User talk:Magister Mathematicae/2005-11

List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess

Drini, I noticed you merged the above into Bobby Fischer, then deleted the page. I was just wondering if you are aware of how the GFDL requirements to preserve attribution history impact merge & delete actions? If not, please see this discussion. For methods on how to perform a merge and delete, see this series of posts. Forgive me if you're aware of all this stuff—if you are, may I ask if you deliberately linked the AFD in your edit summary, which contains a link to the original page, which has a link to special:undelete, which of course lists the attribution history? Because, come to think of it, that's not a bad way to do things, I supose. Cheers encephalon 03:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

NO I wasn't aware. Thanks for the information, encephalon. Hopefully I won't screw it again ;) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. That means you need to restore the page...:) -Splash^talk 04:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Done :) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's another problem with your merging of that page: it was done when there was no consensus for merge, as far as I can see. There were four votes for delete (including two "delete or merge", half a point for each), five for merge (including two "delete or merge", half a point for each), and five for keep (including one weak keep and one strong keep). Note additionally that over the twelve days the vote ran for, every single delete vote was cast in the first day, every single merge vote was cast in the first 4 days, and all but one keep vote was made in the last 5 days. In other words, there were no votes after the first four days of the twelve-day voting except votes for "keep" or at least "do not merge", and these votes were only just beginning to pick up and gather momentum when you abruptly closed the vote. The voting shows a very clear and defined trend progressing from "merge" to "keep", that at the very least should have been given more time to establish clearly which side had the advantage. I also feel that very little thought was put into the "merge" votes, with no taking into account how merging would affect the article being merged into (in fact, the addition has already been deleted from Bobby Fischer by an editor, effectively making every "merge" vote a throwaway "delete" vote anyway). There was also little consideration put into the other options available (like expanding the article, or making a new article to merge it into like "Chess record of Bobby Fischer"), and related articles (like Garry Kasparov's) that are more or less identical. Lastly, the VfD was never mentioned in the Bobby Fischer talk page, where it should have been brought up so that the vast majority of informed and interested people in this matter would have seen it and been able to vote on and discuss it. Instead, barely anyone saw it except random people like me who were lucky enough to stumble onto the page, and uninterested people just passing by it in a list of VfD votes looking for an easy listcruft page to write off. Sadly, it seems that some of them didn't take the time to examine the articles in question carefully before making their votes. So, I'd like to see the VfD vote continued so we can get a better idea of what the consensus is. See also Talk:Bobby_Fischer#Deleted_article. -Silence 09:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that interpreting the results of that AFD as a "merge" was quite reasonable, whenever none of the sides (d, k or m) gets a consensus supporting it it is up to the closing admin to make a judgment call. I am not all that enthused about that list being in the main Bobby Fischer article, it looks a bit "cluttered" with it there. But if nobody has a better place to merge it I won't complain too much. Perhaps I could write an article on the book by Edmar Mednis, How to Beat Bobby Fischer, and merge that list there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, there are no hard-set rules and it's up to the individual closing to interpret the votes, but isn't it normally practice to extend the deadline of the vote when there's no consensus established yet, and, when in doubt, to avoid deleting an article, rather than eliminating something that there isn't clear consensus for the removal of? I just don't understand what's so unusual or especially dire about that one article's situation that it necessitated such a sudden removal right when actual debate was about to begin on it. But at the very least, an explanation would be nice, to understand why Drini personally believes that the article should be merged, or how he interpreted a clear consensus for "merge" from those votes, considering how many keep votes they were and considering the distribution of votes over time, which clearly showed that the votes were in the process of dramatically shifting from a significant number of merge votes (35.7% for merge at the time of closure, not nearly enough for consensus by any standard) to dominance by the keep votes.

For that matter, I'd like to understand why you think that interpreting the results there as merge was "quite reasonable" when "merge" had little going for it and three users had strongly opposed the idea of merging (myself, the person who voted "do not merge", and the person who voted "strong keep"), and two of the people who voted "merge" would have been just as happy with "delete", showing there was absolutely no strong inclination toward just merging it, even when there were any mergists at all near the beginning of the vote—and the only reason the mergists got anywhere near as many votes as the keepists, quite frankly, is because they and the deleters voted when the article first got listed, and thus was the subject of a lot of attention near the top of the VfD page; the "keep" votes, on the other hand, came much later, when a lot fewer people would be able to see the page. If I'd stumbled onto the page nine days earlier and made my argument when the vote was still getting started, pointing out clearly why merging was a terrible idea and deleting only a little less so, I bet we'd have gotten a dozen keep votes by the end of it. We might have ended up with that many anyway, if the vote hadn't been cut off abruptly.

Additionally, if the consensus of the vote was for "merge", then to delete that article from Bobby Fischer immediately afterwards (as is necessary because, as several users pointed out and thus caused an end to the merge votes, there was no possible way to get that section to in any way work on the Bobby Fischer page. At all.) is a dishonest way of letting the article be deleted, and since delete got the least votes of any of the three options (4 delete, 5 merge, 5 keep), that really seems to be going against any notions of consensus. I'm just confused. How do you interpret the votes that way? Even if you do some playing with the stats to get it to look like the merge has an advantage, a simple scroll down the page makes it clear that the advantage is rapidly diminishing and will soon probably be gone, and would prompt most people to give the vote at least a few more days to see how things turn out. -Silence 13:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I won't get accused of bad faith for delaying my answer since I?m on the middle of a travel.

Clearly the consensus was not to merge, since the majority of opinions was either delete or merge. So, I didn't want to remove that information, and given that Wikipedia is not a democracy I chose the merge route. NOte however thar strong votes have no more weight than normal votes. Your statement that Merge had little going for it is false as merge was the most voted choice (which helped me in my decission). Also, this afd was extended for more than twice the period it should be, and it couldn't stay infinitely open, so I decided to close it. And me deleting the article after the closing was a mistake (as pointed above) and I indeed restore the article. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 10:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your choice better. Of course Wikipedia isn't a democracy; the WP:NOT section on that makes it clear that that's because Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Consensus and discussion rather than on simple majorities and polls, not because Wikipedia's decisions are all made by individuals with no regard for consensus. If Wikipedia is based on consensus, you shouldn't have gone for an option that had so little of the vote unless you absolutely had to (like to resolve a months-long dispute, not one that hadn't even existed for two weeks and only had been active for a handful of days of that), and if Wikipedia is based on discussion, you shouldn't have overruled and ignored the view that had gained absolute dominance in that page by then, with everyone active on the page agreeing that we couldn't merge (even the one person who voted for "merge" at that time changed his vote because the argument against merging was so compelling!).

