User talk:Astronautics~enwiki

I reply to messages here.

User talk:Silsor/archive

RfB

I am considering to nominate you for a burocrat position. Was wondering how you'd feel b'out it. I've seen your contribution. I've seen how you work. For me you are fair and are unsing admin powers to benefit wikipedia with no abuse. (Also few people hate you) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'm not really involved in Wikipedia until I return to the internet in mid-September. silsor 21:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi silsor, gesture appreciated. I came across this picture and thought it would make a perfect conciliatory response. If anything still bothers you, let me know. Next step: try to have a beer together somewhere. Sam Hocevar 21:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Wikipedia to Toronto

I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 18:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

NAMBA/Rind et al

As an occasional editor of NAMBLA, you may be interested in also watching Rind et al. Some recent edits to that article appear to introduce a particular POV. I'll admit that this obscure topic is beyond my interest or knowledge, but it could use attention from a good editor. (PS, I'm also posting this note on a few other editors' pages). Cheers, -Willmcw 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Income tax

Thank you for protecting the page, but the spammer managed to get in his edits before you actually locked the page and now the spam links are locked in there. Could you revert it to the non-spammed version and re-lock it? Thanks. — Mateo SA | talk 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks taken care of. silsor 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been. But thank you anyway. — Mateo SA | talk 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

Hello again. Would you mind adding the links www losthorizons com and joebanister blogspot com to the spam blacklist? Below is a copy of my request on Talk:Spam blacklist:

www losthorizons com

Commerical "tax protester" site, added by multiple IPs to multiple articles on WP, including Tax protester [1]; Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad [2]; and innumerable additions to Income tax (e.g., [3], [4], [5] [6])

joebanister blogspot com

Another tax protester site, added by multiple IPs to Income tax multiple times ([7], [8], [9]), sometimes along with www losthorizons com above. Also added to IRS ([10])

Mateo SA | talk 20:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added losthorizons, not sure about joebanister because he's not selling anything and the damage isn't too heavy. silsor 22:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, Banister is selling stuff. It's just that it's at www freedomabovefortune com, not the blogspot link. The blogspot page links directly to "freedomabovefortune". — Mateo SA | talk 22:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liss-Kompendium

Hello Silsor, please do not forget this: [11] If you need more information you can ask me on my German discussion page. -- T.G. 19:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC) My English account is still "sleeping".[reply]

kempo dot 4mg dot com

Could I please get this site whitelisted? It is the web site of a dojo of Kiyojute Ryu Kempo and I would like to add it to the links section of the article. --Wingsandsword 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Mississauga, Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Mississauga for instructions.--Rmky87 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobotanist

Thanks for making that a redirect. It was short but factual; kind of a judgement call to blow it off. Later! - Lucky 6.9 05:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduced a Jack Thompson paragraph

You removed a paragraph I personally had no problem with, so I reintroduced it with some changes to make it a touch nicer than the original editor made it. It documents the community reaction to Thompson's "modest proposal". Given that it had citations and reflected editorialised opinions in those citations, no less, I don't think it qualifies as NPOV (any more than an editorial by Thompson himself counts as NPOV in the JT article). I think it's fairly relevent given the then-natal stages of the development. In fact, I personally saw some of this backlash on several webforums, such as FARK and a couple minor ones I frequent and would be happy to provide these citations if you feel the paragraph remains merely a declaration of the editor's opinions rather than the editorials of the community-at-large. Professor Ninja 06:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the paragraph is that there are still statements in it presented as fact without citations. Because of the way the paragraph is written, you need to demonstrate that:

Many people found the proposal ironic. (How many is "many"? Who are they?)
Many people found the proposal hypocritical. (How many is "many"? Who are they?)
The people who found the proposal ironic were opposed to the proposal. (How do we know they weren't just commentators?)
The people who found the proposal hypocritical were opposed to the proposal. (How do we know they weren't just commentators?)
The people who found the proposal ironic did so because of of his threats of legal action against violent video games and the buddy icon. (You need to show direct cause and effect.)
The people who found the proposal hypocritical did so because of of his threats of legal action against violent video games and the buddy icon. (You need to show direct cause and effect.)

