacks, however. The sandwich shop is non-notable, but their flapjacks are so awesome they probably deserve a Wikipedia entry because wikipedia is not paper and is a collection of everything ever and there's nowhere else on the internet you could find out about these flapjacks.)-Splash^talk 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I confess to having a mental image of what makes a great "french toast with three chillies bacon and maple syrup" I'm at a loss: What makes a great flapjack. Other than the visceral pleasure from saying such a brilliantly plosive word.
brenneman^{L} 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eating them at 3 AM at the Flapjack Shack (a (presumably) non notable chain in upper Michigan with a cool name) ?? Of course, at 3 AM just about everything is "great". ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

...they probably deserve a Wikipedia entry because wikipedia is not paper and is a collection of everything ever and there's nowhere else on the internet you could find out about these flapjacks. *chuckle* Flappy, this break you speak of might be a good idea. But not too long, ya? Take care buddy.   —Encephalon 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right. I find myself getting rather tired of this. -Splash^talk 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you are, it is quite understandable, Splash, as anyone familiar with your contributions will attest. You operate on a level most virtually all other administrators simply cannot hope to match. You're knowledgeable about every sphere of Wikipedia operations, and you involve yourself extensively in most of them. They're very few folks out there who can do what you do—you're not the specialist, dabbling in one area, and you're not the generalist, with superficial knowledge of a great many things. You're rather like a "multi-specialist", doing many, many things very, very well. As someone who cares about your well-being, I have often worried that you'll burn out, or worse, let some of the silliness inherent in projects like WP affect your happiness in RL. Don't let it, buddy. One thing I'd not noticed until quite recently is that, because of your willingness to take a stand when you see something happening that isn't quite right (and this happens not infrequently because you see further than most), you're sometimes put in a position where it's you alone in one corner and a whole bunch of editors in the other—some of whom take no particular care that their words correspond with their (good) intentions. This can be a drain on one's reserves, after awhile. If you're feeling tired of it, it might be a good idea to take a few days away from WP, Splash, and come back refreshed. Or just stop editing the back rooms and discover the therapeutic effects of quietly writing in the main space. I say this not only because I care about your well-being, but also for selfish reasons—no one wants to lose such a smart and good administrator.   Be well —Encephalon 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's good advice, thank you. -Splash^talk 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do your Uncle Proto a favour, as it's my one year Wikibirthday, and leave the whole Danny-Essjay-89.93507 or whatever it was issue alone for just a few hours; it's nearly April Fool's day and everyone will be busy cleaning crap up anyway. And if you still feel strongly, then go back to the issue. Please? Proto||type 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Happy birthday. -Splash^talk 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

And on that note, I rather object to the suggestion that it is me that has argued the decimal places. I've stayed away from that triviality. -Splash^talk 00:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the closeout of the AfD vote, thank you, your comments were spot on. It's an encyclopedic topic, that was just not an encyclopedic article. --DMG413 17:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

A bang up job, congratulations. Nothing solved, and this piece of pure propaganda stays for who knows how long... Great call. --Dr.Gonzo 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are free to rewrite the article, using reliable sources to document all the various points-of-view on the topic. You are also free to re-nominate it later and write a compelling argument. -Splash^talk 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can't rewrite complete nonsense since that would be supporting it's very existance. According to all sources except war time Serbian propaganda this NEVER HAPPENED. So what do we do now? --Dr.Gonzo 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you write an article about the Serbian propaganda instead? And present it in those terms (without passing judgement on the propaganda itself)? It will be tricky, but ought not to be impossible. -Splash^talk 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You mean in the context of that article? I think that would just start an rv war. While I do agree wartime Serbian propaganda does deserve it's own article, it is a daunting task trying to start an article like that. Not only due to it's importance, but because it would almost certainly be frequently vandalized. Not to sound too paranoid, but there seems to be a considerable group of Serb wikipedians who continuosly obstruct the functioning of the encyclopedia by inserting pure propaganda (neutral wikipedians have agreed on this on numerous occasions). Not POV, not bias, not OR. Pure nonsense. Now how does one fight that? If I stick to procedure nothing happens, if I don't then I'm the bad guy. What gives? --Dr.Gonzo 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess you fight with reason and with policy, most usefully Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and an absolute insistence on not interpreting those sources. If the article reports what those sources say, does not attempt to draw its own conclusions on the basis of them, and handles dissenting opinions in proportion to their uptake, then the article is (probably) ok, even if some people do not appreciate its contents. There is always Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if it comes to it. -Splash^talk 20:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll try and resolve this by the book and without prejudice, and I hope I can count on your help if certain users start to act up. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't contest the outcome, but I'd like to know WHY you decided to keep the individual episode entries as well.Mackan 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was minimal support in that debate for deletion of anything, and the trouble with multi-nominations is that people often don't address all aspects of it and so the debate finishes up fairly directionless. However, as I noted, I think there was a movement towards a merge. That is an editorial decision which doesn't require deletion. Also, once an article is merged somewhere else, we retain a redirect for it so that the contribution history is preserved, as needed by the GFDL. -Splash^talk 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

