User talk:Allen3/Archive1

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfDs[edit]

Hi. I'm not overly fussed about those articles listed on VfD. They were added when I was still quite new around here and in an inclusionist state of mind. We'll see how they go. They're probably better suited as redirects anyway. Thanks for helping keep the wiki clean. :) -- Longhair | Talk 01:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

Hi Allen,

Regarding Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/X-play, I thought I should follow up on your comment regarding Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Although normally second and subsequent words in a title are lowercase, an exception is made for proper nouns: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. In the case of X-Play the show's formal name includes the capital P, thus our article title should too.

Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My primary concern was creating a redirect, and on this we appear to be in agreement. --Allen3 17:47, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Springald[edit]

Exactly, Allen :) I posted some similar information in JeremyA's talk page a few days ago, and I added it as footnote 3 on the article. Do you think that information should be moved into the article itself? *hugs!* - Shauri 14:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Allen3/Templates/Gray2[edit]

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to have black text on a black background. You might want to change the color of the text to white or something. Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that some browsers (most versions of IE included) require a six-digit hex colour code for tables but can cope with three-digit ones for divs. The simple solution is to change, for example, #eee to #eeeeee. This fixes the black on black problem and makes the templates look very good. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is what I get for not testing with different browsers. The needed changes have been made. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stubs and sub-stubbed[edit]

Have we stopped using 'substub'? I'd marked a one-line article as a substub, and I notice that you've re-marked it a stub. (This isn't a complaint, I just need to know for the future.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daedalus_%28fictional_inventor%29 isn't about the mythical character Daedalus, but a fictional inventor. I switched the stub back. --Kross 03:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I had marked 2 articles (Irakli Alasania and Glomerulitis) as substubs, each approximately 1 sentence long, and then noticed you marked them as stubs. тəzєті

I sorted the two articles you mentioned as stubs based on the fact that both contained enough information to be viable stubs. I have searched any definitions that show a byte count as the basis for differentiating between stubs and substubs and have not found any other than the general phrase "a substub is a short stub". There is however a number of sources that make the defining difference the existence of usable information within the article. If you can point me to a better method of determining the difference between the two categories I will make appropriate changes. --Allen3 talk 19:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

For your good work on Peer Review... (WikiThanks)[edit]

Hi Allen. I see you regularly popping up on my watchlist, keeping Peer Review tidy by archiving old and gone-to-FAC requests. You get a sunflower of thanks for your help in making Peer Review work like a well-oiled machine. Keep up the good work! — mark ✎ 12:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to second that - in particular, for archiving the nondimensionalization peer review! HappyCamper 15:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump on the well deserved bandwagon here. And special thanks for keeping at it. I tended to only do it once a week, but more often seems better. - Taxman ^Talk 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note on stub creator's page[edit]

Hi Allen - I just saw your note to the creator of the Inca-stubs. Looks remarkably like some of my comments to stub creators... do I spot a copy-vio? ;) Grutness|^hello? 23:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basalt fiber = SUBSTUB[edit]

The article Basalt fiber is not a stub, so please do not categorize it as a stub. It is "about a specific mineral, mineraloid, or type of rock" but isn't a stub. If the Stub sorting project hasn't come up with a way to categorize substubs, I encourage them to do so, as it is very important to consider whether an article is stub or substub. --Randy 20:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

news-stub image?[edit]

There seems to be a missing image, news.png, on the news-stub - DavidWBrooks 14:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the resonse. I have run across a couple other missing images since I posted this, so I suspect you are right. - DavidWBrooks 14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help[edit]

I am asking for help as I am running out of options. User:Viriditas is continually reverting almost everything I do, and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. I don't know how to respond to this, because he simply won't explain what he is doing. It looks to me like he is pushing a pretty extreme agenda at the expense of other points of view, but I'm willing to try to see it from the other side. In the past you've commented on this issue, and I need your help if you have a few minutes. Thank you, Guttlekraw3 06:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As my involvement with the articles in question has been limited to archiving of peer review requests, I am not in a position to make an informed decision on this issue. --Allen3 ^talk 07:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Six SSSSSigma[edit]

Thanks for straightening this out. Typical newbie error. Another couple of years, and maybe I'll stop making them. Dandrake 06:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