If this paragraph were written in such a way as to only present the known facts, it would be fine, but it's written as an sloppy editorial. There is so much spin on it that it's practically flying apart. silsor 07:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see...

Okay, so fair enough, "many" is vague, but then again, you have to consent, and I think people recognize this, that barring counting the actual amount of replies of this nature and then adjusting the article to reflect that number every time it changes (a monumental task), you're kind of allowed vagueness in these cases. Firing up dictionary.com tells me that many's probably acceptable in this case as it is, as an adjective, "1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.", "2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends." I think it's safe to say that it will remain an indefinite number (and rather large -- I'm going to guess from the webforum replies I saw that the number is around or in excess of 500, so the use of many in this case, while vague, is not hyperbole.) As for who they are, I recall the original paragraph giving an identity (and I changed it to give them a different, more succinct identity, as I don't personally believe one must be in the videogame industry, community, or periphery to oppose these views in particular.)
See above.
I think finding something ironic or hypocritical when originating from another human being is to oppose it. I can't fathom a situation wherein somebody thinks to themselves that a view is inherently hypocritical and ironic, but remains decidedly neutral on that view. It's clear that the original editor here isn't referring to dramatic irony.
Again, as above.
Well, this could be rather easily remedied with the citations I offered. I replaced the original paragraph on its merits, not on its lack. You'd do well to remember that one should assume good faith; if we're presented with a likely situation that has no citations, should we assume that it was a truthful contribution with sloppy copyedit, or should we assume it was an NPOV attack? I'd say we should assume the former, not the latter. I'd hope that the philosophic principle of charity wouldn't need to be illustrated at the beginning of every article, section, sentence or paragraph that contained a single turn of phrase that could be considered vague or ambiguous.
Yeah, same goes here...

In short, I'd prefer that somebody, and I guess the task has fallen to me, simply alter the original paragraph to reflect better structure, rather than excising it completely. Professor Ninja 07:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Given your points 3&4, I find it interesting that the paragraph is merely a spun editorial. Doesn't having neutral commentators finding a statement ironic or hypocritical imply a larger backlash than direct opponents (that can therefore be reduced to no more than nay-sayers)? I'd say I'd much rather have somebody who's known to hate me detracting from my views than a completely neutral party -- so how do these points fit into your idea of NPOV spin? If anything, they buffer it -- possibly untruthfully, though my thoughts on that are already up above -- and cause you to contradict yourself. Professor Ninja 08:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Klein and removal of comments

Hi, During a recent editing spree on Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney) Ori Klein removed some comments that you and I posted: [12]. I left him a message about it on his talk page. But I thought that you might want to know. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in this case have been discussed long ago and the issue was closed with a simple solution. I am well aware of the 3RR, having enforced it many times. The editor in this case was someone with an agenda of disruption, as you can see by checking their edits and their vandalism to no pain no gain. silsor 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA page discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNAA - Please read my comment at the end of the page. Femmina 14:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link Re-insertion

Hi, sorry to bug you about Jack Thompson (attorney) again. But user:Maluka has readded the link to his/her article. When I removed it s/he re-added it again. If would be very grateful if you could provide your two cents on the situation. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Ive made some comments at WPT:RFA#Inappropriate delisting. I'd appreciate your input. -St|eve 04:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why me, specifically? I know nothing about the delisting. silsor 05:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do support your desire to reapply for adminship in your own time. silsor 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request because of your long history as an editor, and your elementary principled stance of requiring more info before making a judgement. I respect that. -St|eve 14:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have anything to say there, but I did email the arbcom on the 25th asking them to allow admins more control over standing a second RFA in the future. silsor 14:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking

Could you please add your view to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Repeal_of_Everyking_mentor_arrangement

The other two mentors both feel the mentorship can safely be repealed do you agree? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, done. silsor 16:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've formally repealed the mentorship. Thanks for the excellent mentoring. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't have to do anything! silsor 16:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never Say Why being redirected to Planetside...

Can you explain to me why you did that?...The two really have nothing in common, it's just that the idea for NSW came from the PlanetSide General Chat...

