User talk:Fennec

Template:NoSolicitors

NOTICE! I patrol Special:Recentchanges regularly for edits by anonymous IPs. This means that I look at several dozen edits a minute. I don't spend too much time on each one. It's therefore quite possible that I see one that looks suspicious but is in fact valid, particularly if the information added is radically different from the rest of the article, or otherwise unexpected and surprising.

If I've rolled back one of your edits, or an edit which you saw that you feel is valuable, I am sorry: please feel free to reinstate it, and I probably won't notice (but consider dropping a note here and/or on the talk page first, just in case). Thanks for your concern. :)

Old conversations are available via page history:

hey, I cleaned this out. Post below. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zigbee

Thanks for teaching me how to redirect :)

dtmos

WP:Sandbox

I need to get offline for work, I see you're cleaning the sandbox. There's a few idiots there, check my contribs to find them. Just a quick headsup. Pakaran (ark a pan) 16:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a question? Lir

Well gee Fennec, the suspense is totally intense. I can't wait to hear what you think of. Lir

What function of the Arbitration Committee you believe would be either necessary or conducive to achieving this goal.
- The function in which Jimbo resigns and gives the arbcom all of his power.
I wonder whether you would attempt to change one of the aforementioned standards or whether you would attempt to evade them using your self-announced "private sockpuppet army".
- If I am elected, I will have three arbcom sockpuppets (lir is, itself, a sockpuppet account) -- so, technically, I could then use my arbcom sockpuppets to dominate the committee -- however, I would rather change the aforementioned standards via a more 'legitimate' process. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Baaaad attitude

Well I cried...

Seriously though, sorry, we was feeling a little abrasive that morning. From now on I will be the epitome of politeness and constructive criticism. I can still be a bastard on my talk page, though, right? j/k - Randwicked 07:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate

Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

Kosovar political parties

Could you please revert your recent changes to the Political Parties of Kosovo page. The argument you are using does not stand. When a person establishes a political party, they name them, and that name cannot be changed by anyone else, other than the court. A serb political part from Kosovo may be "Serb List of Kosovo And Metohia", you cannot rename it to "Serb List of Kosovo", although "Kosovo And Metohia" is not the accepted English name of the territory. Hence, all political parties of Kosovo have spelled out their name, check their websites if you don't believe me, and thay all use Kosova exclusively, except Serb ones. As a result, I did not touch the names of the Serb parties.

Now, could you please be so kind and revert your recent changes, and spare me of doing the same work again.

Thank You,

Kosovar

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"No Solicitors"

Don't call us, we'll call you. I like it, and think we should do something to curb the WikiSpam before it really gets out of hand. Pull, don't push. JRM 09:02, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Maybe I should add a template to my user page saying Don't post templates on my page. :) (Actually its really annoying, cause they take up so much space. I usually change them to links). Now I apologize for the rather scripted nature of my message and I suppose I could have written you a more personal version with the exact same content, but there are just too many people to ask. Consider this to be your personal, non-spam request then. Alas, if any user would like to use your personal contributions elsewhere, they would legally need to ask your permission even if you decline, so what else was I to do? Besides a "solicitation" is any "earnest request", which could include most questions placed on your page, but I'm sure you knew that. Is WikiSpam such a problem? I've been here for a couple years and never had problems with that. But I'm sorry, no questions on your talk page ;-) – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Is WikiSpam such a problem? I've been here for a couple years and never had problems with that. No, not yet, but I think some gentle discouragement to people won't matter. The comments about contributions are directed at Fennec, of course, I'm only talking about the yokels who stuff ArbCom flyers in the face of anyone who might remotely be interested and/or people who think their WikiProject would really get a boost if they started mentioning it on talk pages. As long as they do it in person, you won't hear me complain (hey, I do that myself sometimes—I'm a dirty rotten solicitor too :-), but boilerplate messages with no intent to personally address are just rude. Oh, say hi to Rambot for me. :-) JRM 14:32, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Ok, I managed to not get any ArbCom fliers, but I've seen them. A quick way to remedy the problem is just to "Vote No!" as a policy :) Ok, I agree that some of those things can be annoying, and I suppose a no solicitation template is good. Maybe I'll have to use it soon! At least in the case of multi-licensing, I am perfectly fine with personally addressing any questions. Part of the problem is that a small minority of people get annoyed when I talk too much to them about multi-licensing, so I usually just drop the message and run and hope no one gets upset with me. Of course then some people might get upset about that! You just can't win. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:44, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Spambot

I'm pretty amazed that you used a bot to send unsolicited bulk messages to people's talk pages. It's very hard to see the difference between these mass edits and unsolicited bulk email. I realize that you have good intentions in doing so, but I think it's a really bad precedent to set. --ESP 01:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aiee, you used a bot to do that? Was that a function of the bot previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Bots? If not, that could easily be construed as grounds to block the bot... -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, upon a little reflection, I will do so (construe as grounds) right now, and block the bot. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I also didn't get permission when I spent some time updating the licenses for a couple thousand county images. Frankly, the rambot has long ago since been approved. A bot wins approval and trust of the community based on its actions on a stricter level than regular users. It has done this. It has done city/county updates (many many times), licensing updates to images, as a user interactive spellbot, and just about any other task where using it would be simpler than doing the same thing by hand. As a matter of consistency, you should probably ban my main user account because 1/3 of the "spam" added by the rambot was not added by the rambot at all, but by myself. Considering that there is no practical difference between the two, I suppose since we don't follow the spirit of the law here at Wikipedia, that I should be permanently banned as well. Let's be as legalistic about this as possible. Afterall, I have a track record of not asking for permission. I suppose it doesn't matter that I received implicit consensus based on the results of the first 1/3rd of the "spam". I find it strange that it is suddenly much worse because a bot did it, as if that matters. I guess we don't judge edits based on their content anymore but by who adds them. I suppose with that precedent I should ban you because I don't like you (for sake of argument, not reality), not because there is anything particularly wrong with your content. I should also ban you for the unsolicited comment to my user page that you've given me, right? Did you get permission to do that? What precedent did I set anyway? That if a user desires to user someone's copyrighted work that they have to ask for permission? You give me a better solution for asking every single user for permission to license their work. I've been in discussion with those users who have had complaints and have been working on solutions that have been pleasing to everyone, and so far they have been civil about it. No blocks, just civil discussion. Unfortunately that has apparently ended. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 02:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

-- Please direct responses to me talk page: – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 03:10, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

-- A Comment has been added on my talk page. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 03:32, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like you to consider unblocking the bot so I can at least perform the regular city updates as newly described. I've also clarified what I hope is an acceptable compromise. See Wikipedia:Bots. Even if my multi-licensing proposal is not approved, I still need to run the other tasks. At least consider my request or at minimum add your comments to the page. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 21:10, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Best edit summary ever. :-) Evercat 03:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Oh! So close. Sorry you didn't make it into the ArbCom. You would have been a great arbitrator. But look at it this way: you now get most of the credit (by being just a few votes shy) but without any of the responsibility. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:06, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

VProtect on Tier One

There's a squawk about this on the talk page and indeed I can't immediately spot the reason for the protection. What was the problem? --Phil | Talk 08:13, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

#wikipedia Ops

I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask about this. You're the Freenode group contact, if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong. Has adding more ops for #wikipedia ever been considered? I'm not asking for opership for myself, just more (active) ops. There's a GNAA member trolling up #wikipedia as I type this, and no ops are active. I've noticed this happening in the past as well. 20 ops is a bit small, in my opinion, for a channel that regularly stays at around 200 users (although there are only 130 logged in right now, probably because of the holidays). Anyway, let me know what you think. --Slowking Man 08:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Blunsdon United VFD

Hello Fennec, on Dec 13th, the FVD discussion for Blunsdon United: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blunsdon United was deleted (by you) from the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. What was the result? Blunsdon United was not deleted but it still has a VFD tag, and no result is indicated on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blunsdon United. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 20:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)