User talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I would like to thank all of those who weighed in during my request for adminship. Although the RfA was unsuccessful (73/26/6), I'll continue working on Wikipedia and helping the project, whichever way I feel I can contribute. I am very grateful for all the support that various editors gave me and will thus avoid spamming their talk page with thank you notices.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Pak

Please take a look at the Igor Pak article, which has been nominated for deletion. As it is about a mathematician, you may want to comment. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I read with interest your comment on which mathematicians are to be included in WP. Well said. Unfortunately, WP editors already made their decision in most cases. Take soccer: Category:Canadian soccer players. How many of these players do you think will be remembered in 50 years? Clearly, sufficiently many WP editors want them to be here - the notability question is never even being asked. Based on this analogy, you may want to vote here and in the future. Mhym 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Book?

It's not a negative sign per se but I could not ascertain whether the page had consensual support. Being "historical" is not a mark against anything (indeed, neither does it say so anywhere, so I wonder where you got that idea). Like I said in the edit summary, if people want to continue discussing it they can, but would be advised to advertise it to get more input. In particular, I think it's best to merge this into the long-accepted WP:FICT since the two cover mostly the same area. >Radiant< 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's proper to assume consensus exists. Note that WP:FICT may have a different layout, but it's actually one of the older pages on Template:IncGuide. The relevant MOS page is in fact WP:WAF. >Radiant< 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Would you like to be nominated at WP:RFA? I've been seeing your name all over - at New page patrol, at WP:FAC and fixing the related articles like Germany, and your enormous amount of WP:AFD and countervandalism contributions. Is there a reason why we shouldn't make you an admin? I'd be happy to write a nomination if you are interested. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to update Wikipedia:Requests for adminship accourdingly. Agathoclea 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA

You generally deserve to be an admin, you are a fine editor to wikipedia, and your fights against spamming and vandals are superb, you'll pass through the election easily. Good luck as an admin.Rasillon 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thnx

Thnx for recently editing Folding@home. Esp. since its being scrutinized so much here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Folding%40home --Foundby 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind opposition, I welcome ways in which an article can be improved. --Foundby 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delhi FAC

Hi! Thanks for your comments in the FAC. I have replied your concerns and clarified your concerns on whether the article is undergoing serious works by the project. Also tried to clean up external links and lessen the burden of templates at the end. Please see and comment. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was also getting this overflowing of the "Delhi-related topics" in my browser. Have tried to fix it. Now it is appearing ok in my browser. Yes, the "Culture" section probably needs a daughter article. This section is pretty larger compared to other sections. Shall try to work on it. Thanks a lot for your comments. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Sorry for adding this to your page, I don't know how to use this talk back feature and it won't let me email you. I'm not trying to spam. I'm just trying to create a page for the MBSD Group and links to their information. Can you email me or tell me how to do this if what I'm doing is wrong. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs)

A friendly tip...

I don't want to coach you too much on this, but since it's my question I guess I'm allowed. You may want to review WP:SEMI#When_not_to_use_semi-protection. You may not think you need this now, but I noticed in question 1 that you frequently do RC patrol and protection is one of the more common tools an admin uses to fight vandalism. I think it would be important for you to review this policy. I wouldn't want to see you get any oppose votes because of this question when you answered everything else very well. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And another, on a slightly different matter: if you haven't been watching RfAs, you might not have noticed that at least one candidacy failed primarily because the candidate felt he needed to respond to almost every negative comment. After a while, a number of editors decided that this indicated the candidate was simply too argumentative (aka couldn't take criticism), and the tide swung against the nomination. I think you'll make a good admin, and the vote is definitely going your way, so I hope you can feel relaxed a bit when it comes to how many times you actually comment. (Not that you don't need to correct serious errors, but do think about not responding to lesser stuff.) John Broughton | Talk 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Review

Could you please review my response to you on FAC for Folding@home. Thank You. --Foundby 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Serial page-blanker still at work

71.250.218.196 is still blanking wikipedia pages despite warnings from yourself and other admins. Can anything be done? Thanks 21:26, 8 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.55.132 (talk • contribs)

User:71.250.218.196 has no recorded edits since the 5th of January, when a block of 24 hours was imposed. John Broughton | Talk 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So I found. But in the meantime, I did direct the above anon to WP:AIV if he wanted to report vandals. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. If I'm reading the user Contribs and Block Log correctly, the block was imposed on Jan 3rd for 24 hours. 48 hours later the user blanked another page. Anyway, thanks for the pointer to WP:AIV, I'll use that in the future. Regards Steve Moulding (posted earlier unsigned message from 65.202.55.132)

Another 5 pages vandalized today (Jan 10). Reporting to WP:AIV

Comment on your RfA

In this comment[1] you half indicate that you have some image experience at commons. If so I was wondering if you could post a link to your account over there as it would probably remove my only reason for opposing the nomination. thanks --T-rex 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletionitis

Professor, thank you for your attention to Sovereignty of the UN Organization. In general, however, articles which lack references or consist mostly of opinion are not to be deleted but fleshed out. I would say that the issue of whether the United Nations should become a world government is one that is interesting to a sufficient number of our readers to justify keeping and improving the article. Please suggests directions for improvement. --Uncle Ed 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

B-52 trivia

Creating trivia pages is the best solution I found against trivia clutter. If the page is removed altogether, newbies and fanboys flock to the main page and ruin the quality of the article. A separate page usually localizes the junk there pretty well. With popular topics like the B-52 or the F-15, trivia has been a huge issue and since Wikipedia guidelines are vague and fanboys are persistent, something for them to do is better than nothing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Regarding your answer to Q2 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pascal.Tesson. Those talk pages still are there—it's just the main pages that have been deleted. See Category talk:Uncategorized from October 2006 and Category talk:Uncategorized from September 2006. ^BlankVerse 10:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I withdrew it mainly since it was so late in the adminship that it wouldn't be read. You can re-revert it back on if you want I just felt I was borderline in wp:civil he way I said it.--Wizardman 06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

It was definitely close, so take heart in the fact that you had a lot of support. Also work hard to self assess and take what you can out of the comments to the extent that it can help you be a better editor. Then let the rest go, you can never please everyone. I'm confident if you do that you'll succeed on the next go round. But you seem to have valuable skills we need in the article space, and those are the most important anyway. Keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari

Thank you for your intelligent edits, which cut some flab. I've reluctantly and provisionally reverted you in two places, however: in those two places, I think that the previous, awkward wording had some purpose. I know little about Farsari, however; I'll wait to see what Pinkville thinks. If he thinks my reversions were unnecessary, I'll be delighted: I'm all in favor of cutting awkwardness. -- Hoary 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Piping in. Thanks to you both for your work on this article. I agree on the usefulness of the changes. There were indeed one or two spots where a nuance was lost - I've reverted those or altered the phrase in question to (hopefully) resolve the issue. I altered the sentence regardingthe studio's reputation, I think for the better, and I've added a note on a recent exhibition of F's work and that his work appears in various collections... Pinkville 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheery reply, Pascal. As a bright chap who has obviously read the article with great care, your opinion on a suggestion I've just posted on the article's talk page would be of great interest to me. As you'll see, the degree of knowledge of either photography or Japan is immaterial. ¶ This user regretfully contributes using Microsoft Windows XP. Hmm, this user contributes with a Win2k computer at home because, amazingly, there's nothing wrong with it after all these years (though it's probably overdue for a spyware scan), and lets his institutionally-issued XP laptop gather dust -- aside for the occasional use of Paint Shop Pro, which irritatingly doesn't run on Kubuntu, which is what he uses most of the time (e.g. right now). I can't immediately see anything here to stop you just plugging into the LAN whatever you want to plug into it. What's yet more fun of course is to supplement (or, better, wipe out) XP on your university-issue computer, replacing it with Kubuntu or whatever. You'll probably need the CMOS password, which they won't give you because it will be the same as everybody else's, so just ask them to change the password on your one machine to "tesson" or whatever and take it from there. -- Hoary 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I'm sorry to see that it failed (it was rather close, though). I hope you're not angry at me for causing you a lot of stress and wasting a lot of your time for nothing. Anyway, if you still feel like trying, I think there's no reason why a re-RfA in two months shouldn't produce a better result (unless you manage to step on the toes of both deletionists and inclusionists again). Best wishes and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 08:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1a page

Pascal—Thanks for your suggestion. I've acted on it, so please let me know what you think.

I see that your demotion to worker ant failed. Now we can have you back as a skilled editor rather than a clerk. In my view, the two don't usually mix well in the one WPian. Tony 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your report on WP:AIV

Do you have an explanation for this? – [2]. User does not have a long history of vandalism. You did not use appropriate warning templates on his talk page. How can you term it as Return vandal. One of these "blockable immediately IPs.? Incidentally, there was another administrator who did not care to look at the contributions / talk pages of the user and blocked, probably without checking. The top of the page says The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a last warning.. Please take care in future. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP's talk page carried Template:Repeat vandal, which tells users that the IP may be blocked without further warning. Pascal followed our instructions here, which happen to be self-contradictory. Kusma (討論) 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, we are human beings here, and we can apply common sense with a few things. Vandalism is not the enemy of Wikipedia, it gets us new editors. The vandals need to be warned and blocks are cast as a preventive measure. We do not apply the same level of retribution as vandals apply for us. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell whether in this case a warning would have had the same (or a better) effect as a block. I would also probably have warned again before blocking. Anyway, I was just pointing out a way in which you can WP:AGF with Pascal's action. Kusma (討論) 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I never assumed bad faith. Just asking him to be careful. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not apply the same level of retribution as vandals apply for us. Fine, well said. Vandalism is not the enemy of Wikipedia, it gets us new editors. Vandalism is a major enemy of Wikipedia unless of course the primary value of Wikipedia is black humor. (Try this.) Vandalism gets Wikipedia crap editors, unless perhaps you don't mean vandalism when you say "vandalism". I've looked at six of the edits made by this IP in January 2007; those that aren't simple vandalism are extremely silly. An editor as profoundly immature as this one can't even be trusted to write in a remotely encyclopedic fashion about his own junior high school; he should instead be induced to run away from WP and play elsewhere. (Without insulting him, of course.) -- Hoary 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point Nick was trying to make is that I suck and that therefore it is ok to bite me. :-) Pascal.Tesson 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Being bold

