User talk:Paolo Liberatore~enwiki/Archive2

Concerning my subpage

Thanks, I was on my way to move it...somethings wiki is faster than one thinks. Lectonar 13:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carpal Thumbel Syndrome

I'm not the original author; I was just cleaning up new postings. I'd fixed the spelling and was in the process of changing it to reflect the actual source of the phrase (CNN Daybreak, January 18, 2005, not the vanity poster). But it doesn't have enough hits in Google to qualify as a valid phrase. You were probably right to delete it. --Nagle 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fureys

to be honest i don't know too much, i was hoping to get the ball rolling by starting an article that someone else would want to contribute to

The Gigglin Dildas

Why did you delete the article abouth The Gigglin Dildas? It was still only a stub, I agree, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it. psi36 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AAGF

Thanks. I was just correcting it when we edit-conflicted. —Encephalon 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for WMBA?

Hi Paolo. I noticed that the WMBA article's been re-directed and un-redirected 'cuz of traffic volume. Could you clarify what's up and which way you think the article should be named? Thanks! -Deebki 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Essenes

Good call. --Doc ^ask? 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hi, please read the policy at WP:BOTS and then Request approval for it. Thanks, --light darkness^(talk) 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on continuing to use your bot to manage PROD categories? If not, I will glady take over the functionality, as I see it has not been done since your initial testing. If you do wish to continue, please request approval for it as I mentioned above. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. --light darkness^(talk) 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just wasn't sure since it hasn't made an edit since April 28th. Thanks for the reply. Cheers! --light darkness^(talk) 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Federer

Thanks for the update. I will work on this in the next couple of weeks. Stanley011 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lar

Hello. May I request that you, when commenting on requests for adminship such as the above, that you use some sort of logical rationale when opposing candidates? To comment that you feel a user will not use there administrator tools responsibly requires that you explain why, for the most part—To use the absurd, illogical, nonsensical, and to be frank, idiotic, reasoning that there were "too many" nominators is extremely rude and monumentally unhelpful. I don't believe you've caused the candidate any undue stress, thankfully, but you've caused yourself undue embarrassment by using such a ridiculous rationale. Honestly, I'm ashamed that one of my fellow administrators would use such bizarre logic in an attempt to halt the nomination of one whom I believe to be an excellent candidate. Not one of the oppose comments is at all a reflection on the candidate, and I believe them to be entirely without basis. However, your's is not even about the candidate. It's about the nomination. You can express your annoyance on the talk page, fine. But to oppose the nomination because of it? Ridiculous.

In conclusion, I hope you review your comments in this RFA and others, as well as your own role as an administator and the entier requests for adminship proccess, as you seem to lack some understanding of one or more of these areas. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In rereading this note, I realise that it was overly harsh, and I apologise. I still stand by my core point, however.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least you realized that... I stand by my point, which I have explained in the RfA page, and that is perfectly logical to me. Incidentally, your post is an example of the kind of excessive support I was talking about: overreaction to someone opposing (for whatever reason) this user. Your argument "this is not about the candidate" is flawed: RfA is also about the candidate, but not only. My decisions on RfA are based on whether the project will gain or loose from the user being an administrator; in 99% of the cases, this is equal to "is this candidate good enough"; in 1% of the cases, however, it may depend on other factors.

As a side note, I understand your cricism of my opposition to this candidate (not the tone, but I guess you ended up not liking it too), which I somehow expected. I do not understand the part "and others" in the sentence "review your comments in this RFA and others". Are you saying there are something wrong with the other votes I gave to RFA? Should I retract my support for JoshuaZ? Maybe you can clarify if your core point is Lar's RfA or my voting on RfA. - Liberatore(T) 11:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll just ask you directly. Do you believe that Lar will abuse his administrative abilities because he had "too many nominators"?--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's unlikely. Not impossible, as some other people that looked fine before getting adminship wasn't so nice afterwards. That you ask whether "4 noms" implies "abuse admin tools" means that you didn't read what I wrote. I'll try to keep it short:

in the unlikely case Lar will abuse admin tools,
that he is so much supported may be a problem.