..for fixing the mess I made with the WP:WSS/C shortcut. I must get a better browser (one that doesn't limit me to 32k of editing...) Grutness...wha? 13:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Devil's Belt[edit]

Nice work finding a better stub category, but I'm wondering if this really should be a stub at all. It's certainly short enough, but marking it as a stub implies there's more to write about it. Long Island Sound is quite extensive; this is really just a glorified redirect to that article, with an explanation of where the name came from. Maybe it makes sense to just drop the stub tag completely? --RoySmith 17:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adminship?[edit]

Any interest in becoming an admin? You do a lot of good work and certainly seem trustworthy. I usually like to see more community involvement, but I think you have enough to show you are level headed an conscientious. With your ok I will nominate you. Once I do, go to the nomination, accept, and provide some responses to the questions. - Taxman ^Talk 20:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to nominate me for admin status, I accept. I hope I am able to live up to the trust you are showing me. --Allen3 ^talk 01:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do fine. The nomination is now live, please accept, answer the standard questions and spend some time on the admin reading list. Good luck. - Taxman ^Talk 14:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, you are welcome. As you may have discerned the reason you didn't get more overwhelming support is the lack of community involvement. But no matter, as long as you follow the relevant guidelines you'll be fine. - Taxman ^Talk July 1, 2005 15:04 (UTC) You're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) July 1, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

My peer review archiving blunder[edit]

When I was in the bus on my way back home, I remembered I forgot to replace all the {{peerreview}} tags on talkpages with {{oldpeerreview}}. I was glad to see you cleaned up behind me and spared me the the tedious job, not to mention the humiliation I could have faced. In recognition of this, I award you a mouldy sandwich. Enjoy! - Mgm|^(talk) 15:59, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have been of service. --Allen3 ^talk 16:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Anon noms[edit]

Are you sure about this? I am not aware of any such policy. Guettarda 17:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was trying to find that line even before you reverted, couldn't find it. Of course it's actually a self-nom, and one that is about to go down in flames. Guettarda 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rum image[edit]

The image on the rum page was marked "fair old". That's ususally not a reason to remove it from the page. However if you have reason to believe the image is under copyright, perhaps you could list it on WP:PUI. If not perhaps you could put it back Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 1, 2005 03:41 (UTC)

The reason I removed the image from rum is that I am planning to submit the article to WP:FAC. Having an image of unknown source is a common objection given against candidate articles, and I felt it was better to avoid the problem entirely. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Ok, can we leave the image in comments for the moment. Just so it isn't forgotton. Actually I think the source looks ok for a 1905 image, and the tag is correct. I might mention it at FAC. Thanks Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 1, 2005 14:10 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 1 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice message on my talk page. Congrats on becoming an administrator! :D --HappyCamper 1 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Congrats from me to. And no problems with the support - you'll do well. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Congratulations. You will be a fine admin. I wish I had your consistency in edit summaries :P. Cheers, — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

Congrats! violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Stubs[edit]

Thank you for helping me sort stubs in Aesthetics. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia and I am stupified by all the many templates, especially those for stubs. --Slac 2 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Rum[edit]

Thanks. I was thinking that the Origins section could read a little better. Anyway, the article overall is very good and I think it definently deserves FA status. ike9898 July 3, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

Scotchgard bong[edit]

This should be deleted too, since Scotchguard Powered Bong is gone too (thanks to you, I guess). See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Scotchgard_bong. Thanks Rangek July 6, 2005 05:14 (UTC)

VfD - scripts[edit]

If you would like, you might want to look at my monobook.js for some ideas on how to speed up the tedious process of closing VfD's. – AB CD 7 July 2005 00:18 (UTC) (by the way, keep up the good work! :-) )

VfD[edit]

Hiya, you recently closed the vfd Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

In your calculation of votes you state that the votes are

19 Merge votes, 16 Keep votes, and 9 Delete votes

However, this includes 2 votes (the less noticable of which was by Tupsharru) which were "keep or merge" as keep votes, which I feel is quite misleading.

