User talk:Encephalon

εγκέφαλον: history

Template:Ent 20:05, 2005 August 5—22:32, 2005 September 18 Template:Ent 23:03, 2005 September 18—16:42, 2005 September 24 Template:Ent 16:42, 2005 September 24—19:38, 2005 October 11

On responses

I respond on my own page, unless there is good reason to respond on yours. Kind regards—encephalon εγκέφαλον

Hector Acuña

No, I'm not the page blanker, I just restored the afd, since he went through all the trouble of creating th subpage and adding it to the log list. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would have been surprised if you were, but wondered at your edit summary. He was creating the subpage as I was reverting the blanking; at that point I realized he was trying to find a way of deleting the article, and was going to properly place the AfD tag when you edited. Thanks, anyway. enceph alon 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage. Yours, NatusRoma 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem enceph alon 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your featured picture nominations

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Thanks for finding these. Diliff's pictures are indeed magical. Raven4x4x 08:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:St Vitus stained glass.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

And another one! Raven4x4x 09:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! BTW I know you're not an admin yet... but you sure act like one :). I wonder who will be the first to nominate? Take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonia on WP:MCOTW

Hi! You showed support for Pneumonia, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cvio

The move looks fine.

For an offline source, the page should blanked with {{copyvio}} as usual and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Without online source. It will then be left there forever because noone pays that section of the page any attention. Eventually, the wiki process will rewrite the article in place and the copyvio revisions can be removed from the history. More seriously, my (slightly approximate) understanding of OCILLA is that, if someone objects, as long we as act within 14 days they won't throw Jimbo in jail. So, whilst we must delete copyvios we are aware of, we need only act on ones we're not aware once they are demonstrated to us.
The page should be still be (re-)blanked with {{copyvio}} pending confirmation. Anyone (doesn't need to be an admin) should email the claimant using the example in Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. On receiving a reply, the email should be forwarded to permissions at wikimedia dot org, and the Foundation will archive it somehow. Thus even if the editor departs, we still have the proof. A message on a talk page isn't good enough, by the way, since we have no means of knowing that it actually is the person attached to the email address, AGF aside.

So, you should get someone (e.g. me, or you) to email the claimant and as soon as they reply they can have the article back. Until then, it should really be re-blanked. -Splash^talk 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the category Physician Wipkipedians on my user page. I was wondering if there were any other around. --Daniel Lotspeich 02:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion of biographies

It's interesting to read your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balagangadhara alongside my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell. Uncle G 06:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good minds think alike. :) On the subject of the "specialized" guidelines, I've been concerned for some time that some of the criteria are in direct conflict with the main article policies. WP:BIO for instance seems especially problematic.

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. It is entirely possible for someone to write something in a periodical with 5000 readers and not have a shred of material published on him in independent, reputable works. I've been published in journals with a 6 figure-readership; no one has written anything on me that I would consider sufficient to form the basis of an encyclopedia article. The same can be said for authorship of books with a 5000-person readership.
Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings. This is even worse. In each case, criteria like this seem to imply that verifiability and citation requirements can be waived if a criterion is met, which is absurd—a good article cannot write itself, bereft of sources.

The problem here seems to be that for all their manifest, central importance, very few Wikipedians seem to have actually read and thoroughly understood WP:V and WP:NOR—or perhaps they have but are choosing to ignore it. Dpbsmith recently commented on what might be happening; it is not an unreasonable view. Certainly, our experience with the Pokemon, school and similar issues seem to suggest that if a sizable group of editors decides they're going to have something placed in the encyclopedia, despite in many cases not meeting the central policies, there is very little that Wikipedia can do in its defense. But perhaps that has always been WP's destiny—it is a wiki. 09:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)