Am I allowed to close the RFA for Space warfare in fiction if I be bold and merge it back into the Space Warfare article? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Horridus Page

Hi, I'm still working on the page, this character is from the Savage Dragon Comics as well as Freak Force, I'm gonna upload a pic of her, ok? - RVDDP2501 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If I have violated copright polices, I would like to apologize, I have hardly created a page before especially one pertaining to a mainstream comic book character, if there is any problems, please let me know and if need be, remove the page, once again, if any trouble is caused, I would like to apologize, If there is ANYTHING I can do to help with this situation, please let me know, thank you - RVDDP2501 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for setting my fears at ease, I hope I will become better and more skilled at the does and don't of wikipedia. One last question (sorry) I will net be banned from Wikipedia for making that page, right? Cause (I don't plan on doing stuff like that in the future but) I just want to make sure I haven't done anything to jepordize my membership on wikipedia, I enjoy improving already present articles which you can see for my contributions, once again, thank you - RVDDP2501 12:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinate system

About the Polar coordinate system article: the new applications section has been merged into the full article. I hope it now satisfies your objections to its becoming a featured article. :-). If it doesn't, that's OK also, I'm just letting you know it's been completed. —Mets501 (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I appreciate your comment on not spamming after RFAs. I hope in return that you appreciate this being the first edit I have made after thanking the taxman for making me into an admin. Not so much to thank you for your "weak support" (that's twice) but because I feel rather bad about being successful when you have done far more for wikipedia perhaps mainly for being a bit cowardly than you. --BozMo talk 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I pinched your template of course... --BozMo talk 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bone to pick with deletionists

Hey Pascal,

For some reason, many deletionists have really be egging me lately. You are one of the few self-proclaimed deletionists who goes out of his way to make Wikipedia a better place and you don't seem to fit the deletionist stereotype, as I've seen you try to save several articles.

Anyway, after spending a few months here on Wikipedia and many hours in WP:XFD, I've come to think that many deletionists are just too lazy to contribute by adding new information. I don't know whether this opinion is misguided or not (and if I ever ran for RFA, I'm sure this will come back to bite me), but it seems that many of those who claim they are deletionists would rather just stay in WP:AFD and !vote "delete" down much of the list instead of adding new information to Wikipedia. To mask their laziness, they use the guise of the Wiki-philosophy Deletionism. Why improve an article when you can point out its faults and then delete it?

Confused and in need of advice,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's on-topic with the current lesson, I've reposted the above discussion thread to User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Elaragirl, about deletion and deletionism#Bone to pick with deletionists, where others may notice it and contribute. Please feel free to continue the discussion there if you'd like.   The Transhumanist    06:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice man. In the future I will be sure that I won't dump too much time into articles that could later be deleted (i.e. My half the pages I have started, like my Space warfare in fiction). I'll also try to keep my emotions separate from the articles I write. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Autism

Hello Pascal. Tesson,

From your interaction with the Autism article in the recent past I infer you wish to see that it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines as do I.

I am writing to you about an edit to the introduction section of Autism made by Q0 (whom I believe to be a valuable contributor) and I have no wish to get into a edit war with that person). In my opinion, the altered text presents problems (see my rationale in the discussion section on the 'Introduction').

If you have time and you are interested, take a look and give us some objective feedback. Ta.Malangthon 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly

I created a new template, Template:npov-essay, because a number of essays have been divisive. We had to start with one essay (that, I should point out, not just myself noticed), and that was the first. If we are going to have opinion that is widely cited on Wikipedia, then it needs to be able to reach consensus and represent a broad view, I didn't start editing Wikipedia to have someone's viewpoint rammed down my throat and enforced from on high. However, I'm sure you are willing to assume good faith as to the reasons I did this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hey Pascal,

If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a scathing critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here.

Thanks in advance, S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the editor review. It seems that there is consensus among many Wikipedians that my signature is annoying. Also, you left your comment unsigned (unless the gibberish at the end of the review is supposed to be your name).

Again, thanks

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yandman

Thank you for your comment there, you were right. I should have commented in anger there. I responded accordingly, but thanks for helping me remember that two wrongs don't make a right -- that was Yandman's time and all commentary should be about him and his actions and nobody else. Just H 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco

Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)