Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:56, 13 December 2006

Talk Archive:

• 2004 and January to March 2005
• April and May 2005
• June 2005
• July 2005
• August and September 2005
• October and November 2005
• December 2005 to February 2006
• March to May 2006
• June to August 2006
• September and October 2006

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moral obligation

Hello. I have no argument with you opposing my RfA on the basis of your opinion on my question at the Reference Desk - that is entirely your right. However, if i may point out two things. Firstly, that the situation i'm referring to is not actually one that i am involved in personally. I used the first person as a proxy for the individual involved in the transaction as it was easier to recount (rather than "my friend..."). I appreciate that is misleading, but i didn't envisage the question would turn into a referendum on my morals based on, what for me personally, is only a hypothetical situation. However, it is true that i concur with their moral take on the situation, thus that probably doesn't invalidate your concerns.

My second comment is a request. I would ask that if you are going to quote my comments made on the RD to my RfA, then could you do me the courtasy of recounting my position in full? You appear to have replaced what, in my opinion, is the moral crux of the situation with "...": specifically the qualifier " I have no intention of trying to actively avoid paying the agreed fee, but" prior to "i really don't see why i should go out of my way to help a business". Thank you, both for taking an interest in my RfA and for your input to RD. Rockpocket 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to alter the sense of your remarks, only to condense them so as not to take up too much space on the RfA. (The use of ellipses to denote removed text is, of course, a very standard editorial practice.) I linked to both the full Ref Desk discussion as well as to specific diffs of your comments so that other individuals would be able to independently verify my statements (or argue with them, as the case may be).

For what it's worth, I read the 'moral crux' of the situation as the passage that I did quote—you feel no obligation to draw attention to the oversight, and imply that it's all right to do so since it's a large and faceless corporation. While it is somewhat reassuring that you affirmed a desire not to engage in active deception, that's really beside the point. If you feel that I have misrepresented your position, please feel free to comment as appropriate on the RfA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but accept you have not purposely tried to misrepresent me. Its no big deal though. If individuals are interested they can, as you say, read more in the links you provided.

I guess I was more concerned that with the suggestion at RfA that is a "real life" ethical situation I am currently engaging in, rather than a hypothetical debate for me personally (which is the premise on which I was commenting at RD). I'm aware that this is impression i gave with my question, but i didn't consider that relevent, or that such a question may end up as evidence regarding my personal morality at RfA. That said, i appreciate, your opinion of my moral fibre does not depend on whether the situation is real or not, but i'm sure you can understand I would rather disclose fully the situation. Now i have done that, i'm currently happy to stand by my moral position and, if the consensus deems that such reasoning is innapropriate for an administrator, then its perhaps best that my RfA does not succeed. I must say, having considered myself quite a moral person, your comments have given me some food for thought. Challanging one's values is always a good thing, i think and i'll certainly muse over it further. Best. Rockpocket 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Rebecca Wilson

You deleted Rebecca Wilson (content was: '{{del}}Rebecca Wilson played by Kelly in 1994 Barney video: (Barney Live! in New York City)') I found an IMDb listing for this person at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1959858/ If you think that this is an adequate proof of notability, could you please restore the article and add the IMDb reference? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it was nearly completely free of content, and a grammatical train wreck to boot. (The sentence in the deletion log is the entire article.) I have serious doubts about whether appearing as a dancer (not even a speaking role?) in a Barney video clears any kind of notability threshold. Nevertheless, I'm going on vacation in about ten minutes, so if you can actually put together a decent stub – and you feel that this person is worth the effort – I'm not going to come back in two weeks and nuke it.

Out of curiosity, how did you even come across that deletion? Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across a deletion of Rebecca wilson (different capitalization) and while trying to see if that one was salvageable, checked to see if there was an article with the correct capitalization. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi TenOfAllTrades. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I regret that I was unable to earn your support at this time, but I respect that you took the time to fully research my contributions and gave due consideration to your comments. I'm afraid I can't promise I'll change my moral perspective, but I can assure you I'll continue to provide full reasoning for any decision I make here at WP, with the aim of bettering the project. You can be assured I have taken your comments seriously and will bear them in mind in future. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Ten,

I was just checking up on some old friends, feeling sad over all the good friends who are no longer with us on Misplaced Pages, and I wanted to stop and say how happy it makes me that you're still here, doing good work. Whether you know it or not, my trips down Wiki-Memory-Lane often cause me to think of you, and that makes me smile. Have a great day! Essjay (Talk) 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

Are you still thinking you wouldn't have time to be on the Arbitration Committee? Your not running is still a noticeable absence this year, I think. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Nevertheless, I'm still not in a position to devote an appropriate amount of time to the job. (I'm a graduate student, and I'm hoping to crank out a couple of papers in the next six months or so. Things are going to be crazy, and the last thing I need is an excuse not to be writing.) In any case, I haven't even been able to stay on top of the article work I've been hoping to do. If all goes well over the next year, I'll probably be willing and able to stand come next December. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a pity you won't be joining us. (But I understand: last thing I need myself is an excuse not to study, but of course here I am...) In any case:

Hear hear! Essjay (Talk) 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Font?

How about like this?__Seadog 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Four net votes

I've posted this to the thread on RfAr talk, but in case you don't see it there, a link to a relevant discussion (in the context of the first rejected case in which this was the deciding factor) is here. You'll see my comments (my view is the same as yours) and those of two of the arbitrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup, help needed

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Policy Problem

Hey, I applaud your efforts at trying to spotlight the problems with the policy, and especially your approach to it. It really seems like no one is paying attention (not least of which is ArbCom itself). Wholly not an entity I want to piss off, and this is high-profile enough that I worry about staining my wiki-reputation, HOWEVER... do you think this is worthy of an RfC or village pump query? The scope seems such that it will affect all of wikipedia, and so such a significant change (in my mind) seems to need extraordinary consideration. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the last discussion of this issue, I think this could profitably be brought up again once the new arbitrators are selected in a couple of weeks. I have a couple of other nits in the arbitration policy I plan to raise at the same time as well. I think an RfC or village pump discussion would not draw widespread comment (most users don't think about these issues until the user is involved in a case) and in any event the newly constituted ArbCom should be invited to review the matter first. (Apologies to 10oAT for intruding here.) Newyorkbrad 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LC Unblock

It seems that you and I think alike (see my comment, edit conflicted with yours, on the Friday talk page). Thanks for stepping in. Let's hope it all calms down now. --Dweller 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another word of thanks from me for taking a balanced view. I will try hard not to let you down 8-)--Light current 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My Talkpage

• Hey, thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my talk page. I have a small favour to ask though, would you be able to roll back this and this so they don't appear in the edit history? Thanks. -- Chabuk 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion:  ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup of my userpage, I suspect the user was intending to go on another vandalism spree and wanted to delete my test links. Agathoclea 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent spammers

TenOfAllTrades,

I have a weblog that has the largest amount of information on surety bonds. The 'surety bond' page in wiki had a link to the blog for quite some time. As of recent another webmaster continuously changes the url address (no anchor text). Since their website is commercial the link is then removed. This is unfortunate as I try to change it back now and then, but sometimes it gets deleted before I correct it. I would re-create the link, but do not want to be mistaken for a spammer as well.

What to do?

Thanks, Webmaster - Surety Bond Blog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.34.220 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Frankly, I don't see the encyclopedic value of the blog—it's seldom updated, and its purpose is to drive traffic to JW Surety bonds. While I'm sure that your company enjoys the Google PageRank and the direct link from Misplaced Pages, I don't think it's worthwhile for Misplaced Pages. Besides, I'm tired of you and your competitor warring over the link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. If you were to search for information on suretyship online you will find that the blog is the most informative source on the subject. I guess it is difficult to judge these things w/o knowing the industry. The blog use to be updated more often, but the surety bond industry does not have changes. Would you make the same argument for a historic site?

It is discouraging to lose a great link due to a competitors tactics, as the link benefited myself and the rest of the Wiki community. By handling all spammers in this manor, Wiki will only be able to provide generic links that have little value to visitors.

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Misplaced Pages Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Desk "Odd Nausea" meta comments

I removed the following metacomments today from the aforementioned ref desk page because they are talking about your response rather than answering the original question. I felt that your response was a reasonable one and that the comment from Ike bordered on incivility:Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• "::Hey Ten - If you don't have anything concrete to add, why write anything at all? ike9898 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ten. Just say 'Go to a Doctor, it sounds serious'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that was a little bit unnecessary yourself ike. His reply was fine. X (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"

I did this per the rule someone stated that comments about comments should be on the Ref Desk Talk Page page or on the editor's talk page, not on the public side of the reference desk. If Ike, Hagermanbot and Mac Davis feel strongly that they are an answer to the original question, and if the consensus on the Ref Desk Talk page agrees, then I apologize and they can certainly be moved back. Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not my comments; I have no comment. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You have the patience of a saint. Thank you. Friday (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

"(The particular straw that broke the camel's back was his threat to report Willmcw to the FBI and have him prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act for adding Sarfatti's date of birth to Sarfatti's biography.)" This is a complete fabrication. It's ridiculous. Where did you get this from - Calton (talk · contribs)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.162.87 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry about the edit, I should have hit "preview" first, but I was in a bit of a rush. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with 2 socks

Thanks you for dealing with these 2 socks (RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon). :) These belongs to Bonaparte of course, so there is no question. As for the RfC, just for information, it is copypasted from a one that is one year old, so it is abusive. -- Grafikm 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Refdesk

Note that Hipocrite's proposal is being reverted off the page for some reason. Please keep an eye out. (Radiant) 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• True, but then what do you propose we do? His behavior is not conductive to the functioning of the refdesk. (Radiant) 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I recieved your email and took appropriate action thereon. My good faith action was promptly jumped on as a way to weaken my position - review my talk page. I have stopped "discussing" with people that are acting in bad faith. I suggest that you consider taking strong adminstrative action against people who are not here to WP:ENC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Balducci levitation, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Block

I put a three-hour block on your bot; do you have a script running to restart it periodically? It doesn't seem to be turned off. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no script starting the bot periodically. It should stop running whenever it detects a block (it always has in the past). It did sotp once you implemented your three-hour block. It is possible that someone else set it running after the first block (the bot can be set running by anybody). The bot is now withdrawn and will nt be runn again. Thank you for your patience. - PocklingtonDan 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC on StuRat and THB here. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)