User talk:Starblind/2005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imperial Post[edit]

Why do you seem to imply that the Empire of Upper and Lower was "set up on the Internet? The Empire of Upper and Lower started in 1982, and had no Internet presence whatsoever for the first 15 years, and its Imperial Post was started the next year (1983). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • You seem to have utterly missed the point of my humourous comment on VfD. That comment was a satirical parody of how these sorts of things get started, and whether or not it originated online has no relevance, since it obviously is not a recognised nation either way (though I must point out that, yes, the Internet did exist in 1982).
    • Obviously. But its use wouldn't have been common enough for it to occur so obviously to someone that they could do this (in my opinion). --Daniel C. Boyer 23:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • In any case, as I mentioned, you have missed the point. The reason that the Imperial Post article should be deleted has nothing to do with the Internet, but that it isn't factual (at the very least, is not generally regarded as factual). WP is an encyclopedia, not an artistamp collector's guide, and such information is dangerous to those using WP for proper research purposes. For example, a child doing a school report on Michigan would likely lose points if they included this "Upper and Lower" nonsense. Please leave the stamp-making to the government and Nick Bantock, or at least keep it off WikiPedia. Starblind 18:13, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to have not even bothered to read the article in question. Of course is not a recognized nation -- it calls it a micronation right in the first sentence, and micronation is linked so as anyone who is confused as to what a micronation is can click on the link right then. So the "child doing a school report" is a fictitious issue. The information in the Imperial Post article is factual and I would challenge you to point out any part of it that is not, keeping in mind that it is acknowledged to be a micronation (which means a not generally recognized, or even imaginary -- though nonetheless having some activities --nation). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mycosis fungoides[edit]

Well done. One of the quickest deleted-to-good progressions I've seen. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 22:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you. And believe it or not I had absolutely no knowledge of that before I started. That's something I love about WP, and I've deliberately picked articles outside my areas of knowledge so I learn new things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Tee[edit]

  • I have had a go at adding info to the Tommy Tee article to hopefully guide it through the shoals of vfd. I would welcome any input that you might wish to have on it. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent article! I tossed in a few details like his birth name, and I shortened the AMG URL, but overall you had it covered. I'm pretty sure he'll pass VfD now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Patrick Toutain (person)[edit]

Just wanted to mention that I've had a miserable day, and your comments here made me laugh out loud in the middle of the college computer lab. Kudos, my good man! --InShaneee 05:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey![edit]

Listen up! You shouldn't deleted an article on a real school! It's an outrage!

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your support, Andrew! dbenbenn | talk 02:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My application for adminship / Amir's accusations[edit]

I prefer not to edit the voting page, nor to add any comments for obvious reasons, but I guess the pages User:Amir1 was referring to are following:

and possibly also

I hope that helps.

Refdoc 16:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ciphire VfD[edit]

Hey, Andrew, just wondering if you might review your vote on Ciphire. I did a little digging and the software appears to actually be unnotable except as regards its number of Google hits. Please see my notes on its deletion page. Thanks! HyperZonktalk 17:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow... you certainly have raised some good points about this VfD. I have reconsidered my vote based on the new information, see the VfD itself for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Hi. You voted to delete the page on my site, Hierarchypedia. I have no problem with this, I didn't start the page either. How many users would you say it would need before it could have a home here? Currently there are only two active users :(. I haven't found any way of getting people there either, any ideas?

Also, I had a look at your site and I like your art, particularly the Sputnik. Whoever the guy in the picture is almost a spiting image of me. --Hierarchypedia 01:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks on VfD[edit]

Your comments on the discussion about discounting VfD votes containing personal attacks was right on the money. Thanks for writing everything I wanted to say, and writing it better than I would have! (Well....the "writing it better than I would have" part sucks, but otherwise I'm pleased.) Joyous 01:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Lists of English words of international origin[edit]

Help! Xe's putting the dictionaries back in. Uncle G 18:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland - administrator[edit]

Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in the United States[edit]

I updated VfU summary on this article with these new points:

  • The main concern about the article was its title, but it was originally at the proper title and moved in November, 2004.
  • There are many redirects to that page and there is no way to trace them unless the page is undeleted.

Please review your vote, or at least provide a constructive way to adress these concerns, especially the last one. This is a stock message, but I replied to each voter individually on the VfU page. Thanks in advance. Grue 05:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chicago aldermen[edit]

Hi there! Since the discussion seemed finished, I've closed up the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians discussion for now. I believe consensus has been established that local politicians deserve mention in Wikipedia, but not in a separate article UNLESS they have done something exceptional. Would you please check if you find this a reasonable conclusion, and leave a short note on that page's talk page? Thanks.

Also if you have a lot of spare time you may want to consider helping with the merging proposed in that discussion.

Yours, Radiant! 10:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Notability of politicians[edit]

Andrew-

I had a question about two of your votes today ("today" my time, anyway) on VfD. I ask this not to start an argument (although I'm afraid one could read it that way) but because I'm genuinely curious and because I'm thinking of it as an example of how Wikipedia works. On one hand, you voted to delete a former minister in the Bengladeshi government. But later you argued that a 19th century congressman was notable explictly because every US congressman is by definition notable. How do you reconcile this?

I ask--again, I want to emphasize I'm not trying to pick a fight--because I'm trying to think through how we make decisions on Wikipedia, especially about things that we don't know anything about. For instance, I know nothing about Mirza Ghulam Hafiz, and because Bangladesh is what it is, it would be comparatively more difficult for me to find information about him than about George A. Sheridan. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that I can say that Hafiz is or isn't notable, since I'm hardly an expert on Bengladeshi politics. I think of this as one of the primary drawbacks of Wikipedia--our ability to make decisions on things about which we have no knowledge--and the cultural bias toward large, rich, English-speaking countries seems a large part of this. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

-- Remes 02:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Well, I could see how that could be confusing, but I believe it stems from a misreading of my vote on Hafiz. I did not vote delete because of any notability issue. As I noted in my vote, I was voting to delete because I agreed with the votes of Ragib and Radiant. They, in turn, were also not arguing against the notability of the subject, but that the article as it stood contained substantial points that were false and "didn't hold water". Verifiability is indeed a strong deletion criteria, and an article about a notable subject which is deleted as false or unverifiable will surely eventually be re-created in more accurate form, so it would be no great injustice to delete it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sheridan, continued[edit]

Hi, noticed that you had some comments about a scandal or conflict involving George Sheridan and the first black governor of Louisiana. Feel free to add that into the new article at any time; I'd be interested to read it. Yours, Meelar (talk) 16:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki[edit]

You seem to know something about the Star Wars universe, which is why I am inviting you to contribute to the Star Wars Wiki aka Wookieepedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:14, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

My adminship[edit]

Thank you for voting for me for adminship. I appreciate the confidence you showed in me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me second that! Thank you for your support vote and for the kind words on my adminship nomination. Best regards, — mark ✎ 21:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship, etc. of ABCD[edit]

I would just like to let you know that I am not a sockpuppet and am trying to show that I am not, hopefully with the help of a developer. – ABCD 18:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to reconsider your vote on my adminship, in light of the most recent comments, it would be very much appriciated. Thanks. &ndah; ABCD 02:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Andrew, just a note to say thank you very much for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I really appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 03:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


Saleel[edit]

I'd like to know why you voted to delete, rather than improve, Saleel. Can you tell me why exactly you don't think the Saleel network, which numbers in the thousands of members deserves even a mention? or is it that you dislike the layout, in which case I'd ask what do you believe could be done to improve it ? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Afrophobia[edit]

Hi!

I just wanted to announce that I've overhauled the afrophobia article, and we're brainstorming future additions on its talk page. Some Wikipedians have changed their votes after seeing the revamped article. Binadot 07:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Hi Andrew,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I too would like to thank you for supporting me for adminship. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 12:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

How do you nominate several articles for deletion under one entry? I ask because I nominated Cumulus Tower Winnie as a test case [1] for other planned towers last month, and I want to now nominate the other dozen planned towers. But I think it would be better to nominate them in one batch rather than individually. Dave the Red 21:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Good question. I believe it's somewhat discouraged to list multiple articles in one VfD entry these days. For one thing, it can seem somewhat sneaky if one of the articles is more notable than the others. Also, it can get confusing because some people might want to delete some of the articles but keep other ones. My advice would be to list all dozen of them seperately, as it makes things easier for the admin who has to close them. You could also create a Policy Consensus Discussion (see Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus, though I don't really think that towers are a broad enough topic to create new policy on. But generally I'd say that seperate VfD listings are the way to go. I hope this helps! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for the vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb2. It has made my week. --Henrygb 01:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another note of thanks for supporting my RFA; I'll do my best at this job. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Antandrus 02:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my nomination too! --nixie 12:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Ranking System[edit]

First off, thanks for coming onto this page. I am not sure if you are the right person to turn you, but I wish to let you know of something. On the project page, I have no problem with people saying they do not like the project. However, I think with the comments provided by User:Davenbelle (to me) sounds like he has something personal against the creator of the project, User:Coolcat. He (to me) is trying to insult this proposial by giving (in my view) very rude comments and suggestions for the name of the project, calling it "Trekcruft Pip-Squeaks." I agree this is Trekecruft, since it is a complete rip off of Star Trek, but I do not believe the name "Pip-Squeaks" should have been warrented. User Davenbelle also wanted the project to be placed on the BJAODN page, which I think also insults the process by calling it a senseless joke. I know that many people feel that this idea is not good, and which I am starting to agree with. However, I do not think this process needs to be hateful and to be used to axe a grind against another user (which I fear already turned out to be another CoolCat/Davenvelle War). Please, if at all possible, can you try to make it somewhat NPOV and please, if also possible, try to have admins watch it so it will not spill into a war. Thank you. Zscout370 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I also wish to point out that User:Fadix might have the same issues as Davenbell does with CoolCat, but to how much of a degree, I do not even know (or even want to know). I have no idea if their dislike of CoolCat has influenced their votes. For disclaimers sake, I did write a message of support for CoolCat for him to become a admin/mediator of some sort. Zscout370 01:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for alerting me to the problem. However, I think devenbelle's name suggestion might have been misunderstood. A "pip" is another word for a dot or round spot, such as those on a pair of dice. In the military, it can also mean dots worn by officers to signify rank, as in Starfleet (hence the term "officer's pips"). I think devenbelle was just trying to make a pun on "officer's pips" and "pipsqueak", so it's a reasonable (if somewhat silly) name for a project that's all about pips. As for the suggestion to BJAODN it, I agree that it shows obvious dislike for the project, but does not equate to a personal attack. I hope this explanation has calmed things somewhat, please let me know if the situation gets any worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Intercounty league[edit]

This is a serious question – what about my article on the Intercounty Baseball League gave you the impression I was trying to puff it up? I'd like to know, since that wasn't my intention, so obviously my style needs some improvement. I won't cry if it's deleted. I was just trying to provide an article for links in three or four articles about cities in the league to link to. John FitzGerald 02:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RickK and I have discussed the issues pretty thoroughly. I think part of the problem is differing conceptions of the amateur in Canada and the States. Anyway, I have modified the remarks I made on the VfD page and will now keep out of the voting. John FitzGerald 12:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the main problem might be that the article doesn't identify the league as amateur, nor does it even use the words "minor league", it just says that it's independent and not affiliated with Major League Baseball. Such distinctions are important for the article to have serious informative value. I acknowledge that such omissions might not necessarily have been made through a deliberate attempt to misinform, and it's wholly possible that these facts might have seemed so obvious to the author that they might be safely omitted. But while the author surely knows quite a bit about Intercounty League Baseball, the reader very likely doesn't, in fact many of the readers may never have heard of it before. It's best to be explicit about these things, better too much information than not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Part of the reason I didn't use the term minor league is that I am still of the opinion that a minor league is part of Organized Baseball, which the IBL is not. It's a sandlot league, so maybe I should have linked to Sandlot baseball, but then again I think there's some difference of opinion about that term here, too. And as usual for anything Canadian there is confusion about everything one might say about the league. The league describes itself as amateur, but in Canada amateurism doesn't necessarily imply that you don't get paid (I suppose that's true of anywhere, though, isn't it? But Canadians have bee known to define amateurs as players earning less than a certain amount). Anyway, I think Megan put her finger on the issue by describing it as sportcruft. I don't share that opinion, but if it's not sportcruft it's close, and the decision reached should help clarify the standards required for notability. John FitzGerald 16:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps a term like hobbyist league might be what you're looking for. I'd say it's fairly certain that some such word should be used, to avoid any appearance of obfuscation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
The problem may be the league is neither fish nor fowl. I suspect when the votes are counted we southern Ontarians, or at least those of us who live between Barrie and London, will continue to have the Intercounty as another one of our little secrets. All for the best, I suppose. John FitzGerald 20:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not[edit]

  • This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
  • It will be used only by users who want to use it.
  • Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
  • The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
  • It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks Cat chi? 08:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio KoL[edit]

I noticed you voted for merging a dj article to Radio KoL. However this article's existance is also under question. Please express your opinion on it's VfD page. Grue 19:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the info. I dunno how I missed that VfD, but I did. I voted now, and kept the reasoning practical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

My adminship: thanks![edit]

Hi Starblind. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello, Andrew. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Brand name products[edit]

I've closed this discussion as it seems to have reached a consensual conclusion. Please take a look at the conclusion and note (on the talk page) if you agree with its consensuality. Yours, Radiant_* 10:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hoser[edit]

Hi Andrew, Thank you for your improvements of the hoser article, I have to admit that the article has grown into something encyclopedic, despite what I thought about its potential, so I've withdrawn the nomination for deleting it. Best regards, Sietse 15:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cheung on VfU[edit]

Can you please revisit your VfU vote on Tim Cheung in light of my comment? You were asking to see the original so I pasted it into VfU. It is incomplete (one sentence and two empty sections) and the original author blanked it before it was marked for speedy deletion. If it is restored it will make no sense. - Tεxτurε 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for posting the original article text. It seems pretty likely that it was a user test. I've changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for the update! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey W. Parker[edit]

How's it going, I added more content to the Jeff Parker article, in case you want to reconsider your vote on notability. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 18:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indented comments on numbered lists[edit]

Hi Starblind. I see you reordered the comments on Apollomelos' RFA to get the numbering to work properly with indented comments. Just so you know, you can get the same effect by replacing the first indenting colon with a number sign (#). To fix the broken formatting produced by this wikicode: 

# Comment One
# Comment Two
:: Reply to Comment Two
::: Response to the Reply to Comment Two
:: Reply Two to Comment Two
# Comment Three
# Comment Four
  1. Comment One
  2. Comment Two
Reply to Comment Two
Response to the Reply to Comment Two
Reply Two to Comment Two
  1. Comment Three
  2. Comment Four

Use this wikicode: 

# Comment One
# Comment Two
#: Reply to Comment Two
#:: Response to the Reply to Comment Two
#: Reply Two to Comment Two
# Comment Three
# Comment Four
  1. Comment One
  2. Comment Two
    Reply to Comment Two
    Response to the Reply to Comment Two
    Reply Two to Comment Two
  3. Comment Three
  4. Comment Four

Fixing the numbering this way can save you quite a bit of time and frustration over trying to reorder items in a numbered list. Sorry to take up so much space on your Talk page (feel free to archive or delete this passage), and doubly sorry if you're already familiar with this stuff. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uwe kils[edit]

hallo and thank you very much for your time - keep up with the fine work - Uwe 68.46.71.104 03:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nichole Arsenault[edit]

Hey Andrew,

I do not disagree that she isn't the most notable person in the world, my fight is merely based on policy, not merit. She's not huge, she's appeared in one or two music videos that I remember, but all this talk of a hoaxes, pranks and crap is unsettling. Therefore, I will fight for the article, but in so much as it is the most meritable, but since I didn't create it (or know who did), I don't feel it was given due process. Antares33712 16:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Dear Antares, I can certainly understand your desire to fight for something you believe in. However, please note that my vote on the article isn't about notability (which is basically subjective) but about verifiability (which is, more or less, an absolute). I have a question: Is there anything out there... a book, a magazine, a newspaper, even a well-known website... which verifies even the most basic facts about Nichole: i.e. that she exists and that she's a model? I'd be willing to talk about undeletion and salvaging the article, but we need something--anything--on which to build. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks Andrew, unfortunately not at this second. I haven't fought for the article in so much as its notability (it was basically a stub), as much as the fear at when I DO find those things, the article, however valid will still be harpooned simply by pointing to a previous Vfd. If the article had been VfD with me there (much like we are discussing the VfU), things would be different. That didn't happen, and it made the whole explain-significance diatribe useless if someone else was going to just harpoon it. I apologize for seeming like a sour grape Antares33712 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Andrew, thanks for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support[edit]

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hugs[edit]

Hi back at ya! *hugs* Thecharmedmuse 22:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Al-Muhajabah VfD[edit]

Just out of curiosity, on this vfd you said "Alexa score way too low" yet the blog "veiled4allah" gets over 52,000 hits on Google. It seems odd that a site that gets so many mentions would have such a low ranking on Alexa. Do you have any thoughts on this? DS1953 14:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's not that odd. Google and Alexa measure two different things. Google is a measure of how many times a word is mentioned on the web, while Alexa measures the number of actual visitors to a specific website, and how much time they spend there. Of the two, Alexa is harder to "cheat" at... it's pretty easy for a knowledgable person to spam Google or other search engines, while it's difficult to artificially inflate an Alexa score. In my opinion, Alexa is a better ranking to use when evaluating web topics (blogs, forums, webcomics, etc.). Google, on the other hand, is better of general cultural stuff... for example, most people have heard of Maxwell House brand coffee, but probably don't spend a lot of time at its website, so it has a high Google score and a low Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I recognize and agree with everything you say, but spamming Google only works up to a point and 52,000 hits is a lot. It also looked like most of the hits at the top of the search results were not to link exchanges and other spam factories but to other bloggers and news sources, so she is obviously getting noticed by real people. Perhaps the difference is because her influence is in a fairly limited group. I don't know, it still doesn't make complete sense to me. DS1953 14:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I wasn't specifically accusing Al-Muhajabah of Google spamming... with all the commenting, blogrolling, interlinking, trackbacking, etc., blogging is an activity that can generate a lot of Google hits fairly easily, even for those who don't actually intend to spam their site. This can lead to an extremely high Google score for bloggers which doesn't necessarily reflect their actual popularity/notability. Let's look at an example. Wonkette is a popular blog, and has a ludirously high Google score (962,000). Yet, I bet if you walked up and down the street asking people if they'd heard of Wonkette, you'd mostly get blank stares. Elmer Fudd is a very famous cartoon character who almost everybody has at least a passing knowledge of, but his Google score is just 131,000. Yet I doubt that even Wonkette itself (herself?) would try to claim that it is 10 times as famous as Elmer Fudd. The point of all this? The Google criteria is grotesquely biased toward web-based stuff, and blogs particularly, and a high Google does not necessarily equate to real-world fame and/or notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I noticed that there is a Tripod site (ranking 109) that redirect to her site. She probably started out there and got a domain of her own. If people go to the Tripod site, does that get counted by Alexa in her rankiing? DS1953 14:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, this would not matter. Alexa would likely count the tripod visit and the domain visit seperately, and the domain visit would likely count for more as it would be longer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks. DS1953 15:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my nomination. --Theo (Talk) 14:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

signature?[edit]

Hi Starblind,

how can I make a template for my user signature on wikipedia? Mine is a bit boring - Snchduer 01:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support![edit]

Hi Starblind! Thanks for supporting my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Music at sporting events[edit]

Andrew, since you've made a fairly substantial addition to the article, would you be interested in voting at the VfD? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 02:54, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

RfA Nomination[edit]

Hello! I'm just thinking about nominating you for administration. I know we haven't talked a whole lot in the past, but I know you've been active and helpful on VfD, and after taking the liberty of looking at your contribution history, I was wondering if you would accept if I nominated you. (I wanted to check first, because I know it can be a contentious process, and some people prefer not to go through it). --Scimitar 29 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)

  • I'm pleased to tell you that I've nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Starblind. Please answer the requisite questions, and good luck. (Also, I wouldn't worry about only having been here since January. 6 months seems to be lots in these circles). --Scimitar 29 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Single[edit]

Ahh, I see. Thanks for catching that error. OmegaWikipedia 30 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)

  • No problem. Thanks for your contributions, and feel free to let me know if you need any help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Pokémon Adoption[edit]

With your permission, I'd like to move the pokémon adoption area to Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center, and get the abbreviation WP:PAC for it, as well as move [of Pokémon species stubs] to that page. Just to organize the whole thing better, because the page at Poképrosal is getting unwieldly. Almafeta 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Thank you greatly[edit]

Thank you very much for your vote and remarks on ym RfA. They are very kind, and greatly appreciated. I anticipate helping out a lot more on VfD, pending adminship. Good luck on your own. Cheers, Bratschetalk 5 pillars June 30, 2005 22:26 (UTC)

RfA Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA nomination. I appreciate the vote of confidence you have provided me. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Tea Sucking[edit]

Starblind, I noticed your name among those who had voted to delete Tea Sucking. I voted to delete it myself. Uncle G subsequently did a very radical rewrite; I'm happy to change my vote from delete to keep and even if you don't want to join me in this I think you'll find the new article worth a look. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 07:28 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't vote to delete, I just made a comment. But I agree 100% that this article now should be kept. I've voted accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 2, 2005 10:31 (UTC)
    • What, me read the comments that I'm commenting on? Me know what I'm talking about?! Er yes, I think this computer monitor has addled my brain. Sorry about that. Well, I'm about to turn it off and head home, blessedly non-electronic Iskra in sweaty palm. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 11:07 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

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! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Nice going. Congratulations on becoming an admin; I am sure you will make good use of your new tools. See you around! --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
I am very pleased to see you get that mop and bucket, supporting your candidacy was an easy decision. Congratulations from me too! Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
Well, guess I'm third. Congratulations! --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
Congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
Congratulations! Meanwhile, Ash-anti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) runs amok. Could you protect some of the pages he's vandalising? Thanks, PeregrineAY 9 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Ash-anti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have stopped for the moment, no new edits in the last 10 minutes or so. In cases of minor vandalism like that, it's better to temporarily block the IPs involved than to protect the page(s) anyway. Let me know if he keeps it up, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 9, 2005 10:33 (UTC)

A Word of thanks[edit]

Hi Andrew... Thanks very much for the kind words. I've put in a lot of work, so it's nice to be acknowldged. PetSounds 13:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment in civility[edit]

If you could find me a problem to solve, either with myself or with a recent contribution of mine, I will see if I can take care of it more appropriately. I really need to prove that I can minimize or even eliminate my admitted volatility. Or am I going at it the wrong way?  Denelson83  03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first off, I consider it a good sign that you admit that there's problems, and that you're keen on solving or minimising them. As for the volatility & RfC issues, I don't think that much can be done except wait. Wikipedia and its members are quick to forgive and forget, and soon it will all be ancient history that nobody cares about anymore. What you can improve on anytime is your talk page policy, which is quite strange at best and unwikipedian at worst. Keeping clear lines of communication open is important for any user, but it's vital for a an admin. The part about removing messages you find "negative or frightening" is very odd. The best thing to do is probably to just remove the disclaimer text and operate your talk page like most other wikipedians do. If you really want to keep it like it is, then at the very least explain it a bit better (like the wierd/confusing "negative or frightening" part) so that it doesn't seem to the reader like you're trying to cut communication off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

thanks for supporting me[edit]

Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) GarrettTalk 10:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch's RfA[edit]

First off, thanks for your generous support and helping cross of trolls/sockpuppets. Second, seing how you crossed out the newbie oppose votes, I also think its fair that you cross out the single newb support vote (normally I'd do this myself but I think it might constitute a conflict of intrests). Thanks again and happy editting! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I completely misread the edit history. I sincerely apoligize and will immediately change that. Guess I was kinda sleepy at that time =S Again, I'm deeply sorry and didn't mean any offense =S Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I have corrected the mistake in my comment. Sorry I didn't notice it sooner but I guess the trolls/Rainbowwarrior was starting to get to me. Again, I apologize dearly and hope to work with you under better circumstances in the future. Thanks anyways! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your support and, again, my sincere apolgies for my bad reading skills. I promise that I will read more carefully as an admin and hopefully will not make and stupid statements like that again. Thanks again and regards! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Auftragsarbeiten[edit]

Can you give me an accurate translation of this word into something that makes sense in English. And, if you have some free time, can you translate the lead section of this page. I'm thinking this system would be a nice addition to the English version. -- BRIAN0918  20:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Litefantastic's bid for admin[edit]

I really do take this seriously, and I'd like to know if there's anything I can do (or prove to you that I've already been doing) to convice you I might be a reasonable choice for this position. -Litefantastic 23:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like somebody decided to combine TWO annoyances into one...[edit]

Looks like we've got a spambot utilizing dynamic IP addresses... --Chanting Fox 00:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform!

Deletion discussion[edit]

Just popped in to look at your proposal for inclusion criteria - well thought out. Being a nit-picker, I had to add "editor" to your unpublished book example, since Harlan Ellison is not the author of the Dangerous Visions collections but the editor. Comments - similar example might be the movie Dark Star that was expanded from a student film of John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon. All criteria will have this type of qualification; I'm sure someone could find something which would not meet a rigid specification for inclusion but should be included because of other notability. Other than that, I agree that guidelines have value. I have referred to WP:MUSIC specifically for a VfD. -WCFrancis 22:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also on deletion[edit]

Hey, Starblind, as an intelligent being who has an interest in VfD, I was wondering if you'd like to help me come up with some proposals dealing with the subject. Along the lines of some of the stuff you mentioned in the new discussion, but also matters of consensus (what they are, what they mean, how to find them), what closers should do, what votes mean, when to merge, and maybe some guidelines on renominations, as well as other things. What do you think? -R. fiend 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd certainly be up for helping. I've also been planning a little article about debunking some common misconceptions and myths about VfD ("Great articles get deleted all the time", etc.) which I'll probably post tomorrow. How about an outline of what you're working on, to give us something to start with? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't quite have an outline yet; i'll probably start one tonight whilst watching Law & Order (Oh, it's on in 2 minutes!). But some of this is inspired by Tony Sidaway's RfC, which has made it abundantly clear that who closes a VfD can vastly determine the outcome, when really after all the discussions are over, it usually shouldn't matter. That's a big issue right there. But if you want to know my basic opinions on the current "crisis" check out User:R. fiend/Why VfD isn't seriously broken, if you didn't see it at the other discussion. -R. fiend 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something of an outline has been added to the above link. I'm going away for about a week and might not have internet access too often. Let me know what you think, anyway. -R. fiend 15:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very interesting, and I agree with many of your points. Here's a point-by-point breakdown (feel free to reply directly to the points if you wish)...
  1. Consensus This is likely to be the most controversial point, but it's also one of the most important. Instead of taking away the admins' right to make judgement calls when voting is close (which would be strongly opposed) we should instead try to make clear that a vote of transwiki/BJAODN/redirect/etc should NOT be considered a keep when the voting is closed. This closely follows common sense, and should translate well into a policy proposal.
    • A lot of this stuff really should be simple and straightforward, but from some quite frustrating discussions I've had, it is clear that it is not. The problem arises not so much from someone thinking 8/5 is a consensus, and someone else thinking it must be 10/5, but from when only straight delete votes are counted as deletes, while "merge and delete", "transwiki", and even "BJAODN" are not. This is further compounded when the results are specified as only either keep or delete. Merges are not mentioned (even when there is strong support for them), much less actually done. some admins believe that when closing a vote the admin need only close the debate, archieve the discussion, and delete if the consensus is to do so. Transwiking, merge/redirecting, etc. are left for "other editors". This is where the problem with transwiki and delete comes in. I got in an argument with an admin in which I was told there couldn't be a transwiki and delete because you can't transwiki something if it's deleted. If the closer didn;t feel like doing a transwiking, then he couldn't carry out the delete part either. It's a mess. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merging following a VfD. Very true, though I don't know how this could be reworked into official policy, since it essentially already is. Perhaps a section could be added to the admin deletion guidelines saying it's okay. On the other hand, we don't want people going crazy with it, either: if there's a VfD for a lengthly bio of a teenage cartoonist, we don't want them sticking it into an article on the History of Art just to get around the VfD.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Again the problem here is in the binary results. Something which fails to reach consensus is sometimes made a "Keep", even if not a single keep vote was cast. If someone later wants to do a merge, it can be tough, as some users (even some admins) see the "keep" in the result and think it's set in stone. This can lead to lots on unnecessary reversions and edit wars. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The roles of closers. Agreed, this should be stated somewhere. Shouldn't be hard to transform this into official policy, as it isn't particularly controversial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly shouldn't be controversial, but as I stated before, at times it is. Transwikiing is sort of a problem here. If I were an admin and wanted to close a vote which resulted in "transwiki" (and delete, which should be automatic) I might be at something of a loss, as I have no involvement in any other wiki, and don't really care to either. I would rather not bother with the transwiki (it's out of the scope of wikipedia anyway) but still want to do the delete. Whether or not his is allowed should be discussed. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Transwiki and deletion An interesting point of discussion, but does this really happen often? I don't often see transwiki votes, and an end result of a transwiki is as rare as The Ghost of Opalina. In my opinion this could probably be left out of the proposal, as it isn't widely understood enough (and people are unlikely to support something they don't fully understand). I'd certainly be willing to be convinced otherwise if this can be shown to be a significant problem that happens more than once in a blue moon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I discussed this above. I don't think it happens much, but even these theoretical cases are symptomatic of real problems. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Renominations: This can be a particularly tricky area. Frequent re-nominations are considered "deletion by attrition" and make the whole VfD process look bad. On the other hand, there are situations in which a renomination is simply the right thing to do. I suggest a guideline of a 6-month period before renomination, with an exception for unusual circumstances (such as if false info is added to an article to get it kept).Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Policy right now specifically does not state when a renom can or should be done, which is probably good, but with everyone on a different page the already uphill battle can be made more difficult by people's concerns more about time elapsed rather than the article itself. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bad faith nominations: Yes, this is one of the cornerstones of my fixing VfD proposal. This is something which NEEDS to be defined. Since it's already done in practice, shouldn't be hard to make it policy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I notice few enough of these that I don't think they're as serious a problem as you do, but there should be something somewhere guiding how to define and handle these. (When made by an anon their removal should be easier.) -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Contesting a result: this will take some work to turn into anything official. Probably the simplest solution would be to turn it into a section of VfU , "Contested Keeps" or something of that nature. An alternative possibility would be to simply re-run such votes through VfD again once they are discovered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is particularly tricky, and I don't think people will be keen to burden VfU with this. I've heard suggestions saying a renom would be best (and been told renoms are never to be done), another admin should be sought to correct the problem (don't know who exactly, the legal system generally doesn't approve of shopping for judges), and told to bring it up on the VfD's talk page (yeah, the talk pages for closed VfD's get tons of traffic). Just some place where someone can go and ask "is this right?" would be fine, but probably not easy to do. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Quorum: This is something that happens so rarely that I'm not sure it needs discussion, much less policy. Common sense should prevail here. If it does become a policy proposal, I suggest:
    • (nom vote only) = re-run the VfD
    • (nom vote + any 1 other vote) = re-run the VfD
    • (nom vote + 2 or more other votes) = normal VfD
      • It is rare, but it happens. I guess as long as no one contests the result it shouldn't matter. If someone sees a deleted article that got no supporting votes at all (just the nom) and thinks it's unfair, I imagine VfU would be pretty accomodating for an undeletion and relisting. Likewise I would hope that something that got just 2 different votes and was kept could be renominated without a bunch of people crying foul and insisting the matter was "settled". As of now it's merely hopeful thinking though. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Speedy deletes on VfD: This, too, is already in practice and should easily become policy. I also like the idea of removing them from the page too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • This should probably be easy, as it's done all the time. I wouldn't mind their removal from the already bloated page, but a link should probably remain. If nothing new is done here the current practice seems to be working, even if it might be contrary to stated policy. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Nominator's vote: Agreed, nominator should be voting for deletion unless explicitly stated otherwise due to odd circumstances. This is already considered to be so by most closing admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nominator's vote is almost always counted, but I have had some issues with this in the past. Some people have said that a statement in a nomination like "What the hell is this doing in an encyclopedia?" is a question, and not a request for deletion. As luck would have it, the last time I brought this up was immediately before GRider went on his whole Linda Richmanesque "Is this an encyclopedic article? Discuss" crusade that ended in a RfC. His were exceptions and there were alot of them, but he's thankfully gone now. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reply to any of the above if you wish. We need to at least agree among ourselves if we're to expect others to agree with us. After that, we can draft a preliminary policy proposal. I'm not sure if it would be best to add such a proposal to the existing fray, or to wait until it's died down (it doesn't seem like any of the current proposals will gather enough support to pass). But either way it can't hurt to get things started at least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. I'm off to NYC. -R. fiend 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Starblind, don't know if you've looked at my response too much, but I've recently been thinking about transwikiing. It seems to me a transwiki should not even be a real vote. If someone wants something transwikied they should be encouraged to do it themselves; it doesn,t take a consensus, or even a vote, to send something from one wiki to another any more than it does to submit something in the first place. If another wiki doesn't want it they have their own versions of VfD to get rid out it (or I assume they all must), and whether or not they do is beyond the control of wikipedians (at least, in their roles as wikipedians). People should do a transwiki, then give a less ambiguous delete vote, assuming they think it should no longer be in wikipedia (the various wikis are pretty mutually exclusive, and should have little overlap), or a keep if for some reason they want it here too. I've noticed a few recent nominations that have involved just this, and it seems like the best method to me. What do you think of trying to expand this practice? -R. fiend 18:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I admit I don't know a whole lot about the transwiki process. Wouldn't just pasting something from one wiki to another break the GDFL by losing the history? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know much about it either, I've never done one, nor have I used any other wiki except wiktionary (when I don't have a paper dictionary handy). But transwikis are done all the time, so I'm sure they are done in a way that does not violate GDFL. For most things that go into wikisource (poems in the public domain, for example) a cut-and-paste shouldn't violate GDFL anyway. Does one need to be an admin to transwiki something? That would seem sort of strange. As long as it can be done by a layman, I think it should be encouraged as an action, rather than as a vote. Be bold, DIY, and all that. It would almost be nice to be able to bypass VfD, by using CSD A5, but it is forbidden, and, I suppose, would be open to abuse. Well, that's my thought anyway. It would at least make voting less ambiguous. -R. fiend 15:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Polonowski[edit]

Sorry to barge in, but it seems I placed the {{db}} on this article while you deleted it (must have been a matter of seconds); could you delete it again, please? Lectonar 11:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday, spam from user DoretelCom[edit]

Can you whack this user? Thanks. RasputinAXP 17:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I warned them on their talk page and they seem to have stopped. All the googlebomb articles have been deleted or reverted. I'd block them in a heartbeat if they start up again, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Alchemist's Barnstar[edit]

If I knew how, I would award you the "Alchemist's Barnstar" for turning crap into gold, specifically the Bionic Bunny article. This is what an article about a fictional character should be: you put it into context, you related it to other important cultural refernces and you didn't bloat it with trivia. ike9898 04:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll second that. Well done, especially when the original content was "Bionic Bunny is a bunny that gets super powers. Wilbur Rabbit plays the role as Bionic Bunny. Buster Baxter is a fan of the show along with Arthur and his other friends." CanadianCaesar 07:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful Tag[edit]

How do you make your usertag so colorful? :-) — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • To add colours to your signature, go to Special:Preferences and edit the Nickname field. You can add colours in standard HTML, so that...

<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">Red Word</FONT> ...produces... Red Word A chart of all the color codes is here. You can do this multiple times in a signature to get a colour blend like mine, but I wouldn't advise using more than 5 or so colours. Hope this helps, and if you need more, feel free to ask me on my talk page anytime! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universism[edit]

I apologize for strong language. In wikipedia there is a practice to keep talk pages for deleted articles which caused a good deal of controversy, in order to keep track of discussion, like I did it in Talk:Universism. Were it done properly from the very beginning, this would have saved some trouble today. mikka (t) 23:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, no harm done. Thanks for putting a talk page up to prevent future confusion. You might want to put something similar at the talk page for Universist too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Question for an administrator. Having a weird sense of humour, I've really been wanting to put this on my user page

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:LithuanianConstantine.
Please refer to here for evidence.

But is this just asking for trouble? I don't want to be blocked; and, when I vote in VfD or anywhere else, I don't want to be too much trouble for a closing admin who might have to go research and see if that's for real. What do you think? CanadianCaesar 01:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't have a problem with it, and I doubt that most other admins would either. It's definitely, absolutely not grounds for blocking whatsoever. That said, it only takes one humourless admin (or non-admin) to raise a stink. The only place where I could reasonably see it being a problem is when you're up for administration yourself; people can get very nitpicky during an RfA and unfortunately having a sense of humour isn't recommended during the voting itself. In short: probably no big deal, but everything worthwhile has its risks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Austin (politician)[edit]

I noticed you voted on this VfD. There are 7 others that are basically the same. I'm posting this note to everyone who voted for one and not the others, so we can get at least a consistent result when they are all processed. If you could vote on any of the below that you so far haven't I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks:

At some point someone should hammer out a consistent policy on politicans of this vein, but until then case-by-case voting is king. Getting the same result across the board will be helpful for now. -R. fiend 23:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote on this vfd soundtrack[edit]

Uchu no Kishi Tekkaman Blade II - See You --Dangerous-Boy

Func's RfA :)[edit]

Andrew, thank you for supporting my RfA, it was very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

On a similar theme, thank you for supporting my adminship nomination and for your kind words. I've been a fan for a while and hope I get to see you around! Thanks again and happy editing, Slac speak up! 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on my page[edit]

thanks for the revert on my page =) i'm gonna have a long chat with that user. Sasquatch讲看 04:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem, just did it again in fact. If vandals and trolls hate you that much, you know you're dong a great job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks... again! I'm going to have to watch your page more carefully so I can repay the favors! Sasquatch讲看 19:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scimitar's RfA[edit]

Thanks for the support, Andrew. Regardless of whether or not my application to be sysopped goes through, I really appreciate the comments made by other Wikipedians, like yourself, who've made such valuable contributions to the project. Thanks again.--Scimitar parley 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer's RFA[edit]

Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Planetary habitability[edit]

Very glad you enjoyed Planetary habitability. This far along in the wiki game it's not often one gets to add something of that length. Take care, Marskell 11:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good one[edit]

Nice catch on the Tallon Zek Times re-creation. I knew something was bothering me about that one, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Hi Starblind. Thanks for the strong support on my RfA, and the amazing comment that went with it. I was amazed at the level of support offered over the course of the week. I've learnt no small part of my VfDing and general editing from you and a few others so I hope I can carry on learning from you in future. Thanks again. -Splash 14:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Android79's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. android79 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page, Andrew . . .[edit]

You haven't archived since January- wow! Anyways, I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar parley 17:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moves to Wiktionary[edit]

Would you have a moment to join the conversations on the respective Talk pages of Banana (person), Egg (person), Jook-sing, Gweilo, Laowai, Svenne and Blatte? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bmicomp's RfA[edit]

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. Nandesuka 01:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the World AFD[edit]

Thanks for cheering me up with your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top of the World! Grutness...wha? 02:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Pokedex Entries[edit]

Why not host a project aimed at adding Pokedex entries on Pokemon pages? As there are little Pokedex enties on Pokemon pages, I thought of this idea. Your Pokemon Adoption Centre project was a sucess.

Yikes! Please, please, don't add the Pokédex entries verbatim to every Pokémon article. They're a borderline copyright violation, and the people working on WP:PCP have been going to a lot of trouble to turn them into prose. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean prose? Besides, the most of the data we have on the Pokemon pages come from Pokedex data.
Prose is sentences and paragraphs without strict structure. In this case, we're trying to make the Pokémon articles look less like lists of factoids and game stats and more like...well, encyclopedia articles. Take a look at Charizard or Bulbasaur to get an idea of what the goal is. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that there are already Pokedex entries on some Pokemon pages?
Yes, we are and they are what we're aiming to eradicate. We want to turn them all into prose and are about 3/4 of the way through. --Celestianpower hab 18:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Sorry for hijacking your talk page Starblind... :) --Celestianpower hab 18:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you do that?

Infobox[edit]

Has been done- I found a low res version used on a number of sites that should be okay with the usual album licence. Alf melmac 07:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, yeah! Order of the Dancing, Flaming Hellpot to Starblind[edit]

Most amusing observation in an AfD motion in at least two weeks: "Delete what the hell... it isn't even correct! The line in question mentions a canoe, not a kayak!" -- regarding the soon-to-be-deleted article Old Man Fashioning a Kayak Out of a Log. Awarded by paul klenk

My RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support and kind words in my RfA. I actually was surprised there wasn't a little more opposition, but I was well pleased with the turnout in support. Did you find Xiong's opposition was inane as I did? One of his deletionist examples was for an article I voted to keep! Oh well. I think he left the project in a vainglorious huff. Thanks again. -R. fiend 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Anommas Pooter related articles[edit]

I speedied all of them as per the AFD since they were within the scope of the afd. The main article is protected as an {{deletedpage}} but it would be pointless to protect the other ones. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo[edit]

I recommend a change of vote to Merge and redirect to Anonymous matching. 205.217.105.2 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I nominate myself for RfA?[edit]

Since the last time I was nominated, I feel that I have taken into account all of the comments made by the neutrals and opposers.

  • I have since joined WP:JETFA and Wikipedia:WikiProject Punctuation - all to do with maintainance. I have also discovered WP:CVDF and joined the quest against vandals.
  • I think I feel happier with the way things are done than I did last time. I have certainly interacted with a lot more people and this has helped me to gain a greater understanding of the processes involved.
  • I took Linuxbreaks advice to go on RC patrol and yes, I enjoyed it immensely. Speedy deletion powers and IP blocks would be very useful in this respect.
  • I have been here for nearly 5 months now and it's been over a month since I was last nominated.
  • Participation has picked up and broadened. My combined Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk contributions are now over 500, having continued in participating in RfAs, VAfDs and WikiProjects. My total edit count is just shy of 3000.

So do you think it would be a good idea to run for Adminship again? Thank you for listening. --Celestianpower hablamé 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would certainly support you (and strongly), though in my opinion, it would probably be better to wait until you've passed the 6-month mark. That would placate the vast majority of "too new" voters, which is what the majority of your detractors cited last time as being the problem. In fact, if you let me know when you've passed six months, I'll nominate you myself. I certainly have no doubts that you're up to the job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA![edit]

My dear Andrew, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It really meant a lot to me, since your trust helped me when I was feeling down and really cheered me up. Thank you also for your lovely words towards my work; you're welcome to contribute to any article of mine any time you want. I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, since you'll always have a friend in me. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of Deletion Review[edit]

Hi Starblind. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks.

Boilerplate message aside, I think the two concerns you brought up have both been dealt with: but as a VfU regular your input on the mechanics (critical or otherwise) would be good if you've got a few minutes. -Splashtalk 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Titoxd(?!?) 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Celestianpower_2[edit]

Click the above link. I saw that you were gonna nominate him in like two weeks, but that was after I nom'd. So go there an conom! Redwolf24 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I wasn't expecting it from you, thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. I just hope I don't mess up! See you on poke-articles again soon! --Celestianpower hablamé 13:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Mertz article[edit]

I listed the David Mertz article for deletion once again, just wanted to see if you still had an issue with it or wanted to vote. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Mertz[edit]

Hi Andrew, I'm interested in your reasons for the Delete vote in this and the previous Afd. There appears to be some history of animosity between him and jguk (who originally nominated him). I've no idea of the rights and wrongs of that, and indeed no interest either, but in the first Afd the voting was mostly to keep, with you dissenting. I've always found your votes to be well-reasoned, so I'm wondering if there's something you know in this instance that I don't. Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk 17:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also not been involved in the controversy over the article with the exception of voting on each of the two VfDs. However, I've followed the course of the article since the previous VfD and am keenly aware of it being, to put it mildly, a problem article. I think that the question we have to ask is, "Does the positive effect of this article in WP as a source of information outweigh its negative effect to wikipedia as a vanity page and source of trouble and conflict?" If anything, I think the bar should be set higher for people who are actual WP users, not lower. Possibly if Mertz agreed not to edit the page or be involved with it, it might just barely squeak by. But since most of the edits are by Mertz himself, it's impossible not to see this as yet another vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate the reply - I see what you mean. Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my most recent adminship nom. The stars shine even brighter, now that I can work harder at keeping Wikipedia a nice place to visit.  Denelson83  22:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

left out a word[edit]

Andrew -- in your reply to me on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes you left out a word. You said "I also find the part about waiting a year after an episode aired to write about it." I value your opinions; even when we differ I find them thoughtful and well-expressed, so I'd like to know what it was you found this part to be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib stay[edit]

Hi, I've modified AFD:Al-Zubair with facts and references. It would be nice if you can spare some time to read it, and hopefully to reconsider its deletion (or make some comments on my talk page). -- Goldie (tell me) 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job expanding this. It's still a stub, but it definitely shows enough information to warrant keeping. I have voted to reflect this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA[edit]

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?) 18:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Black orc:[edit]

Thanks for deleting my article on Black orc. It turned out there was an article called Black Orc instead. So I moved my writing to this article, but could not actually delete article I left behind. Thanks... Spawn Man 00:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletes[edit]

I've been closing AfDs that you speedy deleted. Is this OK with you? Example - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnathon Dean. --GraemeL (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullett[edit]

I've pitched an alternative solution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullett. Let me know what you think! BD2412 T 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Orca article[edit]

As I said in the vote I will try to clean it up if it can be kept. ( It touched me. I am active in animal rights but don't express it in wikipedia). If it has to be deleted, as Jimbo Wales says, it should be no big deal but I would like to try.--Dakota ? e 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tokitae[edit]

I've rewritten Tokitae if you want to take a look and reconsider your delete opinon Zeimusu | Talk page 14:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actress Stacy Armstrong debate[edit]

Hi, I'm writing because I saw that you had voted to keep an article on indpendent film actress Diane Mela. A similar article about actress Stacy Armstrong was voted on back in Feb. 2005. Well, the whole deletion is in question because the vote should have been judged no concensus. But it was deleted anyway!

So it is now being rejudged and thought you might be interested in voting on it Stacy Armstrong debate

I thought you'd like to know! Plank 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary habitability (cont'd)[edit]

If you're curious to stop by I nominated Planetary habitability at FAC. Cheers, Marskell 11:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for letting me know, although at this time I don't quite feel qualified to vote either way, as I'm not really too familiar with the FAC criteria (especially about images copyrights, sources, footnotes, and such). I still think it's an absolutely fantastic article on an absolutely vital subject, and certainly deserves some recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Your signature[edit]

Please fix your signature, your HTML is being escaped and showing all the font codes directly. This page has an example. You might consider using the preview feature to avoid this sort of thing. Thanks. Turnstep 00:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt[edit]

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggeting[edit]

You labelled this a "neologism". Please re-visit both the article and the discussion. Please also visit Talk:NUGGET#Cleanup and consider adding the article to your watchlist and assisting in the effort to keep the article clear of unverifiable additions and original research by schoolchildren. Uncle G 15:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Church_of_Reality[edit]

Hi. Could you clarify your position on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Church_of_Reality. You wrote keep. Did you mean keep the article or did you mean keep it deleted? --RoySmith 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know, I noticed that a few seconds after voting, and have corrected it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA[edit]

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Andrew, for your support - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerson Spartz[edit]

Could you please reconsider your delete vote on this AFD? The information could be merged into the MuggleNet article, so I don't think deletion is needed, but I think the fact he was personally invited by J.K. Rowling to interview her for the release of book 6 together with Melissa Anelli from The Leaky Cauldron does make him far more notable than any regular webmaster. Said interview is linked on the deletion review of PotterCast. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your can review your vote for Wang Sichao[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wang_Sichao

I've added some comment there. My English is not good enough to write all them, so this article is currently looks low-quanlity, but this guy is importance or significance enough for Wikipedia.

— Yaohua2000 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 250 or so Google hits is not a large number, and certainly not large enough to keep on that basis alone. To be kept, the article needs verifiavle references, preferably of published books, recognised news sources, magazines, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 19400 Google hits for his Chinese name. — Yaohua2000 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a laugh point![edit]

You are being awarded a laugh point for your recent comments in the Wikipedia:Deletion review discussion of United States. They got a serious chuckle out of me. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creighton Lovelace[edit]

Please have a look at my rewrite of this article. Best wishes. Durova 03:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony & Brian Toro[edit]

I noticed you voted delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony & Brian Toro. I wasn't sure if I was on the right track with that AfD. I've made a list of other contributions of twin-stubs by the same (anon) author on my talk page. There are over 30 of them. Would you be interested in helping me remove any notable twins from that list, and then I'll AfD the remainder... assuming of course that the current one gets favourable response. Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading over the list. I've removed the three you suggested. I'm going to wait a day to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony & Brian Toro fares before AfDing the remainder. Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I posted the other 20 to AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment[edit]

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Adoption Center[edit]

Hello Starblind

I was wondering if I could help on Pokemon Adoption Center, or in other word, help with Pokemon topics.

Evilgidgit

(I'm not really evil)

  • The Pokemon Adoption Center (PAC) has accomplished its goal of expanding every short Pokemon article, and has basically shut itself down. Don't let that dicourage you from working on our Pokemon articles, though. There's still much work to be done. The article Cultural references in Pokémon could use some expansion if you're interested. In addition, there's a Pokemon Portal at Portal:Pokémon, which is a good starting point to improving Pokemon coverage on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purfleet article

I don't understand why this page is being considered for deletion. Are articles such as this, featuring even the most obscure yet important characters in history, what make Wikipedia the comprehensive source it currently appears to be? Paul

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starblind/2005&oldid=1094999608"