The tally should be either

21 Merge votes, 16 Keep votes, and 9 Delete votes,

or

19 Merge votes, 14 Keep votes, 2 "keep or merge" votes, and 9 Delete votes

It is also worth pointing out that the delete votes are probably equatable to merge votes in this particular vfd, which would make it 28 merge, 14 keep - a 2:1 ratio. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

Thanks, it reflects the vote accurately now. ~~~~

VFD - Please take a look[edit]

Can you count the valid votes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gil_Student and take appropiate action, since you are an admin. It has been up for more than 5 days and is attracting too many unregistered voters. --PinchasC 12:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Someone else took care of it, thanks anyways. --PinchasC 14:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miachel Keaton[edit]

Thanks Allen3, with your changes I doubt if this page needs to be in vfd anymore ! Manik Raina 12:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Allen3, I know of a user's IP address which is a chronic vandal and erases pages/writes nonsense or profanities in pages. How does Wikipedia deal with such people ? Do let me know. Manik Raina 10:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU and toes...[edit]

Don't sweat the toes. (ick, toe sweat...) Everyone has a different view of how to deal with sock puppets. - Tεx τ urε 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsella -- VfD[edit]

You voted to delete Stephan Kinsella. I don't agree with your standards, but applying those standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote against Tom G. Palmer, which is even worse vanity (and mine is now completely objective, not vanity at all). Stephan Kinsella 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Community Grid[edit]

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark 21:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD Category:Soviet Spies[edit]

Thanks for bailing me out. I was totally confused.--Cberlet 22:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PythonMOO is back[edit]

On July 22, you processed a VfD deletion [1]. The article seems to have been re-created today. Could you take a look at it? --RoySmith 17:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --RoySmith 18:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I have speedied the recreated article as a substantially identical copy of previously deleted material." - Incorrect - It was entirly different in its structure and its content, therefore I request you look at old and new and consider undeleating it. Kipper2258 20:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the old one for comparison. By the time I saw your message, however, another admin had already re-speedied it, which is just fine by me. --RoySmith 13:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - Thanks for looking into it - My only consern with why the page was ever deleated remains the same -The other seperate pages of MOOs are basiclly the same as PythonMOOs was - maybe the mass delete should be considered (Bar LambdaMOO as this does seem worthwhile) - and maybe a section for each of the MOOs listed in Popular MOOs (or were atleast) to provide a reference of the different braches of MOO that exist. Please consider this and have a glance through the approate pages. Kipper2258 11:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal has copied your name.[edit]

Allen3, thank you very much! :) Sigh...and I thought the coming of Unicode would be a good thing. ;-) Take care, Func( t, c ) 15:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect 8/11/05

Hi Allen,

Feel free to let me know if you personally feel

there are any valid objections to collecting references

to standards of measure on Wickipedia.

Rktect 15:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have a number of webpages which have been attacked, and marked for deletion

by user Egil et al. The issue is presently in mediation and supposedly he has agreed

not to make any further modifications until it is resolved.

Unfortunatly, some of the people he contacted to ask for assistance

continue to systematically do as much damage as possible, even to

lists of references, citations and sources.

I would appreciate it if you might like to cooperate with the mediation

in the spirit of truce and cease fire and cooler heads to prevail and

undelete all the standard of measure files you have deleted.

As a competent administrator I am sure you would rather be guided

by the content of the pages themselves rather than the spurious

allegations of a few spoilers

Func's RfA :)[edit]

Allen3, I appreciate your support in my adminship, and I especially appreciate your assistence in dealing with the "Unicode Username Vandal". :) Thank you very much! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 19:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepish sneaks in[edit]

Allen, you closed a VfD for this article here. User:RubenWiki, who has not made a single other edit to WP, has just placed an article in the namespace. A google search ("Sheepish Productions") returns not a single mention of this supposed company that is not a mirror.

The article is also very deceptive: the author has written "A subsidiary of Sheepish Productions, Sheepish News, has its own regular news bulletin and associated website [1] with up-to-the-minute information on local, national and international events..."

The website that is referred to is a ridiculous geocities page; the only things on it are a bunch of goofy photos. There is no news service at all, much less an "up-to-the-minute" one.

I'd like to know how similar the current page is to the original deleted one. If it's similar, it should be speedied. If it is not, it really should be considered in VfD for WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 04:59:08, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

Can you believe these guys? The link's blue again.—Encephalon | ^ζ 12:09:13, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

You missed one: Production_de_sheep. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have been trying to zap them as they pop up in various locations. --Allen3 ^talk 13:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency[edit]

A heads up, User:152.163.100.7 talk contribs, has signed your name on [2], and closed the vfd, you might want to check it out. Cursive 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, was about to ask. I initially reverted because I didn't realize it really was the VfD, then re-reverted under the assumption it might be you not-logged-in. Please log in and identify to remove doubt, or confirm we're dealing with an imposter. JRM · Talk 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I dislike the project immensly I agree with your closing decision since there there wasn't a consensus to delete, I do however think that the result of the debate wasn't really keep, it was no consensus {keep} since there wasn't really a consensus to keep either. I could be wrong though and I applaud your courage in taking on the closing of such a controversial VFD. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The initial closure by anon was not performed by me. The VfD has since been closed with a more appropriate ruling of No consensus defaulting to keep. Thanks everyone for the heads up on an anon signing my name to this VfD with an incorrect ruling of Keep. --Allen3 ^talk 02:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Question on VFDs[edit]

What is the rule on how often VFDs may be proposed? So far one of the pages I've worked on has been nominated for VFDs twice and survived both and someone is attempting to nominate it for a third VFD in as many months. It survived its last VFD attempt just 22 days ago and now the third VFD attempt appears to be begining. People are nominating the page without checking its history and just use their dislike of the focus of the article as their reason to nominate it. This is the page in question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardestroyer.net

Alyeska 00:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. Someone removed the content from both the article and the discussion page and redirected them to a bad listing (changed from SD.net to SD.org). While the content has been restored, all the edit histories are gone. The old edit histories show up in the SD.org but not SD.net even with the old content merged. Is there anything that can be done about this? Alyeska 08:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help. You blanked Stardestroyer.net and ereased it's history. Please revert and restore this article as you've left a redirect loop in the article's place.Gateman1997 19:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some information has come to light. The user who nominated the SD.net entry for VFD nominated it on his 8th edit. This very same user is banned from SD.net and has a clear conflict of interest in this process. Before attempting to nominate the SD.net entry for VFD he attempted to vandalize it. Furthermore, after nominating SD.net for VFD he edited the VFD to remove his name as being the name of the person who started the VFD and placed a non-existant username instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net2 In my book this is a clear case of a bad faith VFD nomination (especialy when you consider SD.net survived two previous VFDs already, one just 3 weeks prior to the newest VFD) on the part of someone carrying out a personal vendetta. Furthermore this very same user ( User:Tanizaki ) then instated a VFD against the Trek BBS entry on Wikipedia citing false reasoning as the grounds for the VFD. I believe something must be done to stop this nonsense. Alyeska 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Allen 3. I want to submit the article Vishnu sahasranama for featured article status.

Raj2004 19:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration, rktect[edit]

For your information, I have now submitted a request for arbitration: User:rktect -- Egil 11:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gygax peer review[edit]

Thanks for noticing. The text instructions weren't that clear so I ended up on a wrong page apparently. I will repost on the correct page. --None-of-the-Above 12:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I know it wasn't my imagination, just happened again. When I pushed edit to make the instructions clearer, I got to the page Template:PR-instructions which only extends to the archive section. That is why I was confused and thought you needed to enter the article in the archive section. If you don't edit the instructions you stay on the peer review page, duh. I guess I just shouldn't edit the instructions. ;) --None-of-the-Above 12:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No no. Not too much confusion. Just wasn't aware while I was trying to do two things at once. I will be awake for it in the future. Cheers and Thanks! --None-of-the-Above 13:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD's again[edit]

Still sifting through Category:Pages on votes for deletion I came across Trackster, which was added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mytrackster, which you concluded as 'delete'. You may have overlooked it. --Doc (?) 21:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Krafsur votes for deletion...[edit]

Allen3,

Could you tally the vote on the Samuel Krafsur Votes for deletion page? [3]I believe it's been listed the recommended length of time! Thank you much! ClownBoy 16:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing days on AFD[edit]

My bot should be in full operation, in respect to adding old days and new days. If, any reason, it does not, please notify me. Also, if you have any suggestions for the format change of how it places the link for the pages automatically, drop a note. Thank you. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demarest Hall[edit]

Hey, I have copyright permission for my entry on Demarest Hall, I live with Enon Avital, the creator of the webpage with the "possible copyright infringement," it's fine by him that I'm using the information, he lives done the hall from me, email him here: dewfather@gmail.com Or sabrina.vargas@gmail.com and khennessey@echo.rutgers.edu who I both work with as Culture Studies leader of Demarest Hall. I'm Brian Zimmerman by the way, I run Culture Studies at Demarest Hall.

