User talk:Kubigula/Archive3 Apr-May 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for reverting my user page
My first vandalism. I knew it would happen once I started prowling recent changes. It's almost like a badge of honor. Thanks.Chunky Rice 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for compliment
It is always nice to receive such a message. I will be interested in your comments on a bigger one I did for Grove, Virginia when you get to it. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle, Vaoverland 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Revert warring, etc.
I suppose if the user in question had added their own text it would necessitate merging the text to avoid potential accusations of censoring their userspace. Ay, it could get a little messy. I'll adopt your approach though certainly, it makes sense. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, those witty individuals who change vandalism templates so it looks like they're being congratulated. Unfortunately that always does make me laugh for some reason. I guess the admins would check the edit summaries for their page and if people have noted the warnings there that evades the problem of talkpage mess. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Grove, Virginia
I will see what i can do about some photos. Thanks. Mark Vaoverland 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
For the congrats and for your support! After your support edit I figured out where we first crossed paths—advertizing in collection agency:-) It's always nice to see that people remember incidents from long ago. Please drop my talk page for any reason, any time. Hey, you have the toolbox from my userpage linked. A vastly updated version, if you're interested, is at {{User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hidden compliments, such as that monitoring my talk age had a mentoring inluence, will
notalways be tolerated. Just curious: given the assumed name you were editing under back then, are you a billiards fan (or maybe proud and bald)?--Fuhghettaboutit 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jamestown proposal to improve
There have been many comments the Jamestown, Virginia article being just too big. After giving it a lot of thought, I think we could break out a major part of it into a sub-article, perhaps entitled "History of Jamestown Settlement", essentially covering the 17th century period, ending when the capital moved to Williamsburg. As a WP admininsitrator, I have the tools to do this and preserve the talk page and history, etc., but I surely do not want to move on it unilaterally. This is an important piece of WikiProject Virginia. Can we have some comments about this approach, please?
I would appreciate replies to be posted on this page: Talk:Jamestown, Virginia Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleanup on Blackout (Entertainer) page
Thanks for helping to cleanup and prevent vandalism on the Blackout page. Perhaps you could help expand and stop the wikipedia gestapo and various wikivandals from attacking the expansions including blurpinkle and the prank calls section. ManofThoth 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth
Vandalism counter
Actually, I didn't remove it because of the RfA oppose vote; that just reminded me that I had read something bad about them (can't remember what though). What you say makes sense though... I guess the argument could go either way. However, I was getting a bit confused about how many times I actually had been vandalized, so it's just as well I removed it. Thanks anyways! · AndonicO Talk 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you ...
... for being so swift in reverting my userpage vandalism earlier! :) - Alison ☺ 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
User:218.214.196.142
Was just about to report to AIAV, you beat me to it! Nice work out there. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 04:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Pic on your userpage
Very nice! Makes me want to go on holiday :) – Riana ऋ 07:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
RFA thanks
 |
Thank you, Kubigula, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. |
 |
Re: You're quick
Heh I try my best ;-) You're very welcome. Glad I could help! Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
... for having removed the vandalism on my user page ! Rell Canis 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
All Due Respect
Actually, I find it quite condescending that you actively delete and vadalize (under the guise of "assisting articles") my articles. If you would like to assist me and my work, why don't you add to my articles, and not take away from them. Especially after deleting pictures that I took myself. The consequences of your actions only detract people from wanting to write good articles for Wikipedia. I hope you realize where I am coming from. I know that in our society their are millions of "laws and jargons" out there, however you should take it upon yourself to improve wikipedia by adding more information than by deleting perfectely legal and educational articles. Have a good day. And feel free to call me at 276-971-2097 if you want to take it up with me.--Ramcgl 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
WPVa Newsletter
Hi there Kubigula,
