This user may have left Wikipedia. Mahanga has not edited Wikipedia since 19 April 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Thanks! It helps, though I wish I could figure out how to edit he source so the AMG link would be All Music Guide instead of AMG. Still, it's been a help.--Weebot 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad it's been useful to someone. :) I did it in about 15 min, so it is very basic. I see your point about the AMG thing. I will change that, however, I'm not sure it should be italicized. I could be wrong, but I thought that was only for magazines and such, like Rolling Stone magazine, for example. I will make a quick update to change this and a few other minor things. I'm also working on another program that will hopefully be quicker, although it's very difficult since many of the old albums vary in their implementation, with some missing several fields. I hope to finish this week with the wish of it working with the majority of the albums. If you have any suggestions or comments whatsoever, leave me a note. :) --Gflores 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores, I am having some trouble with loading an album's cover image, and I don't know if it's something to do with page rendering on my end or if there's something going on at wikipedia's end. I was wondering if you could visit the page where I placed it, and tell me if you can see it? Here's the page: Neighbourhood Threat. Thank you.

ps. I have some bad news about the infobox conversion project--in an hour or so I'm updating the list with everything I've found over the last few days and there's a lot there. Sorry! But I will help you work through it. Meanwhile, here is a flower for you for all the great work you've done so far :) --Qirex 10:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After about a minute of loading, the picture showed up. Same thing was happening to me last night.

Secondly... why must you torture me like this!? ;) Oh well, it was inevitable. I'll try and get that list reduced... again. Oh, and thanks for the flower. :) Gflores 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for that, I get concerned that there is something more ominous in the air when funny things like that happen. I apologise for torturing you with this seemingly endless well of albums; honestly, it seems a bit ridiculous at times just how much is out there! Just make sure you don't spend too much time on this project, or else you might exhaust yourself, if such a thing is possible teehee --Qirex 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know when the new infobox template took place? Was it this year? Anyway, I created a program which helps make the conversion faster, which is how I managed to get about 50 or so albums done in about an hour or so. So, I really don't mind doing it. I'll get back to doing this when I get done with all my school work. Can I ask one favor? Can you do the three soundtrack albums when you have time? If not, no problem. :) --Gflores 18:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I don't know when the infobox template came in. I've been around since April or so, but only been a frequent user since... um early September or so. Sure, I can do those soundtracks, no problem. --Qirex 03:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On albums the years of the albums release is supposed to have a link. I see that you removed a large chunk of albums form the page and they do not have wiki-linked years. Jobe6 03:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did? Which albums are you talking about? You're talking about the album's release date and not the prev/next albums years, right? I usually tend to copy and paste what the old infobox has and sometimes I don't notice if the year is wiki'd or not. Generally, they're wiki'd and when doing it manually, I usually make sure it's wikified. Again, could you tell me which albums are not wikilinked and I'll fix them. Gflores ^Talk 04:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply where ever you want to, personally i reply on their persons talk page as i did herer, but your program does not wikify the years for next and previous albums, which are usually wikified in according to WP:ALBUM. Jobe6 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bad but WUTTTT!?!!?! when did they change this? Jobe6 04:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no need for "low added-value items [that] are linked without reason, e.g., 1995, 1980s and 20th century. This also applies to tables, considered by themselves." (see MoS: Internal Links) - Liontamer 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing sooo many infobox conversions (I looked at your program last night and it seems interesting, I just haven't done too many boxes since then). You made that one mistake and apologized, and I just wanted to come here and say thanks for the good work. If I pointed out your mistake I can surely point out all you've done. :) gren グレン 10:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks as well. I like seeing the project look more and more complete. I was hoping to get your third opinion on this debate I was having since you do many inbox conversions. Thanks if you have time. - Liontamer 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your minor edit of my one-and-only original authored section. Legends_of_Motorsport.

If you go to my talk page, you will see I created myself a sort of Wikipedia quick-reference guide based on other documentation, but abridged.

If such an article already exists as part of the standard docs, then please point me to it. If not, I think the creation of such an article should be considered. I have not edited mine rigorously yet, simply leaving things I could use myself, and removing "fluff". It basically allows me to use the "do something by finding a previous example" principle/practice. SportWagon 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SportWagon, I don't know of any quick-reference guide to Wikipedia, which is surprising since WP seems to have just about everything. I agree such a guide would be helpful. Another helpful tip is using bold and italics. There are several common things to avoid, including linking to a disambiguaton page and excessive linking. The Manual of Style should generally be followed. If you have some more questions, let me or any of these administrators know. I'll try and talk to some people about the creation of an abridged guide. Gflores ^Talk 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need for a quick-reference for bold and italics since they are in the tool bar above the edit box. Arranging for more stuff to be in the tool bar might be an alternative to some other quick-reference items, too, but it could be difficult to do, or awkward to use, for indentation and lists, etc. True I included a bit on signatures and that is in the toolbar. So maybe it wouldn't be in a permanent quick reference. Or it and some other things (maybe including bold and italics) could be simply mentioned as being on the tool bar. In fact, what I'm looking for is sort of a "tool bar supplement".

--SportWagon 23:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Based on your more recent edits, it looks like excessive linking a pet peeve of yours? It seems to me that linking only the initial use of a particular word/term/subject puts the onus on the reader, if they notice the term later in the article, to search for a previously-linked reference, which reference might not even exist. Either that, or they need to speculatively try the word by URL bashing, which can be awkward with multi-word terms, especially if capital letters are involved. What is the counter-argument to this reasoning? I find it difficult to believe that there are not at least some established Wikipedians who believe that in a hypertext Document each and every possible instance of a link should be made (which, of course, however, I didn't do either...).

After going away to read the current definition of "excessive linking", I find it's not readily findable from the Manual of Style [note I did not link that one!]. The Google search finds only usages which assume the definition. I'll start more discussion about other detailed points at Legends of Motorsport (discussion).--SportWagon 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excessive linking doesn't really bother me too much, but if I see it abused, I will edit it. In your case, I edited the article as an example to tell you about it.

I try to follow this manual. One very common mistake that people (whether new or experienced) make is they link individual years and months. Full dates, such as October 23, 2005 is OK. Generally, it's not necessary. It is not uncommon to link a word twice, rarely three times, in an article if, for example the first link is near the top of the article and again near the end where there's a subsection specifically focusing on that term.

In summary, creating too many links makes reading difficult and puts (unnecessary) attention on that word. Some of this is from the manual and some from my personal preference. But it's just a guideline... if it's broken, it's not a really big deal. Gflores ^Talk 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps at sometime this conversational section should be moved to my talk page; there seems to be some stuff worth keeping. I'll try to "archive" locally and let you know so it can be deleted. Using a world-wide shared data base for personal notes is not proper. :) No emoticons in WP, I take it?

But regarding the link controversy, people are seeing problems with the way links are rendered as problems with the links themselves. Suppose, for example, most or all links were invisible, i.e. indistinguishable from "normal" text until you moused over them? That might be true hypertext. True, some links are useful to indicate that understanding the term as explained in the reference is crucial to understanding your article, but provision could be made to indicate those. So I think the emphasis should be on creating styles which cause embedded links to be less distracting. Is accessibility for the visually impaired an issue, here (here at WP in general, and in the link controversy specifically), however?

That's actually a good idea. I really don't know how it could be remedied, in regards to visually impaired readers. You should talk to an admin about it because I think it's beyond my scope. There may also be some information on the talk page of the MoS. Gflores ^Talk 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot's running. I stopped after the first dozen conversions, on the off chance that I'm doing something incorrectly that I'm not aware of. If you could doublecheck these first few edits, I'd appreciate it.

What should I be doing when I find fields that aren't in the standard infobox (like the "Catalogue" entries on Colour by Numbers)? —Cryptic (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that was quick! Everything looks great to me, just a few minor things.

• If possible, if there is no last or next album, it should be left blank (instead of –).
• All Music Guide (AMG) should not be italicized since it is only a website, not a magazine, unlike Rolling Stone magazine. I also noticed a couple of albums with reviews from All Music Guide but weren't linked, see here. Perhaps you could do a quick check to see if the infobox contains an unlinked review from Allmusic.com and change it to AMG? It's not a big deal though.
• For the catalogue, I really don't know. I've never seen the catalogue in the infobox; most are in a different table near the bottom of the article. example. It's up to you...

Let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything. Thanks again. :) Gflores ^Talk 04:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good on you for getting the ball rolling on that infobox bot, you certainly are very pro-active. When you see a need for something either you do it or you organise to get it done. Things just get done when you're involved, it's a tremendous credit to you. --Qirex 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores, thank you for your reply to the above at Help Desk. With 200 mosques in our Malay language Wikipedia, I was thinking of using this feature to help navigate around in the Category page.

I have followed your link to the appropriate page, but it doesn't seems to work again. Can you help me see what the problem is. My page is at: http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Masjid. — PM Poon 14:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I have made the changes and it should work now, although it's not very helfpul at this point since there's only two different letters being used (D and M). I'm not sure what template you were using since it was in a foreign language. I just replaced it with the text for the CaTAZ template. If you would like to know exactly how I did this, and how you can create a template in your language to it, let me know, I'll be glad to help. :) Gflores ^Talk 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores, thank you very much for your kind assistance. It works perfectly now. :) — PM Poon 16:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores, it didn't seem to work when I modified it to remove the word "Masjid" (meaning "mosque") so that I can filter the name of the mosque by alphabet. Unlike in English where the word "mosque" is written at the back of the name, eg. "Acheh Mosque", it is reversed to read "Masjid Acheh" in the Malay language. Wonder whether sorting is allowed with more than one letter, as in "Masjid A" instead of just "A":

[((SERVER))((localurl:((NAMESPACE)):((PAGENAMEE))|from=Masjid A)) A]

—PM Poon 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't know. I've never seen a page being sorted like that, but it might be possible. Looks like you're going to have to post back at the Help Desk again. Alternately, you can post on an admin's talk page, they're usually knowledgeable in this sort of stuff. Sorry I could help. Gflores ^Talk 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Gflores, for being so helpful. One way is actually to use: [[Category:Mosque|Acheh, Mosque]] at the bottom of an article, but then again, when there are many users involved, some may not be able to follow. I will try to post it again. Thank you once again for being so kind. — PM Poon 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for improving the article The Waterboy. I had noticed while watching the movie that the article was very poor and put up a RfE that you seem to have answered. - User:Landon 03:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A RfE has been put up for End of Days... I myself haven't seen it, but I might go for it if its been left alone for 24 hours

Would you be interested in adminship? Given your high quality and consistent editing, I think that you would be great for adminship, which offer a benefits and conveniences, mainly the rollback button. While I'm not sure that you would use those powers very often considering that you are focused on article creation and not vandal fighting, I'm sure that it could definitely help you. You have a few of the criteria nailed down.

