Please be civil, and know that I will respond soon-ish to you on your own talk page. I don't delete stuff, even flames or spam, I just archive.
Arbitration Committee case opening
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against Iasson. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:06, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
- Oops - I was only making joke (I thought). Let me explain. Onefool's account was started by Thewayforward on a whim which he thought would be an extention of his own wordplay (wonderful/wonderfool) username. When I noticed Onefool's account I posted the section noted above to include a fair number of other potential usernames using the same wordplay that is, taking a common word ending with ful and substituting fool. Thus User:Beautiful would become User:Beautifool. Anyway when I came across your name, Humblefool, I was reminded of that whimsical but fictitious User:Onefool and thought that you might get a chuckle out of it so I posted the above. I'm sorry if you were disrurbed as I intended no harm.
- Good luck with your arbitration case with User:Iasson. And,by the way, what does "Shwa" mean? hydnjo talk 18:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Saw your name and did a doubletake. Do The Humble Guys ring a bell with you? · Katefan0(scribble) 02:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) That's a shame! I knew all those guys way back when, including Humblefool (before the Internet really -- the age of local bulletin boards). Cheers anyway! · Katefan0(scribble) 03:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
You might this VfD for this article interesting.
Klonimus 00:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have made deletions to what I consider libelous, unfounded accusations about the Guardian Angels. You should be asking the contributors of the original material to provide you with sources and evidence to substantiate their accusations. As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof should be with the person throwing around stupid claims versus someone who deletes them. I am a Guardian Angels in Reno, Nevada, and you can call me and verify this by going to www.guardianangels.org or just call any Guardian Angel on that list.
I'd really like to know what you would do if some idiot edited your page with something like "This fool is some neo-Nazi Yakuza clan member who loves Bush and Cheney." Then you delete it, and some guy comes along and puts it back and tells you to prove that you're not some neo-Nazi Yakuza. Wikipedia is becoming a joke.
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you; I only check my messages now once every few months. I truly appreciate your support. Substubs are now a dead issue to me... I guess I just couldn't take the stress. I intend to try to ease back into Wikipedia and hope that people will eventually forget about the whole substub thing, so that I can start over. Again, thank you - it's nice to have someone who still talks to me. Mike∞Storm 00:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Please don't delete RfD entries. Old entries are often there because I'm waiting to see if we get comments on them, I'm leaving them there to educate people (e.g. the CamelCase entry, the Country/Subpage entry), etc. (I'm the admin who does the deletes for RfD.) Noel (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
- I wouldn't say I "run" it, I just happen to be the admin who does almost all the work there. Maybe that's a purely semantic difference, I guess... Noel (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
rfd -> speedy
I changed the rfds to speedys. If I have used rfc for this it has been a mistake. The two redirects not listed on the page are Paratragouda and Hrisso koufeto. I marked them speedy too. Is there something else? I'm unsure, if I fully understood your message. --Easyas12c 10:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- For the Edea article (and others too) I'd rather remove the redirects than the links. --Easyas12c 10:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Rapid Deployment Force(s)
The Rapid Deployment Force(singular) is a duplicate and can be deleted; the Rapid Deployment Forces(plural) is the correct title and I wish to maintain. After deletion, the singular title can be moved to the correct title as I understand. Thank you. Nobs 15:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
just so you know
There's a difference between capable of handling and willing to handle it. On the other hand, I've grown pretty much apathetic to Wikipedia once I saw this junk (Every article in that category is fit for a VfD) or some of this commonly accepted fancruft. (Note that everything on that page is linked to! What kind of idocy is that?) So if those examples are accepted, I'll just unwatch the 4chan page and let people have a go at it, not my concern anymore. ^_^ :: DarkLordSeth 3 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote if not. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 09:54 (UTC)
CSD Proposal 3-B
You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)
you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses
however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.
would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?
~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.
Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).
Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.
~~~~ 18:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest merger of the two pages "Auschwitz trial' and "Auschwitz trials"
When I checked the Auschwitz page ealier I couldn't find the link to the Poland or the other trials, maybe my fault.
However, although the "Auschwitz trial" page carries more detailed info on the Poland trial, it's silent on the other trials, although these were quite important.
Also, I would like to object to the almost "delete-by-redirection" - this is not the way Wikipedia should work. Please, check the content first, then redirect ! ;-)
best, Andreas D.C.
PS.: By logic, the merged page should be "Auschwitz trials", since there were more then one. i suggest ut and paste of the Poland part of "trial" to "trials", o.k.?
Answer @ Humblefool: Dear Humblefool, you're correct, and the info on the existing pages is much more detailed then on the one which I began. Well. the main prolem, then, is / was only one of links that one could find without searching too hard. I will redirect my energies to this task. Thanks for the help ! Andreas D.C. PS.: I haven't quite figured out how to discuss / respond but I will learn ... :-)
Andreas D.C. 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
what seems to be missing, though, on the "Auschwitz trial(s)" sites are the trials in East Germany and in Frankfurt in 1977, or have I (again) missed something? Andreas
Sir, i changed my " nincompoop" entry. Is it more to your liking this way?