"So I didn't want to remove that information" - Then you shouldn't have merged it, because it was inevitable that all the information would be deleted as soon as you merged it because it simply cannot be listed on Bobby Fischer without badly decreasing the quality of that page. Several of the comments in the discussion made that quite clear, and not a single person disputed it. If you disagreed, you should have said so, since no one else had expressed your view yet. AfDs should not be closed with a completely new option ("merge it into the article so that it will have to be deleted"), but rather with one of the options that had already been debated, and if you have a new point of view to add to the subject, as you clearly do, you should have voiced your opinion in the discussion rather than deciding that yours was automatically the correct one.

"NOte however thar strong votes have no more weight than normal votes." - Actually, they do in an informal sense, whenever the raw votes alone cannot be used to determine consensus. Which was certainly the case here. That's the entire reason Wikipedia has the "strong vote" and "weak vote" system—to help editors closing the debate gain a more nuanced understanding of what the consensus really is. If you've got eight "strong keeps" and eight "weak deletes" on a poll, then it's pretty clear that the article should be kept! But you're the one who seems to have decided that some people's votes count more than others: you apparently counted the "merge/delete" votes as being one full vote for merge, and one full vote for delete, essentially giving all those people two votes! How is that in any way a fair or equal voting process? If they couldn't decide which option they liked more, or liked both equally, then their vote should have been divided between the two options so that they have the same influence as every other voter on the process, but get their opinion accurately represented nonetheless. No wonder you mistook "merge" for having more support than it did!

"Your statement that Merge had little going for it is false as merge was the most voted choice" - That's a complete misrepresentation of the actual votes there. Merge had the most people who listed it as one of their options, but two of those people were just as happy with "delete", and so they each contribute half a vote to both options. That gives Merge 5 votes, and Keep 5 votes (with the "do not merge, leaning on 'keep'", at least), and Delete 4 votes. And even if you did let the system get abused and gave Merge and Delete an extra vote just because some people were indecisive, that ends up with Merge at 6 votes, Keep at 5 votes, and Delete at 5 votes - certainly too close of a race to determine "Merge has broad support", even with the warped votecount! But, again, the final nail in the coffin is that not a single person had voted "merge" in 9 days, and four had voted against merging, and were continuing to show up to vote, all following a compelling series of arguments against merging. If a single person had shown up at this point to argue for merging, I could understand your vote somewhat—and the main reason I wanted to leave the poll open was to give more of a chance to hear some sort of rebuttal, if there was any to come—but in lieu of anyone who still clearly expressed interest in merging the article, why close it without giving a fair chance for discussion? There had been no one to argue against the "merge/delete" case in the first few days (simply because few understood the articles at all, the process, or the situation whatsoever, as shown clearly by their comments), and there was no one to argue against the keep vote in the last few days (though several people probably would have voted "merge" and voted "keep" instead because they saw that merging was a terrible idea), so there was no dialogue going on between the two parties. You should have tried to begin such a dialogue if you disagreed with everyone currently active on the page (the people voting "keep"), rather than unilaterally deciding that they were all wrong and the people who'd apparently given up any active support for "merge" were right.

"Also, this afd was extended for more than twice the period it should be," - Then the AfD process really is incredibly flawed. Six days is in no way an acceptable length of time for an AfD vote on a non-major, contentious article. And, as I've pointed out, this AfD vote was kept secret from most of the people who actually worked on the most relevant article to it, Bobby Fischer, by not being linked to on the Bobby Fischer talk page. That alone quite clearly renders this AfD vote inherently flawed and shows that we need a revote on the matter, but it becomes ten times worse when you add in the dozens of other problems with this vote and its resolution, most damningly of all the lack of any support for "merge" after the facts had all been made clear, followed by your deciding to merge the article anyway—and thus ruin both articles, Bobby Fischer by interjecting a huge old list into the middle, and the list by making it hard to access, clumsily inserted into an article unrelated in tone or topic, and directly causing its total deletion despite the lack of support for deleting in the vote.

"and it couldn't stay infinitely open, so I decided to close it." - Oh, come on. You cannot be serious. The discussion was barely even getting started, and you were worried that it was being left open indefinitely?!?!? A woman has a painful three-day pregnancy, and then finally, on the night of the third day, the baby starts to poke its head out and the trial's almost over, and then you run up and club it to death with a baseball bat. "It couldn't stay infinitely open!" Jesus. What is the incredible rush for? Wikipedia is not on a deadline, and you should allow disputes to work themselves out naturally and establish at least some notion of consensus when possible (and it was obviously possible in this case, as the Keep votes were picking up more and more momentum and would either soon turn into a flood, or be totally crushed by some amazing counter-argument that I can't imagine ever happening; either way, it was without a doubt too soon to call it quits), not ignore all discussion, advocate an impossible and poorly-thought-out decision (i.e. the merge option), and kill it all off.