• Talking with other users in civil discussions
• Involved with many area of wikipedia
• 1500+ contributions
• Interest in things GNU, and open

Things you may need to work on

• edit summaries, even if it is a minor edit, you need to describe what you did most people voting look for >60%, though they do look at recent history.
• WP:AFD, you should spend a little time here and other "admin areas" even if you don't find that it isn't for you
• Many of the editors may criticize you for only contributing heavily within the last 3 months, so you may want to wait until January till you have your full 3+ months

This assumes that you have not done any vandalism in the last 2 months or so...Thanks for you all your contributions thusfar. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the gracious offer. As you said, I don't think I'd benefit greatly from having adminship powers, at least not right now. I currently plan on simply adding content to Wikipeida, but you're right, I do need to work on a few things (edit summaries, admin areas). Maybe next year I'll be ready and eager to be an admin. :) Thanks anyway. Gflores ^Talk 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Flores! Gracias for the vote. It's wierd that I've never seen you around! It's a pleasure to get to know about your edits. I see African theatre among the other edits related to Africa. I am wondering if you ever heard about Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. I also invite you to have a look at Gnawa and Gnawa music.

Apart from that, I see that you are a fan of Ronaldinho! I am a lifelong supporter of Barca (since 1980) and consider that player as one of the best 5 ever! Don't forget about Messi. Cheers -- Svest 03:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}Reply[reply]

I'm requesting your opnion about this dispute. Lot of POV-Pushing, the article is currently blocked. --GroundZero 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gflores, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the regex for the bad links project. However, it doesn't appear to catch the http links. I copied it straight and put it into AWB and it doesn't appear to work. See here... Transcendental meditation. Gflores ^Talk 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, actually it does work. There are just too many '\'s. \\[\\[http:\\/\\/(.*)\\]\\] -> \[\[http:\/\/(.*)\]\] . That works. However, it doesn't seem to catch these links. [[http://www.towandaonline.com Towanda Online]]. Also, could it be possible to instead of having 2 separate regexes, just to have one?

I wrote the regexs with the intent of having them implemented directly into the AWB's code. If put in the code, the extra \ "escapes" the following ones. Hence, it will work embedded in the AWB's code but not in the find and replace - plus, in the code, it can be two regexs. I'll try the link you gave me, with the regexs in AWB's code. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for the quick response! Gflores ^Talk 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tested the program, and it does fix the Towanda link. I'll implement the fix as soon as Bluemoose e-mails me the lastest source code. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, it does fix the Towanda link. Can you test this...

be [[http://www.dap.com/msds/79400.pdf less than half]] TSP.  

Thanks.

It works. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the AWB talk page, you expressed interest in a script to repair bad links. Well, I wrote one and sent it to Martin/Bluemoose. Martin uploaded the new version (1.6.3) about half an hour ago, so you can download it and use it to fix bad links. It fixes both bad internal and external links as per Wikipedia:Bad links - more specifically, it:

• Internal links
  • Fixes double spaces
  • Removes space at beginning
  • Removes space before "#"
  • (Note: Wikipedia:Bad links now lists a new item, space at end, that I just noticed - I'll write a regex for it ASAP.)
• External links
  • Fixes double "[[" (only, however, if it begins and ends with a double bracket - it doesn't fix uneven bracketing yet)
  • Replaces "|" with " "

Tell me if you notice the script malfunction. It can be accessed under the "general fixes" checkbox. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just sent Martin a new script. It fixes the space at the end of internal links, and fixes (surprisingly well!) uneven bracketing. I haven't heard back from him yet, but I think Martin will include it in the next version of AWB. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted this edit. Given your good history, I have to admit this addition surprised me; as written, your change suggests that it was somehow Ms. Richie's fault (or, at least, that it was somehow under her influence) that Lindsay lost that weight. While it's certainly possible, the inference as written is inflammatory at best, and libelous at worst. Would I be out of line to ask what you were thinking? RadioKirk talk to me 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bah, I've been reading too much gossip. Sorry, I really wasn't thinking. I'm going to refrain from editing the article from now on. My mistake, won't happen again. :) Gflores ^Talk 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't see that you need to refrain from editing; POV doesn't always hit us immediately, and I've been guilty of it, as well. I do try, though, to read carefully over my edits from all possible sides, especially from the standpoint of what (or who) influences what. So do you. We all get in a hurry, or something similar :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for backing me up on Typo. If you ever need me to return the favor, don't hesitate to ask. If you like, you may delete this after reading it. Chris the speller 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gflores, your knowledge is needed, at WP:ALBUMS. There is currently a disscussion here to convert all of the star graphics in infoboxes to text, and we are wondering on how to progress forward. Your comment on this plan would be useful, and if you think it's something good to do, can your bot do it? Nooby_god | Talk 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your support despite that one flaw you noted. It was actually a pretty bad reference just as far as the actual material went, so I re-worded the sentence and re-ref'd it. I realize you already voted support, and thank you, but I figured I'd let you know. Staxringold 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to give this to you earlier when it looked like you would finish the entire list yourself but held off until the list was closer to completion. Now it looks like you have moved on to bigger and better things but you still deserve this barnstar for the incredible work you have done. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I doubt your contributions about album information would be have been deleted, after all just because something is a stub is not reason enough for it's removal. All the albums were noteworthy for one reason or another with verifiable information available at allmusic. Nonetheless I understand why you have moved to other projects and you don't need to justify it. Change is good. All the best --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much, and thanks for your vote! I included a thank you on the talk page as well! :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added today three items to the list of portable apps that you started a while ago. I have doubts about my additions and gave the reason in the discussion page. Would you mind taking a look and giving some feed back? Thanks. Vale, Lcgarcia 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work!--Rockero420 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen several, but my favorite is el Bolero de Raquel (el Bolero de Ravel). It's based on the composer's work, at least phonetically, and Cantinflas definitely deservad a greater article. I'm glad my contributions were conserved, but I'm even gladder that the maestro had a much better article. 8)--Rockero420 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA candidate

Here is a book you may want to check out: Pilcher, Jeffrey M., Cantinflas and the chaos of Mexican modernity. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, c2001. ISBN 0842027696 or ISBN 0842027718. There is also a chapter dedicated to Cantinflas and Tin-Tan in Mexico’s cinema : a century of film and filmmakers edited by Joanne Hershfield and David R. Maciel. ISBN 0842026819 and ISBN 0842026827I prefer book sources over internet sources, and I wouldn't be surprised if other editors did too, although I don't know what actual Wikipedia policy is. If you can't find the first one, I'll check it out from my library and commit to helping out. PAZ,--Rockero420 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the chapter on Cantinflas and Tin-Tán yesterday. It was amazing (except for the uneasy translation). I laughed and cried. There is a lot of good info there, too. And did you know that Cantinflas wrote a book? I believe it is a novel version of his film "Su Excelencia." We'll have to add this stuff to the article. I couldn't get my hands on the Pilcher text but now I definitely want to help get this article to FA status. There is enough criticism and film analysis to have a solid, well-sourced, and interesting article. PAZ, --Rockero420 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah there was stuff in the Monsiváis essay (the chapter of Mexico's cinema) that wasn't in the article yet, and I actually got the Pilcher book today. So I'll see what I can do this weekend. Thx for the invite.--Rockero420 02:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Imona try putting a director column in the table, just revert it if it doesn't work out.--Rockero420 06:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screen shots are PD, but we can only use one per article. Movie posters are fair use, so that one should be fine, although I notice that the film advertised, Cantinflas en el Teatro, is not listed on his filmography. The book I have says the only film of his carpa days is Aguila o Sol, which also featured Medel, so I wonder if there aren't some other films of those days around somewhere. Anyways, things like non-PD or non-fair use images can impede an article from reaching FA status, so we may need to do something about that. The image from the infobox we can probably pass of as a publicity shot (also falling under fair use). We also need to get my citations/footnotes into line with yours. I tried not to mess with your system too much, but I did have to move some things around, so some changes may be necessary. Do you want me to tell you the names and page numbers of my citations, or do you want me to figure out how to put them in? Are we distinguishing between citations and footnotes? Between web sources and book sources? Do you know what standard practice for that is?--Rockero420 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just got your message. I'll add the references in when I get home from work today. Glad you enjoyed the music. 8)--Rockero420 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What up. I couldn't quit figure out the reference system. The only one I've used (in Estela Ruiz) was endnotes, and I don't know if your system is different just because it's all web sources or what. So I decided to just put the references in using Chicago style, and hoping that you or someone else would be able to integrate then into the current format, but since I was citing quotations that I had formatted as blockquotes, it placed the parenthetical information on the next line down instead of right after the quote. So I just used the basic endnote style, but I doubt that it is a standard format. I had two main difficulties: Your citations are in footnotes, which are all web sources. The formatting is different than it is for citing book references. On the edit screen, they are not numbered. This seems to be a problem resulting from my lack of knowledge of citation formats and from the mixed Footnote/Reference organization. The second problem I had was that some of the quotes (which I'm afraid may now be overkill at this point) are quotes themselves. I tend to prefer citing the original source, which would entail digging up those books and finding the page numbers. I haven't done that yet, so in the meantime, I wanted to do something like "(Novo, quoted in Monsivais)". So far pretty much everything I've added is from that essay. I haven't even crackd the Pilcher yet. But it seems like we're pretty well on our way once we get some of these issues resolved. There's not much resistance yet. So see if you can integrate my citations, or maybe just point me to where I can figure out yours, and I'll try a crack at it. I'd like to avoid any major reorganizations (as far as refs and citations go), but if that's what it takes to get it to FA status, I'm willing to work with you on it.--Rockero420 07:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Que pasa G? I'll have to get the Novo book tomorrow at the lib and find that page number then. But talk about coincidences. I went to go visit my sister who just moved back from Colorado this weekend and she has pictures for me. One of them is of her sitting beside Cantinflas' star on the Walk of Fame. Crazy, huh? Which reminds me, we should probably put the date of when he got that star. But do you think we should upload it? I can crop her out if that's an issue. If we do have to take out one of the screenshots (and I say this because when you go to Wikipedia's upload page, under the PD section (which screenshots fall under), it says "only one per article"), it might be nice to have a backup. As far as breaking up the intro, I just got scolded for having "blcks of text" the other day, which one editor described as "boring". Personally, I don't see "blocks of text" as a particularly negative thing to be avoided. It seems like pandering to the lowest common denominator. After all, books are almost entirely "blocks of text". Does that make them boring? Apparently so to some people. I can see the need for it when paragraphs are thematically distinct, but in an intro, the focus is narrow: introduce the subject. But since it is Wikipedia policy (I looked it up), we should maybe try to oblige. Take a stab if you like, or I will see what I can do tomorrow. One final thing: during my last re-read, the paragraph on his influence on Chicano teatro was really bugging me. It just didn't seem concise. I don't remember if I wrote it or not, but if it were more fluid I think it'd improve our chances on getting it to FA. Paz, pues,--Rockero420 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RuneWelsh has made some excellent comments. I think we ought to take the union stuff out of the personal life and film career sections and write a "sindicalismo" section. The story about the meeting with Avila Camacho is a pretty good one. Oh and do you think we can find a PD image of the Rivera mural? That would be awesome... I want to read the real Bio and do some clarifications, as well as trimming down the References section (some of those books aren't used as refs.) In the meantime, you may want to see what you can do with RW's criticisms. (Oh yeah I forgot to mention on the FA page that I have a definition for "peladito" too.)--Rockero420 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What up G. First, about the breaking off of the name section. I shouldn't really mind it, because it seems to go along with Wikipedia's (unwritten?) convention of "pandering to the lowest common denominator", which is to say, that the articles should forthrightly answer people's basic questions about certain subjects (in this case, a lot of people probably wonder how he got his name more than anything else), even when those answers don't fit into the article logically. I happen not to agree with the "policy", but this is a group collaboration, so compromise is necessary. But I am a big fan of the chronological narrative. I find that when a story is told chronologically, it makes the type of sense that appeals to the logical mind and it greatly reduces the chance that facts/aspects of the subject are repeated in the article.