I emphasize unlikely and may. It is however my opinion that we shouldn't take the risk because of the kind of potential problems. I reckon that "4 noms" may not be the same as "being too much supported"; your insistence in challenging my vote in an RfA that is obviously going to succeed adds to that, however. - Liberatore(T) 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "insistence" is because you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. If you oppose an RFA, it's because you believe that the candidate will abuse his/her admin tools or at the very least use them irresponsibly, recklessly, or innapropriately. If you don't believe that, then you don't oppose. Full stop.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical value

JA: The term truth value, of comparatively recent vintage in the overall history of veritas, has turned out to be the source of a lot of confusion. I would not have believed it if I had not seen it happening in many cases, but the asymmetry of the name makes people forget that falsity is a truth value, too. Aside from that, the more generic name makes a better bridge to post-binary logical values and generalized indicator functions in statistics and topos theory. Jon Awbrey 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Unity - founder

Why did you remove the founder info from Hindu Unity? I know someone mentioned that having the founder there makes it look more like vanity, but that was just an arguement to delete it completely. If the article is staying, the information is perfectly valid and should remain there. --Tango 16:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an action of regular editing, even if I mentioned AfD in the summary. It looks reasonable to me to remove the founder as possibly not especially important, but if you do not like my change, just go ahead and revert. - Liberatore(T) 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the site is notable, it's founder is at least worth a sentence. I'll go an revert it - I just like to talk about things rather than just reverting it. --Tango 16:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horatio Huxham

Hi,

Kokey made a comment:

Most importantly, very few people in the IT and security industry in South Africa even know about him, and South Africa has several known IT security companies like Sensepost who operate on an international level.

Please phone sensepost and ask them who I am and what I do.

Please do not allow people to make claims that is potentially damaging to another person.

The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horatio Huxham is now blank, so that comment is no longer visible. - Liberatore(T) 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please for the sake of the facts, phone Sensepost and ask them who I am and why I needed to disappear from the public eye for the past 2 and half years. I am glad that this was blanked, but the fact that they made comments about my professionalism drives me to prove that I am a honest person

Discussion continued on User talk:Horatio Huxham. - Liberatore(T) 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mozilla-cokie.png

I have uploaded a new image, Image:Firefox Cookie Manager.png, and changed the reference in HTTP Cookie. I would've done this originally, but I didn't want to change the link to the image on every page (before I learned it was only linked from one). I have also reverted Image:Mozilla-cokie.png to its previous version. If you want it to stay on WP, make sure it gets linked from another page, otherwise it'll get removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbolino (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 May 2006

List of Republican sex scandals

Could you restore, including the history, the above article to User:Ansell/List of political sex scandals in the United States. I had attempted extensively to verify the entries on the page, and IMO opinion the entries that I left were verifiable. I may not be able to immediately add democrat/others entries to the list but I do not like to see history deleted because the page was only half finished and could be finished in future. Thanks, Ans e ll 03:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Liberatore(T) 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostasy in Islam/temp proposed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Apostasy in Islam/temp, has been proposed for deletion. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. cholmes75 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the possible misconception involved with VandalProof's name showing up in the edit summary. Unfortunately, this is built into the tool, and using it does make tedious tasks in Wikipedia much easier. --cholmes75 16:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks

Paolo Liberatore~enwiki/Archive2, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support. Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

When you create a redirect and I thoroughly agree with these two: KBN and ACQ-KBN, the rest of the article should be deleted. -- RHaworth 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why? Perhaps WP:REDIRECT needs an update. - Liberatore(T) 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Obvious, I think. A redirect page is never meant to be seen! No, WP:REDIRECT does not need an update, I repeat not. But if you think a note needs to be added to Wikipedia:Redirect, feel free. Are you getting the idea? -- RHaworth 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked just to see if you have a good answer. You haven't. I can think of much better reasons for not leaving text after a redirect. I'll discuss them at WP:REDIRECT (which is not WP:REDIRECT.) - Liberatore(T) 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for not leaving text - did you mean the opposite? Mebby I am thick, please explain very carefully to me the difference between WP:REDIRECT and WP:REDIRECT. If you are going to discuss it, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Redirect or you may find your edits reverted as vandalism (or never seen!). -- RHaworth 19:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had I realised that you are an admin, I might have worded my comments above differently. But you do seem to have a different idea of redirects from the rest of us. I shall be interested to see the discussion. -- RHaworth 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. I agree with you that text after redirect should to be deleted. What I'm saying is that there are better reasons for doing that other than common feelings. - Liberatore(T) 11:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.

Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!

♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Nocover.gif

Nah, I don't have anything to say to the contrary. You can go ahead and re-upload it.

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Paolo, and thank you for your thoughtful comments in my request for adminship even if we did not agree. With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. If you have any issues or comments, please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and while I realise I did not have your support, I will do everything I can to justify the trust others have placed in me! Note that shortly after the RfA concluded, I started a discussion on multiple noms at Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Transwikied dicdefs

Paolo, your recent removal of my prod on manu militari for the reason of not having been transwikied seems to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definition in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that the article has already been transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Manu militari, its edit history copied to wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Manu militari, and the transfer logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted AfD

Paolo, I noticed that you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.Nagaraja(M.T.B.). Do people above the relist line revote, or is it just relisted to get new contributions to the discussion? --Kchase02 (T) 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both: people who already commented may keep discussing and/or change mind, and new people may join the discussion. In my experience, most of the discussion after a relisting is done by editors who didn't partecipate in the discussion before the relisting.

Since you raised a point that wasn't considered by most of the editors posting before you, you may also consider contacting the previous editors, as they may not have the discussion page in their watchlist (or didn't noticed your last edit). It is usually considered fair to post a message like "I raised a point in this discussion, could you please check it?", if this is done one the talk page of all of them (doing that selectively is usually considered unfair).

Incidentally, AfD is not a vote: it is true that editors formulate a reccomendation (e.g., keep or delete), but is also true that the outcome is not (necessarily) determined by these reccomendations. - Liberatore(T) 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recommendations. I will contact all the other discussants. Cheers and happy editing!--Kchase02 (T) 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Snead redirect page

I didn't understand what User: Charles Matthews did right away in regard to the J.C. Snead page. He put a space between the period after the J and the C. I went back and changed all the links so they would link to the proper article, so it really doesn't matter now what happens to the poor, dumb redirect page. Probably we should leave it in the encyclopedia in case some poor, dumb bastard comes along and creates a link to J. C. Snead without putting a space between the period after the J and the C.--Hokeman 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMILE

I Love Minun ^(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Are you a good user? I Love Minun ^(talk) 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intestine

Ok main man, here it goes. Don't blame me if the feds come round knocking. Crabulon

Profound Thanks and a Cookie to Keep Your Energy Up

My apologies for my delay in doing this, but I would like to thank you very much for helping me in reviewing the Deep Space radio show and in actually doing the deletion yourself. I have minimal experience in such matters myself, and I am very grateful to you for having deleted it yourself. To show my gratitude, I bestow you this WikiCookie for the no doubt energy-draining work of deleting deep space. Badbilltucker 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move category pages

Hello! I need your help. I need you to move, rename or merge these category pages and their respective talk pages to the correct format following MOSNUM. This is to provide greater consistency and prevent redundancy to these pages. This is also to prevent users from creating the same category pages as well. Some of these categories contain two similiar pages because of this. These are the categories in question:

Category:Wikipedians with 3000-4000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 3,000-4,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 4000-5000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 4,000-5,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 5000-6000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 5,000-6,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 6000-7000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 6,000-7,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 7000-8000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 7,000-8,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 8000-9000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 8,000-9,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 9000-10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 9,000-10,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 1000-2000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 1,000-2,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 2000-3000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 2,000-3,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 1000-2500 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 1,000-2,500 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 500-1000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 500-1,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 2500-4000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 2,500-4,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 4000-10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 4,000-10,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 7500-10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 7,500-10,000 edits.
Category:Wikipedians with 7000-7,500 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 7,000-7,500 edits.