"And me deleting the article after the closing was a mistake (as pointed above) and I indeed restore the article." - I don't care about that at all, I never pointed out that mistake, and it's a very minor one. My objections were that:

1. you didn't explain your reasoning anywhere when you made your decision, forcing me to track you down to figure out what you were thinking (the only thing you said when you closed the article was "The result of the debate was merge to Bobby Fischer."! ridiculous, it only became that result because you apparently liked that option the most, I find it insulting that you would say "of the debate" while 100% ignoring the actual debate results),

How hard is to track me down given tht a link to my talk was on the closing afd? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

By "track you down" I meant get a response out of you, not find your Talk page. It took several days of waiting for that to happen, whereas it would have only taken 5 minutes to at least give a brief explanation of why you thought "merge" was the best option. -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

2. you ignored consensus,

NO I didn't -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You did by your own words: you yourself said that there was no consensus for merge, yet you went with merge anyway (even though the Deletion Policy pages on Wikipedia state that when in doubt, go with "keep", and even though merging was a practical impossibility because the articles in question couldn't really be united). The problem with this is that there probably would have been a consensus for the vote if you'd given it a little more time, or if anyone had tried advertising it on Bobby Fischer and getting a lot more votes that way. -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

3. you ignored discussion,

No I didn't -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did. The entire discussion made it clear that "keep" was by far the most popular option among everyone who'd been to the page in over a week, with not a single dissenting voice. You ignored the evolution of the discussion 100%, and then claimed to base your vote on the discussion! Simply amazing. -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

4. you hastily rushed a decision that could easily have gone on for at least a few more days to get an infinitely better idea of consensus (or if you were in that much of a hurry, you could at least given us a heads-up deadline of a few days so we'd know to finish making our arguments and gathering up votes in that time!),

No, that wasn't a rush decision. And you're accusing me for closing something that run for more than twice the time it's required. Would you accuse me of a rush if I had closed it 2 months after it was opened? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a rushed vote. Look at how many days there was anyone actually voting on it! There were only 2 days of heavy voting, when it first got nominated (mostly by people who had absolutely no experience with or knowledge of the Bobby Fischer or chess articles and just saw the vote on the recent VfD page and voted out of ignorance; the mergists in particular are guilty of this, all of them), followed by a weeklong gap of only one vote, and then the votes began to slowly pick up again with new information, evidence, and reasoning surfacing that made a very compelling case for not merging the article. Then, after a mere five days of this, as votes were slowly returning to the article, you closed the whole thing without any warning! If I wasn't trying to assume good faith, I'd think you were trying to close the vote early because you were worried that if it stayed open any longer the "Keep" votes would gain consensus; but I don't believe that, I just think you didn't examine the results carefully enough when making your decision, and spent little to no time actually looking at the articles in question.

"Would you accuse me of a rush if I had closed it 2 months after it was opened?" - If only the first two days had any votes, and then, after two months of total inactivity, suddenly a flood of votes began to return to the VfD page with startling new information, and a handful of days after this flood began you closed it before the new information could be fully discussed or debated? Yes, I'd accuse you of rushing. Especially if you completely ignored all the later votes even when they were unanimously against the option that the early votes had supported, based on new information that had arisen. Please don't use false analogies or try to make it seem like every VfD that lasts for X length of time is exactly identical. VfDs must be handled on a case-by-case basis, with patience and open-minded consideration of the discussion, the options, the situation, and the changing leanings of the voters, not with a rushed and clumsy attempt at cutting off all debate and activity. How does it benefit anyone to end a debate early that hasn't reached anything remotely approaching consensus yet? No one is harmed by having the VfD page up for a few more days! But removing that information from Wikipedia with barely any support is something that could decrease people's enjoyment and education by the articles. "Keep" is the default position when there isn't a strong reason or a consensus to do otherwise, and there was neither. -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

5. you unilaterally endorsed an option that was neither especially popular (35.7% of the votes, and not a single vote in the last 9 days)

Your math is flawed, you count merges as "half votes", but that's because it's convenient for you to do so. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. But rather than accusing you of playing your own games with the math on purpose, how about we avoid making more baseless accusations and realize what actually happened? Neither one of us was trying to warp the stats, but one of us certainly did. The difference between how we counted the votes is that I counted every person's vote as one vote. I gave every person's vote equal impact, equal value, including people who couldn't decide on just one option and voted for two. You did not do the same. You decided that the people who voted for two options were more important than the people who voted for just one option, and gave the people who said that either of two options would be good two votes each. In other words, of the 14 voters, you gave 12 a single vote each, and gave the last 2 two votes each. This is profoundly, ridiculously unfair, and is the exact reason that you misunderstood the results of the voting. When a person votes for two options, his vote should be divided among those options so he still gets the same influence as every other voter, but his opinion is also weighed equally. Thus, the two people who voted "delete/merge" should not have gotten two votes—one for delete, and one for merge—but rather they should have had the same number of votes as everyone else, one vote, and this vote should have been divided among the two options they endorsed: half a vote for delete, and half for merge. Since two people voted "delete/merge", that's two halves of a vote for each option, with the end result being that both "delete" and "merge" get one vote each: in other words, a total of two votes from a total of two people, just the same as everyone else gets. Equality, fairness, and balance are maintained. So, we have 3 people voting "delete", 4 voting "merge", 5 voting "keep" (one of which voted "do not merge, with a slight preference for keep", and one of which voted "strong keep", which more or less balance each other out in terms of the weak/strong dichotomy), and 2 voted "delete or merge". We divide up the delete or merge votes so that delete gets 2 halves of a vote, bringing its total up to 4, and so that merge gets 2 halves of a vote, bringing its total up to 5, and thus we end up with 4 votes for delete, 5 for merge, and 5 for keep, not 5 votes for delete, 6 votes for merge, and 5 for keep, as you mistakenly thought. And, again, all 5 votes for delete and all 6 votes for merge were from the first 3 days of voting, before any of the relevant information on the debate had surfaced, whereas all but one of the "keep" votes came at the end of the debate, when 100% of the people who voted opposed merging, most of them quite passionately. So, by no wrangling of the figures could one possibly determine, just based on the votes and discussion and progression of opinions on that VfD article, that "merge" was the clear result of the discussion. Which part of this do you disagree with or not understand? -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

6. nor in any way feasible or possible or helpful (merging a non-vital 50-item list into a large, well-balanced biography article is absolutely unacceptable),

7. you (and everyone else involved) didn't try to get the many editors working on Bobby Fischer involved in the vote, or even to let them know that it was going on!,