Secondly, I know someone said on the talkpage that "no piece of information is too trivial for Wikipedia". I tend to disagree. The song by the punk band is not about Cantinflas; it just mentions him. If there were a trivia section, it might belong there, but since there isn't, I don't think it enhances the article at all. Oh and I had subsectioned the part about Yo Colón because it was a theatrical run, and didn't really fit into under the "film career" heading. We might have to work something out about that.

I haven't made much progress in the Pilcher bio yet, but already I can tell that much is missing. For example: The difference/overlap/conflation between Moreno and Cantinflas, (negative) criticism (there was plenty), and his interpretation of the masculine gender role (not the typical macho, etc). And I think more elaborate comparisons/contrasts between him, Groucho, and Chaplin are warranted. What did you think of the star shot? Like I said, I wouldn't mind trimming it down or removing it, unless the community likes it. And what did you think about RuneWelsh's comments? Well, I'm back to work. Stay up.--Rockero420 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy; thanks for being the first person to write on my talk page. That was neat to receive. Wesmills 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now what's that story about the boy who called wolf?  :). Thanks for letting me know about it though --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick question...do you feel that balance for the Patriots article should be attained by trimming the Belichick Era section, or expanding the other ones? Deckiller 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=Nods=-, it doesn't need to be noted, especially becuase there is already mention of the drop kick. Deckiller 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I removed that wikilink. Thanks for the review! Deckiller 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed that second paragraph entirely, since the information is covered in the article. Do you feel that the lead should be larger? Deckiller 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's so hard to write lead sections for these types of articles. I've seen some FA ones with 1-2 paragraph leads, and others with like 5. I don't think it will matter too much in the long run. Deckiller 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi!

I noticed that you put a comment on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Computer science about the need to improve the quality of the Computer science article, as well as CS articles in general. Not surprisingly, you're not the only one who has those views. If you're interested, you're more than welcome to join the discussions about how to achieve those goals over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. We could definitely use some more project participants to help us get CS articles up to a level approaching the math ones. --Allan McInnes 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, do you think I should start a FA vote for the Patriots article this weekend? Deckiller 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-=nods=- The only gaping hole I see is the lead, which is one of my achilles' heals. Deckiller 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was bored, so I decided to fix up some minor errors and start the FAC debate. That way, if there's objections, I can fix them while sitting around doing nothing ^_^ Deckiller 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you've started making edits to the WP CS project page (BTW, thank you for your additions) I've gone ahead and added your name to the list of participants. If this is a problem, feel free to remove it again. --Allan McInnes 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores,

Just wanted to say thanks for helping out on Work via WikiProjects, I really appreciate a third person sharing the load. Cheers, Walkerma 07:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've posted a full response about a "to do" list on the subproject talk page. Cheers, Walkerma 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great! That's an awful lot of work, I know. If I were you, I wouldn't contact any other groups for a couple of weeks at least, because you may (hopefully) have an avalanche of articles coming in. If the lists are short (<20 articles) I think it's good to list the assessments on our page so we can review them all at once without having to click around a lot (esp. as those talk pages get archived). We can do that with the Pokemon list, I think "exemplary" = A and "good" = B at a quick glance. With the video games list, it's too much to transfer over, so just link it. Walkerma 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you asked about a collaboration of the month for the Wikipedia version 1.0 team. My attention span isn't that long. What would you think of doing one every week? Do you think we'd get other people? Thanks. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 07:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you have some good comments. I started a rudimentary Core Topics COTW at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTW. We can see how it goes. Thanks. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Thanks a lot for contacting all of the WP1.0 people about the new COTW. Just wanted to let you know that I contacted User:Sj here, he may know how the tree idea could be made (a) prettier and (b) more efficient, if necessary by introducing some new code. BTW, he's one of the main organisers of this year's Wikimania, and also he & are are working together on a panel about wikis in academia. Regarding the direction of the project, that is of course up to us, though as a brief summary I would say something like:

1. Find suitable articles (Criteria: quality, and importance of topic) in level 1 (core topics), level 2 and at least level 3.
2. Organise the articles in a meaningful way
3. Fill in any important gaps in level 1 and maybe 2 if we can
4. Get the publication issues sorted (Print, CD, DVD, or all three, what software to use with it, etc.)
5. Issue an alpha test (V0.5?), get feedback
6. Issue a beta test (V0.8?), get feedback
7. Issue V1.0

I think that if we can get people motivated, including people like yourself who are willing to consider it a major part of the Wikiwork, we can get to 0.5, maybe even 0.8, before the end of the year. Once WikiSort comes on line (supposedly any day now, but they've been saying that for weeks), we may start to get deluged with user assessments. I think we're getting well into #1, and we need to start working on #2 and #3 (the new COTW of course helps with the latter). In fact 1, 2 and 3 are all interrelated - when we organise a subject area we may then need to start tracking down certain sets of articles. If Sj or someone else can get a nice version of the tree, or we come up with some better alternative, then I think that would greatly help with #2. Do you see the project differently? Please elaborate. Busy in the lab today, 3 students working away so I'd better get on. Cheers, Walkerma 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a good tree could be a useful microproject in itself. I would start by researching what kinds of trees other information-organization projects have taken on. We need a Meta-1.0 project which addresses

1. Some definition of the scope of the total body of work
2. Criteria for evaluating the completeness of a 'mesh' of the available content (separately in breadth and depth)
3. Some order-of-magnitude estimate of the branching # and depth of a good tree (start small, then grow in both dimensions)
4. A simple notion of ways to link tree nodes together (conceptual symlinks, or just associations between reltaed nodes)

Examples of projects with similar ambitions : EB's Propaedia, classification schemas (each miserable in its own way, but each worth learning from), ...

+sj + 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again - sorry, for some strange reason I missed clicking on your link to this page. I like it a lot. BTW, I don't think you are capable of rambling, unlike yours truly...., there I go again! I think you & I are pretty much in agreement on how things should go, we should take our ideas to the main project talk page for discussion. I think the main project page is a mess - it was written at a time when nothing was happening, and we were trying to get something going. We couldn't even debate things like the size in a meaningful way. Now things are moving, and so things like a road map and a projected size should go on there, once we agree. Meanwhile, Sj has made some great points that we probably need to discuss. Walkerma 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i was just trying to help Jakken 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And by the way how did you figure that out? Jakken 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You dont get it do you? Jakken 03:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

every major change or edit i have ever done has been copyed and pasted and i deserve to be banned for it and now you are going to have to delete many thing i have ever done. and if you are wondering why i told you it is because someone should know. Jakken 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Now, time to go do some more edits... —Slicing (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working with a friend to get a table of contents set up for the article: Student_Linguistics_in_IIT_Kharagpur and it isn't working. Can you help us set this up? TIA. Arundhati_bakshi 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the assistance. :) And for letting me know where the helpme tag should go.

I think we can manage to do the list now after your help. Someone marked it for deletion anyway, so it may not last. But thanks for your help! I appreciate it.

Nice work on the museums reorganization. It clarifies a lot - especially what is missing. Hopefully some people will pick up on the to do list, too. Why did you choose this entry? Given your interests, it doesn't seem to fit? Also, are you really soliciting recommendations for Latin American music? Bruxism 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, you gave me too much to answer to.  :-( But you're right, museum should be unpgraded. About this Wikipedia 1.0 thing, I just looked over the List of basic topic lists and I'm stunned that critical theory, which is an analytical tool used by less than 1% of the people on the planet - and a relatively recent invention - is considered a basic topic, while folklore, which, like language, sex, cuisine is used by 100% of the world and has existed for millennia (and may comprise 99% of the literature in world history if one includes oral literature), is not. So, first question, where do I go to make this case? The talk page there? It should at the very least be one of the 1000. Second, about music, do you know Los Fabulosos Cadillacs? Third, about Jeopardy!, thanks; but I lost. Actually, right now I am more amazed I was able to put together a userbox on it. Curious to see if anyone discovers it. Bruxism 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. Let's see what happens. And please tell me what you think of Los Fabulosos Cadillacs. Also, for that matter, do you know Café Tacuba? Bruxism 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for writing. Yeah, eclectic is right. Listening to them is like having a lesson in every rhythm of the Americas. Be sure to listen to "Matador" if you haven't already. I know what you mean also about Café Tacuba, it took me a lot longer to like them. Unfortunately, I don't understand the lyrics. :( Bruxism 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. Good to hear from another BRPS graduate.