Notice that the changes in the title pages only require the addition of a comma for 4 and more digit numbers. You should also delete the redundant category pages as well. Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank You once again for your time! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I posted these here under sub-section, discussions. I hope to have your comments and support for the renaming of the above mentioned categories. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing contrary to the name change, but I prefer spending more time on activities related to the main namespace. This is something related to userspace, so it's somehow tangential to the aims of the project. - Liberatore(T) 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Thanks for your recent contributions to Wikisource. Don't forget about the s:Wikisource:Transwiki log! --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder: I followed the instructions at the top of Category:Move to Wikisource, and this last step was missing. Guess it should be updated. - Liberatore(T) 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your completion

of my deletion request on "salmon role". I am not active here and unfamiliar with the current ENWP deletion request system, so your kindly help is very appreciated. --Aphaia 07:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD comment

You mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Watchdog_journalism that I had done an incomplete nomination, what did I do wrong and how should I have done it correctly? The Crow 13:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Ascent redirect page

It seems to me that the "ascent" page should be a disambiguation page, since it seems like just the type of common word which would have lots of articles associated with it. IMDB lists dozens of films and tv shows when you search for "ascent", for example. Why does this page redirect to Typeface? Esn 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, these movies are (mostly) titled "The Ascent". However, a disambig page can be useful. So far we have The Ascent, The Ascent (DS9 episode), and The Prophecy 3: The Ascent, but of course you may want to mention Ascent Media, etc.) Keep in mind that disambiguation pages are for articles we already have. - Liberatore(T) 12:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the film The Ascent is often called simply Ascent because its original name is Russian, and Russian doesn't have the word "The" in the language; therefore, either of those translations is correct, and I've seen the film called just Ascent many times. Anyway, I've decided to make a disambig page there, but I still need one thing: why did it redirect to Typeface originally? If there's a good reason, then the link to "Typeface" should probably be in the disambig page as well. Esn 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, disambiguation pages often link to articles that wikipedia does NOT yet have, but that are nevertheless notable and important enough to be created some time later. Esn 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a disamb page can be useful. For the issue of links to articles not yet created, there is a section in the manual of style which basically agrees with you. Still, I personally would limit the redlinks in a disamb page if I do not have any evidence that the relative articles will be created any time soon (that's a matter of taste, given what the manual of style says).

The reason for the original redirect is that the ascent is the (vertical) distance between the baseline (the line where all letters lie) and the highest point of a letter lying on that line arrives, in the given typeface. The image in Typeface#Measurements tells everything. (Liberatore, 2006) 19:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Template:IncludeIfExists should do it!

I need to record where all the #mumble commands are documented, I couldn't find them before I asked. Thanks for that example it should show me how to do just what I want. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource transwiki's

It would be really great if you kept any comments on the talk page (especialy those regarding questionable copyright or sources lacking) attached to the texts. For example Talk:Muhammed's last sermon. Fair warning; anything that I have questioned on this end is guarnteed to be immediately put up for deletion over at Wikisource. If the orginal contributor over here has not clarified in all this time the chances of them doing so over at Wikisource are slim to none. And hunting down translators without any clues where it came from is near impossible. Thanks for all the hard work you are doing getting these moved over.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ops, sorry, I forgot to check the talk page of this one. (Liberatore, 2006). 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, I am just trying to raise awareness.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my contributions on wikisource, also s:Transwiki:Speeches of Weber shouldn't be there (the other ones should be ok). Could you please delete them from Wikisource? I think the sermon article is copied from [1], where no copyright is specified. (Liberatore, 2006). 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar

Since you seem to be an outside administrator, can you let me know if it is common procedure to blank an AfD history? ~ trialsanderrors 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you! (Liberatore, 2006). 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome ;-) 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete AFD

Hi there! I nominated craftboard for deletion but it seems it was incomplete. If you have a minute spare would you let me know on my user page what was wrong? --Davril2020 18:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD on Sons Of The Desert

Thanks for fixing that one up for me. It was my first go at doing an AfD listing, so I apologise if I inadvertently created work for you. BigHaz 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. (Liberatore, 2006). 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD template.

Thank you for your speedy action on this. BlueValour 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! (Liberatore, 2006). 11:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]