Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to post below the archives! --HappyCamper 15:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

Hi, I saw your note on my Talk page and thought I'd ask a procedural question. I'm working on hte Fire engine page, which is a bit picture heavy - on the talk page, someone made the proposal of moving some of the images over to the Commons, and I would like to do this (no one has posted any objectons to doing so) but I'm not really clear on how. My original thought had been to download the images to my computer, then upload them to the commons, but the copyright on the images is unclear, so I don't know how to mark them over there (and without copyright info, I expect that they'll be deleted.) Any thoughts? Thanks --Badger151 09:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge -- Francs2000 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your message on my talk page. I did do a little on the coupled cluster page. I have little knowledge of vibronic coupling. I'm off for a few days Oz summer holidays very soon. I doubt I will have time to do anything more on the coupled cluster page. Bduke 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: 64.12.116.196 This ip is still under the same ip, still vandalizing User talk:ScienceApologist perhaps a sprotect? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reference to Battle of Mons Badonicus; I've removed it from the category page, since that article is obviously included already. —Kirill Lokshin 10:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for the WikiThanks and the kind words, I've gotten rid of the message bar - it's gotten old. I'll wait 'til everybody forgets about it, then I'll add it back. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving my user page! -- Jjjsixsix 02:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto -- 'preciate you catching and undoing Yumyumyumyuck's "edits." EEMeltonIV 04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe the userboxes could benefit from round borders as well. ;-) Hope to see you around! Sango123 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] shows two routes presently named US 98 Alternate and a few more former routes. Thus there should be a disambiguation if anything. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{Copied from my talk page}

No need for the AfD for Bgtoys, INC -- the user has recreated this at least 4 times in the past hour... --HappyCamper 05:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize admins had the right to speedy delete advertising pages. Would you mind at all pointing that part of deletion policy out to me for future reference? Thanks a lot. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{Copied from my talk page}

Hmm...interesting question! Now that I go searching through the Wikipedia namespace, I cannot find what I am looking for. It is likely that it is not written explicitly anywhere. There is a little bit of text in Wikipedia:Spam which says that advertisements are considered a form of vanity for which the inclination to delete will be strong, but it suggests that an AfD is more appropriate.

Since I cannot find what I am looking for, this is the guideline I generally use - since there isn't a clear rule for advertisements, I check to see if it is a cut-and-paste of an external website. About 95% of the time this is the case. If it is, then I speedy it on the basis of a copyrighted text dump - but I also label this as an advertisement in my deletion summary. Some advertisements are boarderline articles and so requires a judgement call - many times, things are not quite as clear cut as other speedies, like pure attack pages. I hope this helps, and if you have more questions, please feel free to come by my talk page! --HappyCamper 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sound policy, but I hope you don't mind I will continue falling back on AfD for advertisements instead of speedies because although something like Bgtoys, INC might have an article that's pure advertisement, it might be a notable company, and creating an AfD for it draws some attention to the problem of fixing it instead of deleting it and waiting and waiting for someone else to come along and do it right after a speedy. I'll talk to you later and I hope I do have the opportunity to ask you more questions in the future! JHMM13 (T | C) 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{Copied from my talk page}

Thought you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts too :-) --HappyCamper 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll be sure to check all of that out when Wake Forest releases its clutches from my neck for a moment :-). JHMM13 (T | C) 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion... seems like a big mess. [shrug] =\ hellenica 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol um... thanks for your thanks... or you're welcome I guess? =) hellenica 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, It completely baffles me that you see that article Unitary Islamic Bosnia is not a speedy delete. To even an uninformed user of wikipedia it is noticable that the article is not an ecyclopedic material but a libel and slander (not even to mention a lie and insulting concoction). It is as stating that earth is flat and 911 never happened. I am not going to attempt to change your opinion but could you at least advise me how did you make your decision.--Dado 06:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments --Dado 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock-puppet activity and some more POV back and forth. I've tried tidying the article to some degree. I am not enthusiastic about immersing myself in a POV battle, so I was hoping some further neutral 3rd-party involvement could help. Thnx hellenica 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt even know you were an admin, I just meant maybe someone who wasnt invested that much could just lend some talk support - seeing as I'm defending an article I didnt even author with whose original content I seriously disagreed! [sigh] I think I shall take your advice and avoid getting burned out over this... plenty of other more worthwhile and controversial articles I could drown in! The article editing hasnt been as crazy as the AfD and Talk page. Why is everyone so angry - "Cant we all just get along!" =P [shrug] I think I'll just go back and play with my Userboxes... Thanks again! hellenica 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, how long does the article candidate for deletion stay open for voting and discussion before the decision is reached. I could not find this rule anywhere. Thanks --Dado 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... about Thornton's Bookshop, which is completely beside the point:

"Please see the history of Thornton's Bookshop(1). The entire history of an article is normally checked by an administrator before deletion, so in the future if you find an article of yours (2) incorrectly deleted (3), please let me know so I can uncover it for you. (4) See you around! --04:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)"

(1) Why?

(2) I tried to point out twice that I did not write this article. See Talk:Thornton's Bookshop.

(3) It was never deleted, was it?

(4) Why shouldn't I uncover it myself?

All the best, <KF> 08:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember coming across your user name before, but I'm sure I'll notice it from now on! I'm very reluctant these days to check the new articles (although I'd find it enjoyable from time to time) because I meet too many people working against each other. It is the indiscriminate use of all kinds of tags, including "speedy deletion", which I don't like. Anyway, hope you enjoy your work here at Wikipedia. Cheers, <KF> 00:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Happy camper there are a pair of Vandals i suspect on the Costa Rica Page they keep adding non sense and they keep removing this part of my section saying its "racist" when i have a VERY creditable source and just simply stating the facts. I would if you think the same please deal with them. Thanks (XGustaX 17:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I know you do a great job with the Reference desk but a particular archival is worrying. In this edit you archived the section "== What would be The Better career ==" but my last comment was from only 2 days ago and I was waiting for the question asker to respond. I thought the archival waiting period was one week from the last commnent, no?--Commander Keane 21:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick him on here. You wont be surprised at how many of them come back after a month or so. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, drop me a line when you get back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftpower (talk • contribs)

I still can't believe it! I'll drop you a reply to your email when I have a spare mo! -- Francs2000 13:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page. – ClockworkSoul 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The move from char siu to barbecued pork was actually debated and not unanimously agreed by the community. It'd better be restored to its previous title for the time being. — Instantnood 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]