September 2004

Help!

I'm sorry, this is a terrible thing to do now that voting has started, but the "These votes will be combined with "Support voting procedure but not standalone page idea" if a consensus to support is not reached." bits of [[1]] are confusing the hell out of me. And while I may not be the brightest person here, I suspect I'm not the only one. I'm not sure how to correct it now that voting has started, and I didn't notice it as much as I was concentrating on the talk page, but I'm worried it has the potential to really confuse the outcome of the vote -- because I with it, I can't tell what I'm voting for. -- orthogonal 01:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's really really not confusing. All it means is that:
- IF there is no consensus on either of the support options, that the votes under "Support" will be combined with the votes under "Support voting procedure but not standalone page idea" in hopes of reaching a consensus. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The idea of consolidating votes had me a bit worried I'd end up "voting" for something other than what I'd voted for, but I finally decided just to trust you, figuring you'd earned that trust by your unflinching answer about "personal attacks", even when it involved your own.

Actually, I didn't come here to read your answer (this is why I always copy my responses to others' talk pages, so their sure to see them) but to leave you a note: on the larger issue of the votes on Administrator Accountability Policy, please take heart. The vote right now may be against passage, but I don't think your hard work is for nought -- whether your proposal passes or not, the trail-blazing you did needed to be done, and if like Moses, this particular proposal does not make it to the Promised Land of enactment, be assured the Israelites -- your proposal's intent -- will. -- orthogonal 23:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, thank you. :-) Interesting analogy. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

33451/Mr. Grinch

I just wanted to update everyone who endorsed the complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. After some dialogue, Mr. Grinch has acknowledged his vandalism and committed to make only good-faith edits in the future. I'm not seeking any further action, and I think we can consider the problem resolved. Thank you for your support in dealing with this matter. --Michael Snow 20:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Broken user page

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/d/d5/Screenshot1.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/d/d4/Screenshot2.jpeg

Darrien 04:21, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

CyborgTosser

His username is explained on his user page, if you care to take a look. Don't know whether that explanation still rubs you the wrong way. --Michael Snow 22:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any chance of you toning down your comments at his RFA? 5 "No ways", comments in all caps. Anyone would think this guy was a troll or vandal, rather than some poor sod who just wants to be an admin. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your page design

This message is just to let you know I've used your page design for my user page in Spanish. Thanx! Sabbut 14:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome! blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:In the news

Please don't change American English into British English unless the subject is specific to a country that uses BE or the majority of a non-country specific article already uses BE. Bill Clinton is an American. The original spelling at Template:In the news was "hospitalized". Your change to "hospitalised" was highly inappropriate. --Jia ng 19:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it inappropriate at all. I was merely correcting a spelling error. I think it would be inappropriate to have such ugly errors on the MAIN PAGE! blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "hospitalized" is misspelled. Can you explain how it is a spelling error? --Jia ng 03:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a "z" in it. The correct spelling of the word is h-o-s-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-e-d. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's only in British English, and even then, there's some debate over the "correctness" of it (OED uses 'ize' over the common 'ise' usage). In American English, it's always spelled "hospitalized" (to the best of my knowledge). A search in the American Heritage Dictionary will yield no such word for 'hospitalised'. --Jia ng 04:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British English is correct English. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Perhaps you should take another look at the Manual of Style, which, among other things, states that, "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party")." --Slowking Man 05:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm aware of this. That's why I haven't gone and moved United States Secretary of Defense to United States Secretary of Defence or something of the like. However, when the MAIN PAGE, the most visible part of the project, is concerned, I think we should use the superior and proper form of the language, no? blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Except that your assertions of superiority are unfounded as far as this project is concerned. The same page also states that, "For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English." Linguistically, I disagree with you, as I feel words such as "hospitalized" generally have their sounds better emulated with American spelling. Regardless, this project has established the coexistence of different versions of English, and your assertion of one version as "superior" and your subsequent actions upon that belief are unsettling to me, especially with your status as an administrator. --Slowking Man 05:33, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      - Haha. You speak well, my dear rival, well indeed. It's only my opinion. As I said earlier, I'm not on some sort of rampage to enforce it uniformly throughout the Wikipedia or anything (although that would be nice). So I think you're making a big deal of out something that's not that big of a deal. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now isn't acting unilaterially like that against established community norms bad wikiquette? If you think one form is superior, then go argue your case, but it's not up to you to be "correcting" other people's spelling against wikipedia convention. That said, be reminded again that the Cambridge University Press and Oxford English Dictionary have always maintained the "ize" spelling.--Jia ng 05:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blankfaze, there are a few things you should think about before making spelling changes where both versions are accepted. First off its not considered polite to change a spelling to your preferred one unless the context requires it to be changed (New York Harbour to New York Harbor, etc). Also, when changing spelling, do note where and what the spelling is in context of, this was in regards to an American political figure on American soil, and should therefore be in American English, if either choice is preferable. I'd also like to point out that in controversial cases like this, it can only help your case to note in the edit summary "Changed spelling to British English, due to context", if you can't claim that, then you probably shouldn't be changing it. Hope this helps. —siro χ o 04:52, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Well, Siroxo, thank you, really, for trying to help... But I'm going with proper English. I understand your points, but using correct spellings is in the best interest of an encyclopaedia. I think it's silly to insist on corrupted spellings over the correct ones. Even still, I DO NOT go around changing spellings on topics explicitly American. The main page, however, is an exception. It is the most visible page there is, and as such, ought to look like it! So I will continue to correct any such misspelling on the main page, and defend it if I have to. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British English is not "proper" English. There is no such thing as "proper English" in the way you seem to be implying. Having said that if you want to talk about which form of english is best then the only reasonable authority would be the OED. How else could you possibly define it? Conventions in this Encylopedia is to use either spelling, at not to correct spelling difference across the pond either way. This convention (it could even by policy but i can't be bothered to search for it) has the wonderful propert of averting these kind of argument. Having said all that, putting all seriousness aside, everyone should read meta:Guerilla UK spelling campaign Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note re:Academic Challenger for admin

I know you are a firm believer in the 2,000 edit count requirement for administrator, and I respect your perspective. I just wanted to note here, in case you were unaware, that AcademicChallenger's user page makes mention of the fact that he is blind, an obstacle which has made learning and using Wiki format more difficult than it is for most of us. I'm not saying you should necessarily alter your vote on that account, but I did want to note that the circumstances Michael Snow and I were alluding to are not the more common "ah, but this person writes substantial edits and new articles, which reduces edit count"....even though that is true of Academic Challenger. I assumed that, if you were not aware of this circumstance, you might want to be made aware of it. Of course I can still understand your desire for administrators with more experience in personal disputes, etc., and therefore your sticking by the edit count requirement. I just thought you'd want to know if you didn't already. Sorry to ramble, and sorry I never seem to drop by here to, say, thank you for being a good editor and an intelligent contributor (I do think you are both, and I am thankful). Best wishes this fall, and thanks for hearing me out. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. My vote was borderline anyhow... I may look into reconsidering my vote. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:JohnHNorthrop-No.JPG

I see that you deleted this image, which is referenced at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and was removed from John Howard Northrop per the policy for handling possible copyright problems, which requires temporarily removing the image from the article. Your reason given was (orphaned and obsoleted, listed on IfD since 16 August). The image is not orphaned or obsoleted. You should be aware that the list of articles which link to images is not reliable and ALL such link records were lost during the June outage. Even with more recent edits, the links remain unreliable and cannot be trusted to be sufficiently complete even for references in the English language wikipedia. A search (with the Wikipedia internal search engine) is required to determine whether an image is actually unused and obsolete. It's also advisable to check whether an image is at copyright problems when it bears the copyright problems template. Never trust the what uses this image section to be accurate evidence that something is unused. Jamesday 04:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Admin Accountability Proposal

Blankfaze, I'm, sorry to see admin accountability failed. I do think you did a god job ending it gracefully, leaving it "as a historical record", etc. It may have lost but it was handled smoothly and that's an improvement on some past proposals.

If I can help in any way in drafting a policy that will achieve the same effects in a way that conforms to community consensus, please don't hesitate to ask me for whatever you need. -- orthogonal 04:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, man, I'd be delighted to work with you in the future on a proposal that suits everyone's fancy a little more. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spare Gmail invite

You said you have a few. Can you toss one for me? Thanks. --Gene s 08:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I just need your email address to send the invite to. Leave it here or email it to me at blankfaze AT gmail DOT com. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. report1414-AT-hotmail-DOT-com --Gene s 04:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just ran out again, sorry, it's first come first serve, but as soon as I get some more, I'll get one out to you. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Got it, activated. Thanks a lot. --Gene s 06:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I could use one, too. Thanks!--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:25, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I just need your email address to send the invite to. Leave it here or email it to me at blankfaze AT gmail DOT com. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your kindness. Email received and activated.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I requested a Gmail invite a while ago. Did you ever send it out? --Diberri | Talk 04:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I think so... (*checks*)... Yep:

From: Derek Stricklen <blankfaze@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Derek Stricklen <blankfaze@gmail.com>
To: Diberri Somethingortheother <diberri[atticus]yahoo[polka]com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:29:42 -0500
Subject: Diberri, Derek Stricklen has invited you to open a Google mail account

Oh poo. *pouts* Either I never received it, or Yahoo's junk mail filter picked it up. Could I bother you to resend? In exchange, I promise to expand that poor Omar Epps substub ;-) --Diberri | Talk 05:23, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Haha. Well, unfortunately, I'm out for the time being. But when I get in some more, I'd have no problem sending out another one for you. Just watch that junk filtering... Yahoo! probably does it on purpose, like Hotmail... after all, why would they want to lose their customers? blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OH!! You know what? I still have the actual invite link in my copy of the sent email! I could give it to you, if we could communicate covertly... I'd post it here, but I'm sure someone would get jealous and click it before you did! blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Oh how interesting... Would it be possible just to e-mail me the invite link (same e-mail address as before)? --Diberri | Talk 05:54, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    - Ah, yes, I shall certaintly try. Drop me a message here as to the outcome, eh? blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - You are the king, my friend. I received the invite and activated the account. Thank you so much! --Diberri | Talk 17:39, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Any left? --Phil | Talk 08:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

User page layout

I took the liberty of using your user page layout and framework on my own user page. Thanks for creating it, it must've taken ages. Cheers -- [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 15:53, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Cool, man! blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WTF?

I didn't type "put down". Be more careful when chastising me; it hurts my feelings! :-( Mike H 06:16, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I know! The two were unrelated!!!! I was just making a fix, and I noticed you had just edited, so I decided you ought to be told to go to bed!! You silly goose! blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hehe. :-) I have to wake up at 7:30, too. I actually considered just not going to bed. Mike H 06:23, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee

I was attempting to do a query search for new members but got totally lost. I figured since you were a welcoming committee member, you probably had an idea how to do a query search. Care to fill me in here? I've been playing around trying to figure it out for the past hour. Please respond on my talk page (just in case I forget I left you this message here :-)--ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 22:55, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I was just told only admins were able to do that. I was inquiring because I was wanting to do some "welcoming" in my spare time. I guess I'll leave it up to sysops on the welcoming committee though. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 23:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I am an admin but I don't really know how to run a query. I just watch Recent Changes a lot, and when I happen to see someone new and unwelcomed, I welcome them. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page was created by Tim Starling during an incident back in june where we has a disgruntled ex user run a vandalbot. The bot created a new user then vandalised with that user, then another new user and so on. Ayway the page shows the edits of the last 50 edits by newbies, and so is a great way of finding new users to welcome. HTH. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, why thank you muchly, Miss Knott. blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some Anon

Thanks for reminding me why it so important that We RE ELECT Bush.

Haha, well, I don't know what you mean, but okay! blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1,800 edits

Hi blankfaze, just informing you that I now have a little over 1,800 edits. Your support on my request for adminship would be greatly appreciated! Andre 01:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An homage to you

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sample Vote on sub-page for User:Jimbo Wales. -- orthogonal 22:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

L M F A O ! ! ! ! ! blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's hilarious! :D [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for your support of my adminship. Truly, I am honored, especially in your position. :) –Andre (talk) 17:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2000 edits

Hey, I'm not up for adminship or anything, but I figured it would be appropriate for my 2000th edit to be to your talk page. Ha ha! CryptoDerk 01:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Haha... I am most honoured. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

comments

Wondering if I can get you to slightly refactor your comments here and here, to remove the reference to me. I am trying to resolve the last couple issues with people, and little comments like that just tend to undermine my efforts, and are honestly very embarrassing. Feel free to disagree with me, but please don't make such comments. Try to stay constructive and respectful, and I will do the same. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

I will, out of politeness, remove the reference in the Mackensen nomination. However, I will decline to do so in the case of CryptoDerk's, because your reason for opposing is wholly stupid, and such should be noted. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comments on votes are outside bounds of good etiquette. I may be stupid, but calling me out on it serves no purpose, other than to embarass me. Please don't do that. -- Netoholic @ 07:46, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  - I disagree that such comments are outside the bounds of good etiquette. It does serve a purpose - it lets onlookers know, "Hey! This vote is really stupid and ridiculous, not to mention baseless! Don't take it into consideration at all!" That said, I do not seek to embarass you. You do that fully well on your own, by opposing CryptoDerk. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - I have removed the attack (and that is certainly what I consider it). After getting to know Crypto, I have formed a different opinion of him, and have changed my vote. Calling people or votes "stupid" is completely uncivil.... take that sort of thing directly to the voter before posting something so inflammatory. Jwrosenzweig's comment is an example of a good way to handle the same thing, and I respect him for it... yours is an example of the opposite. -- Netoholic @ 07:58, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

- I've asked you a number of times to stop. Calling me stupid serves no purpose, and is a blatant personal attack. You have "won" and a I have changed my vote -- leave it at that and stop with the flamebait. -- Netoholic @ 18:49, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)