You were involved and didn't try either -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I hadn't visited Talk:Bobby Fischer because I was never involved in those articles (in case you're worried that I'm so strongly arguing this case because I'm personally involved in these articles, the opposite is the case :) I don't even really like chess!), so I assumed that the VfD had been linked to on that page, because I was lazy and assumed a little too much good faith. So, I messed up, you messed up, everyone who voted messed up, by not telling the Bobby Fischer editors about this vote (or, for that matter, the chess editors in general; at the very least the people editing Garry Kasparov are directly related to this vote too, since Kasparov has an identical page to the one that was deleted—yet another of the facts that every single one of the mergists and deletionists failed to realize when they voted!). Which I now wish to remedy, because I care about getting an accurate and complete vote. (And I hope you do too.) What I don't care about is pointing accusing fingers. The only reason I came to this page was to try to get you to reverse your decision, not to blame you for all the suffering of mankind! In fact, I'd have just brought this up on the Undeletion page from the start except that that page recommends talking to the admin in question before taking such action, so I'm doing that now in the hope that it won't be necessary to involve other parties merely in the obvious action of reopening a vote that was closed in error. Even if we disagree regarding whether the page should be deleted, kept, merged, or whatever, surely we can at least agree that the way the state of the VfD when it was ended was completely unsatisfactory and none of the options had any strong support based on the votes alone? (Based on the discussion, of course, "keep" clearly has the strongest support, but, since you seem to have ignored that and based your decision entirely on an oversimplistic and slightly off-base look at the votes, I feel it should be noted that even the votes don't give merge more than a slight lead of any other option, and the most accurate interpretation of the votes doesn't even give them that!) -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

8. and you indirectly caused the least popular option of the three choices to be the one that occurred, by merging the article into an article where it could not possibly exist without causing a lot of problems, thus forcing the editors of that article to delete it, and thus expunging all that information from Wikipedia altogether (except for history pages, oy) against consensus (delete only got 4 of the votes! that's 28.6%!), against what you explicitly stated you interpreted the result as, and against common sense.

No it was NOT the least popular optio, keep was the least popular -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. The least popular option was delete. Keep and merge had the same number of votes. Every voter gets 1 vote, and 1 vote only; only 14 people voted, yet your count of the vote ends up with 16 total votes (because you counted the "merge/delete" votes twice, rather than once, as though four people had voted "merge/delete" rather than just two), clearly showing that you're the one who bungled up the math a bit. Not that that's a crime; it could happen to anyone. Rather than pointing fingers, why not simply solve the problem by revoting on the VfD? -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So that objection of mine was not that the item was deleted from the history, but that it was deleted from every article page even though only 4 out of the 14 votes were for "delete", and even though you claimed that "merge" was the vote you were endorsing—the problem clearly being that because "merge" is a totally unacceptable option, and you wouldn't allow us to continue to vote or discuss keeping the article, the only remaining possibility was the one barely anyone wanted, deletion of all the text. The only two viable options were "delete" (on the basis that the information is too trivial or just out of listphobia) or "keep" (on the basis that the article can be expanded and broadened and possibly renamed to make it more useful), and you ignored both. -Silence 18:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it was MY mistake to delete it, but I restored it shortly afterwards. I stil lclaim merge was the most popular choice. If you specifically WANTED more time, you could've made a request on the AFD page. Don't blame for closing it after it was due for closing. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, you didn't read what I said. I have still not once in this entire discussion brought up the brief deletion of the article, because it's totally irrelevant to anything in this discussion. Why, just above in my previous response I spent several paragraphs explaining clearly that I don't care that you deleted the history temporarily, I care that you caused the deletion from every Wikipedia article of the list's text by not considering the consequences of your actions: merging the article into Bobby Fischer is impossible, as was established in the discussion, so you mistakenly caused all the text in that article to be deleted (as an editor wisely removed the added text from the page almost immediately; I'd have done the same in his position, rather than letting a perfectly good article suffer from a misinterpretation of the vote). This is just made all the worse by the fact that there wasn't consensus for the option you chose; at least if you'd chosen an impossible option that had consensus support, you could have fallen back on that, but what on earth is the justification for this backhanded deletion now?

"I stil lclaim merge was the most popular choice." - Well, it wasn't. Read the talk page for the vote. Merge was a dying option, soon to be completely eclipsed by keep. If you'd asked the people who voted merge at first to revote with the new information provided by the later discussion in the article, I bet at least half would have changed their vote; the only reason more didn't is because they didn't revisit the vote page. Few people do. So it was necessary to get more new votes to establish what the best option really was. If it wasn't already obvious enough that "keep" was that option, anyway. Doesn't matter to me overmuch; I'm less concerned with whether the article was kept or deleted (again, merging into Bobby Fischer, the option you chose, is impossible) than with the incredible number of procedural flaws this vote has been plagued by.

"If you specifically WANTED more time, you could've made a request on the AFD page." - I assumed that anyone reading the page would immediately realize that more time was needed. It was my fault for thinking that everyone else would be as able to discern voting subtleties and developing trends, and I'm now atoning for that by doing everything I can to get a revote started. There's simply no other option if this article is to be voted on or discussed remotely fairly.

"Don't blame for closing it after it was due for closing." - Er, why not? Who else is there to blame? Do you want me to blame God, or society, or space gremlins? You closed it when the debate was obviously just getting started. "After it was due for closing" is meaningless, as there are no hard, absolute rules for when a VfD should be closed: it's based on whatever time best serves the specific case, and you completely ignored that in this case. But I'm not interested in blame, and I absolutely apologize if I mistakenly gave that impression with any of my comments thus far. Who does it help to say "this is your fault" or "that is his fault"? I'm solely interested in fixing the problem. As soon as you're willing to fix the mistakes that have occurred by re-opening the VfD vote or starting a new one, I'll stop wasting so much unnecessary space on these Talk pages and we can find out what people really think should be done with that article (and the identical article for Garry Kasparov). The 8 irregularities I listed above are more than enough reason to redo the discussion and vote. -Silence 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't reopen the debate. You can either try at WP:VFU or simply recreate the article and state your reasons on its talk. No need to reopen the debate -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your time. -Silence 21:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wolf

File:Redwolf-tn.jpg AHHH! Don't eat me! Acetic'^Acid 02:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking of Idorunet

Well, he's at it again, vandalizing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wackymacs by removing Private Butcher's vote. --Nlu 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw that one, I'm the one that fixed Private Butcher vote. But you can see the vandalism is minimal to nonexistent now, and since blocking him would block also CoolCat, I'm hesitant to block him for that minor flaw -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry i diddnt know what it all was about with the editing i was just trying to see if people were allowed to randomly change ie i thought the stuff i had been learning was all fake but its real and mot to be tampered with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.99.92 (talk • contribs)

it's ok, go on and sin no more ;) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiffle bat award

I, Nlu, award you this wiffle bat for your patience in dealing with marginal users. I certainly don't have anywhere the same patience or persuasive ability.

