User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Sep 2004)

Unblock please

This is VeryVerily. I have been improperly blocked by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. Could you please undo this? - VV

Thanks! VV 22:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That note on my page which you read was the only "notice" I received. (No, no IRC, I've never been there.) I was writing a reply to Aevar's oddball note when I found I could not post at all. Yes, I was "slowed down" waiting for the block to be immediately reversed, but gave up on that soon enough. No, I'm not going to complain about the protected version, however unfortunate. Sorry to drag you into this, but I contacted admins who were on Recentchanges, and only you replied. It seems a straightforward action to me, actually, just reverse the improper block. Thanks again for doing that, I don't know what accounts for the inaction of the other sysops. VV 23:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Thank you for protecting the page. Will you serve as an informal arbitor on the discussion page? Not in the sense of deciding who is right, more in the sense of guiding the conversation and keeping it constructive.

LegCircus 23:21, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

How unappealing does that sound? VV 23:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again for your characteristically calm discussion of the issues. Yes, I figured out it was some technical issue or other that caused the unblocking to fail; in fact, when I saw the unblock "#8xx"something appear in the log, I thought even then it might have been that. Also, I don't really know what my reputation is around here; I have vocal critics, to be sure, but how in general I'm thought of it's hard to say, and I do get periodic support.

My theory was that Node and Aevar knew each other in RL, esp since Node called him a nice kind man, but IRC is another possibility. Maybe I'll poke my head in there one day to see what it's all about. Though, it was only with reluctance (and provocation) that I posted to the mailing list.

As for deleting the RfC, that's hard to say. Since some people used it to attack me, it might be improper for me to suggest its deletion; I was even nervous that it would be conflict of interest for me to delist it, but did so anyway since it was my complaint and I wanted to withdraw it. I also don't know what the policy is on deleting discussion of this nature; it doesn't seem Wikipedia-like, but it's done with uncertified RfC's for some reason.

The Kissinger situation may sort itself out. It was a combination of (a) me deciding to revert to Stargoat's version instead of mine and (b) Node ue calling me a vandal and re-inserting the disputed text, that made it into a mess. Maybe that won't happen again. (Node is notably absent from the Talk page.) VV 06:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: reputation. It seems odd you could know what I'm "known for", as I don't really; are you extrapolating from a handful of impressions? Anyway, I also wanted to ask what sort of "statute of limitations" there is with RfC's. You removed mine, which indeed has been inactive for weeks. Of the people who initiated it, Neutrality has apparently washed his hands of the conflict and GBWR is no longer active. So it seems KB relisting it, the same one, is probably not appropriate. I may just remove it myself, but as you removed it once you may sense more precisely when it is time for them to go. VV 04:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, Michael. I've thought about this at some length previously, and come to the conclusion that every trustworthy user "may as well" be an admin—even if they don't necessarily plan on making a great deal of use of the privileges (see Robin Patterson's nomination, for example). Therefore, I'd be honoured to accept, if you did decide to nominate me. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 00:01, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Hi Michael. I wanted to thank you for taking the leadership at the press release. I was feeling lower everyday thinking that no one took the time to take care of this, for such an important milestone. So, great relief to see you do it :-) Of course, I will participate to translate it, and sent it as well.

. SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal RfC

[Courtesy copy from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/orthogonal. -- orthogonal 01:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Actually, an RfC listing is generally allowed to start (and run for 48 hours) without being certified, although during that period it should be listed under the Candidate pages heading. Also, I think it is clear that Snowspinner at least did make efforts to resolve the dispute. Question the sincerity or the effectiveness if you like, but his efforts are quite clearly in evidence. Thus at the very least, Snowspinner could legitimately open this RfC and see if someone else would certify it within the allotted time. The issue of improper certification applies to Fennec only, but you are blithely lumping Snowspinner in with him. Though they may be allies here, still it makes about as much sense as holding you responsible for Plato's behavior because he has endorsed your summary of the dispute and you were once invited to join his "Red faction".

Sticking with the analogies to legal processes, it's like filing a lawsuit and later having it dismissed. Of course, the defendant can argue that the case was frivolous and seek sanctions against the plaintiff. Frivolous, in my view, means that there wasn't actually a substantive dispute involved, and it's abundantly obvious that you and Snowspinner do have a substantive dispute. As it turns out, RfC is not the best place to handle this particular dispute. Mediation could work much better, and I think it's time to focus your attention there. I regret any injury to reputations or waste of time, but in bludgeoning each other for the past month, you two had already harmed your reputations and wasted your time plenty, and this RfC fiasco is just the icing on the cake. --Michael Snow 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow, I have no issue with allowing the RfC to start and run 48 hours without it being certified; that period is necessary for certification to be given, I agree. When I say that Snowspinner did not make sincere efforts to resolve the dispute, I refer to his page User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal, a rather long page on which he indicated he would neither read nor reply to anything I might say to him. He linked to this from several talk and wikipedia pages, wherever I attempted to engage him in dialogue. If someone refuses to even listen to others' views, it's a bit futile to try to talk to them. As Snowspinner listed that page for speedy deletion only three hours before starting the RfC, it's a bit much to say he was trying to resolve the dispute. I'd ask you to read Snowspinner's page and judge for yourself, but Snowspinner refuses to allow it to be undeleted. -- orthogonal 01:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

¡Thanks For Protecting The Article Circumcision¡

---

User:Robert Brookes has really made a mess of it and many other articles. Circumcisiopjiliacs not only mutilate poor innocent defenseless babies, but articles as well. I suppose that mutilating articles is a means to the end of mutilating poor innocent defenseless babies.

Ŭalabio 08:34, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Translation

I sicced the linguists onto the press release a couple days ago; better results than waiting for the freeze, since it's much easier to modify an existing transl than to start one. See m:Translation requests for progress updates. +sj+ 21:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) (and thank you for taking on the task of coordinating the release. this was much needed.)

People work well with changes and revisions. Indeed, it's always good to have more than one translator look at the copy in any case; they double as proofreaders. I still haven't had a chance to take an editorial look at the press release... late tonight. perhaps. +sj+

Deleting user subpages

There's a vote in progress at Wikipedia talk:Deletion of user subpages. Please consider voting. I have also requested that the proposal be frozen for the period of the vote, but this has met with opposition. Your participation in the process would be greatly appreciated. Andrewa 10:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV RfC

The dispute is still active/ongoing. It is not "stale". There is still some activity on the page, and I expect new contributors to it in a few days. Kevin Baas | talk 16:40, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I've always considered the existence of a dispute to be the overriding criteria for the preserverance of an RfC, not activity on the RfC page. This seems more relevant to the problematic. I don't know what the general practice regarding this is. If you archive it again, I will leave it alone, but please understand my reasoning and take it into consideration before making a decision. Thank you. Kevin Baas | talk 17:10, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I do understand your reasoning. Archive away. :) Kevin Baas | talk 17:50, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

VV admin message

I've taken the rather bold step of amending your comments on VV's talk page. I went there myself to say much the same thing but saw you beat me too it. I felt that "even you know" sounded a little bit, sort of 'you don't have any friends, you know it's true'. This is probably me being hypersensitive about niceties but I've amended it none the less. I didn't put in any brackets or anything becasue i didn't want to imply that you'd said anything wrong. Only that I like my wording a bit better. Anyway revert me if you think I'm nuts, out of order, or stupid. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not know about it until your note. It's indeed probably not good at all; besides the fact that I will not get consensus now or perhaps ever, the pending conflict I'm in may make it ugly and invite those baying for my blood. I will remove the RfA after I put a note of explanation on the nominator's page. VV 05:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, I'm delaying on removing it. It's clear to me now the "damage" is mostly done, and since a slew of negative things were said about me over a short time, I've opted to wait a few hours to see if any countereffect materializes. This may be irregular, but I'm also giving myself time on what to do. VV 07:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Got rid of it. VV 13:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing username

Thank you for the recommendation, Michael. :) Wow, the proceedure listed at Wikipedia:Changing username is far more complicated than what I actually did. I don't consider the reattribution to be a big deal. So far as I can tell, the only purpose it would serve would be to eventually get User:Blankfaze to vote for me for admin. ;-) Since I have no desire to admin, I think I'll give the developers a break and not burden them with more work. func(talk) 17:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 00:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Chameleon's changes

I am slightly annoyed by the way chameleon has split off of an "international english" version of the press release... particularly the way it started with an edit war, and hasn't remained frozen since then. And I feel somewhat responsible, since I asked for his help. But some of his changes were good; particularly adding a note about how WP is now cited by so many other sources (cf. this diff).

Is it worth adding those changes to the other english version? +sj+ 03:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll chalk it up as just another translation artefact. +sj+ 07:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Feces" comment

If you read this and the associated comments by me on Kevin Baas's talk page, as well as the history of edits on my talk page, you would have clearer view of the provocation I was repeatedly subjected to by Neutrality, et al.

Even so, in light of the "feces" edit battle on my talk page, I do see how you would be skeptical of my explaination about this "tally" controversy.

However, you really ought to consider that I have shown clear proficiency in locating links to past edits and for that reason, I would not possibly think that any edit I make would somehow be invisible to others who can view the same.

Certainly, you are not suggesting that I "manipulated" a tally with the aim of going undetected do you? Such a proposition flies in the face of the known fact that I have several editors who despise me (JML in particular) and review every edit I make. In light of that being the case, how do you suppose I hoped to remain undetected with a suppsedly intentional vote tally manipulation? It simply makes no sense. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But, in order to come to that conclusion, you have to disregard my assurance that it was a mistake. If not, then you are not assuming good faith. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that's the reason I tell you that it was a mistake - I am not sure how it happened. My only surmise is that because I sometimes copy out a section (into Cetus word pad - a program I use) and then add in my comments, spell check and re-insert, something must have happened. Frankly, I did not even remember that edit until it was brought up. Also - you've see my edits - when have I ever failed to explicitly state my concerns or comments? If I had problems with that RfD, then you can be sure I would have explicitly said so. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's goal of getting me "hard banned" from this Wiki

Here a link to an edit by JML, where he states his "hard ban" goal to Neutrality. These two seem inordinately focused on making and/or amplifying trouble for me. Here is another, where JML is even more explicit with Kevin Baas. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's Dialog with Kevin Baas

You should read this here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps unfortunately, the software does not call for an explanation when restoring a page the way it does for deletions.

Hmmmm, you know, you are perfectly correct. It would be best that the software calls for an explanation...

I would have thought that if you thought my deletion was inappropriate, the normal way to handle that is through Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

I think that most of the time, this page is used by trolls. I think my request would have not have any answer given. I knew it would just by undeleting it. Of course, you are perfectly correct to delete it, in the sense that policy authorized you to do so.

In any case, at the very least I should have been informed of the undeletion and the reason for it (see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy).

I put a word on the talk page, so as to start a discussion there, and insure you would see I was not hiding.

Accordingly, I am requesting that explanation from you now. Also, in this situation the undeletion policy calls for the page to immediately be listed on VfD, which I have done. --Michael Snow 22:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, problem. I'll answer there :-)

(Michaël, do not be so formal :-))

TV Naming conventions.

At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Patrick Noddy RfA

It was a joke nomination? But I thought it was a self-nomination? -- orthogonal 20:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[Courtesy copy from my Talk page. -- orthogonal 20:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

If you check out the nomination as originally posted, noting the unusual end date (Christmas) and the inclusion of "votes" attributed to other people, I think that's the most sensible conclusion. Humor is admittedly difficult to gauge when text is the only context provided. Also, based on his user page, this is a 7-year-old and so there may be a little gap in what people think is funny. Anyway, I left Patrick a message on his talk page, and if he's really serious I have no problem if he wants to restore the self-nomination. If no joke was intended, I think that should be good enough. --Michael Snow 20:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seems likely given that. I do however get nervous when anyone's vote is removed, in case a precedent is set that could be misused to deny unpopular minorities a chance at nomination (and I note that in the past, certain nominations have been treated that way). -- orthogonal 20:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An Issue of Fundamental fairness

As I understand that you are the administrator of the RfC process, I'd like to notify you of the following post on Village Pump: [1]

Thanks. -- orthogonal 17:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RFC

Michael, can I ask you to archive Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic off the main page. This was a frivolous attempt and the content is just a ramble of random minor disputes. My objections to the certifications are documented on the page, and the submitters have not answered my challenges. Neither certifier is involved in the same dispute and many of the charges are un-substantiated. This really shouldn't have been marked "Approved" at all. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for your humorous support(?) of my adminship. :) –Andre (talk) 17:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image tagging

Hi, sorry for the late answer but I was out of town for two days. The table will be updated every now and then (say each week or two) to keep track of the progress. It's not difficult, since I'm doing the same on the Italian wiki and so the program was already written :-) Alfio 13:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging images uploaded by me :) I wanted to do it myself but never had enough time... Nikola 10:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Release date

Hi Michael,

The press release is ready in over 30 langs! Now if only everyone uses the Logbooks properly. .. :-)

I can't find any official mention of a specific release-time for the press release, and people in europe in particular want to know when to send out their letters. Midnight UTC seems like a natural interpretation of 'Monday'; what do you think? Drop me a line on meta. +sj+ 18:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I appreciate the note you left -- it helped me read your comments more swiftly (and respond -- see talk), and it was much appreciated encouragement. I should be a bit more bold, but the other arbitrators have become so adept at care in wording that I am hesitant to set clumsy steps out there, largely because a poorly worded principle requires a lot of time to correct (making sure everyone who's already voted sees the new option, or agrees with rewording the old one). You're right, though -- I should be a bit more bold....though obviously I made at least one poor suggestion which even I wouldn't support now, just a few hours later. Such a difficult job.... You'd be excellent at it, and I hope you'll consider running in the next election. I fear I haven't sufficient time or care for the position, but I do what I can. :-) All my best to you (you who also have my respect, and whom I think of as a friend, if that is not seen as "too bold"), may you have a good evening and lend your advice and perspective frequently to this timid arbitrator, Jwrosenzweig 00:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

State of limbo

I'm confused by the continuing existence of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Xed. Since your wintry namesake Snowspinner's last edit, it seems to have been put into limbo. I feel like Terence Stamp in a Superman film.--Xed 16:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ago Gratias

My dear Mr. Snow:
Thank you for your kind words. I've always been an eager beaver in elections--I ran for my school board at nineteen--and jumped into this one too. One difference is here I know why voters opposed me. I was surprised to see criticism of "fishing for a nomination." Well, in the real world one has to go around and get signatures to get on the ballot--in my state the petitions say right at the top, "Nominating Petitions," and the voters declare they are nominating the candidate-- and I didn't see how this was different. You have to ask people, right? I guess some of our fellow Wikipedians see campaigning as unseemly--perhaps they are 21st century virtual Progressives. Oh, and if it isn't obvious, I'm a poli sci major too. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Thanks for your suggestion. Andrew was the first person that came to mind, although he is currently living in the US. He has expressed an interest in it if no one outside the US wants to though. Angela. 22:12, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know where I got that idea. I don't think it's currently true. Angela. 19:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Renominations to VfD

At Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed new rule: No repeat submission of articles, you raised the concern that we may be creating unnecessary instructions and complications. I share your concerns about instruction creep. I think we may be forced into getting closer consensus on this issue, though. There is certainly a great deal of passion around the issue. I've proposed a revote in a different format in an attempt to at least find out what the consensus really is. I'd appreciate your comments and changes before people start using the table. Rossami 14:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seattle meetup

Actually, the thought had reoccurred to me just recently -- glad you thought of it too. I'm teaching now, so my schedule has gotten more complicated than it once was -- Friday and Saturday nights are therefore best (well, all day Saturday, actually), although nights preceding school holidays like Veteran's Day (or nights on a school holiday like Veteran's Day) work well also. Would you give your schedule a look and propose a list of dates? Once we have one, I think it could be publicized in the usual places -- I know Jmabel and Lukobe are local, and I think a few other contributors are (at least one is a UW student who's been polishing up those pages). We may have lost all our Vancouver editors, I can't remember, but certainly it would be good to meet some of them. You're right that the lack of star power will reduce turnout, but then I'd frankly rather spend time getting to know a few people than spend time trying to simply shake all the hands of a massive crowd. :-) Maybe we should start setting up the details in a user subpage -- yours or mine? Makes no difference to me either way. Thanks for the spark -- let's make this happen. Jwrosenzweig 14:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's look at those first two Saturdays in November -- does either one appeal to you? I can do either one at this point. I think 16th is too soon, the 23rd is the Huskies at the #1 team in the nation, which will probably distract at least a few, and the 30th was out for you and for Halloween. Let me know which Saturday you prefer. If you have absolutely no preference, let's aim for the 6th. As far as a location goes, the brand new downtown Seattle library presents itself as a good candidate -- perhaps in the cafe on the main level? I'd be open to other possibilities also -- on the UW campus (a library, cafe, or the student union bldg.), Bell Square, a restaurant that doesn't mind a lively discussion happening in the corner. I'm in Sammamish -- I don't know where you'll be coming from. If you have some preferences, feel free to suggest them: I'm just tossing around some ideas that occur to me at the present. Let me know what you think. Jwrosenzweig 20:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 6th it is. I haven't been inside the library either (and we call ourselves scholars!), but I read the special section in the newspaper so many times, poring (pouring?) over diagrams that I feel as if I know the space. Though obviously I don't, since I thought the cafe space was bigger. Any scouting you can do would be fantastic -- Seattle's a bit of a drive for me, and I don't do it often. As far as meeting space, a study room of some kind would be wonderful -- can we arrange it as private citizens, so to speak? I like the 3 pm idea -- lends itself naturally to dinner downtown somewhere if anyone is willing, without imposing the expense on starving college students (or starving public school teachers, come to think of it, but I think I can swing it if people are interested). Two things remain, then -- what page shall we use to plan this (a user subpage or something in the Wikipedia namespace?) and when/how shall we announce it (village pump? mailing list? both?)? Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds very good. I left notes (having see you do so) for User:Jkiang, the fellow who rewrote the UW page and is a student there, I think, as well as User:JHK, who is unlikely to attend (she was one of the early Wikipedipioneers who is on semi-permanent vacation now, but now and then I catch her lurking and she always seems pleasant -- I thought it would be neat to get a sense of the history of the site if she showed). I also dropped notes to Mkmcconn and Llywrch as the only two Portlanders I can think of. The only fellow in Vancouver anymore (now that Vancouverguy is gone) is Eclecticology, I think -- I'll drop him a note. I figure the odds of any of them attending is low, but it would be neat to meet them if they wanted to make the trip. I figure if one or two out-of-towners show and most of us in-towners do also, that's 6-7 people, which is a good number, I think -- small enough to be manageable but large enough to have a couple of conversations going at once. The only other experienced name I know in the general area is Sarge Baldy, but he's down in Corvallis and I figure that's too far to drive for a Saturday afternoon meeting. If he doesn't think so, I'm sure he'll catch the announcement on the pump. Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Adminship?

Hi, thanks for offering to nominate me for adminship...I'm definitely interested. I tend to concentrate on editing cryptography articles — pretty uncontroversial and vandal free — but there's still been a number of times when admin powers would have come in handy for various housekeeping bits. I'd be quite happy to keep an eye on Recent Changes every now and then, too. — Matt 16:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)