December 2004[edit]

Political viewpoints page[edit]

Hey, Just thought you may be amused that I filled in your political viewpoints page for myself. You can see it here. --Improv 03:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haha. Cool. Interesting points, BTW. But I didn't get footnote 6... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 14:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ahh. I meant for removal of mention of deities from money. I'll clarify on the page. --Improv 16:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Hi, and thanks for running for the ArbCom and taking questions here. I'm considering my vote, and I read your statement. I have a question for you: what is your opinion of the Three Reverts Rule? What would you recommend as punishment for breaking the rule? How about for breaking it repeatedly, over a number of articles? Thanks again. - Scooter 23:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for considering me, and thanks for asking. Well, if you weren't aware, a new policy recently passed a public vote and went into effect allowing sysops to temporarily block (for up to 24 hours) those who break the Three Revert Rule. That's the punishment I support, as it is the one accepted by a majority of the community. As far as repeated breaking of the 3RR, depending on the level of repetition and the time period over which they occured, I would perhaps support limiting a user's reverts (i.e. allowing them to be blocked for 2 or 1 reverts) as has been done in past cases. If a user significantly violates a punishment on that, I would perhaps even support banning them. While we should allow for reform of problem users, when it becomes apparent that they have no interest in doing anything other than causing problems, then we shouldn't waste our time with them. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This sounds very reasonable. Thanks for taking my question, and good luck. - Scooter 03:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burying the hatchet[edit]

I'm all for it (I'm assuming this means I can post on your Talk: page again). I'm hoping this would involve an end to the type of comments I've seen most recently on the Mustafaa admin nomination page; would that be a reasonable hope? Jayjg 06:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't wholly guarantee it, simply because POV-warring pisses me off, and so I might say things I shouldn't... however, I give you my word that I will try. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, I've responded on my Talk: page. Jayjg 04:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Sure, I'd like to bury any hatchets, be civil, assume good faith, etc. I'm quite open to anti-Israel POVs, so long as they're properly sourced, and balanced with properly sourced opposing POVs. I'm fairly certain that's what NPOV is all about, and I think the record of my edits, when you examine it, is pretty much in line with that; if I've warred, it's been against POV warriors. Anyway, I'm glad we worked this out. Jayjg 05:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Re: Editing my user page[edit]

Would you at least consider adding the category to some user page, such as User:Blankfaze/Copyrights which merely redirects to your main user page? It would be most helpful to people can easily tell that you use the public domain and it won't clutter up your main user page. For Example:

#REDIRECT [[User:Blankfaze]]

[[Category:Public domain license]]

– Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 22:22, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

WHY do people need to "easily tell that you use the public domain"? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so they can use your public domain stuff if they so choose. Nevermind, it's not terribly important that you do it. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 22:38, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. Well, unless the pages are evidence in or relevant to something, then they should be deleted, I'm sure. Or archived at RfC? I'm not sure. Either way, I've never seen an RfC at VfD and I'm sure that they don't belong there. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A more wiki way of deletion[edit]

Heya, seeing as you're one of the editors who's been hard at work trying to improve our deletion system, I wonder if you could have a look at my proposal. It still needs some fleshing out, so I'm not quite moving it into Wikipedia: or announcing it officially yet (it's hard enough to get people to eyeball these proposals once, I'd rather they do so when it's done), but I would like to get some comments from other people working with the current deletion system. Feel free to edit to your hearts content, as long as you leave the general idea behind it intact. Thanks in advance! --fvw * 20:11, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Rienzo[edit]

Since you have been involved with Rienzo before, you probably ought to see

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rienzo and his sockpuppets

CheeseDreams 01:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The maps[edit]

You are adding some wonderful maps (like the "Hindoostan map" and the one in History of China). They're all from the same source, right? Should we create a page on the book/publication/publisher they are from? Or are they all available on the web somewhere that we can refer to? I would love to look at the whole set in one place. Thanks, again, for adding them.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I liked them too. There are some more at the source, [1]. Enjoy. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your sig[edit]

Hi Blankfaze. Have you considered adding a </small> tag to your sig? I'm seeing talk pages with tiny writing following your comments. :) Angela . 14:45, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

me too - Xed 15:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WHOOPS! sorry, I was messing around with it the other day and the closing tag must have gotten lost in the shuffle. my sincere apologies. it should be fixed now. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course[edit]

Of course Blankfaze, there's no need to remind me. As with all Wikipedia policies, I take the three revert rule quite seriously now, since it has become an official policy. I assume you take it seriously now as well. Jayjg 06:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've always taken it seriously. I consider it one of our most important policies and I've only broken it perhaps three times in my entire tenure here, and those times were necessary in my opinion. They were before we had procedures developed to curb edit-warring. Anyhow, I'm aware you take it seriously, but when I happen to notice edit wars, I generally notify people when they are getting close, so that if they have to be blocked, they can't say they weren't warned. Just a precaution. If it makes any difference, you should know it was nothing against you; I actually agree with your edit in this case. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not to worry, Jayjg, Jewbacca, Viriditas and the rest of the Zionist gangsters will just resort to sockpuppets, if necessary, to force their POV on the rest of us. [2]. --Wiesenthaler 06:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never used a sockpuppet, unlike you Wiesenthaler, a self-avowed sockpuppet. I have only edited under this account. Jewbacca 06:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it must be nice to have sockpuppets do your dirty work for you. I have never violated the three revert rule or vandalized a User page, unlike you. --Wiesenthaler 06:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR Violation by Irishpunktom[edit]

Hello, this is over at Yasser Arafat

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 [3] to his previous version [4]

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 [5] to his previous version [6]

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 [7] to his previous version [8]

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22 [9] to his previous version [10]

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 195.7.55.146 12:23 Dec 22 [11] to his previous version [12]

--MPerel 00:20, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've left him a message. If he reverts again, I'll block him. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Just got that, sorry, everything I put in just gets reverted. The letter by Chris Patten deserves a mention, and t would be stupid not to, but it gets reverted, and the 'talk' page is ignored. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 01:09, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think he reverted more than three times. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - No, he reverted 4x and I put the links on your talk page, including what he reverted to each time. And it was actually 5x if you include the original revert under his ip. I actually did post Talk on Arafat a few days ago to dialogue with him about which edits of his edits I agreed with and which I disagreed with [13], and I made changes here [14]. However, he never responded to my comments to him, he only came back and kept reverting several people back to his version, even reverting to his grammar errors. --MPerel 01:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

- - It is clearly 5 reverts, and if you exclude his edits as an IP, 4 reverts. He keeps reverting his own material in, and taking other material out. There's no way it could be considered anything else IMHO. Jayjg 03:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Actually, he's made 6 reverts now [15] where he reverted back to his version here [16]. But I'm losing confidence here. I see a different standard being applied to editors depending on which side of the admin's POV he falls. Maybe I was foolish to expect nonbiased help. --MPerel 04:52, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
      - It's not a question of different standards. If you see someone break the 3RR your first step should be to go to the user's talk page and inform them of the rule, then warn them that breaking the rule carries up to a 24 hour temp block penalty. Then come to the admins. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)~

I'm afraid you're going to have to ask someone else if you'd like him blocked. I decided that I prefer not to get involved with this situation, no offense. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not offended, just disappointed by the bias and selective rule enforcement. At least I've learned who not to ask for help. --MPerel 20:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Gmail invite[edit]

Do you still have a spare Gmail invite? Not sure how this works, but please let me know. --mervyn 09:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I sure do. Email me your email address via the "Email this user" link in sidebar when you're at this page. I'll send you one. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hartford/Carolina[edit]

The reason why I merger the Hartford Whaler page with the Carolina Hurricanes page is because the whalers relocated to Carolina and are the same team we do not have two pages for the same team. Here is an anology we do not have one page for Hilray Rondam and than a second page for Hilray Clinton we put it all on one page.

The pages do not need to be merged. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Hi Blankfaze, I note you've been making some changes to the new Main Page intro text. Can I ask you to please discuss changes on the Talk page, before actually making them? Dan100 22:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold in editing pages. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee[edit]

In answer to your question on my talk page, I'm copying my answer here (thank you for asking, btw. That means something to me):

The way you blew me off when I sought your help with a situation was frustrating, and I'm not sure your manner will be very helpful in diffusing mediation situations. For that reason, I withdrew support. I'm not opposing, I just don't presently feel I can extend that extra boost of endorsement, based on my experience so far with you. That said, I'm sure I was too impatient with the editor I brought to your attention for 3RR. However, that will be the reality of mediation situations, people will come to you in heated situations, much more worked up than I was I'm sure. Let me ask you then, what will be your basic strategy in trying to bring frustrated parties to resolution? --MPerel 16:53, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

All due respect, I did not blow you off. I politely explained (or so I thought) that I simply decided I'd rather not get involved in that particluar situation. That said - My basic strategy in mediation is simple - I intend to encourage the parties to assume good faith and consider the merits of one another and their contributions, and hopefully by extension the possibility that the other party has something good to offer. I find oftentimes disputes are caused and then exacerbated by the refusal of one or both parties to assume good faith. I intend to remind parties that Wikipedia is a freely-editable, community project, and as such, no one person owns any article; you have to allow and accept other people's contributions sometimes. I think when an editor puts a lot of hard work into an article they get perfectionisty and lose sight of that. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Largesovietflag2.PNG

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Tucson, Arizona and more[edit]

Hi. I saw that you voted on the RFC regarding Tucson, Arizona, and I thought you might be interested in commenting on a broader application of the formatting to other city articles. The discussion (for now) is at Talk: Tucson, Arizona#Other Arizona and nearby cities. (It might get moved to WikiProject Cities, if there's interest in doing so.) Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your vote[edit]

Thank you for your vote. But you must have misread my request: I am not "intolerant" of British spelling, though in my earlier months that was how I seemed to come through as. After late September this attitude gradually diminished in my editing, since now I prefer to use alternative constructions to avoid the biases of either American or British spelling habits.

Please consider these things, and reconsider your vote. Reply at my talk page. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 19:49, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)