Qrk 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm Dan... I graduated in '04 and I was in your AP Spanish Class. Its a very tiny world, isn't it.

Qrk 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores,

A few things:

1. You probably saw my "roadmap" posting on the 1.0 talk page, and like most people thought "I don't have time for that now." However your views are very important for the 1.0 project IMHO, I wouldn't want us to set any policy without your input. Basically I'm asking- (a) Should we go α -> β -> 1.0? (b) How big (#articles) should each stage be? (c) What besides articles goes in (lists, etc.) and (d) How do we get there?
2. With hindsight I should have asked you before I posted your roadmap (which I really like). I apologise if you meant to keep that tucked away.
3. "Are lists included?" seems to be a recurring question (see Cricket right above this, also here. Your answer to (c) above would help us to set this as policy- I think personally that lists need to be in, and I think Maurreen feels the same way.
4. You tagged "Science Pearls" as inactive, but this is a kind of umbrella project. Some of the sub-projects are very active, see for example the chem discussion page. Do you mind if I remove the inactive tag?

Thanks for all your hard work on Antarctica, I'm a bit sick this week so I'm being quite unproductive at the moment. Cheers, Walkerma 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, thanks for responding so quickly and for activating Science Pearls. There is a very well-argued method for validation done by TidyCat here. After we knock it around a bit to get the details right, we could probably add that on to our plans for WP1.0. Of course like the Stable Versions idea, it or something like it needs to get adopted....

Yes, by alpha etc. I was referring to the DVD or similar release, not individual articles. I think we are all a little confused about the goals, that's why this project has stalled in the past. My recent posting was in fact initiated by your request some weeks ago requesting a roadmap. But I try to remember that WE are Wikipedia, so the goals are what WE want them to be. What I want to do is to get some kind of consensus so we don't all pull in different directions. Once we get that consensus, we will need to just say, "This is what we plan to do" and get on with it. Fundamentally there seem to be two main views of 1.0; either a small selection of Core Topics Plus of good articles (FAs or at least A), or a German-style mass dump onto CC/DVD/paper. Quality or quantity first? Let's pick a roadmap then start driving! Cheers, Walkerma 22:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick response.

Nice work on putting together WikiProject Computer science/WP1.0! Should be a valuable resource. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Deckiller 03:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, some of the images are hanging into other sessions. I think that there needs to be some BR clear or some further placement changes. Deckiller 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I kind of rebel against is more the use of an animal pic in the "Flora" section than anything else, though I also tried to solve the other comment about text between two pictures (which I believe makes sense, although can be mitigatedby smallerpics.) Circeus 19:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message; I'll reply on the FAC page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gracias, querido G! ;) There's nothing to thank for - let's thank all of us for taking the task in our hands, and strive to make it great. I'm so happy to have you aboard, and I know that, with hard working and nice people like you, we will make it! ;) Besos, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you just blank your userpage? It's not Wikisuicide, is it? Deckiller 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that Pink Floyd is now a featured article. Thanks a ton for supporting the candidacy, and starting me on the path for the article's inline citations, which was by far the largest part of the work that needed to be done. - dharmabum 23:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you're aware or not, but the discussion in which you participated on this page has now been moved to this one. I have taken the liberty to vote on your behalf, based upon the input you provided at the previous page. If you feel I have not represented you correctly, or if you would like to remove your vote for any other reason, please do not hesitate to do so. Thanks - MightyMoose22 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I got the header style from Phil, lol. Anyway, glad to see you back. I look forward to breaking the 10k edit barrier:) Deckiller 19:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^_^ thanks for the message! Deckiller 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar! It made me very happy today! Sarum blue 15:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Gflores, I've been working on my edit summary. It's getting up there, and it's becoming second nature! Deckiller 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they will come for you in your sleep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Testthewater (talk • contribs).

Thanks for your kind words! Nach0king 09:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores and thank you very much for your message.

This work might not be prticularly exciting but someone needs to do ;-) It's good to see how active are people and the list is going down every day. I was wondering if there is any semi automatic bot that can help with this (I'm have computing background but I don't trust automatic bots). What I want to do is to go through all ambig pages and make sure they confimt to MoS. I had a randon look and many of them don't.

Cheers. Mahanchian 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've asked for registration for AWB but still not listed on the page. How long does it take to become registered? Mahanchian 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work with Antarctica! Deckiller 22:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me second that - you did a phenomenonal job to turn a stub into an FA inside a couple of weeks! I still don't know how you managed to do it, and to write everything so beautifully too, though I've seen in the past how amazingly productive you can be when you get going. We have an 2005 Encyclopedia of Antarctica in our library ref section (I can't take it out), so I plan to fill out the areas (geology and tourism) that could use some attention. Congratulations! Walkerma 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the date mixup on the M-Clan page! I never noticed that rule before.

Hiberniantears 12:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still learning how to be polite :) --Elrafael 22:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the welcome note... and the links. Appreciate it. LookNorth 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you were involved with nominating Deckiller for adminship and would like to extend my offer again to nominate you. It looks like you have expanded your field doing other things around wikipedia other than content creation and have started doing more edit summaries. Good admins are always needed and I think you would be one. If not I wish you well and hope to see your good work around elsewhere. All the best --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, I'll write up the nom. You should be nominated tonight or tomorrow. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll have my strong support of course! Deckiller 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry this took so long. My power went out and this was my first opportunity to do so. I'm touched to see my name listed among your friends; you are certainly mine. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'm still an amateur compared to you, but I'm learning. Cheers, Melchoir 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry for not reverting your good changes along with certain inaccuracies in this edit. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy crap! Are you really reviewing *every* disambiguation page? You are an editor of infinite patience and resolve. I would join you in this quest but I have a bit of a headache today... :-( Also, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images for some discussion about why no one seems to know what to do with Corn. Ewlyahoocom 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Thanks a lot for the barnstar the other day - a first for me! Glad you like the Antarctica stuff, took a while to get time to do it! I plan on adding some more on the modern geology at the weekend. I agree with you about information - a page like copper(I) chloride is easy to write, but even adding a paragraph to humanities is difficult because you're dealing with opinions and nuances of meaning. There isn't even a clear definition of what the humanities are! I'm reading a book on the subject (then another after that), I think if it's outside your own area you have to really immerse yourself in it to get the right meaning. I appreciate anything you can get done on technology, though. That Manske link is very interesting. Validation is something I'm getting very interested in, and I'll probably email you some ideas next week.

Regarding your proposal on WP 1.0 I'd be very excited to see that. I was planning to do exactly the same thing myself over the next few days - we have our spring break, and I expect to have a bit more time to work on Wikipedia. I think that you, me and Maurreen all need to thrash out some kind of consensus between us. You can get a lot of my opinions here. The main WP:1.0 page currently reflects the situation when I was trying to resurrect the project last September - it basically says, "Here are four approaches that have been talked about many times over, let's try putting them into practice." Now all four projects are up & running, and significant progress has been made in some, so I think the main project page needs to be changed to reflect that. We need to:

• Have the four subprojects described as they are now, not how we planned them to be 6 months ago.
• Give a roadmap to publication.
• Set up any new subprojects to help organise the next stages.

I think Maurreen is hesitant about moving forward until every core topic is at least B-Class, but IMHO we have to have several things going in parallel if we are going to get anything published in a reasonable time. Some people want to work on Core Topics, others are more interested in FAs, and if we set up any new subprojects they may attract new people or reawaken interest from "sleeping" members. I have seen that on Wikipedia, if you set up the infrastructure for a good project, then people will usually start using that infrastructure.

I know that at times you (and I!) have felt frustrated about slow progress in some areas, but I know that on WP:Chem I posted ideas for months that only seemed to be read by myself (I was one of two members). Then quite unexpectedly the project took off (now 22 members ~1 yr later, and many are active!). I think that if we lay down some clear goals and a roadmap to get there, we may have to wait a while but interest in WP1.0 will explode - and we will need to make sure that we have good infrastructure in place for when it does. I see WP 1.0 mentioned a lot on talk pages now - and contacting all the WikiProjects is helping us to "advertise" the project to many active editors who don't hang out at WP:GA and the like. Once people think it is taking off, many will want to get involved.