--Nlu 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal help

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I look forward to using the new tools in the fight against vandalism and other cleanup duties. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

VFD for Laura Alito

Where was the VFD for this article? I'd like to review the discussion that led to the deletion consensus. -O^O

No VFD, it was speedied as nonnotable bio (speedy criteria A7). Being the daughter of someone famous is no claim of notabilty (the notable person is the parent, not the son/daughter) so in the best of cases, it could be mentioned on the parent entry. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

* 03:56, 1 November 2005 Drini deleted "Laura Alito" (nnbio)
* 03:37, 1 November 2005 JesseW deleted "Laura Alito" (content was: 
  '{{db|notability not asserted}}
   Laura Alito is the daughter of United States Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.')
* 03:01, 1 November 2005 Who deleted "Laura Alito" (nn, content was: 
  'Laura Alito is the daughter of United States Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.'
  (and the only contributor was '132.178.168.224'))
* 02:57, 1 November 2005 Kirill Lokshin deleted "Laura Alito" (content was: '{{db|blank}}')

Block

you appear to have blocked my ip adress from editing any pages, although it was in fact someone else with what i can only assume to be the same IP adress who 'offended', which meant that my update (sizeable) to the Scunthorpe United F.C. page was blocked.

Well maybe, but I don't know what ip is that, so I can't check or fix. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User Page

I had thought it was my perogative to edit my own user page; apparently I was wrong. This is an extremely offensive situation. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Your user page, certainly, but I don't think you should revert warnings off your talk page. --Nlu 05:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It represented a misunderstanding. I had attempted to edit the userpage of one of my own accounts by mistake, and anyway I didn't succeed. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Well, your user page yes (although you don't have 100% to say what goes on it, for instance if you post personal attacks on your user page, they will be removed). But this was the talk page, so grounds are more shaky, and you're removing other people's comments. If you take it offensively, well, sorry about that, but I'll just shrug as you ahve no reason to be offended. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

New page for definition revision

I want to post a new page ("flashing sign") for the purpose of getting people to revise the definition I'm offering. Is there some place on the page where I can add a little note explaining my motives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjusri053 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 November 2005

ON the talk page of such entry (create the entry, and on the edit summary write: "see the talk") -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Manjusri053 06:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome Drini, really nice. Vande

(moved here from user page by Oleg Alexandrov (talk) at 07:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

ray kay

hey, tried to make a article for my brother ray, but you deleted it because i pulled som text from his homepage.. do i have to totally rewrite the text? i basically want the same information there... the credits list i a fact thing, i can't really rewrite that ? i'm sorry i'm really new to this... :) i'll try to rewrite the tex or pull out som essence off it - but i can assure you - my brother will not sue me or anyone else for copyrightviolations of his own text... fred

Basically yes you cna't copy other websites, you need to rewrite the stuff, although I'd suggest you not to do it, since you being his brother, it'll be dificult for you to have a neutral point of view. Here's some food for the thought: if somebody is notable, someone else will write an article eventually. If your brother isn't, as much as you like him, his article is likely to be sent to Afd for deletion. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 01:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Stats and stuff

Hi, Drini! Actually, my scripts use .php and mysql...I am finishing up the automation piece of it and cleaning up the graphs. Once I get that done, I think I will put it up on a webserver so that people can generate their own. It takes a few minutes to get the contribs, but after that, probably less than 10 seconds to finish the statistical analysis and the graphs. Your current stats are posted here. Your comments are much appreciated. >: Roby Wayne ^Talk 15:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton !!!

Hi, this may appear to be a joke, but it is not. I am here to thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page on 6 September 2005. Am sorry that the "thanking you" part slipped out of my mind then - I noticed it again today while going through the history and felt "better late than never" and so, here I am. Regards, --Gurubrahma 17:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hullo

Hullo Drini, I see you and other people have so many things in your Wikipedia babel boxes. Where do you get the codes for adding things to your babel boxes. I have a few things about what I'm involved in, that I'd like to add to mine. ThanksRhetoricalwater 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC), Oh yes, what are bots?

I replied on your talk page ;) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 11:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Anarchy

Please explain how someone like yourself, clearly not a historian of any rank, has the fundamental right to delet oher people's postings such as the short blurb on the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne. Who do you think you are? Maybe you could provide me with the full address of the actual proprietors of Wikipedia because it seems to me that anyone can do anything on these boards as long as their personal egos are large enough.Isabella84 08:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion, and given that it was actually a copyright violation, it had to go. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 10:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Adam1213 issue on IRC

Log 1:

-ChanServ- 1 *!*@CPE-147*nsw.bigpond.net.au As*per*Jtkiefer*and*Essjay*and*several *others,*Adam1213*is*banned*from*the*channel.*Autorem*set*Nov*4*by*Redwolf24* (Note:I'm*Neutral*as*to*if*he*should*be*banned)

---

Log 2:

<Jtkiefer> Adam1213 has been added to the autorem list on the channel due to the fact that he started bugging me on my talk page again about the access level, I have informed him and Redwolf24 as well as Titoxd agree that he should not be removed anytime soon but will be removed eventually, where eventually is going to be a long time but not never

---

I think there is a level of over reaction from all parties, I think a director involvement is necesary to resolve the issue.

I also think its approporate for only directors to get auto remove access. Everyone, including myself should not have this kind of power. To evade any incident of this nature. But thats just my opinion, I do not know what other directors think.

Thats all I got fot now. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videography of Mariah Carey

Shouldn't that have been "no consensus"? The same practical effect, I know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah keep as no consensus ;) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 10:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

mattism

Mattism is an article that i noticed that you have deleted. I researeched it, and i found out that it is a real religon and many people believe in itso may i please have your permission to but mattism back up there, but i will make sure that it is not silly and it as all 100% true.-jakewater

Drini, i posted this along time ago, and you have still not responded,please respond --Jakewater 22:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you want me to tell? Being "true" doens't mean it's not silly. It's religion made up by some student. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 03:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FireFox RFA

Magister Mathematicae/2005-11

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you, and see you around #wikipedia-en-vandalism! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA! — Phil Welch 03:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoism

FYI, Yoism is on Wikipedia:Deletion review. I noticed you voted for deletion previously and thought you might like to comment. Cheers. Edwardian 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam1213's IRC ban

Due to [1] I think that as per Essjay's decision and the channel as a whole's support that Adam's ban should no longer be taken off after 30 days since the deal was it would be 30 days only if he dropped the issue. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's ok, I've been away past week (and will be the next days too) so I leave the matter into the hands of people knowing what's going on. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

With JoanneB's RFA this was for short time advertised in the topic on #wikipedia-en-vandalism, after a brief discussion with her as she was uncomfotable with it, I removed it. I've been uncomfortable with these sort of ads for a while, since they seem to be suggesting some sort of official endorsement from CVU which seems inappropriate (even if as individuals we all endorse the candidate), and I'm sure at some point someone will use it as a reason to oppose. So I thought I'd ask the directors see if they had a view. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind either side, although I'd prefer not to do advertisements at all -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Raven2x

Oh you got there too quick! I was just about to nominate it for a speedy. --Kilo-Lima 20:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Undo POV?

Hi. Can you explain to me what this edit of yours was about? Jkelly 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That was amix up I was meaning to clean up the POV of the anonip who edited it before you, it seems that you edited it in the mean time (wiki was being slow here) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom - request for clarification

Hi Drini. You posted a "delete per nom" on the page I started AskEd! Automatic Multilingual Question Answering System. I then realised you probably won't get to look at my response so I just wanted to ask you to expand on why you think it should be deleted. Ed whittaker 12:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It means I agree with the reasons of the nominator, so why repeat them again? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, as soon as my site gets listed in Google etc. or has an alexa rank you won't have any objections to it having an entry in Wikipedia? Or would you also be happy with a fleshed out version of the entry which includes, among other things, the mathematical models involved for the statistical classification approach we adopt i.e. a fleshed-out academic paper description of the method? Since I was new to Wikipedia, I took my cue from the Wikipedia entries (2 no less!) for the only other system similar to mine at [[2]] and [[3]]. Since their's is a commercial system you don't get to hear much about how they do things. Mine isn't commercial but you don't want to hear about it. I don't understand this to be honest. I can only assume you aren't interested in question answering systems in which case you are not representative of the people who will be interested. Why should you decide? Ed whittaker 04:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not deciding. I'm just casting my opinion which I'm entitled to. And this debate belongs to the AFD page, not here. I've given my reasons for me saying delete on that page, if my explanation isn't sufficent for you, too bad, but I won't further comment. Moreover, this is about the entry, not about you, so please don't take it personal -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually your explanation was non-existent which is why I used the "talk" option that you put on the deletion-discussion page in the first place. You just said you agree with the nominator. If you read what I wrote I also said I agreed with the nominator and I wrote the page in the first place. I was just trying to discern why those reasons were justification for deletion. But I have got no further. I know it's not personal but it's pretty frustrating. So much for helping newbies. Happy power trip! Ed whittaker 06:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we could all be mistaken we're humans after all. You may want to read [[4]] for the policy if something warrants or not deletion. If we're wrong and you point in a civil way that policy says otherwise, the entry won't be deleted. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd read it when this issue first came up. Rather than looking at a page of excuses as to why an entry should be deleted I was looking more for a page describing why an entry should be there in the first place e.g. is it informative, not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia etc. Is there a link for that somewhere? Then I could argue in the positive. Ed whittaker 06:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The way I've seen wikipedia to work is: everythin merits inclusion until someone says otherwise and raises the issue to debate (as in this case) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I mean if everyone were to agree on a deletion then I would never consider arguing against such a decision. The trouble is there are probably never enough participants to be representative of the Wikipedia readership. The majority of Wikipedia users don't take part in these discussions but they do read the entries. It is easier and more clear-cut on how/whether to delete an entry than to see whether one should be written in the first place. I would hope that we both have better things to do so I've suggested deleting the entry and I'll write a better one later on. Thanks for participating. Ed whittaker 06:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what this is about?

Hi sorry to bother you while you are whacking vandals but I was wondering if you knew anything about something that is confusing me. Liface keeps adding Ultimate to everypage he touches. It seems to be User pages that he adds that to the most. Do you know what that might be all about? I can't tell if it is vandalism because most of those pages seem to have Ultimate frisbee on thier pages. I dunno Its just very confusing and I am hoping you can shed some light on this. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. Save some vandals for the rest of us :-D

Yeah I saw that and was puzzled too, perhaps the best would be askhim on his talk page, don't you think? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL I was actully just thinking that. I was going to do that if you didn't know. I thought asking a user I saw around quite often and seemed to be very trusted by the community would be a safer bet. Anyway thanks for your time I'll go ahead and ask him. When I get his answer I'll let you know. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

York Hill Elementary School and Yorkhill Elementary School

I notice you were the admin who protected the deleted article. I also notice, that it was re-created at Yorkhill Elementary School. As I am not an admin, I am unable to determine if its the same school and/or same content. If its new content (which doesn't qualify for speedy delete), then I think York Hill Elementary School should be unprotected, to allow for either an appropriate redirect, or the new article to be moved in its place. In any event, a user typing in either of these two names, should get the same information. --Rob 09:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My Sig

I don't know what quite happened with my sig, I've had no trouble up until now. I don't know what is up with the sigs right this minute, but other people seem to be having trouble with them too. I am now using a "substitute" sig until I can fix it, as it is still playing up. Thanks for letting me know. FireFox (talk · contribs)

Well, maybe I got confused I was away for a week. It happened 2 or 3 days ago, and the issue was that you forgot to close some FONT html tags, which caused all comments after yours to be small and blue like your signature. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Pi Approximation

Drini, what was the basis for deleting this article? I believe the db-A3 tag was not appropriate. If this were one million digits of Pi, I'd have no problem removing it, but 10,000 seems harmless, and even possibly useful. Owen× ☎ 03:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't that belong to wikibooks or a sister project? Should we have a page for 20000 as well? what's the threshold? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

True, Wikibooks is a better place for it. And what about Arborphiliac? Sure, it's a dicdef, but those cannot be speedied unless they already exist in Wiktionary, if I remember correctly. In both cases, an AfD should have been the right way to go, I think. Owen× ☎ 03:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

point taken -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Phi (Golden Ratio)

On a different topic: We already have Golden ratio, but a new editor is determined to create his own version at Phi (Golden Ratio). I tried to convince him to change it into a redir, but no response. I don't wish to get into a revert war with him, and an AfD seems counterproductive here. As a fellow mathematician, can I leave this in your hands? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll merge it as soon as I have time, it's been agreed upon. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for bringing the fight to vandalism. :) --Garould

You're welcome sire! -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

American :)

Hi Drini, I saw your little box with the Mexican flag saying that you are an American :). It's great to see someone pointing out to us estadounidenses that we need to wake up and realize that the U.S. isn't the only country in this hemisphere. Saludos, Spangineer 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Vandalism?

I edited a few pages to clean them for inaccuracies and then noticed a message about vandalism? I didn't vandalize, but I did notice I made a typo and I corrected it after I made the initial change. Does this action trigger an automatic 'don't vandalize' message? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.75.117 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I got mixed up trying to warn the vandal that messed up the entry 2 seconds before you.

Revision as of 07:01, 17 November 2005 vs Revision as of 07:03, 17 November 2005. I?ll clean your talk. I'm so sorry. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Crystalcherry

You deleted an article called "CrystalCherry". Which you had to because there was debate if she was even notable. However, there have been articles and lots of information since the released of her album Crystal Clear...Revisited. Can you give me more information on why it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs)

Well the new version AFTER I deleted was also removed (not by me) since it consisted of text taken from other page. We cannot do so since other pages text is usually copyrighted and thus incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL license. I'm unprotecting the page so yo ucan start writing an article from scratch, but if the entry is recreated again with text copied from other webpage, it will be deleted again. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with fixing it. The problem is, everytime i write it either Kurt or Vurtrell erases it. It's only to spite me. I think they need to be talk too. One is an Avril fan, and CrystalCherry has had isues with Avril so the user believes that they can just erase it when it feels like it. Even the reference to her husband to be Rhett Fisher is being erased. Cherryrain

Crystalcherry has been recreated, I believe it lacks notability as per the previous AfD. I got involved in this when User:Cherryrain went "Opps", twice on Avril Lavigne and then requested my assistance after I reverted. I suspect this user has been biten/slighted by the AfD, and is not acting entirely in good faith. Cherryrain mentioned your agreement for a rewrite; I'm not optimistic that will be sufficient to satisfy all users involved in this issue. (suggest replies/discussion should be directed to Talk:Crystalcherry) (CC'd to multiple users) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy... I didn't make an agreement. The only thing I'm pointing is that an enry can be rewritten as many times as needed. There are 2 issues here. Copyright Violation: This is not negotiable, if it's copyvio, it should be killed. But it can always be rewritten as this no longer happens. Notabaility: I'm not judging here, but non rule forbds recreation a deleted entry, and the new version can only be speeedied if it's siignificantly similar to the already AFD'd one. So, I didn't agree on her on anything, I just said it was ok to recreate the entry as long it's not copyvio and it's a much improved version. Suggestion: It's be better for CrystalCherry to create the article on a sandbox, and work on it until it is acceptable and THEN submitting it to the main namespace. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me for adminship. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 03:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Tractrix.png

could You upload Image:Tractrix.png to Wikimedia Commons - I'd like to use it at de:Traktrix, it's also used at nl:Tractrix. please add it to Commons:Tractrix. please upload similar images in SVG format if you have such possibility. thanks --W!B: 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Sure I'm uploading Tractrix to commons. I was away the weekend, thus I haven't been able to answer. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks, I added it to Commons:Tractrix --80.122.238.18 16:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Midi-editing software

I remember you were asking about midi-editing software on IRC the other day, and I just happened to stumble across a copy of some old, old shareware/freeware called MidiSoft Recording Session. Apparently, they still make software [5], but I'm sure the copy I have is nowhere near as sophisticated. Still, for simple compositional needs, this might suffice. Drop me a note, on IRC, or email me if you're interested. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Drini,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL's RFA

Hi Drini,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

vandalism on ernie-and-bert userpage.

Drini, an unknown user has been continuously posting abusive language on my user page. Thanks. --Ernie-and-bert 20:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for warm welcome

Dear Drini, Thank you so much for the warm welcome and the very helpful orientation materials and links to the tutorial. Of course, it will take me a bit of time to absorb these materials and get more of an understanding of Wikipedia culture, but both the links and your encouragement much facilitate this process. Most appreciatively, Margo Schulter Margo 23:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Shatter1232 / Google Web Accelerator block

Hi. You may know this already, but the block you put on 72.14.194.37 and possibly other 72.14.nn.nn IPs in order to dissuade Shatter1232 affects many users of Google Web Accelerator. — mjb 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

Thanks but no thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveengupta (talk • contribs)

User warnings for IP User:220.245.178.137

Just thought I should inform you that this IP address is an ISP proxy server in Australia, there are several ban warnings posted under "User Talk" for it. The ISP does give each user a directly internet addressable IP but they are dynamically allocated (IP is DHCP assigned at login, however the subnet does remain the same for a given user as far as I can tell. If possible you may want to switch to x.x.x.0/24 subnet bans behind the proxy using HTTP_FORWARDED_FOR_X to get the range). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.178.141 (talk • contribs) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know sometimes ISP share ip addresses for several users. That's why we encourage good users to signup for a username and they won't be grouped with the vandals. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

why delete sconsing?

why delete sconsing? 129.67.63.165 14:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sconsing. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the debate was ongoing? 129.67.63.165 10:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD for Gallery of Socialist Realism

I note that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism "per WP:NOT although this could be easily replaced with a category". I have two concerns. The first is that the relevant section of WP:NOT now reads:

Unencyclopedic collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Annotated collections of images or media files illustrating a topic may be encyclopedic if they provide valuable support to an encyclopedic article or group of articles. Otherwise, consider providing an encyclopedic context, or moving it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

I believe that this gallery meets these criteria.

The second is that I believe that you miscounted the votes. As I count the votes, the voting was:

• 9 votes (56.25 %)transwiki and delete (JAranda, Menyoung Lee, Mgm, Dottore So, Gatecrasher, Carnildo, Jmabel, *Dan T.*, nixie)
• 2 votes (12.5 %)delete (Geogre, encephalon)
• 5 votes (31.25%) keep (CalJW, Dsmdgold, Charles Stewart, Ancheta Wis, Turnstep)
• 1 comment (Davidrowe)

Note that I have counted those editors that vote "delete per nom" as a transwiki and delete vote, since that is how the nominator voted. There was obviously no consensus for straight deletion, even though the combined transwiki and delete vote and the delete total comae to 69.75%; however note that Jmabel's vote cannot be counted as straight delete vote "In any case, make sure we don't just lose this, it's excellent." (removing Jmabel's vote from the delete total brings the delete percent down to 62.5%) In short, I believe that in so far as there was consensus, it was to transwiki, not to straight delete. I have found no evidence on Commons that this was done. Dsmdgold 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've opened a DRV for this page WP:DRV#Gallery of Socialist Realism. --- Charles Stewart 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on the DRV page. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EG Wrigley and Company Ltd.

You seem to have made a mistake in deleting EG Wrigley and Company Ltd. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EG Wrigley and Company Ltd.). Consensus was clearly to keep the article. u p p l a n d 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

THanks for poiting that out. I've restored it and removed the afd tag. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

css class and id

Hi, thanks for the warm welcome when I first created an account here. I'm hoping you can explain something for me, that I'm unable to find on the help pages. I sometimes see class="" and id="" parameters being used in html-tags and in "wiki-tables". Where are these classes and ids defined? Is there a page where I can view all the css code somewhere in the wikipedia? -- (Reep 17:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC))

Hi, thanks for your input on this (on my talk page). I did some more searching on this today, and I finally found at least two css-files that seem to be included on all pages: MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Nice to know the source behind the result, and I thought you might like to know about them too :) -- (Reep 01:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, mis-addressed mail

Sorry, I was meaning to leave a message on Deini's talk page, but I bumbled into yours. Sorry about that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

About 172.216.137.169

Perhaps I was adding to wrong page, but I was more refering to the edit summary _→AzaToth 17:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but edit summary comments are not vandalism, (see WP:VAND), and even if they were, we don't usually block after one case, we give warnings first :) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what should it then be called? _→AzaToth 17:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, there was an other that reverted my revert, so I can only do in revert more on in today, both of them are on AOL, smells like same person _→AzaToth 17:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why me?

I've been getting messages about your user page vandalisation. What's the problem? I visit Wikipedia once in a month! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.195.149 (talk • contribs)

Why delete Poject Mohole?

Just wondering why you deleted Project Mohole? - 68.34.22.26 09:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a quote:

All money going to the Chyna Doll fund will help Chyna get cool new things like wepons and more Cars (usualy fitted with Wepons) Ohh Chyna Doll loves her wepons. How she cleans the every day and blows up Billy that cat with them whos life line streachtes all over his body. Chyna Dolls most recent interst is to become a space ranger at he best friend Missys NASA space camp. I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!! I love Chyna Doll!!!

-- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It had legitimate versions in its history. Splash restored it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have told you. User:Rhymeless brought it up at WP:DRV and I realised it was just a mistook and fixed it. -Splash^talk 02:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert of Basevorn deletion

I'm teaching a graduate course in the history and theory of rhetorical and literary criticism, with another professor, Katherine Acheson. Here's the URL, if you're interested: www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~koa/700/700_index.html.

We both like the Wikipedia a lot, and thought we could help populate it by the assignment structure of the course. One of our assignments is "Pick a topic or theorist who is un- or under-represented in the Wikipedia and submit an entry", and a student of ours submitted an entry on Robert of Basevorn, an important Medieval rhetorician.

The entry was marked for deletion on the basis that it was "original research," and should be removed "unless someone can be bothered to take a scythe to it and trim it down to a proper article". That seems reasonable (except that the research was standard for an article of this sort, just a digging up and collating of facts, nothing "original"). But my student then in fact did trim it into a more appropriate shape.

Another editor, who had supported the deletion, saw these changes and commented: "The author has cited sources, making it not really original research any more, and improved formatting to make it read less like a paper. It looks like he was bothered to take that scythe and trim it. Still not sure if it fits relevancy, because 14th centruy isn't so much my field, per se. Would vote keep other than this relevancy problem, now."

I can assure you of the relevancy. There were three major strains of rhetoric in the middle ages (and rhetoric was a Big Deal back then, one of the seven liberal arts that constituted the educational curriculum), and Basevorn was one of the most significant figures in one of those strains. (I can, of course, go on and on and on about this; I'm a professor.)

Since the formatting fits your requirements, and the relevance is high, can this decision be reversed?

70.49.191.47 03:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Randy Harris

Are you talking about Robert of Basevorn ? I chcked and it hasn't been deleted nor marked for deletion, maybe I'm missing something. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

about Eratosthenes

Hello Drini. I had left some comments in the past at Talk:Eratosthenes that might help you. Information relavant to that article (some of them may have been disputed in the past) can be found at public domain books (project gutenberg). Take care. +MATIA ☎ 16:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Drini on Wheels!

Drini on Wheels! You may want to place this template on your userpage :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks CC :D -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick question about George W. Bush

Would you please explain what happened here? I am a little confused. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I was on a hurry and I misread (actually I misread twice, first I thought somethign differnet that was vandalism, then I misread it being ok. Sorry 'bout that. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's okay... I just think it might have messed everybody up there... I am still a little confused. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)