{{npa}} Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn per my comments below. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was no reason for your personal attack towards me on deletion review please do not make personal attacks and assume good faith. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn as per my comments below. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Pegasus, I read the comments in the DRV discussion, and I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with this assertion: in no way did Splash mount a personal attack against you (or anyone else). His comments were directed at the 'joke' page, which he doesn't find amusing—an opinion he is certainly not alone in holding. I grant you that he is being very forthright in his comments about the page, yes; but there are no personal attacks, the page itself being quite inanimate. Perhaps you could re-read his comments and reconsider your opinion of them? —Encephalon 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) NB. He also offers general advice that Wikipedia server space ought to be put to good use, but I'm unable to see this as a personal attack.Reply

I'd think Pegasus would be the one closer to a disruption block than Splash, at the rate he's handing out false warnings. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:06 UTC (2006-04-02)

Hardly a false warning, his statement "Confine playtime to your userspace." is as close to a personal attack as you can get short of him calling me a dumbass for even working on the page to begin with and I take great offense at both his and your (NSLE)'s condescending attitude towards me which is unecessary and is biting a user who is newer than you. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Calendarial coincidence does not grant people a license to play around for a day. One admin got themselves blocked for doing so. People have limited patience. I do not appreciate people going around making pointless edits for 24 hours and leaving them for other people to clean up. If you had put as much effort into the encyclopedia as you did into April fooling, you'd have been making a much better use of everyone's time. And WP:BITE says to go easy on people who don't know what they should be doing. I'm fairly sure you knew that what you were doing wasn't what it should have been. -Splash^talk 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

After reading through what you've said and what I said I agree that using the NPA template was not appropriate since it doesn't suit the situation and is overly hostile and I apologize for that but that being said you should assume good faith to the fact that I have a valid reason for wanting the page undeleted, also check my contribs for april first... except for a couple edits at the end of the day I was right up there with people tagging the april fool jokes page for deletion and reverting the april fool's vandalism and the few april fool things I did take part in were either joke tags which were fairly benign and easily spotted as april fool's jokes (i.e. my approval by The Ministry of Silly Walks tag) and my edits to the requests for seppuku page which was supposed to of course be a parody of the RFA page though one that should never have been filled out by anyone. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've also withdrawn my request for undeletion since your right that it has no place on Wikipedia (outside of possibly Jaranda's userspace) When you get a chance can you please undelete and move to his userspace as per his request since nobody has objected to that and that is where all the April Fool's joke pages that aren't fit for this world are being stored though I think he may be intending to send them to BJAODN eventually. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cyde has already done this. -Splash^talk 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

With respect to:

1. Oppose. Two months is too new. Previous RfA failed because of too-newness, but the editor hasn't waited graciously for the (imo fairly-bright) line of three months. Makes me feel that he is too eager. Also, does essentially only vandal fighting for which admin powers are a help but not a necessity. Thus, little participation in other areas of the project (and essential experience in them), including the writing of, wait for it, the encyclopedia. Needs longer, broader and more general experience. Lots of hours being entertaining on IRC has little to nothing to do with what is needed in an admin, imo. Also, no particular evidence of policy knowledge beyond WP:VAND and WP:CSD — has the editor participated in such discussions, and can that be usefully guaged in 8 weeks anyway? (Not that I think him ignorant, but it seems like a strange assertion that needs challenging.) And I want to be absolutely clear that, should this succeed, it does not mandate Tawker giving any of his bots admin access. -Splashtalk 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