I see that you are up for RfA - I will of course support you, though part of me would hate to lose your amazing contributions. Some of our best editors and contributors seem to end up spending hours dealing with wheel wars or sockpuppets instead of writing articles - I hope we don't "lose" the writer of Antarctica and one of most active 1.0 people. Good luck, anyway, and thanks, Walkerma 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPDATE: I have replied to your reply on my own talk page - it was simplest to insert my comments after each paragraph of your comments. Enjoy spring break! Walkerma 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that I have stabilised following the surgery, my mental strength has recovered and I have been interacting with more people. Trying to cross the generational divide without upsetting too many people is a challenge and, with the DAB issue, it was my failure to be tactful. Young people today... But thank you for your kind thoughts. David91 16:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this trespasses too much on an acquaintance of one day, I will not mind if you do not advise. I seem to have run into a problem with Battered woman syndrome. An editor who will not discuss reasons, wishes to change the legal term of art into either the medical "battered person syndrome" or a term of his/her own devising "Battered syndrome". It is obviously a concern over sexism whereas actually the lawyers are using the syndrome to counter specific gender bias in the way the law works (ironic in a way). If I am being childish in resisting a change away from the term used by almost all the published literature, just say so and I will walk away. Dispassionate advice would be welcomed. David91 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because of age and the fact of being house bound, I no longer meet with people and so have no sense of prevailing sensibilities on gender issues/political correctness. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to evaluate the situation and place the infobox. David91 03:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores. I was astounded the other day when I found out that you weren't already an admin. I've crossed your work quite a lot in the last few months, and have been impressed. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. By the way, I don't know how you'll feel in a few days, but I feel incredibly guilty sending-out all this spam. I wasn't bold enough to break the convention, but maybe you will be. ×Meegs 08:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! Sorry I haven't been around for a while. Trying to straighten out my life, etc. Maurreen 19:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on Antarctica. Maurreen 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oH my goodness this is so complicated, I didn't know where to write a thank you note. I hope you didn't mind me putting those comments about Leo Dan, he is one of my favorite singers since I was a baby, literaly...I hope to talk to you soon! take care

• 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! -- Francs2000 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felicitaciones, G.--Rockero 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! Walkerma 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats! Hope you are enjoying the sun somewhere! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Congrats! Enjoy your newly acquired responsibility. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Congrats!!!! Deckiller 20:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well done! -- Natalya 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Congrats - nice and fine, and all the best. --Bhadani 17:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats on the AFD, and thanks for the note on my talk page your welcome. And now that I think of it there are somethings I needs: a new car, i'd love a burger right now, perhaps a beer?? Thanks a lot and good luck, god speed. Mike _{(T C)} 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, congrats...how many copies of your note are you planning to leave on my talk page?  ;-) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats from me too, even though I only got one copy of the note :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, congratulations. Enjoy your mop and bucket. :) - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations Gflores, good luck --Ugur Basak 11:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations Gflores! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on the new status. Good luck :-) --Tone 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, and all the best. --Bhadani 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 14:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see you back. Hope you had a nice break. Maurreen 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Welcome back from your break. Can you take a look at my proposed main page for WP 1.0? Also see AtionSong's comments here. I hope to update the page soon barring objections.

By the way, Mav has retroactively removed most of his objections to the Antarctica FAC. Cheers, Walkerma 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats! Speaking of which....you know what :) — Deckiller 02:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy to consult me on this topic instead of simply reverting as 'dab guardians' often do, I must confess I rarely have the patience to do so myself, pleading only that I need my wiki-time for content-contributions and very rarely (or on occasion unknowingly) take it on myself to destroy any content (except the obviously absurd, vanity entries or vandalism), which is the one thing I absolutely cannot stand as a Wikipedian. And that is the crux of my attitude, on disambig as well as content pages: the primary concern is to get the content accessible to the reader, as the golden rule nine, 'last but not least', of the DAB 'manual' implies. Therefore I don't really care how it looks, nor if it's longer then ordinary, as long as it's complete (so I mean to revert any edit that simply deletes relevant information, even if it's not very elegant to load a disambiguation branch with a definition of stub-size) and in the case of a disambiguation at the very least provides enough information for the reader to pick the relevant branch, not just if he was diverted here by a link from a page that provided ample context, but also for someone who doesn't know the definitions yet and has a right to learn them from the encyclopaedia without having to try say seven branches. I don't know what exactly you mean by 'create' a disambig, since Junta already is one, but I guess something like bunch all the institutional stuff up in one -Junta (institution)?- or two -say Junta (dictatorship) and Junta (board)- and leave the miscellanea under a 'mother-dab' Junta (by the way, it's beyond me what janata is doing here, a red link I probably will tun into a new disambig, for which there's no apparent content link, nor even homophony)- if so, I don't see the point: we would have the same definition problems, but now spread over several pages, which is why I don't lean to those options as the reader has to make another choice in advance of learning what from; if brevity is a must you can't concede on, those seem to be your alternatives, and yet I would suggest the single institutional 'daughter dab' rather then two as long as there is no separate page on dictatorial juntas, which is probably an undesirable massive overlap with military dictatorship. Obviously things may have to be reconsidered if someone creates another relevant content page beyond the 'large stub' size, say on the administrative Junta/Jointe, but my guess is that may be quite a while. Sorry if we probably still don't see eye to eye, but I'ld feel like a sheepish hypocrit if I dropped my content concerns for any formal consideration. Fastifex 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have reverted Men to Man. I had removed the redirect to enable a link to "Multiple endocrine neoplasia" also known as MEN; MEN1; MEN2A; MEN2B. I, and some other users, had spent some time searching for this article when we only had MEN as the description of the disease. Please give some consideration to this point of view. Regards Oldfarm 02:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the fast response. I am a relative newcomer and am not sure how to implement the suggestion (which seems ok to me) Oldfarm 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, now I see how it is done. Thanks again Oldfarm 02:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Also, how does one become a member of a WikiProject? --Hyphen5 06:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last question, I promise! I'm looking through the userboxes. Why does the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs section have a warning by Jimbo discouraging the use of those userboxes? --Hyphen5 06:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Can you elaborate? I really want to use a couple of them. What's so bad about them? What was controversial? Am I gonna get in trouble or something?
2. So, I should just add myself to the Members section of a WikiProject to become a member?
3. How do you archive the talk page? Does it do this automatically or do I have to do it manually?

Thanks! --Hyphen5 06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realize it's a form posting, but I do appreciate it. Thanks again! I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, did you like the cake I gave Deckiller? When it's your birthday, I'll give a different cake, but of the same delicious kind as well—promise :). When is it? —Mirlen 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patience, patience—I'll get you a yuumy one ^_^. —Mirlen 21:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome, Mahanga, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Fetofs ^Hello! 22:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yay, you're in EA now! — Deckiller 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome! — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Gflores^Talk 05:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for blocking that IP who vandalised the Adam Daifallah article. Garion96 ^(talk) 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I'm here for. :) Gflores^Talk 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your welcome for the vote, I would vote for any user as exceptional and friendly as you and good luck in the future! -- Patman2648 20:12 28 March 2006

I have noticed that you have made a few edits to the Homer Simpson article this week. Coincidentally, I also noticed that you made an edit to the Physical disambiguation page. I have been working on disambiguation link repair (You can help!), specifically on that page. What a coincidence. Hehe. J. Finkelstein 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't want to discourage the poor chap; he means well. What should we say to him? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too late, it seems we have. :( —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy call: Reply to you at my talk page. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help! Wikipedia:Citing sources is quite complex. I feel like I need to switch my major to "Wikipedia"! :)

So a follow-up, if I may. :) The "Works detailing tournament Scrabble" section describes the book "Word Freak". I also use the book as a source. Should it be in both places? With ISBN?

Thanks again! Sarah crane 17:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. You're the best! Sarah crane 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the help Anonymous anonymous 17:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks from me too. RicDod 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be less daunted now that I've seen it done. Thank you. -Dmacf 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)·Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed you contributed recently to this article. I just wanted to thank you for your input and introduce myself.

PS Are you by any chance a Deke?

Canadian Caesar 04:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard you're pretty good with regex. Can you create a regex that removes the links a page. For example, it'll change Foo into Foo. It will also change American ([[United States|American]]) into American. This is for disambig cleanup. Also, [[America]]n should be changed accordingly. Dabs should only have minimal links, per the guideline. I have a few other minor requests that maybe you can do for me, if you have time (such as removing bolded text ('''). Let me know if this requires more explanation. Thanks. Gflores^Talk 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing which may make it more difficult. I was wondering if it could ignore the first link at the beginning of the sentence. For example, Amiga (disambiguation). It will not do anything for the first link... note, it's not the first thing in the line, it's actually a '*', then the link. In this case, it's "*" then "'''" then "[[" then "term" then "]]" . (ignore the quotes). However, not all of them are bolded and there isn't always a link at the beginning of the sentence. Dab pages vary a lot unfortunately, but if the regex works for 60% of them, that'd be great. Gflores^Talk 18:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I understand, you want to go to a disambig page and remove all links except the first in each line. For example, on Amiga (disambiguation), you would remove record label, 1994, etc on the last line. This would pose a few problems. For example, since the link is not always the first word, the regex would delink all but the first link on each line. However, on line one of Amiga, you would want to delink the first link. Therefore, maybe it's better to assume that all "good" links appear first and then you can do the rest manually afterwards. Secondly, will you be using AWB for these regex fixes? I'll start working on the regexes now and I'll get back to you with them later after I get more info from you about the specifics. Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I almost forgot - belated congrats on your RfA! --M@thwiz2020 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, assume the first link is good even though that won't always be the case and delink the rest. I can manually correct any errors. I won't be doing it using AWB, although I can if need be. I use an firefox extension for my search and replace (regex). A few more examples [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, if it's possible, remove all bolded words. The regex doesn't have to be perfect, I can clean up what it doesn't do. Thanks! Gflores^Talk 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my progress here. I can't seem to get the Apache link on the last line right! One more thing that might make me have to change the regexes: can you give me a link to the extension you're using? I want to test out my regexes in that extension since sometimes different regex scripts work differently. --M@thwiz2020 22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm using a bookmarklet here. I can use AWB if it'll make things easier for you. Gflores^Talk 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to go somewhere soon so I'll continue this tomorrow, but how do you install the bookmarklet? --M@thwiz2020 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bookmarklet. To install it, add 'searchtextarea' to your bookmarks and then click on it when you want to open it and a window will appear with search and replace, etc. Firefox may block it as a popup though, so be sure to let it open. Gflores^Talk 01:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, odd. When I click the bookmarklet, nothing happens. (Well, when I click it on this page I get Firefox's popup-blocker warning, but when I bookmark the javascript and click that, nothing happens.) --M@thwiz2020 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what to say. It works for me. You may have to add wikipedia and that site to your exceptions list in Firefox preferences or disable pop-up blocking altogether (temporarily) for it to work. Does the regex work on AWB? I could just use that, it's no problem. Gflores^Talk 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silly me. It does work, but only when I'm on the edit page. I kept trying it when I wasn't editing and it wasn't working, but when I clicked on "edit this page" and clicked the bookmark, voila! I'll try to perfect the regexes as soon as I can - I just have to iron out that one problem. --M@thwiz2020 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got it! It took me a while to figure out the discrepancies between AWB and your bookmarklet (for example, AWB calls the first subexpression $1 but the bookmarklet starts with $2), but I finally got it! There is just one more bug I want to fix but don't have to (my regexes make it so that it only corrects the second link in each line so, for example, if there are five links in a line you have to run it four times). I'll work on that problem and then give you the regexes. --M@thwiz2020 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could make a regex that would do everything in one run - however, such a regex would delink all links that do not come immediately after the *, even if they are first (so * ''[[Hello]]'' would be delinked even though it's first). I have a regex that will never delink first links, but you have to run it multiple times. Each time, it will remove the last link in each line until there is only one link in each line. I could probably write a javascript bookmarklet that would run it multiple times automatically and will if you ask. If you want to know, I can also explain why you have to run it multiple times, but I won't explain that now. Anyways, chatter aside, here are the regexes:

This removes the bold tags:
Search: '''
Replace: (nothing)
Replace till end selected (the rest of the options don't matter)

This removes the links:
Search: (.*?\[\[.*?\]\].*)\[\[([^\]\|]*?\|)?(.*?)\]\]
Replace: $2$4
Replace till end '''must''' be selected (just regular "replace" doesn't work for some reason)
Other options: regex on, wrap off, find in all doesn't matter

If it doesn't work, just tell me and I'll fix it in a few million jiffies (with each jiffy being 1/100th of a second, so one million jiffies is 166.6 minutes, almost three hours). --M@thwiz2020 17:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed you are on a Wikibreak, you may already be back, but either way I hope it is/was relaxing! :) -- Natalya 16:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores, I notice you did a significant cleanup of the Manifold (disambiguation) page. Thanks for your efforts, but I just wanted to check one thing; was the removal of the link to the diving regulator article from the scuba-context line intentional? If so, why? Thanks. David Scarlett 09:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I read some of CITE, and I tried adding in cites for Northrop Grumman, but I can't get it to work. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Can you help me? TIA Sarah crane 16:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, I got it working. Thanks anyway. Sarah crane 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! You were right, it's important to show both sides. It's just hard to find on the internet. Most of what I've found is their official sites, which seem to be talking to investors, not the general public, and then there are the sites that say how bad NG is (which I tend to agree with). But they don't really have much of a public fan club. :) Anyway, I'm trying to integrate that info in. We'll see how it goes... Have a great day! Sarah crane 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for applying to use the .NET Bot Framework. Your request has been approved, but you did not provide instructions as to where to give you information about how to obtain the framework. You have also been added to the Spam list for announcement emails regarding the framework. If you do not wish to receive these announcements, please feel free to remove yourself from this list. Messages sent will involve announcements of new versions, features and other important information. Thanks, and enjoy your use of the framework, Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C on behalf of Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I am happy to hear that you will be my mentor. Firstly, I feel that I need help on how to load USEFUL images on Wikipedia. For example, I have uploaded about 4 images so far but 3 of them were deleted by another user. Can I transfer some images from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia? If the images are not used in Wikipedia articles for about 2 weeks, will they be deleted from Wikipedia altogether? Must I transfer the images to my computer first and upload them to Wikipedia? I hope you can give me a clear answer soon.

Secondly, I would like to give you a hypothesis. If I were to take part in a RFA now, what do you think my success of being an admin would be? I have made over 5500 edits and have 3 months of experience in Wikipedia. I have a great desire to serve Wikipedia in a greater capacity and I wish to have a general overview of the duties of an administrator before going into the realm of the unforgiving scrutiny of edits I hope to receive your feedback soon and please advise me on ways to improve the quality of my edits. Thank You!

P.S. Glad to hear that you are a Manchester United supporter! Hope it is not too late for them to overtake Chelsea for the 2005-06 league title! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the well-wishes! -- Natalya 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, hope all is, well haven't seen you around for a while. If you're not too busy, could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying? Thanks. Maurreen 06:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take Care Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 09:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! :) Gflores^Talk 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I know you're probably busy with exams and the like (I'm writing one right now on advanced organic chemistry, as it happens!), but I wanted just to alert you to some major changes that may be happening at WP1.0. Tito and Oleg Alexandrov are planning to try out a system whereby we will put assessment categories on article talk pages, then have a bot read them to a worklist table (and perhaps a tree as well) automatically. That way if something is reassessed it can be tracked automatically, once a day I think they said. We would also get a daily list of assessment changes. Do you have any comments to add to this discussion? Scroll down to get to the latest iteration of the idea. Cheers, Walkerma 03:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 09:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! By the way, I would like to inquire about a minor technical aspect of certain templates. For example, certain templates uses this term &nbsp. What does this mean? If I do not type these wordings when I am editing templates, would this pose a problem? Allow me to give you an example:

And,what does noinclude stand for? If this template is updated, will it affect ALL the similar templates used in different articles? Will there be an auto update? What are the consequences of the exclusion of these particluar terms? I hope you will give me an answer soon! Thank You! (By the way, I am feeling disappointed the Manchester United had failed to beat Chelsea. Credit goes to Chelsea for winning the league.) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per a request on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, I'm trying to find out if anyone knows what happened to User:David91. He stopped editing around April 12, 2006, when he was admitted to the hospital for some tests. He possibly lived in Singapore (likely in or near Ang Mo Kio which he edited 3 times--but with enough detail to suggest a strong familiarity with the place), and was probably the oldest Wikipedian at the age of 94 (based on a reference from 2003 when he said he was 91). Based on his numerous contributions in law it is possible he was a retired lawyer of some kind. He also contributed to linguistics, sociology, and science fiction articles. He was part of Wikipedia:WikiProject International law (though it didn't really get off the ground) and he made nearly 5000 edits. He evidently was also a well-respected member of other Internet communities he was involved in during his retirement. Any information on David91 would be appreciated. Thanks, --Alabamaboy 13:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a shame to see you go, you are a great editor. Best of luck in all your future endeavors, and should you ever find the time or energy to return, we'd be happy to have you back. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the best Gflores. I hope you will come back some time.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best of luck. I'm sorry to see you go. Take care. Anonymous_anonymous 10:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*tear* What? I'm so sorry to see you go, Gflores. You were one of the first editors who I really respected when I first started editing Wikipedia, and your contributions are so very important. I hope that whatever is causing you to leave corrects itself, but if not, good luck - you will be truly missed. -- Natalya 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed you from this list since you have left wikipedia. Please feel free to rejoin if you return. pschemp | talk 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[5]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.

A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.

I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I noticed you were once active at converting old infoboxes. Well, I've found a bunch that need converting, as I noted here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Needs infobox conversion. Cheers, Alcuin 03:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Gflores—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back :) — Deckiller 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto! We've missed you! At WP:1.0 we've made a CD while you've been away, it comes out in a couple of weeks. It has Antarctica on it! Cheers, Walkerma 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1.0 project is a vast maze of pages now! Let me know if you need a guide. The CD looks a bit like this, but with an open source (GPL) offline search engine/reader. The assessments have indeed really taken off, and WikiProjects are forming on a daily basis, too. We are getting a new bot to start picking out suitable articles from the 300,000+ articles, we should be doing more tests next weekend. The COTF is still going, and we have made some progress. Feel free to pitch in with anything you fancy, if you're ready. If not, it's still great to have you around again. Walkerma 04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excitement! Welcome back! That brought a smile, goodness. Glad to see you back! Wikipedia is better for it. -- Natalya 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a member of the project, I would like to thank you for your past contributions to the project. Would you like to continue to receive the monthly newsletter? --Nehrams2020 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, sorry I never got back to you last night. In answer to the questions:

• Is no more work needed for the 0.5 release, besides internal tidying and whatnot?

  Too late even for tidying! It's already on its way to the factory for production of the CDs! :)

• That MartinBot looks neat. That will help tremendously with the 300k assessed article. I was wondering, is the MartinBot planned to find appropriate articles for the 0.7 release, together with individual reviews? Or is it for 1.0?

  It's for 0.7. We will be testing out different ideas (various algorithms, etc( in the next few weeks, then use it for real article selection over the summer. I had a long Skype chat with Martin last weekend, he seems to know exactly what to do and how to do it.

• I'm a little confused in the Review To-do list. It mentions both Core Topics and Vital Articles, which seem to have mostly the same articles, but only Core Topics has been worked on. Is the focus on Core Topics?

  The infrastructure for 0.7 is still very messy. Much of it was copied over from 0.5 but not really updated. Another person was going to head up this release, but they've pretty much disappeared. I'm trying to take over the reins, but I only have so much time. We reviewed all core topics for Version 0.5 (all but a handful are on the CD), that's why they were worked on. VAs were not reviewed, so we still need to do that. The overlap is probably because the same person (Silence) largely wrote both lists.

• Lastly, where can I find the statistics for total assessed articles?

  The best page is here, which also lists all of the projects participating in assessment. I see we now have over 380k! Cheers, Walkerma 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gflores Mahanga, can you attend our IRC meeting on WVWP on Sunday? We're planning on focusing on article assessment of "orphan" articles (no WikiProject) in the coming months, but we need to plan some strategy. On a related note, if you want a crash course in the 1.0 bot assessments, take a read of Tito's excellent blog on the subject. Cheers, Walkerma 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On behalf of the project, I sincerely thank you for helping us setting up the assessment scale. Here's something to cheer you up...

I was planning to give you the first ever WikiProject Environment's barnstar File:Environment Barnstar 1.png but it isn't finalized yet. So instead, take this one

I was wondering why "Motto" wasn't working on the Denton, TX page. I forgot it had to be lowercase. Good catch. --Ntmg05 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you use Outriggr's script when you test the assessment system? Cause when I add the code like ((environment|class=stub)), I have to manually update the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by quality doesn't update itself when I add tag manually. But from what I see in edit history, you simply add the code and it miraclly updates both pages by a bot. OhanaUnited 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the bot get activiated only when there're changes (assessments) or will it checks everything every day? I added a total of 8 to the stats table manually. Will it double-count the # of articles in each rating? I apologize for bothering you so long and ask so many questions. OhanaUnited 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. User:Michigan10

Thanks :) — Deckiller 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where exactly is a good place to ask more people for feedback on essays? This isn't exactly policy, so would Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) be appropriate? I don't normally read these large community discussion places myself (oops), so I don't know where exactly to put it. --Merzul 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need the external link as it is already on the essay page, but other than that, your text was very nice. And I'm probably going to sleep now (or very soon), so it will be interesting to see what the page looks like when I wake up. --Merzul 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome, thanks! --Merzul 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously I don't like the direction it has been moving, but I don't know what are the views of our community. It seems the essay has attracted Wikipedians, who are perhaps more fond of Citizendium, while passionate Wikipedians don't care that much. Perhaps, that explains the direction it is taking. In any case, the "Family friendly" section was always a little joke for me, I think it might be better to remove it, since clearly that was not constructive criticism or anything for us to learn from. More like one section to strike back for all the irrelevant and childish criticism that I otherwise ignored, such as "On Wikipedia, NPOV is on hold for many articles" (paraphrase), and so on.

But in the end, I don't want us having to spend time maintaining an essay, there are real articles worth working on :) So what would be a good thing to do now? --Merzul 10:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for you guidance on this issue, you have been very kind and supportive. What really made me happy was that many nice Wikipedians like yourself read the essay and like it, so in some sense it has already served its purpose. I will look at it once in a while and make sure it doesn't get completely out of hand. I don't really care that much about Citizendium, but I have nothing against them either, it was interesting to know how they are doing things. In particular, why on earth do we not have stable versions for our featured articles already? :) --Merzul 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did you know that text was copyright? i didn't like to revert until i'd asked you. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Recently you rated two articles I contributed to: Raymond Premru and Robert Spano. You assessed both as "Start" class. First, thanks for checkin 'em out; as a newbie, it's cool to have active & experienced Wikians looking at my stuff, & from your contribs it looks like you're doing heroic work rating lots of articles. I'd be real grateful though, if you get time, for any comments in addition to the rating...I've put in alot of effort trying to make both of these articles as comprehensive (while concise) as possible, consistent w/ NPOV and the availability of source-able info, & I'm a bit stuck as to how to further improve them, so I'd welcome any input past "Not useless," and "Substantial/major editing is needed." If you get time to comment here or at the articles or my talk page (whichever you prefer), please feel free to be merciless :-). thx --Turangalila (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting back so quickly. I'll try & work in your ideas. The Premru is kinda brief -- the available lit is scanty. Unfortunately your notability rating of "Low" is probably right. I'm hoping the creation of the article itself might eventually scare up info from folks w/ access to sources I can't get to -- I tried to use the talk page to solicit that. We'll see...

I'm still getting the lay of the land viz a viz the various feedback channels: WP:RFF (listed the Premru there but the page seems kinda dead); WP:GAC (didn't know 'bout that one -- is it kosher to nominate one's own work?); Peer Review (haven't tried); the Bio Project's separate Peer Review (listed the Spano here & already I've gotten a bunch of useful feedback in addition to yours); perhaps best of all is just bugging individual users like this!

Thanks again. --Turangalila (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took the liberty of copying your comment from Talk:Robert Spano over to the peer review, mostly for my own convenience in seeing all the feedback in one place. Hope that's cool. Turangalila (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That list is so disorganized, that it's hard to tell exactly what deserves to be in a table or not, but your table looks really good. I'm no expert, but I didn't notice anything wrong with it. I think that it ought to replace the list on the page, although we should preserve the raw data somehow. Anyway, good work. -- Renesis (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless and endless efforts in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Working Man's Barnstar. 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For your exceptional contributions to the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Golden Wiki Award. 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the Michael Phelps page indicating agreement with what you wrote, and giving reasons.

It seems that the DUI section should be removed.. Gacggt 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same person keeps putting back that section; don't know how to handle it - it does seem to create an incorrect impression; made these points on the Phelps discussion page, but seemingly to no avail. Gacggt 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don´t delete the links in the Disambiguation pages, as you just did in Leader. --ometzit<col> 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)--ometzit<col> 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:MOSDAB. --Mahanga (Talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've went through and made changes according to your suggestions and also offered some feedback. Please review the talk page of that article at your earliest convenience. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While using Outrigger's bot to assess articles, I came upon Mitigation of global warming where the bot states that it's an A-Class article. But when I go to the talk page there's no sign that it is in fact an A-Class article. Can you help me verify if it is indeed an A-Class or something screwed up? Thanks. OhanaUnited 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks for the heads-up. I thought it's only me who screwed up the script. OhanaUnited 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much! I would love to be adopted by such a wikipedian! And the fact that you're and admin can only help. Dreamy 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. That would be great, really appreciated. Just let me know what do do now! --Dinny McGee 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mahanga, I'm very happy you want to adopt me! How do I direct my questions to you - on this talk page, or through some other means? --DarkAvenger 14:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I'll do that. I use MSN for instant messenger, what's your profile name?

Thanks for the left aligned quote template. I played around with it for awhile, but eventually I decided I liked the centered one better. But thanks for the help! --DarkAvenger 10:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your review. Fair use rationales have now been added to the images and the lead has been extended. Epbr123 03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi -- I think you meant to say (at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates#Inform) "personal attacks against EAlacy". As it stands it looks like you're warning EAlacy. I hate to edit other editors' words, so I thought I'd let you know so you can fix it yourself if you want to. Mike Christie (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Anyways, I was fiddleing around with it and I was wondering what exactly was supposed to happen? Obviously something was, so could you try it so that is looks okay and so that it works? Cheers! Dreamy 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Different topic, but could you please check out this page and tell me whether I was right/correct in adding what I added? Cheers! Dreamy 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please add the revert function to my monobook.js, from the TWINKLE thing? It would help me out a great deal. Thanks. Dreamy 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use Mozilla Firefox. Dreamy 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also the welcome tab didn't work. Dreamy 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The script is wonky again and also could you add the tab that lets my insert a prod for deletion? That would be great! Dreamy 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not TWINKLE but my script was off for a moment there, thanks and also the welcome tab works now. Dreamy 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. It was a lot of work, but I think maybe it has a shot at GA, or maybe even FA if it stays reasonably stable for a couple weeks. James S. 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well spotted! I'd missed that :) - Alison ☺ 07:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I noticed you are seeking to adopt a user on the list of those seeking to adopt; this scheme appeals to me and I'd like to participate. Just leave a message on my talk page. I look forward to your reply.

Regards, WilliamH 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent, thanks very much! As you can see, my contributions are mainly translation mixed in with just general tidying up, for example, the other day I spelt something incorrectly in the search, and lo and behold all the articles in which it had been spelt incorrectly also came up, so I corrected them all. I figure while expanding Wikipedia with new articles is of course helpful, simple things like spelling are also fundamental to the project and its integrity, obviously as it is the written word. Naturally I'm not familiar with everything, so if you think there's something very important lacking, by all means enlighten me! :) Regards, WilliamH 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a page somewhere that enumerates changes in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chicago_articles_by_quality_statistics? I.e., a list of pages where the importance or quality assessment has changed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i whould like to be adopted as i need more help puting delete tags on new pages. RedSpike101 09:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings!

A significant contribution of mine was translating the St. Mary's Church, Lübeck from the German Wikipedia for the English one, thus bringing the article from stub to A grade status. Given your experience on getting articles promoted to Featured Article and Good Article status, I would value your opinion as to what you think needs to be done to the article (I'm thinking more copy editing, which I've been working on). It is already an A rating on the quality scale. WilliamH 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this user is editing global warming article in the artic page.plz warn him and check history.he is always reverting my page and is accusing me of vandalism and not only that he removed my question in his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic manchurian candidate 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mahanga! One question for you is... how do I create a user box and then make a quick link so that anyone can use it?

Hello! Since I was 'adopted' I thought it was appropriate to branch out my use of Wikipedia into different areas. I joined Wikiproject Germany and have been helping clearing their log of unassessed articles (I think I've done at least a hundred so far), and have ventured into Recent Changes, patrolling for vandalism, blanking etc. I've also tried politely warning and hopefully guiding vandals and similarly, approaching and welcoming new editors so that their contributions remain on Wikipedia.

Over the coming month I have exams; this is why my Wiki activities will reduce slightly. :)

WilliamH 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a cracking tool! Thanks for the info! :)

Regards, WilliamH 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi mahanga, I am currently looking for someone to adopt me and show me the ropes around wikipedia. I would love the oppurtunity to be adopted by an admin as that means you have a real commitment to Wikipedia. Send me a message on my userpage when you read this!

Charlie.somerville 02:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mahanga, are you going to join us on Sunday? Walkerma 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey,

Quite a long time before we chat again, lol. I saw someone posted a message about reducing the backlog of WP:GAC and I put up my name on the participants page. So, what do I do now? OhanaUnited 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An update from one of your adoptees. :)

My most recent WikiActivity was translating Münchner Wappen in its entirety to produce this article. The German version is listed as "Lesenswertig" (literally "Worthy of reading"); this is essentially their Good Article equivalent. For reasons congruent with this, I have nominated it for Good Article status as I think it is indeed, a good article, and in my opinion at least, it conforms with the criteria. Unsurprisingly I'd be dead chuffed if it passed on review, so if you feel there's anything you can do increase its likelyhood of doing so, well, naturally that'd be super. And of course, I welcome your feedback. :)

Regards, WilliamH 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thanks for the nice note! Seeing as you offered help... how do I get my references to look all neat and tidy like they do in other articles? Do I have to write all the info out every time? It is very tedious. Thanks in advance. Lucy Tamayo (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's exactly what I was looking for! Thank you. Sorry for not being clear, I didn't really know what I meant either :o) Do I have to write out the source information repeatedly if I'm using the same source for two different cites? I've seen other articles where the reference list at the bottom has little "a" "b" next to the links. Is there a simple way for me to learn how to do that? Cheers for the help! It's so nice to see my article be all neat looking :) When I created it I half expected to get a message five minutes later telling me off for making such crap and threatening to ban me, heh. Lucy Tamayo (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, how do I get the reference text to be smaller, like in (for example) Kylie Minogue? Lucy Tamayo (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks really great :D Thanks for the help. Hopefully I should be able to increase the content of the article a lot over the next few days, as the release should produce a lot of reviews that I can cite information from. Lucy Tamayo (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you can come into my user page and change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eursoclea (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course I forgot to sign --Eursoclea (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alrighty then --Eursoclea (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks. Okkervil River is still one of my most favorite bands since I discovered them in 2005. I love music with a passion. I don't know if you've noticed, but most of the edits I have done have been band or album pages (I even created ((Okkervil River))). » ɧʒЖχ ^{(ταικ•κоŋτяљ)} 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why did you delte Kirk Bevins on wiki?