Hi Tigerbot, PlanetSide General Chat and NSW aren't notable enough to have their own articles, so instead of deleting them I just redirected them to the nearest topic (PlanetSide). If you think this is wrong, then restore them and I'll start a deletion request instead where Wikipedia users will comment and decide on whether they should be deleted or not (this would be final). silsor 17:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The PlanetSide article could use some work from knowledgeable users, though. silsor 17:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the thread on your forums, but unfortunately it takes three separate registrations just to post. Regarding the request for deletion, if nobody commented on it at all, nothing would happen. Somebody would have to actually support that it be deleted. silsor 17:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

help with an article

Silsor-

I request feedback from you about my first page here at wikipedia. It is titled "Victorio Peak". I just want you to tell me if I am approaching this wrong. Any suggestions or hints would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a great deal in advance!

Arencher

re: itn

ITN stories should be relevant to at least more than one country.

What guideline or policy are you referring to? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. silsor 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the nomination of a judge isn't of interest to the non-American world, and in terms of international importance or affect, it's nil.

Do you have evidence to cite that? In my opinion, much like our deletion policy, the burden is in you to cite reasons and evidence to remove an entry like that. Keep in mind, I was not the one who put it on ITN originally. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. silsor 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your "RfA"

Ahoy. Myself and a couple of other users are rather perplexed by your RfA. Initially, it appears that you are asking to be desysopped (which normally does not go before the community), but the rest of it makes it sound like you are asking for admin status (which you already have). Any clarification would be swell, and thanks for your time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have just extrapolated a tad. Nevermind. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I am very perplexed, and your comments don't clarify anything for me. Would you mind telling me what you are doing, and your purpose? This would help me with any "vote". I think you could just ask Angela for a de-sysopping, if that is what you want. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple, either you think that I should move on to user or remain as sysop. Please review my edit history and other pertinent facts and then indicate whether you support or oppose my desire. I don't want to bother Angela; we on the English Wikipedia have so many RFAs that we developed a special page just for it. silsor 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not moving on, but returning to a previous state. And also, you are not putting forth an RfA. It is more like a Request for De-Adminship (a request that doesn't exist yet except on meta) or a Request for Usership (which also doesn't exist). I'm confused at what your motives are; surely you could just ignore your admin powers if you don't wish to enter conflict?? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silsor, whether we think you should remain as sysop or move to regular user is irrelevant. If you wish to give up your sysophood, just inform Angela or one of the others, who will have to be informed anyway to remove your powers. There is no need for community approval. If you wish to conduct a poll, you are welcome to set up one on a user subpage perhaps, but RFA is not for people to set up polls at their whim. I'm removing your request for adminship, as you are already an administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have not read my comments on the RF{A|D}. Please read them first, and then restore the listing. silsor 18:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read them, and even searched for "silsor" to ensure that I didn't miss any. I couldn't find any that explained why this should be a vote. Perhaps you could clearly state it here so I can understand, as I appear to not be the only one who cannot find the explanation. Also I notice you referring to it as RF{A|D}; the D would appear to be your own addition, as the page is Requests for adminship only. The procedure for de-adminship for other users is through RFAr, for one's self it is through a simple request to be de-sysopped. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your RFA, I posted another question down at the bottom; you might not have had a chance to look at it yet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your request for de-adminship to meta:Requests for permissions. It is possible that one of the stewards may contact you to confirm your request prior to acting upon it. No vote is required. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico

Thanks for fixing that. I was very confused! lol Thanks again!Gator (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat

Hmmm, that's pretty scary. I noticed today that an AOL IP (152.163.100.200) used to attack Aranda56 matches the IP used by Aranda56 himself at a different date... could his machine be compromised too? What information do we have about how the hack was done? -- Curps 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I just wanted to leave you a brief note thanking you for your support on my RfA. Thanks! — Phil Welch 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still hate you :-P

The sincerest form of flattery, but I should have been first!

Kim Bruning 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shortly

Good to be here!

Wolever 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA

I think, about 6,000 edits ago and back in January of this year, I got upset becuase the George W Bush page was protected by you...mainly to prevent me from edit warring and making an arse of myself. I need to thank you for that! I appreciate your support on my RfA and I'll do all I can to ensure you know you made the right choice. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you! Thanks again!--MONGO 08:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image up for deletion

Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:John.patrick.ennis-mugshot-20050303.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Arnold1

KITT typos

Thanks for corecting all my typos in the KITT article, I thought I had fixed that myself, but I must have missed over it. Cyberia23 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! The credit should go mostly to Konqueror's spell checking feature. silsor 20:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Versace article

Why have you created a redirect for all the sub brands to the Versace main article. Some did need such work but did ALL of them. Versace Precious Items for example was a useful article, some just needed expansion.