Robert Prummel The Netherlands
Thanks for your help, and patience, with my entry on the Nincompoop. I have registered once again. It is the fifth time... It seems that the Wikipedia computer keeps forgetting me! Strange, because i never changed my computer. Did you see my article on the Earl of Clare? I did a few more articles in this vein.
What about Axel Enstr m running "a small belgian company". His son lived and died there. Let me hear more about it!
When you make redirects, always check the target; in this case, you redirected to a redirect (as the mis-capitalisation of Modern Era suggested). I've corrected it (to Modern world, which is the target of "Modern Era"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Being quoted is very nice :)
Hello Humblefool, in a momentary lapse of modesty, I googled myself, and your user page came up second! Delighted to see you enjoyed my useless bit of nonsense exchanged with Alphax :-) And in a further instance of vanity, I've just added my user page link to the quote - I hope you don't mind. Cormaggio 12:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I've heard about disputes over templates in signatures before. I decided to do the template because without it, all of the font tags and color codes took up several lines, which defeat the purpose of having a signature. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 15:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
There is no formalaised way to close copyright problems, here are a few pointers if you're interested. We could do with a few more admins helping out. Some copyvios are easier to deal with than others if you are going to help out it's fine if you just delete the easy ones and leave the more complicated ones for someone else.
No copyvio in the original version
If the copyvio was added after the page was created just revert to the last clean version.
Original version is a copyvio
If the template is still in place check that the listed site is not a Wikipedia mirror and delete, delete the talk page too if there is one, often people will also list the site the text has been stolen from on the talk page.
- If there is a temp page, move it back to the original name.
- If there are comments on the talk page that claim that that the person who has added the page was the original author I revert the page and with an edit summary like author owns copyright, see talk, often I also send these pages to vfd since they are usually things like resumes and adverts for a product, non-notable band etc.
- If there are comments on the talk page that assert that the person who added the article to Wikipedia has permission, that permission needs to be compatible with the GFDL or the page is deleted
- If someone has removed the copyvio template, check the text before and after the template was added. Delete if they are the same. If a significant amount of replacement text has been written copy it, delete the page, and then recreate the page. This is very annoying- people should follow instructions :/
Images are tricky and you'll want to get familiar with fair use rules. Basically anything that could be recreated by someone on Wikipedia is a copyvio, like maps, pictures of existing buildings and so on.
- If the image is a copyvio, remove any links to it from articles and delete.
- If there are people claiming fair use and you don't feel comfortable to decide one way or the other, move it up to to fair use claims needing a second opinion section.
I think thats everything, drop me a line if you need some more advice.--nixie 07:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you fool! :) --Sn0wflake 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
WonderHumblefool! Yeah, the support was pretty good (except for the sockpuppet accusation: maybe that fella thought you were related to Wonderfool?), so you've got the confidence of a lot of people, including me. Wield that mop and bucket with pride! --Deathphoenix 19:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're going to do great, HF~ Fernando Rizo T/C 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and congrats! You've got my full confidence. - ulayiti (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations, and you're very welcome! And thanks, I sure will remember the deletion reform page! --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Congrats from me too, and no problem with the support. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- You'll do fine. And the drink was quite refreshing, thanks. --khaosworks 02:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Templates to close VfDs
Hi there. Glad to see you wielding the mop+shotgun already. When closing VfDs, it is best to use subst: since those templates in that quantity cause a significant server load. In fact, there is a shortcut: you can just use:
Saves keystrokes and server resources!! Have fun. (Oh, and the 1E-43s, result: the voting was to merge all the articles in the cat to a single article: but that's a bit much to come from a single VfD, really). -Splash 01:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Talk pages: one deletes those too, or they continue to exist but are orphaned (and could be reached by typing 'Talk:Article' in the search box, I believe). -Splash 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
OrbitOne here. I would like to ask, if the rules for VfD say majority rules in the votes, why did the minority vote for a redirect win?
I have seen that you have deleted an article stub I made. I don t think that you where right but it s your choice. I already explained to Jasonglchu who proposed to delete it that if I only make stub it s because I am not fluent in English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasonglchu
Otherwise I need some help: I made an article stub for the guitarist Ali ©ksey Vianna but I first forgot the accent on the e . I made after a new article with the good spelling. The result is that there are now 2 pages about him... How could I definitely cancel the wrong one?
Wrong page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alieksey_Vianna
Please have a look on the contributions I made the last three days.
- I'm not going to argue the point. I think it runs counter to the spirit of the process however. Steve block talk 22:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Links to VfDs on talk page
Hi there. Don't forget to provide a link to the VfD debates on talk pages of kept/etc pages. It helps to avoid rapid renominations. There's a slightly unpleasant looking template you can use for this, there's a link to it on Wikipedia:Deletion process, or you can just use some stock text of your own. -Splash 21:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ed didn't create that article, but no matter. In case you're interested, there's now a case on RFAr against him. Rob Church 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)