Haha he's my teaccher lol

please (if you can) out it back (:? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.40.76 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All sorted now, not sure how that happened. Thanks for pointing it out. Kosack (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long time no see — you changed your username! How have you been? — Deckiller 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty good, on the whole. — Deckiller 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Johan Hultin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I responded at Talk:Galveston, Texas/GA2. Thank you! Postoak (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!! Postoak (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mahanga, yes I plan to nominate the article for FA after I work on a few other articles. A few things are needed such as the alt text required on each image...also I want to change the cite templates on a few notes so that they are consistent. Do you see any major issues that would hold the article back in its current form? Also, thinking of nominating History of Galveston, Texas as GA. Thanks again, Postoak (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahanga,

Poking around I found your name listed as a mentor. Out of frustration I actually was looking for some informal advice/mentorship. If you are interested and feel you have some insight to help guide me I wouldn't mind the assistance.

Summary of why I need help:

A while ago I took on expanding the Galveston Bay Area article as it seemed an interesting and unappreciated topic. Since the moment I started expanding it the article raised a lot of strong feelings from people involved with WikiProject Houston (by its nature the topic could be interpreted as detracting from the city of Houston which I think is at the core of these feelings). There was an AfD nomination and there have been numerous accusations for OR and a lot of other things. Perhaps I should have abandoned it but, frankly, I like taking on these underdog topics and I decided I wasn't going to get chased away. Eventually most of the editors who had serious concerns either went away or have actually become supportive of my efforts in general (and indeed there have been occassionally disinterested editors who have chimed in supporting the article and speaking against some of the accusations). Still nobody has become interested enough to become a serious co-editor. That means that it is still primarily my article which makes it easier for accusations of bias to stick. There has recently been one particular editor who, though he has calmed down somewhat, has still made progress slow-going. There are still some banners sitting on the page even now and I am having difficulty motivating discussion to remove the banners. I had tried to ask for a Peer Review to try to get neutral feedback from a disinterested party. One guy actually did start the review process but never finished. I think he got scared away by the acrimony he saw.

So though it seems some "progress" is being made toward calming the latest rounds of acrimony, I still feel like the article is a "hot potato" and I can't cool it off. Even if the editor with the most serious complaints right now were to change direction I wonder about another editor coming along who has a problem and throwing another wrench into things.

Basically I am just looking to figure out to get past all of this once and for all so I can move this article toward GA and beyond. Any guidance would be appreciated.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look later when I get a chance. Mahanga^Talk 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like the dust has settled on the talk page. Just continue to edit boldly with your best intentions and discuss with other editors as needed. The details of the situation seem unfamiliar to me and unfortunately, I don't have much free time to gather all the pertinent information. However, I'll add it to my watchlist and peek in on it from time to time and suggest improvements. Cheers MahangaTalk 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

For the moment the "dust has settled." I have two larger concerns, though:

• The editor who has most recently raised concerns has shown a pattern of getting heavily involved with an issue, then backing away for a long while, and then getting heavily involved again. Though obviously I cannot predict what might happen in the future, I am concerned that as soon as I try to nominate this for GA another war starts (or even if I making some of the edits I have been holding off on another war will start which is exactly what happened before).
• This most recent war has not been the only stumbling block (although it has been the biggest so far). Multiple editors with an interest in Houston upon coming in and looking at the article for the first time have been so offended by the topic in principle that they have launched into attacks on it without bothering to check facts. Certainly I have no objection to debating things with people but when it interferes with moving the article forward, or worse, they make malicious edits to "remove bias" it is a problem.

Anyway, if you'd rather leave this alone I understand. I was just looking for advice on how to manage these wars in the future so that they don't become such a stumbling block (i.e. how to keep the debates from holding up or turning back progress).

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. My hope has been that if I can just get the article past GA then I have ammunition to fend off future malicious edits. In other words, by having it pass GA I have a blessing from a neutral party that says the article is at least in somewhat good shape. As such I can justifiably argue that if I believe a given editor is harming the article I can insist that we discuss it before edits are made or banners are placed in the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. At the FAC for that article, you mentioned that you sent a message to the Flickr user who uploaded some images of him. Have you gotten any response? Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 23:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but with only 183 photos uploaded, he doesn't appear to be very active on Flickr. I'll let you know if I get a response. Mahanga^Talk 01:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. There's also also these (slightly higher quality) images that the uploader is more active and likely to respond more swiftly, if you'd like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickjournal/3760037833/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickjournal/3760833600/ . If not, it's perfectly fine, just mentioning it as the uploader you've messaged is likely not to respond for a bit. Anyways, thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 02:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sent Brikjournal a message. *crosses fingers* Mahanga^Talk 03:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! :) The Flash ^{talk} 03:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He responded and said it's fine. He has now relicensed the images. Btw, he seems like he might be ok with sharing some more of his photos, so if you need a few more for some other articles, let me know and I'll ask him. Mahanga^Talk 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Dan Povenmire Comic-Con 2009.jpg
• File:Phineas and Ferb panel Comic-Con 2009.jpg

Thank you so much! I've been searching for images of him and his longtime collaborator Jeff "Swampy" Marsh for a year now. Thanks a bunch! :) The Flash ^{talk} 19:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. As you said the author of that file might be willing to release more images under a free license, I was wondering if you could message the user to release this under one. I'm working on Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page and the current image is pretty low quality. Thanks in advance! :) The Flash ^{talk} 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message sent. Mahanga^Talk 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, he re-licensed it. Cheers. Mahanga^Talk 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again :) The Flash ^{talk} 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for putting a lock on Dodo. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

View the FAC page now as a Peer Review, and we'll all check in next time (or before) to see how things are going. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the barnstar and thanks for your help on the article, Casliber. Cheers to you. Mahanga^Talk 14:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Mahanga. A little while ago you e-mailed a Flickr user and got some licensing changes made for images of Dan Povenmire and others to be used on Wikipedia. Do you know if you can do the same thing for this image? It would be really useful on the new "List of awards and nominations received by Rugrats" article I'm about to start up, along with several other articles on the series (including an FAC I'm working on) Thanks in advance, The Flash ^{talk} 23:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested. Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck with Flickr requests lately. But we'll see. Mahanga^Talk 06:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks. :) The Flash ^{talk} 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rugrats on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.jpg Mahanga^Talk 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! :) The Flash ^{talk} 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that one too; it should probably come in handy later once I crop it :) The Flash ^{talk} 01:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mahanga,

Not sure if you are still on a break and I was wondering if you can help me since I might fit the criteria for your editing guidance I am "new to Wikipedia with a million small questions". Can you tell me how to fill out an arbitration request form? When I hit the "edit" on the arbitration request form another unrelated arbitration request is already in there. Am I supposed to add my new request to the bottom of the previous one? I don't want to be typing in the wrong place. Thank you so much for your time and consideration! Middlemarch2256 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to my most recent post in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning new editors, Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion you may also be interested in: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists and User:Ikip/AfD on average day.

I loved your video idea. I am going to request it now at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop Ikip 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Mahanga,

I'm a new user and am working on my first article but need quite a bit of help ( Especially with images :( ) if you're interested in adopting me, reply back and I'll give you some more details.

D

Will

--Will Lowry (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left a message on your talk page. 04:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm currently working on my first article and I'm confused as to how I would add the album artwork into the infobox. Sorry if this is a basic concept but I've read through the articles and am still confused. Will Lowry (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I am Canadian, reside in the USA and I speak several languages. I have been trying to stay away from th Timeline as it is a mess. I attempted to clean it a bit some weeks ago and probably won't work on it again in the future. I rather maintain a true article than a collection of news. Thank you for checking the links, it is very useful. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On May 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gabriel Flores, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unlock or update link for ref 4 as http://lhldigital.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/nat_hist&CISOPTR=2602. -lysdexia 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.168.136 (talk)

Done. Thanks for the link. Mahanga (Talk) 03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am looking for some help. I have created an article on my user page but need to know how to move it out and also how to add pictures.

Awwsurf (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I found you at the Help Desk. I'm still relatively new to active editing at WP. Can you help me understand the significance of the general sanctions notice at the top of the Talk page on Intelligent Design? When I click the link, I get the page/article on General sanctions, but I don't see the ID article on the list of actively sanctioned articles. Is the notice ("This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.") just a reminder that every article and editor on WP could come under sanctions if they don't behave themselves, or is it a designation of problematic behaviour and some kind of restriction that has actually been applied to this article and its editors? Does this general sanction relate to the setting on the Edit page that requires review of edits except for "autoconfirmed" editors? (Which I am) Thanks for any help. Scoopczar (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the good info you left on my talk page, Mahanga. I appreciate it. Scoopczar (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just asking if you could remove the semi-protection on StarCraft II. I'd be fully willing to have it reinstated if the vandalism ensues, but I think a majority of the vandalism had to do with the fact it was released on that day, and I'd like to see if we could just stick with pending, now that some of the fuss has died down. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, not a problem. Mahanga (Talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Mahanga. Are you in the DFW area at the moment?

The last headquarters of the Wilmer Hutchins Independent School District is located at 3820 East Illinois Avenue. The building is still standing, and it is just off of I-45. Would you mind photographing the building so its image can be used for Wikipedia? I fear that DISD may tear it down soon, so it is very important to get a photo of the building ASAP. The building still has a sign saying it is the WHISD HQ.

If you want, you can photograph other Wilmer Hutchins ISD buildings too, especially ones that may be torn down soon.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ah, alright. I'll see if I can find someone closer to South Dallas. BTW is there a photo of the Denton State Supported Living Center (formerly Denton State School) yet? If not, a picture of that would be good. Also, is Gainesville convenient to where you are? The Gainesville State School needs a photo of the front entrance (a sign stating "Gainesville State School" is along the farm to market road at the entrance to the institution) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should be able to take a picture of the supported living center. Don't know when I'll get around to it, though. Mahanga (Talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noted your name here and wondered if you might be able to advise me? I'd like some advice on a recent dispute so that it doesn't happen again. I attempted to gain advice here, but it's not very forthcoming. Any response or help to my talk page would be great. gonads³ 19:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]