   I hope I was a little more than "entertaining", but thats besides the point. As for the "power trip" I was strongly considering declining this one, I threw it out on #wikimedia to ask for advice and then Danny pre-accepted supported me, and having a lot of respect for Danny I felt a little pressured the one way. I suspose the few "I can't give you an answer because I have no clue what the bot saw" also bugged me a little, but honestly, I don't care either way, whatever the community wants I'll abide by it. As for the bot having admin, I thought I'd made it pretty clear that the bot would not have access to any elevated accounts unless a super majority of users voted in favour of it having such powers - I'm a little weary of giving the bot such powers myself, and I only brought up that possibility after people brought it up, there is no code whatsoerver in place to give the bot such powers and unless the forementioned vote supports it, it never will. Anyways, I've most likely droned on your talk page enough now, but if you have any questions / comments / concerns please let me know and I'll try my best. -- Tawker 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

   #wikimedia is an unusual choice, although an interesting one that would explain why Danny is on the list. I don't really understand the "I can't give you an answer" bit; perhaps you are concerned people will oppose you because of tawkerbot2's randomness a while back. I don't think they will, since it does lots of good work and its owners are quick to fix it. IRC and #wikimedia in particular are not the english wikipedia (clearly), so take what advice and opinions you get in there about on-Wiki things with a pinch of salt. Can I offer a piece of on-Wiki advice? If you decide to go ahead with the full seven days of this RfA and it fails, then be sure to clear all the simple hurdles before re-requesting. Sometimes, people get opposed in later RfAs simply because they have repeatedly had to make the request and it makes them look too desperate. Not that you give that impression, but it is all to easy to construct opposition on the back of such things. -Splash^talk 06:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

   Ah no worries, I got sick of WB bugging me on MSN and it was either this or I would block him from MSN and he's a pretty cool guy. #wikimedia is a little less crazy than #wikipedia IMHO, but yeah, I do agree it was a little non representative of en.wp exactly (but having talked with Danny for a while, I thought he'd be a pretty good person to ask with an of overall WP flow (he most likely spends more time on WP that most of us :), I've found #wikimedia slightly more insightful, people have time to write out responses instead of 50 million lines scrolling by a second, and asking on wiki itself seemed even more weird. I think I'm going to let this one run, if only to see how many questions I can be asked in one week and try and set a record (so ask way, I'm at 20 and counting..) :) Do you mind if I start to bug you about deleted edits etc when the bot makes a mistake on a deleted edit or should I find someone else to bug err, ask. As for the 3 month thing, it was my original plan, I just got bugged too much. Oh, and will you slap me if I forget to turn the minor edit flag button off, I had it on permanent minor edit hence everything was screwed up (see your previous previous comment regarding my first 150 or so edits, I tagged them all as minor, argh!) -- Tawker 09:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

   I'm not sure that Danny is particularly engaged in the community side of things on enwiki; he flitted in the other day to make a dubious RfB promotion and that's about it. I think you may have a record for the number of questions asked on an RfA, but perhaps it will set a healthy trend. You can bug me as and when you need to (although individual edits are rarely deleted: I wonder if your bot has just gotten out-reverted or something). I've decided (a while ago) to harden my line against <3month admins since we had a couple and they didn't get off to such a great start. It's nothing personal. -Splash^talk 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Donald Trump will be filing his lawsuit for trademark infringment soon for "It's nothing personal", just thought you'd like to know. Actually it was an entire article that was deleted, someone asked me why the bot reverted and thats the edit in question. I probally should have kept it, not its lost in a sea of bot reverts :) -- Tawker 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, that was embarassing. Sorry. --Golbez 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. -Splash^talk 06:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Splash. Thank you for your questions and support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 11:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Edit Category talk: space at your peril. -Splash^talk 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's New Jersey we use.;-) —Encephalon 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Trenton, I think I remember now. :) This break isn't really happening, is it? -Splash^talk 18:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Guess not.;-) But I'm not concerned because if you really needed it I know you'd take it. —Encephalon 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

[7]? --Ligulem 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it turns out that the WP:MOS#Quotation marks section has changed since I last read it (I think). It appears to allow both, but is clear enough that most articles on Wikipedia use straight quotes rather than curly quotes. Indeed, any time I see an article with curly quotes, I immediately suspect it of being a copyright violation since the default typing-into-the-edit box without any cleverness does not yield curly quotes. I think that templating the curly quotes will cause stylistic inconsistency in a very large number of articles. To that end, I have reverted {{Cite news}}. -Splash^talk 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is being discussed just about everywhere, welcome to the meatball:ForestFire. Kotepho 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quite. -Splash^talk 23:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply