User talk:Picaroon/Archive 1

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.  (aeropagitica)  22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yaaawn. If you say so. (Sorry, that was a very incivil response. I apologize, Aeropagitica.)

Original Message: "Thanks for fixing my grammatical and formatting errors on the several pages related to Cambridge Latin Course. Based on your knowledgeable edits and contributions (and your username), I assume you know quite a bit about the series and/or about the Roman Empire. I'm wondering what your opinion is about when to use the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen (or whatever they are) in Wikipedia articles and about how to abbreviate the three names. Please reply on my talk page, and/or make appropriate edits on the pages in question. Thanks again. Picaroon9288 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)"Reply

For this article, I think the choice of praenomen/nomen gentile/cognomen is basically decided by the authors of the textbooks and/or previous scholars/writers. These names (e.g. Quintus, Caecilius, Cogidubnus, Salvius) are the ones being used in the article's body. Other names may be given on the official website.

In general, I don't think that there's a rule governing this choice. Most likely, this choice is based on uniqueness. For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero used to be known by his second name, "Tully". As well, Claudius was named Tiberius, while Nero had Claudius as his second name.

(I should also note that I'm not really an expert on Latin or the Roman empire: I only took three high school courses in Latin (using the Cambridge Latin Course textbooks), and that was three years ago.)

-- FlocciNonFacio 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Picaroon9288 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original Message:"I like the date style on your userpage quite a bit. I was wondering if I may use it on mine, with credit, of course. May I? Picaroon9288 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)"Reply

By all means, use whatever you want from my userspace. All of it is multi-licensed under everything copyleft-friendly, and is created entirely in the spirit of sharing (read: most of it I copied from other people's pages, too :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Our articles will be read for years to come, so it isn't necessary to make up-to-the-minute updates to our articles on sporting events. Please wait until the game is over before updating the page with scores, statistics, and such. This will prevent extra unnecessary edits. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the update, Cyde. I saw "1-1" and just had to make it factually correct by changing it to "2-1." Picaroon9288 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Original Message:"I'm sorry that I missed these the first time I viewed the map: About half the population of Chad adheres to Islam, not a majority. Therefore, it should be yellow. The Maldives, the small, vertical archipelago Southsouthwest of India, should be green, as the country is over 90% Muslim. And I'm sorry that I can't figure out how the images work; otherwise, I'd do it myself. (Insert embarassed face here.) Picaroon9288 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)"Reply

I took care of those little problems. Thanks for pointing that out! ekrub-ntyh ^talk 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original Message:"Why do you disagree with the borders around white-edged flags on the War on Terrorism template? [1] If there's a reason that people like me shouldn't be able to see the difference between the white background and the edges of the flags, I'll listen. Until then, I've re-added them. Thanks. Picaroon9288 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)"Reply

Because the other war templates don't have any, and I like consistency. Esaborio 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original message: Regarding your edit summary on your edit to the article Wolverine (comics): please be civil towards other users. Calling them retards, even if they are wrong, is unacceptable. Picaroon9288 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say they were retards. I daid they should not behave like retards. You distorted my words.70.121.181.235 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say you called them retards. I said you should not call them retards. Picaroon9288 18:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment on my pic!!!

Pratheepps

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original Message:James - I am wondering if you have any more info on the town Al-Rus? (You created the article, that's why I'm asking.) I've been trying to figure out if it and Jabal Umm al Ru'us are the same town, unsuccessfully. Google has been unhelpful. Thanks. Picaroon9288 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi yes I know the Saudi Arabia article was a very brief stub but I figured that it was worth starting so people can add detail over time. I have checked it out and I believe Al-Rus has now become known as Jabal Umm al Ru'us which I have moved the page to. Thanks for you interest,

James Janderson 09:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw your Barnstar award to Yom, where you mention your interest in Haile Selassie. Are you aware of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia? We could always use another set of hands or eyes. (PS - It looks like you made Yom hapy with that Barnstar. Good: I believe he deserves it.) -- llywrch 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the invitation to the project, Llywrch. I am, however, reserved about joining, because I really don't have any knowledge to add to the Ethiopia-related section of this wiki. Everything I know about the country and its people, languages, etc... comes from National Geographic, the New York Times, and, of course, Wikipedia. As with all articles on this encyclopedia, I'll certainly edit Ethiopia-related ones if there is anything I know I can do, but I think I'd let other members of the group down if I joined and accomplished nothing but copyediting. I'm sorry to turn down the offer, and I'm glad you agree that Yom deserved the barnstar (that was only the second one I've ever given, I think). Picaroon9288 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Picaroon, this is just to say thank you for supporting Joel Brand for featured-article status. It did get promoted. I appreciate your taking the time to read it and comment. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was a very interesting and well-written article, so of course I found myself needing to support it (even though I don't usually take part in the featured article discussions). And, according to the edit history, I should thank you for working so hard on it. It taught me something about World War II and the Holocaust that I might've never known. I'm glad to see it featured! :) Picaroon9288 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Picaroon/Archive 1, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set! {{User VandalProof}}

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome. VP has been functioning fine for me so far, although I haven't yet reverted anything to test that function out. Picaroon9288 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

--D-Boy 18:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I created Hinduism in Fiji because it was requested, not because Hinduism is my area of expertise; however, I'll keep your links in mind. Picaroon9288|ta co 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original message:OrbitOne - according to Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Appearance_and_colour, and I quote:

"Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays,"

the "Orbit" in your signature shouldn't be so large. However, the page is only a guideline, not official policy, so the decision on whether to change the signature, or not, is up to you. I just thought I'd bring that to your attention, in case you hadn't noticed it. Happy editing, Picaroon9288|ta co 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had thought about how large my sig is in wikitext. I have been throwing around other sigs and asking other users what their concensus is about signatures. Thank you for bringing it up. I know it is a guideline and that is why I haven't changed it right away to something smaller. But I use the sig as a way to identify which posts are my own and which are not quickly. Otherwise, when scanning a talk page, I will become lost as to where the newest edits are. I just need something that stands out easily. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

An article you contributed to, Controversy over the race of Ethiopians, has been listed for deletion here. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 10:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the article on Whatevershop, I just thought I would drop by and say that I did so under CSD A7, so that you know for future reference. (notability is not a speedy criteria, no assertion of importance is) Thanks!!! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just found it while working on clearing out Category:stubs. I actually recall prodding it, but from your comment I guess I must've changed it to a csd candidate without actually checking whether the reason still applied. Oops! Anyways, thanks for telling me - I'll try to remember to make sure the deletion reason applies to the deletion method I've proposed. Happy editing! Picaroon9288•talk 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original message: Adriaan 1, I'm disappointed and surprised that you considered my oppose comment on your rfa to be a personal attack. I was attempting to explain to you why people were opposing your request for adminship, by summing it all up, and recommending your withdrawal. Although now that I think of it, there was no need to actually make the comment into another oppose comment, I still stand by the text of it, and I'm convinced it was not a personal attack. None of the people who opposed you, including me, was trying to hurt your feelings; I'm sorry that you thought they might have been. Picaroon9288•talk 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh please. Stop trying to play stupid. You know as well as I do that all of those comments were supposed to hurt my feelings. You attack was even more harsh than my so-called attack that the person was being racist. I in fact only notified him of my objection to his racism. But you, you're just trying to get out of it all. I'm not an animal. Stop trying to manipulate me. Gosh, you people are weird on here. --Scotteh 21:50 05 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.232.98.64 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 September 2006, while Adriaan 1 (Scotteh) was blocked.

Adriaan, I really never meant to hurt your feelings with my oppose. I admit, It probably wasn't necessary to have made it an entry in the oppose column, and instead should have directed it towards you on this talkpage. But I am not trying to "weasel my way out" of it. I stand by my comment, and I believe, as do the others, that you are not ready for adminship, especially since you have not been assuming good faith at all in this whole episode. I am sorry that you do not view things this way. Picaroon9288•talk 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original message:In regards to your creation of the article Alex Schenck, I believe you should understand that most Wikipedians, Linuxbeak included, aren't notable enough for articles. There are exceptions, of course, like Jimmy Wales and Chip Berlet, but, as a rule of thumb, creating an article about another Wikipedian shouldn't be done. In your message on the talk page, you mentioned that he spoke at the Wikimedia Conference as your assertion of notability; we certainly don't have articles on every person who has ever spoken at a conference, nor are we going to. So we shouldn't have them on otherwise non-notable Wikipedians. I hope this explains why the article will probably be deleted shortly, if it hasn't been already. Happy editing, Picaroon9288•talk 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, it has been deleted. Ask me on my talk page if you need more of an explanation. Happy editing, Picaroon9288•talk 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll get the hang of it, but thanks for the offer anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wiki Fan (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 September 2006

I got banned and don't really get why, also some weirdo left me a message about a right guard page I created, only thing I've found is on "Adminstrator's Noticeboard" and that doesn't really help - The Wiki Fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.74.146 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2006, as The Wiki Fan is blocked.

You seem to have been labeled a troll by an administrator, Doc glasgow, and indefinitely blocked for it. Not much to say. Sorry. Picaroon9288•talk 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the kind note on Phillip Kellam - I missed that when searching. JohnSinteur 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

While processing CSD, I came across your userpage delete request. I can see how this could be distracting. I have not yet deleted your page, but have redirected it to your talk page here. Oftentime redlinked userpages in sigs and other places will make other editors think you are brand new, or confuse new editors. Do not consider this a "decline" of your request for deletion, and if you still want it done, please talk page me, or relist it on CSD and someone will probally get it farily soon; I'm simply trying to save you from some problems down the line that others have had. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I've deleted it, if you ever want it restored let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for help at Rome plow. Badagnani 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anytime. Happy editing. :) Picaroon9288 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

After I voted oppose, I checked the user's history out of curiosity. I later found that he has done almost nothing to contribute to the encyclopedia, possibly even hurt it by making some articles unencyclopedic. Also I must have clicked edit a few moments after it was closed because I don't remember it being closed. I had gone to check something else so it looked as if I had edited it after it was closed. T REX_speak 00:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That message was actually automatically generated. The edit history shows you as the only contributor because you have moved the already existing page there to the proper location, so the edit history was moved as well and on the old page it just shows you as creating a redirect. Hope that makese sense.--Konstable 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to wait one more month until I get nominated for admin, as I still don't think I'm ready yet. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 03:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I fixed it so it now has one account on it. If there is anything other than Chilifix on it, please tell me. Please do not delete it. Thanks.--Chili14 22:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

sorry. I will from now on. Ilikefood 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I answered the question you posted at my RfA. Short, sweet, and to the point! Thanks for participating :-). - Mike (Trick or treat) 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

POV The discussion took place mainly on the talk to the Portal's main page itself and included mediation from an admin or two. Presenting a flag does not present an argument per se and the flag that is present now is not the flag of the SADR in and of itself (cf. talk discussion per flag again.) Also, strictly speaking, I didn't revert you as I kept the majority of your changes; I simply deleted one of them, a partial revert. Morocco's point-of-view is major in asmuch as it is a party to the conflict, but it is fringe in asmuch as no one else shares it. In the debate over whether or not the world is flat, the Flat Earters are major, but they make up a small minority. It's a logical fallacy to assume that one of those three options must be the case; for instance, you could have simply misinterpreted Larry Sanger on what "major" means. I also have no real vested interest in Larry Sanger being right about anything, so I'm willing to contradict him. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Response to response I tried to be thorough, so let me know if there's something that I'm missing this time:

The flag of Western Sahara is the flag of the SADR, right. It is the flag of the Polisario, too. And the Front Polisario Khat al-Shahid. It isn't shown at Western Sahara per a long discussion and vote there, too. The SADR is a state with a territory, population, international recognition and those things are not the case for either of the cases you mentioned (e.g. a government.) Western Sahara does have an official flag according to several dozen governments, so insisting that it can't be shown is POV. On the other hand, the flag of Morocco is a flag for Morocco and so should be on the Morocco portal.

• Do you agree, or disagree, that the focus of the portal is the region Western Sahara, not the SADR?

Well, I made it, so yes. The scope of the portal is to give resources about the geopolitical region of Western Sahara, including the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

• Do you agree, or disagree, that Morocco's POV should be represented equally to the SADR's POV?

I don't know what represented equally means or in what terms. For instance, a UNHCR report was leaked a week ago claiming that there were gross human rights violations in the occupied Sahara. This is the position of the SADR, as well as international observers, the United Nations, residents, etc. Morocco claims the report is biased and unfactual. So, should both positions be given equal attention and credibility? No. Both should be presented, but not with an undue "balance" toward the minority position which is clearly in their interests to promote. For instance, John F. Kennedy assassination and Moon landing make reference to the minority positions, but do not give them the same amount of space, time, coverage, references, etc. I can't say as a blanket statement that either side should receive preference or that there should be equal time given to both in every instance; sometimes the clear and present facts will be with one party. (This all assumes that there are two parties or positions in the conflict, of course.)

• Do you agree, or disagree, that the SADR's flag is no more or less valid than Morocco's?

I can't answer that question - what makes a flag valid? The defintions are as such:

1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.

The international opinion regarding the legality of the two states that claim the territory is overwhelmingly in favor of the SADR, so from that perspective I suppose you could say their flag is more valid as a symbol of the state, but the entire argument is vague and uses some ill-defined terminology. That having been said, maybe I just don't understand your question. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Western Sahara v. Portal:Western Sahara On the article for Western Sahara, it was decided that said page was only going to discuss the geographic region. The portal, by its very nature, discusses all manner of topics related to the territory (politics being preeminent.) I do oppose removing the flag; why would you? There are no other geopolitical entities that have portals and don't have their flags displayed - even non-state nations do (e.g. Portal:Berbers.) If you want a source for the international opinion regarding the conflict is in favor of the SADR's claim, you can see several source on the page linked above. It is the case that international opinion is on their side in asmuch as among the states that have a position, it is to support the SADR. So, for instance, it is true and proper to say that international opinion is in favor of the Armenian Genocide being a genocide not because every or most states have called it as such, but because among those states that have taken a position, the vast majority have taken that one. Bear in mind, of course, that the precise number of 192 is a matter of dispute (for instance, I would argue that there are 195 states.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

And again Moroccan politics are applicable, or at least some of them are (e.g. Morocco shutting down a university in Rabat is meaningless to Western Sahara.) The SADR's are always applicable. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help, it's been a bit of a learning curve figuring everything out on my own, but I feel like I am starting to get the hang of it. Nice to have helpful people on here. Let me know if there if snything else that I should read to improve upon.

Well, at least you saw it. I thought I had to revert everything I did, since I thought it made no difference. I logged in as User:Yancyfry jr, and I saw it. Must be some glitch or something like that. Anyway, thank you for telling me. --69.67.230.177 02:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have resonded Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It appeared that there was even more vandalism that was missed, so I just reverted back to the last AntiVandalBot edit because there didn't appear to be any legitimate edits since then. That should take care of it. Man...that vandal is committed. :) IrishGuy ^talk 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought there was a chance Omicronpersei or I might've missed something, so that was a good idea. But he's got 168 hours to think it over now; hopefully he'll try to make some helpful contributions if he returns after then. Picaroon9288 19:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't know who that vandal was, but he attacked lots of us. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I'll look into it. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, not off hand, I can not. I just remember seeing highly active users come on in a flurry of edits and then depart just as quick... But yeah, I didn't keep track of them unfortunately. I hope that doesn't affect the integrity of my opinion in your eyes. Themindset 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concerns with WP:VP2, but the problem seems to come when two editors are quick to act (which is a good thing!). Since VP2 is still in early developement, there is no way to "shut off" the 'edit I have made' function and/or check to see if someone has reverted at the same time as me. This isn't the first time this has happened (once or twice with AntiVandalBot) and I really wish there was something that could be done to make sure that I was the one who made the edit before leaving the warning. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting my userpage! Darth Panda 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I tagged the article Ravi Belagere as under construction just yesterday and I've noticed you've deleted the tag saying it's been there too long. Is one day too long for that tag to be in? I'll take few more days and complete that article. Gnanapiti 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for clearing my concerns. I'm going to remove the tag now. Gnanapiti 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you reverted [2]. See WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. — Matt Crypto 08:49, 24 October 2006

Thank you for your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka: Could you explain your conflict with Danny, as evidenced by this afd debate? Has it been resolved?.

I have posted a detailed reply to this question, at User_talk:Guinnog#Question #2. If you have any additional concerns though, please let me know and I'll be happy to address them as best I can. :) --Elonka 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, just following up... Did you have any additional questions? :) --Elonka 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nope, not really. If I was to !vote, It would most certainly be in the neutral section, but it wouldn't accomplish much at this point. Seeing as my thoughts and opinions on the rfa are stated several times over on the page, I just don't think it would be very helpful to say "Neutral per above." Picaroon9288 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, thanks for letting me know.  :) --Elonka 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for expressing an interest in my recent RfA, and offering a question. As a followup, unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I did, however, find the discussion valuable, and a useful tool to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 07:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As a wikipedia user you are not entitled to hand out warnings. Only users with the title of administrator or higher may do this. I've noted several occasions where you have given warnings, as well as your use of the template at the head of your talk page, which is anappropriate and will not help your cause if you are an admin hopeful.

My suggestion is that you stay away from that kind of thing unless absolutely necessary (IE if you feel the situation would be helped by reminding people of the rules). If you really have to, either simply remind people of the rules, or caution them - but never "warn", as this can escalate into an argument to do with the fact that you have no power to enforce your warnings, which just exacerbates the problem by adding a whole new disagreement.

What I do is "community watch" - basically it's a non official role, I just keep an extra eye out for talk page problems - I either alert an admin or attempt to calm the situation myself. You might find you have more success with this yourself. --82.152.208.130 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, as a wikipedia user, I'm not only entitled to hand out warnings to vandals after I've reverted them, an official policy on wikipedia says that I should. As for your statement that warning vandals will not help me if I'm an admin hopeful, I'd recommend reading some requests for adminship; you might notice that people have been opposed for not giving vandals warnings. I'd also recommend taking a look at this section of the policy page Wikipedia:Vandalism. Picaroon9288 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Accusing editors who are merely trying to follow Wikipedia's external link guidelines of vandalism, as you did in your edit summary of your edit to Scotch whisky, is highly inappropriate, and definitely incivil. I wouldn't recommend doing it again. Picaroon9288 01:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"

Who are YOU to leave a message like this? --70.186.206.17 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does it matter who I am? Not really. To put it simply, incivility won't be tolerated. It is obvious that neither of them were vandalizing the article, and, therefore, accusing them of it is wrong. Picaroon9288 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you an admin? Then don't leave warnings - and don't edit especially in article you have no expertise in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.186.206.17 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take an admin to remind people to be civil. Now, if you agree, we can end this conversation. Picaroon9288 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Civility is fine. Calling the mass removal of links "vandalism" is appropriate. Wandering Wikipedia leaving Warnings when you are not empowered to do so is pathetic. --70.186.206.17 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

A. I am simply reverting the changes of people unqualified to make changes. B. I'm getting tired of you popping up and telling me what to do. Based on the other comments here, I'm not the first person to ask you where you think you get your authority. --70.186.206.17 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that was an appropriate compromise([spam tag]}. Sorry for getting worked up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.206.17 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 October 2006

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the headsup. E@L has become my nickname (especially at Esperanza), but I originally created the page so I could redirect it to my account to shorten my sig. I intended to register accounts for alternate spellings, etc. but never got around to it. Thanks for reminding me! — Editor at Large^(speak) 09:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just tried, and E@L is an invalid username (along with all alternate spellings of Editor at Large). However, there is an existing account titled "editoratlarge" (log here) created in September which has no contributions. What should I do to request it be blocked/changed? — Editor at Large^(speak) 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you! — Editor at Large^(speak) 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are way off base on Nelson Merek and your discussion should be held at the discussion page for that article. Tagging it for deletion is massive overkill and I will continue to remove your tag until I am told otherwise by an administrator.

Kevin Murray 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tried to list High And Dry not High and Dry. Same name but different meanings —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCman (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 November 2006

Alright, I've tagged the artice, formatted your afd, and listed the correct afd debate on today's page. Picaroon9288 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I moved your Sean Rinehart RFD nomination to the correct day[3] [4]. Today's still the 5th in UTC. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Woah, sorry about that. I could've sworn it was the sixth already. Thanks for the catch. Picaroon9288 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Myself, I got tired of always converting time. I set my time preferences to 0hrs from UTC and implemented Voice of All's UTC Clock. Now, everything I do on Wikipedia is in UTC and it's much easier comparing times. It's probably not to to everyone's taste, but it made it simpler for me. -- JLaTondre 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eeek, I forgot to say thanks for the tip about VoA's clock - its been very helpful! Now only if I could stop clicking contribs when I'm looking for my watchlist... Picaroon9288 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for participating in the MFD and reminding me that I was acting somewhat uncivilly. As for what you said about losing confidence in me for calling Wikipedians "geeks," I didn't say that. Quote: "Not every user is some geek who spends all their time on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing articles." I apologize if you were offended, and bear no ill will. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but what you said implies that there is something wrong with being a geek who spends their time only editing articles. Far from deserving something bordering on derision, these exopedians deserve praise for knowing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Picaroon9288 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not edit other people's comments[5]. It is poor etiquette to change someone's comment. A signed comment indicates that it is that editor's words. If you change someone's comment, it is no longer their words. Also, when applying the {{rt}} & {{rend}} tags, please be sure to subst them[6]. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry about that - it never really occured to me that something like that was actually considered to be a comment as much as it was a note about the closing (which, as I viewed them, are usually not even user specific enough to even warrant a signature.) But your point is noted. Picaroon9288 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are gravely mistaken. As one who currently lives and works in Japan I assert most strongly that the Diamond City article relates directly to the comminity I live in. these centers are a mark of a change in Japanese society. If you check the first post date you will realise that this article is newly constructed as such please give sufficiant time for information to be added. Multi tagging an article in a belligerant manner is not acceptable behaviour. Let us maintain a note of civility towards fellow editors rather than thrashing out deconstructive criticism for whatever motivation may have possessed you to do so. As shopping centers are landmarks it is in keeping with all other articles about such centers. In future, please remember wikipedias golden rule that we should all "Assume good faith" in our fellow editors motivations.--Scottmcmaster 12:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where did I assume bad faith? You're the one who is accusing me of being incivil ({{prod}} and {{advertisement}} aren't actually considered incivil, just so you know) and acting in a "buligerant manner" (aww, thanks.) I tagged the article with a proposed deletion notice that stated "Article barely asserts notability; reads somewhat like an advertisement" (I'm not sure what deconstructive criticism is, but that isn't it) and also tagged with {{advertisement}} because, well, it read like an advertisement. (Sentences like "Diamond City has defined, contributing to the sustainable developement of of local communities, to be their corporate social responsability" don't really belong in an encyclopedia, now do they?). If you'd like to find any Wikipedia policies that I've actually violated, feel free. Picaroon9288 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A consructive comment would include detailed information as to the cause for the criticism. Since you have admitted to being incapable of grasping what beligerent behaviour is, I would ask you to look up the word and refrain from potentially insulting comments. You tagged the article twice with comments such as "Barely...". Multitagging an article with belligerent comments is inappropriate and clearly uncivil behaviour. If you have a concern worthy of a tag, be certain it is also worthy of a detailed discription of your concerns in the talk page. If you are unwilling to spend proper and due time to address the problem at hand, then do not tag it. As for the sentence in question it is a quote of a corporate information release from the company itself and as such is accurate and irrefutable. You obviously have some rather deep seeded issues regarding corporate articles, there are many other articles out there in far worse shape, once again list your concerns if you have them, but dont waste time on beligerence.--Scottmcmaster 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merhaba and Welcome to WikiProject Yemen. We are happy that you joined us. If you have any questions, need help on something, or suggestions, then please don't hesitate to tell us. To identify yourself as a member of this project, you can add this template to your user page:

{{User WikiProject Yemen}}

Cheers, Jidan 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Since you've made an edit to the article regarding Singapore [7] [8], guess you'd be interested to join the discussion at talk:single-party state. — Instantnood 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Thebainer. I've just come back from a wikibreak, and I was scrolling up and down Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote when I noticed an excessive amount of space between Daniel.Bryant's and Flcelloguy's candidate statements. I was going to go fix it, but the page was protected; you seem to have protected the page with the reason "main voting page for ArbCom election." Was someone disrupting it, or was this a pre-emptive protection? If it's the latter, would you consides semiprotecting? In addition to allowing copyedits from us non-admins, several candidates are non-admins, and if they want to withdraw, they should be able to edit the page. I'll crosspost this to the voting talkpage if you'd like. Picaroon9288 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This was a pre-emptive protection, as was applied to the equivalent page in the last elections, which was done in light of the importance of the page and the desire to keep it absolutely stable throughout the elections. There is not really any need to edit the page other than to move withdrawn candidates to the bottom section; with respect to the candidates, the statements have been copied directly from the candidate statements page and should really be complete and stable prior to the election. I appreciate that some people may disagree with having the page protected, and I would encourage you to crosspost at the talk page if you would like to do so, it's a topic worthy of discussion.

It seems Cyberjunkie has already noticed this request, shortly before I did, and made the edit. In the future you can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page and someone will be along shortly. Many admins have this page watched and there shouldn't be any significant delay in having edits made. --bainer (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware of {{editprotected}}, but eliminating whitespace is such a minor issue that it almost seems like a waste of time to use the template on the talk page (in fact, the only reason I cared about it at all is not because of the aesthetic purposes, but because I kept blinking whenever I scrolled by it.) I'll cross post this beginning of a discussion momentarily. Picaroon9288 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Crossposted here.

Bah. Fine. It's also in use on 4 articles, only 2 - at most - of which are fair use. Make sure you remove it from those, too. It's been unfairly used on those pages a lot longer, yet you left it on those. Strange. Proto::► 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

On second read, that's a bit snippy. Sorry... it's early. Point still stands though... why only my user page? Proto::► 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've replaced it with a free image (and reworded accordingly). Thank you for courteously letting me know. Proto::► 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It actually didn't occur to me at all that it might be used wrongly in articles - I just followed a link to your user page, it jumped out as possibly fair use, so I clicked and I noticed the screenshot tag (the fact that I dealt with another wrongly used screenshot only hours earlier is coincidence, actually - I don't make a habit of patrolling screenshots.) So, then I checked the "whatlinkshere" function, and I also noticed your subpage. (For any third parties reading this, the image is Image:Grimlock.jpg.) I'll go take a look at the other pages it's being used on. Picaroon9288 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've looked over the three articles the image appears in. The one about the character, Grimlock, is appropriately used, and the one about "Dinobots" is borderline. While the section isn't specifically talking about the character in question, he is an example of what is referred to as a "Dinobot." So I'll leave it, because it does add to the article.

The last page it is in is a list of characters, The Transformers (animated series) characters. If you view it one way, they are all being inappropriately used, but if you think less literally and more broadly, all those images are appropriately used, because the page is talking about the characters of the animated series the pic comes from. I'm going to take the latter path, which will involve me not removing dozens upon dozens of images from that article. Picaroon9288 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whoops - the confusion here might stem from the fact I removed it from the article it was being used unfairly in, yesterday ([9]). Sorry about that. Proto::► 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for editing a bit my addition to the Chicken article on Araucanas. However, there is a problem with one of your edits. J. Gongora, who is just one of the several named authors (that's what et al. means) of the paper cited (whose abstract is available on the web as a PDF) does not say he believes that araucanas come from Asia directly. Rather he and his colleagues examined their mitochondrial DNA and found some evidence that it may be true. He does, however, indicate that there has been much speculation that araucanas do come directly from Asia. And in fact there has been--and for some time. (The standard reason for the speculation is that Europeans were surprised to find chickens in South America before they really had enough time to propagate through the Americas from a European introduction.)

Best wishes, jrundin Jrundin 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jrundin. Thanks for the message. I'll respond in a few minutes, because I'm in the middle of an edit to an article about a mountain range in Antarctica right now. Þicaroon 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, þicaroon. The PDF containing the abstract is at www.drsolucoes.com.br/cbra/downloads/proceedings.pdf

Alright, I see your point; I made the incorrect assumption that he was one of those who support the viewpoint. I've now read the relevant section, (A443 for future reference,) which shows, as you said, that although he and the other authors acknowledges that some support this view, that there is evidence to back it up, and that the evidence is reasonably strong, they don't explicitly endorse it. I'll keep that in mind if I edit araucana and chicken again. By the way, the thorn in my signature is just a decorative substitution for the letter "P"; feel free to just call me Picaroon. Again, thanks for the message. Þicaroon 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thanks for the fix up... I must have been tired when I made this :) It makes a lot of sense to link to something to do with stub templates, but I've changed it from the stub template list to WP:STUB, which i think makes a little more sense. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was in the middle of an explanation, but got sidetracked and began reading something (nearly everybody's done that on occasion, I expect.) You'll see my explanation on the talk page. Þicaroon 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Continued here

Hello Picaroon. Please read my comments in Talk:Mao Zedong. Sorry I have not figured out how to create the link to that page yet. wwoo22 — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 18 December 2006

You can create a link by placing the page you want to link to in two brackets, like this: [[link]] (link). Picaroon 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

RfA thanks!

Congrats. (Header added my me.) Picaroon 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've responded there. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's a nice Christmas present. Thanks for telling me, and thanks to Nishkid for adding it. Picaroon 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I verify that I took it and its free use. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for incorrectly adding the template on the Sadddam execution article. I have sometimes in the past seen it on talk pages, but also on main articles. I guess these were incorrectly used as well and I didn't check up the proper usage as well as I could have. Anyway, I'm on the clear now how they're supposed to be used after my little mistake, and now even know about the template coloring deal. Thanks for guiding me right here. -- Northgrove 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, fixed. Thanks for letting me know, Picaroon. =) Nishkid64 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well if you were watching CNN by any chance you would understand why I put that!

Happy New Year

Alakey2010

Saturday, December 30 — 9:44pm (CDT)

Message added at 03:44, 31 December 31, 2006.

Hi Picaroon, first of all, thanks for your article on the Bodélé Depression, it's rare to see somebody writing such a carefully written article on Chad-related articles. Coming to Faya, unfortunately, things are not so simple. To start with, the Britannica article is blatantly wrong: the Britannica article says it was called Largeau till the 1970s (correct) and then renamed Faya (absolutely wrong; for all the Chadian Civil War (1966-1993) the town was called Faya-Largeau, and this is confirmed by literally tons of sources - the town was very important in this period). Regarding the official name as adopted today by the government, that could solve the name issue once and for all, unfortunately Chadian official sites seem very confused: sometimes they just say Faya (as you noted), but in other occasions use Faya-Largeau (see here; and it's the same site you mentioned before)--Aldux 12:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Picaroon, sorr for getting that wrong, anways all help is appreciated. I wanted to ask you if you could explain me how the locator dot works, as you seem to understand it (so I can do them myself for other city articles); now, could you explain me what x and y mean? I've attempted to find how it worked, but I was blocked by my not understanding how these two work. For example, with Faya why is x 111 and y 106. Knowing the coordinates, it there a way you can deduce x and y?--Aldux 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the record: I didn't create Bodélé Depression. Aldux already knows, but this is just to make sure no one reading this archive mistakenly thinks I did. Picaroon 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have tagged it for speedy delation. Is it appropriate to remove it from the update list? It was put there by the article creator. House of Scandal 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for very good article, and for saving this article from deletion! --Djordjes (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've replied on your talk page. Picaroon 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Yes that is Serbian language, http://www.matf.bg.ac.yu is offical site of Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade (Serbia) where Đuro Kurepa works 1965-1977 (when he was retired). Best wishes in 2007 and happy new year. --Djordjes (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! Mike1024 (t/c) 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any time. Picaroon 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You wrote;

" Hi FAAFA. In this edit of yours, you used the edit summary "added sourced info back in." However, your only change was to remove one line of whitespace. Did you get an edit conflict with BenBurch or accidentally not click "paste" or something? Picaroon"

It must have been an edit conflict. Thanks for your close attention to possible malicious edits to the article. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. At first glance, I thought the edit was on the main page itself, not on the talk page for the main page. --Mhking 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that's fine. We can probably squeeze it in there later today or something. Some of the DYK's have already expired, but we can give some lax to DYK's that are 1 or 2 days overdue. Recently, some users had been placing the newer items at Next Update, and admins unknowingly inserted it into DYK. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply