User talk:Michael Snow

A question on a logo

Michael, way back in February 2004, there was a graphic of the USFWS logo on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The consensus back then was that although not copyrighted (as a U.S. government graphic), it shouldn't be used in light of the statements at [1]. I then found a public domain photo showing the badge with the logo on a USFWS officer's uniform, and we've used that image since then to avoid any problems. Now, somebody has again uploaded a graphics of the logo, claiming it was in the public domain. Since the only participants in the discussion back in February were Anthony DiPierro and myself, I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the issue of such protected U.S. government service logos. (There may be more such protected logos. I remember having come across at least one other instance, but in that case, Wikipedia used a PD photo of a logo relief on some building. I only wish I could find that instance again!) Thanks, Lupo 07:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you so much, but I have two other questions on my mind that I haven't found an answer to, and since I don't know whom else I might ask them, I'll ask you:

Can "fair use" claims under U.S. law be made for non-U.S. items, such as images copied from, say, a French web server?
(Posted already on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, but ignored there) Can we use images under NATO copyright such as Image:B031007bc.jpg (from [2])? See NATO's copyright statement, especially at the bottom.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate knowing your view on these issues. Lupo 12:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my comment at the time was that both images were essentially equal. Whether it's the logo itself or a photo of the logo on some guys shirt, the law still applies (though perhaps a slightly better case for fair use can be made depending on the presentation). If I remember correctly, rather than reach consensus, I just left the discussion. anthony 警告 12:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response

I've responded to your message on my talk page. anthony (see warning) 00:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for Page protection

Please protect the following articles from anon vandalism. They have been reverted to the originals over a dozen times in the past 24 hours.

I realize that this is 'ALOT to ask for, but of you go through the histories of these articles, you will see just how persisitent this vandal is and that abnning his IP will not stop him. I would also ask that if you do protect, that you protect the last non anon version. TDC 20:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! TDC 21:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why is Chilean coup of 1973 protected in the state left by a lone anonymous individual rather than the state consistently defended by two experienced participants of quite different politics? (BTW, from what I can see, the person is not a vandal in the usual sense, just over-persistent in insisting on his/her versions of articles. On some pages, I think he/she has actually improved the article, but not on this one.) -- Jmabel 21:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. This one is clear-cut. Heck, I think any time VeryVerily and I can agree on something politically charged, that's pretty clear-cut! -- Jmabel 22:03, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about protecting the "wrong version", but this is simple vandalism, not a content dispute, and so I don't believe this applies. Look at some of Turrican's (anonymous) reverts: [3] [4]. He reverts any edits by TDC and me (a fact overlooked by Fred Bauder when he singles out a "reasonable edit"). Refer if you haven't been keeping tabs on this situation to the arbitration request and his statements that he intends to revert all my edits and later that he is carrying out this threat. Just as I think it would be inapproriate to protect a page on the version that says "Bush is a monkey", I think the handful that are on the "wrong version" should be corrected (put aside the q of whether protection is needed at all - this is an attack on users not articles). Otherwise we send the message that vandalism will be rewarded. Well, let me know what you think. Very Verily 22:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The edits are vandalism because of their intent not their content. Reverting housekeeping edits because of the editor counts, e.g., reverting the bypass of miscapitalized redirects (Poland) and the fixing of spelling ("assymetric" on consensus), which should be no-brainers. Is there any possible alternative explanation for the anon reverts? The fact that said person has been involved in other acts of vandalism such as my user page should remove remaining doubt. It would really help if the ArbCom would get off their elbows and issue an injunction on Turrican, but a vandal is a vandal is a vandal. If you examine the edit history (I'm not suggesting you do this, you could take my word for it), there really isn't reasonable doubt that they are all one and the same person. (Also, some are id'able proxies.) None of this has anything to do with issues as to whether it is acceptable to remove content. It's about abusing Wikipedia to prosecute a vendetta, which should not be tolerated. The approach of haggling on every petty revert is a good way to waste everyone's time (including yours, since TDC pulled you into this) and feed the trolls.

Well I'm busted; I don't actually know what with(out) prejudice means. It could be something like I could care less which is "technically" wrong but in common use. Or not. Oh well, I sometimes fail words. Very Verily 00:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I do sound frustrated. It just seems to me that you do not perceive that there is no "dispute over capitalization", which is how you describe it; there is a vandal who is reverting all my edits, which is a very different situation (i.e., not a content dispute). If someone did something like this to, say, RickK or Hephaestos, all of the IPs would have been immediately blocked and the pages reverted and protected. This makes your take not seem like "persistent pursuit of impartiality". Perhaps you wouldn't approve of the other approach, but is there really any doubt about this person's intent? The IPs which actually vandalized my user page were (save one) not even blocked. Very Verily 23:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is as I described. But whatever the trolls will be a little happy for a little bit. Anyway, sorry you got dragged into this. Somehow you keep winding up involved in issues relating to me. Very Verily 06:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tip of the day

I've noticed (by going over the history of that page) that you're recently in charge - inasmuch as you're the one doing it, which is all that matters - of adding new tips to Template:Tip of the day. I suppose you've got a list of your own, but I just thought I'd suggest Wikipedia:Magic Button as a possible tip. -- Itai 23:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:02, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Library meetings

I'm sure you've got it watchlisted, but as an additional flag, I thought I'd note here that I've left you a comment at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Seattle -- I think we do need to consider more seriously where we'll go from the cafe, given current numbers (which are excitingly high -- I had no idea we'd be planning for this many!). Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Thanks for support my nominating for admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External search engines

Hi Michael. I reverted your redirect at Wikipedia:External search engines because the questions there are frequently asked on the Help desk and it is useful to point people to those previous answers and discussion. I had to use rollback since going to the revision as of 00:17, Sep 3, 2004 brought up an empty page claiming it was last edited in 1969! I've moved the page to the talk namespace to make it clearer what it is though. Angela . 19:56, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your interference. Arminius 00:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you get my email, by any chance? Have you seen how broad the area of inquiry is for the case that the AC has accepted against me (the AC is allowing Sam Spade to cherry-pick anything out of ~15,000 edits and two years despite the lack of a basis of an ongoing conflict)? I know that we've had our differences, but I'm hoping that you will respond; given all the work that you've put into the AC process, I doubt that you'll want to see the system corrupted to this extent. 172 21:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. But I think that you are overlooking something important regarding this "revert parole." Regardless of its practical effect, you overlook the fact that it also strips an editor of his legitimacy. After the amount of time that I have contributed to this site-- for which I could've been paid for some of the very same work-- I will not suffer the humiliation of editing under these restrictions... Nor would I even be able to edit under these restrictions. I think that you know very well that Sam Spade, among others under no set of restrictions, would just go through my user history each day-- as Sam Spade already does-- and revert everything that I write. I'm not going to waste my time editing under these restrictions... Moreover, it's disgusting how the very same user spearheading this case is not sanctioned for provoking more unnecessary disruption than just about any other user. 172 00:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think being on revert parole has much affected Cantus' legitimacy as an editor, though he's gotten blocked a few times for violating the parole, which I trust you wouldn't do. You think that it is alright for me to be put in the same league as Cantus, compared to what he has contributed and compared to what I have contributed? Thank you for taking the time to respond, but the response is reaffirming my doubts about even wasting a minute of time working on this site to begin with... Or maybe Wiki was a better cause in the past... The people who used to write good articles hardly seem in control of the process any longer; lately this site seems to be under the control of an increasingly legalistic cabal interested more in process as opposed to product. 172 08:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plebisite Project

I think you were a bit hasty with your deletion of Plebisite Project. User:Oldsoul listed it on VfU. Without discussing whether or not your deletion was proper, which I agree is disputable, can I request that you at least contact a user explaining your deletion when you do this sort of thing? After reviewing the situation this seems to have been made by a new user acting in good faith. anthony 警告 12:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Michael, I think you did exactly the right thing. It was a vanity page. I suggested to the OP that he might rewrite the entry when his project is more established and pointed him to the undeletion policy in the hope that he would feel it was not his contribution that was unwelcome as such.Dr Zen 12:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Father nomination

Dear Michael: Hi! I just wanted to know why are you agains me nominating my father for administrationship? If he was someone who acted like he doesnt care about Wikipedia, Id be the first one to tell him so. On the other hand, I know he is very dedicated to this site, he spends about 6 or 7 hours each day researching, looking for informantion before he writes about his subjects, and then he also looks out for vandals and does other things to make sure the site remains respectable. Thats why I nominated him twice. Because I am witness that he spends most of his non-working or sleeping hours here every day.