What you have started looks pretty good. I tried creating a draft, myself, but it seemed to turn into one big plea and chastisement to get some work done. All I'd add to what you've got is perhaps a reference to selecting an article for group work on. Heck, if you want, you could probably choose one of our Va articles that should be at least a "good article" level and throw that in as a suggested cooperative fixer upper. Thanks for the interest and the work! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work at Notability
Awesome work. I hope the edits hold, because the work's quite good, and I found it very neat how much buy-in you got. I didn't participate much because I've been focusing on IAR and DRv, but I've been watching. Keep up the good work! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure if I'll get used to that dynamic. Tends to drive me crazy when folks with apparently a low level of involvement in the entire process step in at the 11th hour and implement changes individually without doing all the talking out the rest of everyone's been putting a lot of time into. Even being familiar with WP:BRD, it just strikes me wrong. I don't know if I'll ever get used to it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You asked about my current thoughts on N--I posted something there a few minutes ago. Personally, I like to chime in after the early starters have both clarified things, and, generally, arrived at an impasse. (smile) . DGG 03:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC) And yes, quite a few proposals that might have been workable have failed when the discussion started involving the general community of WP people who don't usually discuss policy. Everyone will start thinking of what it means to their pet subjects. That's the real issues, and I've been staying clear because I think there isn't the least overall consensus. DGG 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ohm (this title is a resistance joke)
Could you have asked in a nicer way! Okay. I simply don't feel like waging a campaign over this guideline, and I think it's pretty clear that, at least with respect to those who are actively involved with that page, the changes they have made have a lot of agreement. They are highly motivated editors but I don't think their changes necessarily reflect at all the reality on the ground. That most of them are operating in good faith I have little doubt, but I nevertheless think this is a walled garden of "talk page consensus."
First, I think it's an absolute mistake to take out "multiple." Are there exceptions where multiple might not fit? Maybe (and it better be one damn bedrock-reliable source), but that's where common sense should come into play. Multiple goes a long way in ensuring that verification is independent and yes, it's technically redundant with sources, but that doesn't mean its exclusion doesn't have a vast effect on interpretation. Test: try to think of a topic that you think is notable that has only one source. Not easy huh? Let me add to that test. Try to think of a topic that has only one source but there is enough information upon which to write more than two cited paragraphs—something that has the possibility of ever being more than a stub in the absence of future publication of more reliable material (source crystalballery, if you will).
Next: Explanation. I can't tell you how much I disagree with the notion that people can't read, and therefore ever guideline must be bare bones so we don't befuddle the great unwashed. Actually most people can't parse, but that's not an argument for making the page a skeleton and screaming "bloat" and "instruction creep" at every attempt to provide clarity and elaboration (I'm not necessarily referring to just this page). Of course there's a balance to be struck, but guideline pages should provide examples, explanation, a rationale... People who are unwilling to read a bit more are the same people who aren't going to be helped by extreme terseness, while a bit of explanation will do wonders. Only a very, very small number of people who would be enlightened by a bit of guideance in the guideline will delve into the archives to wade through miles of shit for an answer (and why should they have to?). Uncle G's essay provides a lot of useful explanation where the current guideline explains little. I could go on about some of the changes but I think I'll leave it there.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Me Again
Hey, pal. I understand the whole passive agressive thing, so don't sweat it. Next time though, you might want to consider using your words instead of just erasing my friendly message. Anyway, I know it's your page so I know you can do what you'd like to spruce it up, but I just wanted to let you know how I felt. Feel free to stop by my user page sometime. You can reach me at 70.17.70.130 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This is my last message, I promise
Hey Kubi, you're alright man. Good luck with things!
Over and out, 70.17.70.130 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Newsletter May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Kubigula (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User talk:203.208.81.119
I noticed your warning to this user on their talk page. I've reverted them a couple of times on Anton Chekhov, and so has someone else. Looking at contribs, they are performing a string of vandalising edits. I don't know if you are an admin, but I'm not, and there's not much I can say to warn them after they've already been warned they will be blocked. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know, if you can help. qp10qp 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