Hi Allen![edit]

Hi there! How have are you doing? :) I just wanted to invite you to have look at the last work of mine, a massive expansion of Texas Ranger Division, if you have the time. I've just submitted it to Peer Review, and I'd love to have your input as a Texan and a serious critic, not to mention as a friend. *Kisses*! - Shauri Yes babe? 02:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment:[edit]

I have carefully reviewed your comment here, in which you say that I should accept concensus of others before thinking to be promoted.

While I think I had explained my actions in my reply on that page, I honestly could have made a mistake in judgment in that case. However, I feel that you and other editors are not treating applicants for admin in the same way you treat current admins:

Here, for example, at least seven admins and bureaucrats got into a prolonged edit war, on the Front Page of Wikipeida, not just some obscure FA-page; and, I did not hear any criticism from you or your friends -while minor questionable judgments by me are reason to deny adminship. Why?

I too am a Christian, and I believe in adhering to the highest principals, and that is why my disappoiintment is exaggerated: Further, these double standards happen not just to me but to others, and that is why we must follow Christ's example (John 13:15) and then go above and beyond and do greater works: John 14:12, with reference to your user page.

Those "greater works" surely included you speaking out about "double standards" for "the privileged." So, while I'm not perfect, I do think I'm at least as qualified as the next person User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA to get a few extra tools to help me help my community, since the policy is quite clear that those with my qualifications are permitted these extra tools.

On a side note, while I was very upset at your post, it has caused me to dig deeper for answers, and I am very grateful: Thank you for your comments in this manner.--GordonWatts 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk[edit]

I think I need an extra hand. If you get a chance later in the week, do you think you could help me out with archiving the reference desk subpages? There are some simple guidelines on the talk page. I hope you can help out! --HappyCamper 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This flower says it all. Thanks Allen3! :-) --HappyCamper 01:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Curnow[edit]

It's very hard to find out how a person is to defend themselves in Wikipedia. This may be the wrong place, and if it is I'm sorry. My name is John D Curnow and I'm not a hoax, as one person suggested. I was one of the first people to record bird songs in the midwest. My tapes were sold by the Audubon Camp here in Wisconsin. The NASCO Corp of Fort Atkins, WI sold my tapes to high schools all over the US and Canada for ten years. A copy of my book "Plavt Communities - Ecological Studies Of The Upper Midwest" was copyrighted and sent to the Library Of Congress. I was also awarded the outstanding alumni award from the University Of Wisconsin-Platteville and I did teach from 1951 - 1999. I may not be important enough to be found in Google and I can accept that, but I'm certainly not a hoax! John D Curnow

As the closing admin, I can say that the discussion was fairly straight forward on this article. The deletion policy does have a provision for cases were verification is provided after a debate has occured. If you are able to cite appropriate references to back up the article then please request an undeletion of the article at WP:VFU, including your references as part of the request. --Allen3 ^talk 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My guardian angel[edit]

Words can't say how grateful I am to you, Allen. Ever since my first day on WP, you've always watched over me. You've supported me all the way, silently, yet always present. You're a hard working, brilliant editor, but that pales in comparison to the beautiful person that you are. I merely wanted to thank you from my heart for once again being there when I needed you, like you've always had. My dearest friend, THANK YOU! I'll always be here if the day when you need me arrives. Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 23:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Heya, you seem to have appeared around the time when I went on my extended wikibreak, but since I'm back I've noticed you do lots of good work. Thanks, and keep it up! --fvw * 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA![edit]

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Was pretty surprised to see you there! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

For fixing my redirect snafu on Ahmed Mehalba. Much appreciated. Joaquin Murietta 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. --Allen3 ^talk 16:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TOTSE[edit]

I would just like you to know that 32,406 people hate you now. Everyone at TOTSE, minus one traitor.

Have a nice day sir. I hope you're better at software engineering than life.