I want you to know that I have the deepest respect towards you, as a great wikipedian that you are, part of the "hood". I just have that question..why can't I nominate my father?

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Spinning Machine Martin"

Dear Michael: Thanks for clarifying. Now I understand your view.

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Degeneration M Martin"

User page unprotection

Hi Michael, out of curiosity - where did UninvitedCompany request that my userinfo page be unprotected? Thanks. ^^ -- Schnee 22:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. uc 00:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page Protections and Disputes

Howdy, Michael. Would it be possible to impose upon you to review the Protected Page situation with Winter Soldier Investigation? I've been involved in an edit war with TDC over this article. TDC managed to talk Uncle Ed into protecting the page, thus locking it into a POV version that is over a week old. Uncle Ed has suggested that I contact other Admins regarding this situation, as he will be gone for the weekend. Unfortunately, this is one of those politically charged articles that is of particular relevance during these next 4 days. I am requesting that the current protection be lifted so that the article may be returned to it's NPOV state, and additional accurate content added.

In support of my request, please note:

TDC has refused attempts to rationally discuss his edit issues, despite numerous requests on the Discussion pages and in Edit Summaries. See Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation
TDC has threatened endless Revert Wars without citing his reasoning. See related article Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War
See also Admin talk pages for Cecropia and Uncle Ed for the past 48 hours of history on this matter.

I apologize for the lack of a logged-in User ID at the moment. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. -Rob

If there's an ongoing edit war, as certainly seems to be the case, then it may well be that neither version is NPOV. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and come to a resolution. If it would help to have more people involved, you can try listing the article on requests for comment. Somebody is bound to complain that articles are protected on The Wrong Version. In this case, it looks like Vietnam Veterans Against the War is protected on your version, and Winter Soldier Investigation is protected on TDC's version, which seems pretty fair to me. --Michael Snow 04:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There isn't an ongoing edit war -- it's a revert war, and therein lies the problem. TDC simply selects a version that is over a week old (and MANY edits old) and does a revert, without stating why -- other than claiming NPOV. This results in more than a third of the content being deleted, including spelling corrections, formatting, links, etc. When asked to discuss what he has issues with, he says "everything" and then clams up -- stating in his revert summaries that he refuses to discuss the matter. Regarding the Winter Soldier Investigation specifically, he hasn't even entered the talk page, and my request for an explanation from him still remains there unanswered (since BEFORE the protection, no less).

You suggest that I discuss the issues on the talk page. Please tell me how long I should discuss the issues with myself before the protection can be lifted? Cecropia suggested that I have an uninvolved Admin remove the protection after verifying that TDC is not discussing his reverts. That is why I contacted you. You are correct, by the way, in noting that the VVAW article is indeed protected in an acceptable format to me, but I fail to see how that fact makes the locking of the WSI article into a POV format without possibility of discussion somehow "fair." -Rob

It's "fair" because your POV temporarily prevails on one page, and his POV temporarily prevails on the other. Edit war and revert war effectively mean the same thing. Almost all of the discussion I see is with SEWilco, and this dispute apparently has only one very short post relating to it. In other words, hardly more effort on your part than TDC's. Since I realize one-sided discussion is difficult, that's why I suggested requests for comment. --Michael Snow 05:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I beg to differ - on several of your comments. First, I don't see the VVAW page as "my POV." Like most editors, I strive for an NPOV article, and until suspected POV issues are raised and verified, I must conclude it is presently NPOV. Wholesale reverts with an edit summary that does nothing more than call the article "trash" not withstanding. Scot (SEWilco) and I have been at these articles for months, and I dare say there is more of his original content in them than mine. As I am sure you have noted, SEWilco and I are often of opposing viewpoints, sometimes heatedly so, yet we still beat the various issues to death until we arrive at a mutually acceptable NPOV. TDC will not even raise an issue - he simply reverts. Regarding this dispute, you see only a "very short" post relating to it? You do not see several paragraphs on the Talk pages of other Admins? You do not see TDC's stated refusal to discuss issues on the VVAW discussion page, or in the Edit Summaries of his dozens of reverts? I am petitioning you at the urging of Cecropia and Uncle Ed, because they said an uninvolved Admin could remove the protection if it can be verified that TDC is not participating in discussions. By the tone of your recent comment, it appears you have indeed verified TDC's refusal to participate. RfC is an avenue that I will inevitably persue regardless, but this particular request is about a Page Protection. -Rob

I saw the talk pages you referred me to, but it's mostly about the question of protection again, rather than anybody discussing issues with the content of the page (and the proper place to discuss that is the article's talk page anyway). And I can't make judgments on protecting/unprotecting based on which version I prefer or believe is more NPOV. If I unprotect right now, my best guess is that the revert war will simply restart. So I'm not inclined to do it. --Michael Snow 06:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to evaluate the NPOV of the article, although you are more than welcome to dive in (and the RfC formally exists now, by the way). The request was (as prompted by 2 other Admins) that you evaluate TDCs "good faith intentions" to follow Wiki protocol and enter into discussions to support his reverts. I assert TDC has no intention of entering into rational discussions, and I've pointed out ample proof of that - not the least of which is his very POV quote: "I am not going to argue this with an Anon user who is trying to stuff this garbage into an article." Meanwhile, TDCs intent of keeping the page locked in a POV format during the very critical remaining 4 days of the U.S. political campaigns is being carried out. -Rob

Evaluating good faith is a very tricky thing, especially when people have established a strong mutual hostility. I prefer to assume it as much as possible, and you certainly haven't disproven it. You've reminded me that he is predisposed to think of you as inferior and a likely vandal because you edit without a username, which I already knew about, and is an attitude I consider entirely inappropriate. Still, it hardly follows that he does not in good faith believe that his edits are improving the content of the article. Only time can show whether protection and RfC will promote constructive discussion toward a consensus, neutral form of the article.

And with respect to the question of time, even though this is the internet it's unreasonable to expect to achieve any particular result instantly, and I don't think this is more urgent than any other dispute. The next four days may be critical for many political candidates, but this article is not critical to their campaigns. Elections may hang on small things sometimes, but to believe that they will hang on the state of a minor Wikipedia article (with two prominent warnings that the content is disputable) that will reach relatively few eyeballs and change even fewer minds, is beyond my credulity. --Michael Snow 07:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your logic regarding a "strong mutual hostility." I believe you are assuming that TDC and I can not or do not communicate. That is a false premise, as evidenced by our discussions elsewhere. Here for example, and you'll also note that such discussions have taken place during and AFTER the most recent page protection disputes. Ability to discuss is certainly not the problem, nor is mutual hostility. The problem is getting him to discuss any of his reverts on the two currently protected pages (VVAW and WSI). This he simply will not do, and he has stated as much. Granted, he has misleadingly posed as willing to enter discussions, when it served his purpose in requesting a Page Protection (see Uncle Ed's talk page) - but posing is all it was. In two days worth of polite requests to discuss with me the issues he alleges are POV, the closest thing I get to a response is: Gee, I dont know, everything. TDC 20:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) -- and not a word more, regarding those 2 articles anyway. What exactly does it take to "disprove" good faith?

As for the question of time, candidates and the importance of Wiki articles - I must again disagree with your assessment. During the past week when Sinclair's intent to broadcast anti-Kerry material on their TV stations was all over the news, no fewer than 34 blogs cited one or both of those presently protected wiki articles. I would imagine much of the hoopla has since died down, but certainly not all of it. As for number of eyeballs viewing, and numbers of minds changing, I'd wager the importance of these numbers this particular year is greater than either of us might guess. Or... I could be totally wrong. Regardless, the fact remains that an article is locked in POV form, and the requestor has not entered discussions as to why. -Rob

Hi. Like I told Mr Company several months ago when he unprotected my user page, he is incorrect both in his interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines and in his assertion that my page has never been vandalised. It has, twice, by Faedra, and I choose that it remain protected. Deb 16:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Salve, Michael Snow!
Read your message re my comment on Wikipedia talk:Page protection. First, I will state I have not gone over the manual on the proper criteria for restricting pages, I only have looked at the arguments on the aforementioned page. That said, I understand the difficulty you cite of restricting pages when the user is not himself an admin, which is why I support the suggestion by User:Improv to alter the program so nobody but the creator can edit a user page. I think that a worthy change that should be investigated. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 20:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

A Question on Deleting Keith Anthonisz

I noticed that you were involved in deleting my article on myself (Keith Anthonisz) and my involvement in Australian music as an Australian musician. Given that on the talk page, I noted that the content was mine and that the content had been used with my permission on other web pages, can you explain to me why I was deleted?

Images by Cheung1303

Hi, I noticed that you (and multiple other admins) have complained on User:Cheung1303's talk page about his uploading of images without sources. He is, unfortunately, still doing it (most recently for an the image at [5].) —Steven G. Johnson 21:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Something very much needs to be done about this user. He is now adding copyright tags seemingly at random to the images he uploads [6]. Is it time for a request for comment from the wider community? - SimonP 02:01, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

What to do?

Hello. I noticed you've taken care of an item on Wikipedia:Copyright problems recently so I'm hoping you can guide me through what I need to do. Saint Vasilije (listed on 05 AUG) is a bit of a mess. The article had the copyvio tag added to the text instead of replacing the text. The copyvio version has had edits since, but a good non-copyvio stub exists on the temp page as well. I would be willing to merge the modifications into the temp version, as they are good changes, but that would destroy the authorship history when the main (copyvio) page is deleted. What should one do in this case? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 05:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question About Deletion

Salve, Michael Snow!
While checking the page of what links to Dawson's Creek--a page I patrol--I found this: Colour Moving and Still. It's a nice page and all, well done, but are we going to create a page for every album ever? I was reading a discussion about creating pages for episodes of television series--where I don't recall, otherwise I'd link it here--and the point was correctly made that our servers would runneth over if we followed such a policy. (Dawson's Creek alone has 128 episodes, Buffy the Vampire Slayer 144, Gunsmoke over 600. I looked through the deletion criteria and didn't see anything truly applicable to this album article. Rather than list it as a candidate for deletion myself, I thought I'd ask someone with more (I hope) experience in these matters. Is this a candidate for deletion? Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:20, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, Michael, I saw your question about adminship for me on Geogre's page, I just wanted to thank you for bringing it up. As Geogre told you, I don't really want to be an admin, for several reasons, but I love having it suggested! It's a great compliment, and it's only happened once before, not three times as Geogre thought, so I'm anything but blasée about it. Your question made me feel like a million bucks, thanks very much.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meetup

Michael--Great to meet you today. It was a pleasure to see all you. I appreciated your comments about licensing. They were very insightful. I put some pictures up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, including one of you. P.S. Quiz was fantastic. -- Matt Decumanus 09:06, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I second Matt's comments -- it was very good to meet everyone in person. I feel I know my friends a little better, and some people I've never interacted with before will now be sought out by me as intelligent and reasonable voices. Maybe there's more sanity here than I am able to see in my more despairing moments. :-) Thanks for doing the work of getting us all together -- it was a real success. I look forward to seeing you and chatting with you again in the near future. Best wishes, James R. 20:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold

The current edit war being waged by Blankfaze and Alberuni is in violation of at least five policies, including Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, and Wikipedia:Three revert rule. The dispute in question has been resolved by Mustafaa, Jayjg, Josiah, and myself. The four of us are in agreement about a specific quote being used on the page. Unfortunately, Alberuni and Blankfaze continue to revert this quote, against our best wishes. Blankfaze won't even participate in the discussion on the Talk page. Both Alberuni and Blankfaze insist that the page is about Israel, but we have repeatedly and patiently reminded them that the page is about Dore Gold. We have also repeatedly explained to them the reasons for our decision, but they continue to revert the version agreed upon by the four of us. Why have you protected a version of the page that is not agreed upon by the majority of editors on Talk:Dore Gold? I couldn't help notice that you protected the page approximately four minutes after Blankfaze reverted the article, contrary to the consensus of the editors on the Talk page. --Viriditas 12:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't think any sort of "consensus" has been reached. Secondly, I have attempted to participate in discussions but have become frustrated with the blatant POV-pushing going on, especially concerning User:Jayjg. It's hard to debate with people who are hell-bent on installing certain points-of-view. Regardless, however, I have surrendered and precluded myself from further involvemnt in the edit war; so, Michael, feel free to revert to their supposed "consensus" version. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to use Mr. Snow's Talk page to discuss this topic (bring your comments to the article's talk page and link here) but I will briefly reply to your comment. A rough consensus has been reached. You have not actively participated in the discussion, instead you have logrolled for Alberuni, a POV-pusher of the highest order (see his edit history, including the POV article titles he has created) who happens to be pushing an anti-Israel POV on a page that has nothing to do with Israel. It's ironic that you should accuse others of your own misdeeds in this matter, but I said I would be brief, so I will leave this rest of this discussion (which I encourage you to continue since you have shown an interest in this subject) to the Talk:Dore Gold page. You may be surprised to learn that your opinion of myself and Jayjg are entirely without merit. We are both willing to work with multiple POV's, and in fact, we actively encourage it, as our edit histories demonstrate. Again, I am asking you to join the discussion and explain your position when you have time. Thank you. --Viriditas 04:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas--Josiah 02:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree with Viriditas. IZAK 06:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quizz

I had a good laugh when I learned I was part of the quizz :-) Hope you all had a good day :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Yeah ?

Okay, my guess was ... say 45. The picture makes you look like... say 30. Which is nearer ? :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Nearer 30... funny. Well, perhaps I felt you more mature than 30... or perhaps than now that I am well over 30, I can only see 30 as a very tender age ? Who knows ? Well, at least, your virtual self fit with the actual self (figure, hair color...). Not so bad :-)

Scars

My scars were twitching tonight. Really. Especially the big one across my forehead that allows me to win bar fights by default just by combing my hair. I don't know what exactly makes them twitch. Must be the weather, or maybe just too much sun. They say scars are like tattoos, only with better stories. I have no tattoos, so I would not know. In any case, this has nothing to do with protection of user pages. At least, I don't think it does. I will re-run that query one of these days. 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheism

I noticed you unprotected this page. I think that was a bit pre-mature, please have a look at the talk page. Sam [Spade] 21:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Copy from my talk:

Many thanks for your contribution to the evidence on Gzornenplatz. Does it remind you of anyone in particular? --Michael Snow 18:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one. Some notes are available at User:Mirv/gzp if you've seen anything worth adding to them. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Undeletion of American World University

Would you mind looking at this undeletion entry? The consensus currently seems to be 2:1 in favor of undeltion, but I am worried that the admis who are currently involved are unwilling to take action in this matter due to the fact that this has become entangeld with their personal conflict with anthony. (Evidence of this is here.) Thanks for your assistance. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:20, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

If you want to add to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American World University, please do so, but don't delete the historical archive. Rick K 00:58, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I saw that yesterday, I don't have a problem with it since it's a rewrite, I just don't like Anthony's attitude. Rick K 20:32, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom FYI

Your user name was mentioned in the arbitration case against Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily, so I'm informing you of the below temporary order against the users named in this arbitration.

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 12:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hope you're happy. Very Verily 12:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan page

Michael, thank you for your edit of the Jeremiah Duggan page, where I had Princess Diana allegedly being killed by M16. :-) Slim user:SlimVirgin 06:27, 16 Nov 2004

Arbitration / Mediation

Aside from the fact that I'm not terribly upset about the whole situation anymore, I don't share mav's opinion that it was your job to tell me. My question on RfA was clearly directed at the ArbCom who's job it was to let me know if the mediation was trumped by any arbitration matter. Furthermore, it would have been the ArbCom's job (as I interpret it) to explore whether the proper path of dispute resolution had occurred. This exploration would have (with at least a modicum of thoroughness) uncovered the mediation I was proctoring. Again, not your fault. I didn't expect you to do anything, I expected the ArbCom to a) answer my question and b) notify me of the arbitration and solicit my input. In any event, it's all, as they say, "water under the bridge". Let me know if you need anything from my end in the current matter and I'll assist as best I can given my role. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:18, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Goldman

I created this page, but when I search for it, it can't be found. Ksnow 15:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)ksnow

I made a redirect from "Goldman", but that is currently the only way I can access it, other than typing in the URL or accessing it from a link in a category.

Thanks for the note, Michael, it's appreciated. I was probably in a rather touchy mood at the time I wrote my response and might have overreacted a bit. You are right, of course, that something needs to change with the arbitration committee: either its structure or duties need to be changed to reduce the load on individual arbitrators, or it needs to be stuffed with people who are prepared to commit buckets of time to it (practically speaking, I think the first is rather more likely). --Camembert

FYI: New temporary ArbCom order

New temporary order:

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 20:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Goldman

Nope, it still doesn't work, just through the redirect under Goldman or from links. The lookup seem s to be looking for jean+jacques+goldman, instead of jean-jacques_goldman.

Eequor

I may have been too harsh in my comments to you, though I stand by the sentiment. I got upset over the beating she was receiving for what struck me as little more than care-free quirkiness. To her further credit, she handled it all with remarkable good grace. Anyway, the whole TINC thing is stupid. There is neither clearly a cabal nor clearly not one; rather, there is a complex social hierarchy which, like most, has a handful who dominate. Perhaps your sense of your own position in it is what caused you to lash out, although that's mere speculation. Very Verily 00:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

endorsements

Since you're moving these, and I don't want to trip you up with an edit conflict, please send mine to User:Mirv/Arbitration election, where I originally placed them. —No-One Jones ^(m) 08:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I don't appreciate your unilateral decision to bury my endorsements and opposition on an obscure subpage under my user page, where no one will ever read them, especially before asking me if it was OK. What is your motivation for wanting to hide my comments about the candidates?

If this election is to be free and fair, then in the "public square" that the candidate discussion page represents, everyone should be allowed to make their opinions known. Please restore my comments to the public discussion page where potential voters can read them without having to click on dozens of links before a potential voter can see what I have to say. Thank you. --DV 00:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Follow up

Your comment about only requiring a click on one link is dishonest, and I think you are smart enough to know that. Potential voters will have to click on dozens of links above mine, or below mine, (depending on the order they are going through the other user's endorsements) before they get to mine. Most users will become impatient and stop clicking long before they get to my endorsements. Hence why I posted on the central discussion in the first place - so my comments would be read!.

Excerpts from other pages get read much more frequently than links. (Many popular news sites and blogs illustrate this every day, by excerpting what they link to in order to entice the reader to bother clicking on the link.)

Also, I made endorsements of Neutrality and blankfaze, and they do not appear on the candidate subpages where you moved other user's endorsements/opposition. Since you weren't super careful about moving this material around without losing some of it, those two candidates lost some endorsements that they would otherwise have.

Your "consensus" on redistributing comments on a single page into many subpages seems weak. And who appointed you the "boss" of the candidate endorsements discussion page in the first place? Your statements that you will continue your actions despite the wishes of others doesn't seem very wiki-like. --DV 00:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I have taken your creative suggestion, and "piped" my endorsements into my link. I disagree with your assessment of linking vs. a central page (for the reasons I gave above), but if this is as far as you are willing to compromise, so be it. --DV 00:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. How does consensus work if other users run around doing whatever they like? User VeryVerily unilaterally reverted my change to my link text on sight, without a word on the talk page. I asked him to take up his objections on the talk page if he disagrees with my use of your "piping" suggestion.

If VeryVerily persists in removing my contributions without discusssion, please consider blocking him, as I refuse to participate in a revert-war.

I have compromised and chosen to participate according to your suggestions, so isn't it unfair that VeryVerily, who is standing as a candidate in this election, can run roughshod over me?

As a voter offering endorsements and opposition, it is only fair for me to be able to offer my opinions in close proximity to the self-endorsements of the candidates themselves. If my endorsements and opposition are artifically kept out of sight and out of mind for the vast majority of the electorate, then I might as well have never offered them at all.

In any case, I appreciate your attempts to work out a compromise from your own initial position. --DV 06:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stylebook Proposal

Salve, Michael Snow!
Where should a proposal to amend the stylebook go? I would like to clarify the policy about spelling out numbers that is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Number_names and wonder if there's someplace other than the talk page for this sort of thing. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 16:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

My adminship request

Thanks for the support and the kind words. --jpgordon{gab} 04:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't not be amused by your little "run-in" with Shorne and ~~Wik~~ Gzornenplatz on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. A tiny taste of what I've been up against? Very Verily 04:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lobbying vs Spamming

Is there a policy on Wikipedia concerning how strong the pre-existing affiliation must be in order for lobbying not to qualify as "spamming"?

Obviously, I would likely be called out if I set a 'bot lose, posting messages on the user talk pages of everyone who contributed to Wikipedia within the past 30 days, asking them to vote on this survey.

On the other hand, how about if I lobby everyone I have worked on an article with since I started contributing as an editor?

How strong does the pre-existing affiliation need to be before lobbying crosses the threshold into spamming? I looked in the policy pages and had little luck finding any guidance on this issue. I believe that a policy must be quickly agreed upon, if there isn't one already, for effective, but not overly disruptive, lobbying to be allowed on Wikipedia during campaign cycles.

Your thoughts? --DV 07:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This same question applies to the general election as well. How strong does the pre-existing affiliation with a potential voter have to be, to insure that the administration of Wikipedia will not consider such lobbying as spam? --DV 09:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I am looking for guidance from any user who cares to comment, I have posted a more generalized version of this question on the Endorsements talk page, and on the Election talk page. If you choose to reply, please do so on one of those pages. Thanks. --DV 09:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom proposed decision

Well, do you like what you see? Very Verily 09:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

endorsement page

Hi Michael, I read your message, read the page and the discussion and talked to danny about it - we decided that we want to talk to uninvited company first to find a solution for this problem. I'm currently in frankfurt organizing wikimania. when I'll be back home sunday evening, I'll look at it with more time at hands. --Elian 23:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Subpages and endorsements

Just a note: I would have preferred for you not to have moved things to one of my user subpages without you having told me or discussing this on the relevant arbcom endorsement talk page. Never mind (I'll be moving the content to my talk page, if that's ok.) Thanks Dysprosia 04:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed it somehow. Dysprosia 04:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for change in style policy

I would like to propose a change in style policy. As a professional editor/tech writer, my exprience has been that generally other character styles (especially italics) are not applied when the word is a link. I would like to see this adopted by Wikipedia as their style.

Voting should be a civic duty of all Wikipedians

It's not that big of an obligation in return for all the benefits this site provides. But please hear me out, as I reply to your comments. --DV 03:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not that voting should be mandatory.

But voting should be thought of as a duty of any good Wikipedia citizen, and those who don't vote should have received at least one message about an election - enough to feel that they are missing out on something that is good and right if they don't vote. --DV 03:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your opinion please

What do you think I should do about this Should i revert or leave the page as it is? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC comments

Thanks for moving my comments. Will use the appropriate pages henceforth. (darned learning curves...) - Amgine

Election Dates

I will correct the image this evening. I'm at the office right now so I don't have access to the source file. Cheers, --DV 03:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new version with the corrected dates. After the upload, I noticed that I had to purge the page in my cache and then refresh to get the new image to appear. --DV 06:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how do I...

How does Wikipedia:Alphabetical index get built/maintained? I'd like to do the same on my personal wiki, and haven't figured it out. - Amgine 20:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inserting pictures

Lew has given me permisson to lift anything I want from his website. How do I insert a picture in his article? Ksnow 11:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)ksnow

I have uploaded the JPEG, and it shows up in the image list, but not on the page. Ksnow 12:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)ksnow