I think that even if those articles were expanded to be the best possible article on their subject that they could be, they still would not be important enough to sustain a separate article (except Palazzo Versace), so I wrapped them all into the Versace main article. The old text of Versace Precious Items is still available here so to satisfy your complaint I have copied it into the main Versace article as a new paragraph. silsor 00:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the great work! --YHoshua 19:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Do I get to know the reason for the encouragement? silsor 20:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for greeting me. I am trying to do little things, so I am used to it, and maybe I can a pro.

Hello

I need to contact you because you said I should let you know if I have a problem with wikipedia... well an admin or two are reverting my good faith edits as vandalism with rollback, no explanation given. Please review, the edits in question were [[13]] and also [[14]]

I tell you now that I am grateful very for all the support, but this kind of treatment is appalling! I realise some may have preconcieved ideas, but I believe I should be owed at least explanation. Anyway, hope you can advise.

Yours, Marmot.

Hi Marmot, I took the time to check out those two edits. Your first edit was to delete somebody else's comment while adding to the serious polls a suggestion that arbitrators be chosen essentially randomly. Do you really think that it was appalling that this edit was reverted, especially given your history of trolling? Your second edit was to add a quote to a vandalism in progress subpage that refers to some software, but the page does not mention any software, and there is nothing to "confirm" there without context. Your edit was apparently reverted because it made zero sense. You also said that an "admin or two" were reverting you when it was actually one. If you want me to spend any more time on the matter, please explain why these reverts were bad. silsor 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is apalling that they revert with no explanation, my edits good faith were and simply deleting suggestion gives no opportunity for discussion of benefits. I do not edit here very often but on the occasions I do I expect humane treatment. Now I have much expertise in many fields, and it seems like many admins are here not for contribution of content but for social or boredome reasons. If I make honest edit, it takes only two minutes to explain rationale for removal, but that courtesy was not even extended. So I say again, what is to be done?

Marmot

First approach the editor who reverted your changes instead of involving somebody else. silsor 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the initiative and left Marmot a reply on his talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bottlenose Dolphin capitalization

You previously participated in a discussion on using upper versus lower case for the Bottlenose Dolphin article. This is a courtesy message for those who participated in that discussion to let them know that I have proposed a move; if you would like to share your opinion, please see Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin#Requested move. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Curps, Zoe, Mysekurity, Nandesuka, vs myself and Chooserr

You're invited to go look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges to certify that there is, indeed, a major problem with this mess and that, for what it can be trusted to accomplish, the community needs to get involved. --24.221.8.253 08:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. silsor 08:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quit hounding me on IRC

For several weeks now, you've been hounding me on IRC -- acting like a schoolyard bully really -- apparently because you don't like my sense of humour. I notice that other IRC users frequently joke around in a more risque fashion than myself, but for reasons known only to you, you continue to threaten me. I don't appreciate it, so I am asking you politely to stop. Barry Wells 00:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with your sense of humour or how risque it is. What I have an issue with is the way you keep spamming your stream of consciousness jokes into the IRC channel when nobody is interested in listening to your performance. The only reason I've had to ask you more than once (you like to interpret this as "hounding") is that you don't listen. If you participate in the channel without trying to be some kind of internet diva or nonstop random sentence generator you probably won't have any problems from me. silsor 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"What I have an issue with is the way you keep spamming your stream of consciousness jokes into the IRC channel when nobody is interested in listening to your performance ... If you participate in the channel without trying to be some kind of internet diva or nonstop random sentence generator you probably won't have any problems from me."

I strongly disagree with your above characterization of my participation on IRC. Why is it that it's just you that I have a problem with? while I have many pleasant and unfettered conversations with other IRC users. To me, it seems that you're abusing your IRC channel-op privileges and are acting in a discriminatory manner. For whatever silly reason, you've targeted me, apparently someone who you think you can push around and are relying on your channel-op status to do it. Stay away from me and we'll both be happy. Barry Wells 01:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]