Suggestion for Peer Review advice[edit]

Hi there, In the FAC list, I see that a number of nominators have said that they received little feedback on peer review, and 'I wish people had told me about x and y there, before it got to FAC nomination' etc.

I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add a note at the top of the PR page encouraging nominators to (nicely) ask a few contributors in the general area of their article in question to provide feedback. Tony 05:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Avery Bryant[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted the blanking exactly the same time as I moved it. What do you think, should this be send to AfD as a non-notable author? It is clearly an autobiography and already userfied to User:ChristianBryant. jni 11:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of acetic acid[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you archived the current peer review of acetic acid. Is this always done after a month, automatically? We are working towards this being an FA article, and although we are getting close, as I understood it the peer review is still going on (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Acetic_acid_to_FAC.3F for some recent discussion). Once the FA status is achieved (hopefully!) then the peer review will become inactive. I recall that with our last FA article on hydrochloric acid the peer review also lasted about 6 weeks, we fuss over things a lot in chemistry! Should it be "unarchived" until we're finished? Thanks, Walkerma 04:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advogato[edit]

You executed the delete on the above speedy: there were 2 delete votes, 1 keep vote, and one comment (no vote) observing that the reason for the speedy were probably not valid. That doesn't look like a consensus to me. I put a request to reinstate the article on User talk:Radiant! --- Charles Stewart 14:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right and I apologise: I thought the article was CSD'd because the link in my user space (User:Chalst/advogato) was CSD'd. I guess there is a policy to CSD links to AfD articles. I will put together an undelete request. --- Charles Stewart 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Python thing[edit]

I see it is gone again, where is the voting system these days? Is it once an article is deleted, all new ones and reformed useful ones will also be removed.

The article PythonMOO was taken to VfD (now WP:AFD) twice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PythonMOO and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PythonMOO 1, both times being deleted as a non-notable website. Attempts to recreate the article without showing that the subject is something other than a website may be deleted under speedy delete criteria G4 (substantially identical copy of previously deleted material). If you have new information that indicates that PythonMOO has achieved a level of importance justifying an article, please submit a request for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Allen3 ^talk 12:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as you should know, and I have had to state many times, a MOO is not a website, but there may be a website as a portal to the MOO telnet connection. "...has ongoing MSN and AIM developments to expand connection methods for MOOs..." - That seems a deveopment to me. Other MOOs seem to have no notable reason for being allowed - However the suggestion that all the Sub MOO articles (are lambdamoo) are merged into the main MOO article, was never followed up by yourself or another admin, dispite being asked by myself and RoySmith, therefore please accept this message as a notice of that.

And I also ask, why is it possible for people to recreate the article on the PythonMOO site, if it is just destroyed, and told upon request that it should be loged at Deletion Review - why allow people to create it for seeing fit, if you are just going to be facists over the matter.

Please also note (whether you choose to ignore me is your choice, I would have to speak to another admin - but since you are the enforcer), inline with recent suggestions, a merge of the seperate MOO articles has been placed foward, if this is completed, and relevent pages are moved and redirected, then I ask that the Python article is unblocked and a redirect put in place to guide usrs to the relevent section for that MOO.

Checking Talk:MOO, I see that the merge was proposed earlier today. If such a merge does actually take place I will be glad to remove the current page protection and replace the contents of PythonMOO with redirect. I would even be inclined to perform a history merge of the old versions of PythonMoo into the merged article. It is just the repeated recreation of previously deleted material outside of Wikipedia procedures that I have an objection with. --Allen3 ^talk 16:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it has been suggested many times, and it prevents all thehuge reams of possible pages, and makes a better overall MOO article. Generally, I think the MOO article itself needs a cleanup.

Merge is now completed, and article is labled for cleanup (probably since I'm nt going to do a good job myself - and I know it). Please feel free to consider addition of a Redirect to PythonMOO directing to MOO#PythonMOO. 172.188.21.72 19:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC) The bold one! (Oh, and the IP shift thing is due to having a very unstable AOL DSL connection, highlighting their rather individual IP assigning system.[reply]

PythonMOO has been unprotected and changed to a redirect. I have also performed a history merge of the old PythonMOO articles into MOO. --Allen3 ^talk 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - Maybe once and for all this issue will be resolved.