User talk:Lear's Fool/Archive 2

Hello, do you have the power to give me my article back so I can add a significance section? and if not who can I go to? Thanks InformationRevolution (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! No, restoring deleted articles is something that only

userfy the article. This will make it a subpage of your userspace (Probably at User:InformationRevolution/Ray Kurzweil's Face). To do this, I would ask NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), who deleted the article. Alternatively, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

and ask someone there.

Another option would be for you to simply click on the redlink above (User:InformationRevolution/Ray Kurzweil's Face), and rewrite the article there, although I can understand if you don't want to do that. Please let me know if you have any more questions! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate, I noticed you redirected my

Yeah, my thinking was that a more useful place for a reader to be redirected to would be the White Stripes discography, but I think you're probably right. The list of songs would serve a distinct purpose, especially with B-sides, etc. In fact, (now that I've had a look) the

List of songs by Pink Floyd is even better, as it also has the composer and lead vocals. I've undone my edit, and just added a link to the discography at the top. I think that's a better solution, what do you think? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs

) 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have all The White Stripes' discography as well, I'll add them ASAP. – Mike99999979 06:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You have the entire discography? Respect. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:) Are you a Stripes fan? – Mike99999979 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I'm missing the self-titled album. I had a copy of it a few years ago, but I lost it. Anyway, nice work on the list! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lear's Fool, I believe some time ago you privately pledged to keep the article 'functional temporalism' on your user page. It seems you feel that such a pledge can be dishonoured as soon as you think you can get away with such action without the pledgee in question noticing. Unfortunately, my dear Fool, the pledgee in question is more vigilant than you accounted for. As such, I request the page be re-added to your user page, as promised. I am disappointed that a man whose conscience was apparently so great that he could not bear the thought of being complicit in the continuance of a harmless Wikipedia hoax nonetheless cannot keep his word and honour to a poor, powerless Wikipedian such as MaxWeberJr. I await the restoration of my glorious hoax on your page with much anticipation, and with it, the restoration of your once-gleaming, but now dulled honour. Yours, MaxWeberJr (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The userspace is not a place where articles with no chance of re-addition to the mainspace should be kept indefinitely, and nor is it appropriate for pages deleted by a

deletion discussion to be kept there disregarding the community consensus that they should be deleted. You are free to request userfication of the article from an administrator willing to consider such requests, but I am unable to restore the deleted material myself. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs

) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My dear Fool, if the userspace is not a place for articles such as functional temporalism, why did you add it to your 'userspace' in the first place? And who says this anyway? You have provided no links to back up this assertion with any actual policy of Wikipedia.

Second, I reject your 'community consensus' argument outright. It is very clear that the 'community consensus' was simply that functional temporalism should be deleted from the public part of Wikipedia, not that the words 'functional temporalism' should never be uttered anywhere ever again. Keeping the page in the 'userspace' would not run counter to the 'community consensus', as the userspace is very obviously not Wikipedia.

Thirdly, I understand you are unable to restore or delete material - that is why you actively requested the material be deleted. As such, it is presumably also within your power to request restoration.

Once again, your actions seem completely arbitrary and unjustifiable. Having more power and influence on Wikipedia should not mean that you do not have to justify your actions to the 'battlers' of Wikipedia such as myself. MaxWeberJr (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the

guideline pertaining to userpages

which states (quoting, emphasis added):

While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

I hope this addresses your concerns. My position of power is no more substantial than yours, and you have exactly as much ability to restore the article (to either the mainspace or the userspace) as I do. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that this policy was in place well before you pledged to 'userfy' the page, and then proceeded to do so. My dear Fool, you have exploited an inexperienced Wikipedian's ignorance of Wikipedia's plethora of policies by making a pledge that you presumably knew at the time you were not allowed to keep. MaxWeberJr (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is everything okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caring singer (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everything is fine. In the future, if you wish to experiment with Wikipedia, please feel free to experiment at the

sandbox. If you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs

) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to add the parameter to the parent template, {{Infobox Christian leader}}, first. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I'll give that a try. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome mate, but I already have an account. I just can't remember my password. 220.253.202.162 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry to bother you, but I just had a quick question. I was wondering why you tagged the Alex culic article as a test page? I do approve of your tagging and that particular rationale, by the way. I was just curious about your thought process behind it. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm working from memory here (I can't see the deleted page), but I think my thinking was that the article didn't look like an attempt to create a proper article, but nor was it obviously unconstructive. If I had tagged it as an A7, that would have been fine in terms of deleting the article, but consider the perspective of the article creator, who's just making a good-faith attempt at testing Wikipedia. They are much better served by having the article deleted as a test (and getting the accompanying notice on their talk page), than by all of a sudden seeing all these notices relating to "claims to significance".

Per

WP:Why I hate Speedy Deleters#G2, I often treat G2 as like G3 but with an assumption of good faith, and I thought that fit well here. And (by-the-by) answering questions is no bother, nothing makes me happier than seeing the "You have new messages" sign!  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs

) 13:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, can I just mention how much I love the Pink Floyd reference on your userpage?  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I often delete non-notable bios created by newbies as test pages (even though A7 is technically the more "correct" criterion) for pretty much the same reasons you gave, and I was pleased to see someone else thinking along similar lines. Being kind to the noobs is always an admirable quality. Once again, thank you for indulging my curiosity, and your appreciation of the Floyd is duly noted :) Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I could do this for you, but I would enable email so that you can lobby. Do you promise not to register another account or edit anonymously, as the IP side block won't last that long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't be creating another account or editing anonymously, and I have no intention of using the e-mail, I just thought it might be a good idea to enable it in case of emergencies (whatever they might be). I've added the appropriate headers to my talk and userpages, so you can press the button when you're ready. Thanks for this!  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now blocked to sock too. I received your email, so that is working fine! Now get back to work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some articles of John Roco, 'wrong senator candidate' to use in a poll and a 'no-name' who depressed Aiona's numbers.

http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/solid-lead/

http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2421/Stacked-StarAdvertiser-poll-claims-Aiona-does-only-3-better-than-John-Carroll.aspx

http://redcounty.com/poll-panic-star-advertiser-censors-poll-showing-aiona-lead-rushes-out-phone-survey-wrong

Being entertainer is not notable, except in noting this as an occupation as well as counseling. That there is a recent film for a candidate is the only reason it is notable. John Roco as a candidate is not notable, except cousin Raul Roco wrote Philippine laws to protect women and children from sexual harassment, and Roco this as his platform issue in the United States, is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Roco (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I feel I should point out a couple of things regarding

the actor-specific guidelines

.

Now I understand your point about

notability on Wikipedia is not inherited

. To quote that policy:

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article.

So you see why the fact that John Roco is related to someone notable does not qualify him for an article. It may be possible to

userspace

for you to keep it just in case John Roco is elected or becomes notable by another means, but I do not believe it should be kept as an article.

If you have any more questions, or you would like help participating in the deletion discussion, please do not hesitate to ask me another question here!  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 05:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. I think the best thing is to graph Lab, Lib, Nat, Grn, Other. Anything that isn't listed comes under other. The next closest party is FF who got less than 2% last time and has only one Senator, up for re-election, with buckley's chance of winning without the assistance of preferences he got (especially from Labor) last time. Labor learnt it's lesson on that one. Preference deals can be evil things sometimes. Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was trying to be funny. Such things aren't always easy to express on the internet...  -- Lear's Fool 08:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry..! Timeshift (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Australian federal primary polls 2008 to 2010.svg. Thoughts? I think I'll add the polling by Nielson as well...  -- Lear's Fool 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's starting to look better... Timeshift (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in, I don't think that Galaxy conducts regular polls - they seem to be commissioned in the lead-up to elections. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just been unable to find an online spreadsheet or something that has all their results. Even if they only do it occasionally, it would still be good to put on a chart.  -- Lear's Fool 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, yeah it's quite easy to do in Inkscape. Just select the text object and press SHIFT + CTRL + C (Convert to Path) and the text object will be converted to a grouped vector outline (or path). --Canley (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Cartoon- Hi I wanted to know how to move the page "Japanese cartoon" to Japanese Cartoon" because the subject title is lower cased in cartoon, and have the old one redirect to the new one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfactor0693 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks do you know how long that would normally be to take effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfactor0693 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you were trying to do, thanks for trying to fix it! The problem is that the licence under which editors submit their work to Wikipedia requires that we attribute their contributions to them, which is usually done through the page history. If you copy-and-paste to move a page, the history does not stay with the page, so we're breaching the license. The alternative to this is to use the

administrator

so we can move the old page onto the new one. Don't worry if this is all a bit confusing, it can take a while to get used to.

We have to wait until an administrator checks the requested moves section, which shouldn't be more than a few hours. In the meantime, the new title is redirecting to the old one, so it's not a huge problem.  -- Lear's Fool 06:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the move of the page, its greatly appreciated since I'm new to editing on wiki Xfactor0693 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, feel free to let me know if you need any more help. Also, just as a friendly aside, we

Wikitionary, Wikiquote, the Wikimedia Commons etc), so you can see how it can get a little confusing. Anyway, I hope you enjoy editing and decide to stay!  -- Lear's Fool

04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the bling! :) De728631 (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Was I right to request the following pages for speedy deletion?Nehemia University Pogradec and Nehemia University Pogradec.Should I nominate Constituency PP-155 for speedy deletion?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:A7. I'll have a closer look at it to see if I can do anything with it. Please don't misunderstand me, Jean-Christophe Victor was a borderline case, you shouldn't worry to much about me removing the tag. It's just that it's usually good practice to err on the side of caution when speedy deletion is involved.  -- Lear's Fool

10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about the page Tweeterena?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not an individual, animal, organisation or website, so it is not eligible for an

Wikipedia:Concerns about Speedy Deleters, Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion and User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion. Concerns about Speedy Deleters I find particularly helpful.  -- Lear's Fool

10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hows about these pages? The Thompsons: The Hamiltons 2,Ireneusz Krosny,Rollers athletic f.c.and Snowdon Race.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And Alejandro Ferrant as both names are red links?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to nominate The Thompsons: The Hamiltons 2 for deletion but i dont know what to put.Can you help me please?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you still feel unsure about deletion practices, I strongly advise you take some time out and familiarise yourself first with the

WP:PROD

, which is about proposed deletions.

Regarding the pages mentioned above, I agree with your tagging of

notability guidelines and the other policies and guidelines I mentioned above before you pursue further avenues for deletion.  -- Lear's Fool

14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you jump from a mild warning to a block threat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.21.197 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically because you did not heed the earlier warnings, and you ought to know that you will be blocked if you continue to make such edits. Please feel welcome to make constructive contributions, and I am always happy to help new editors find their feet, but surely you understand why we can't have people replacing the entire page on The Stig with an allegation that he is Osama bin Laden.  -- Lear's Fool 12:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please block this user, he keeps adding unsourced and controversial material.

I cannot block this user because I am not an

appropriate noticeboard, and you should feel free to do the same. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool

12:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian (talk

) 10:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How can an admin who was editing be the one to close the AfD. Especially in such a contentious Afd where there was no up down consensus at all, and that a 3rd way was starting to emerge of instead creating an incident specific article which would comply with wiki's Biography 1 event policies. I'd like to state this in the Deletion appeal, however wiki seems to supress IP users by prohibiing participiating there without an account. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, i based the assumption you were editing on the article on the above comment by Favonian. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm unsure what you're trying to say here. I was not the administrator who closed the discussion, that was

deletion discussion instead. Favonian was simply letting me know that this had happened.  -- Lear's Fool

06:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about that. I misunderstood it completely. The whole AfD confused me as I could not longer see the history and wrognly assumed the first history i could see was the deleter. I should have looked at the AfD archives. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries.  -- Lear's Fool 06:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

another chace

I was just looking for an Admin to block him, he is a real nuisance, your account has been blocked indefinitely as it is used only for vandalism - this should be his minimum block. Please do report him.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.  -- Lear's Fool 12:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Best.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

2PP graph

Remember to be regularly on the lookout for new polling figures at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/ to add to the graph! It's the best place to get the quickest-releeased polling data. But you might already know that :) Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about adding Essential the graph? And Galaxy? Thinner lines needed though to cope with 5 2PP's. And do you think it's worth creating a second graph that only plots the Reuters trend with a thick gold or dirty yellow/brown line? ;) Timeshift (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know about the pollbludger blog, but I've just subscribed to the RSS feed, so I'll get their updates now. I don't know anything about Essential, but I would like to add Galaxy. What's stopping me, however, is the fact that I can't find a spreadsheet of their results anywhere. I'm pretty busy tonight, but tomorrow afternoon I want to fix up the graphs by adding in the results from the last election (and some polling from before then, just to see how it looks). I'm not sure about having 5 polls on at once (4 would be the max in my opinion), but I don't have enough data at the moment anyway. I'll also fix up the text like Canley mentioned above so it doesn't look awful when we add it in.

I'm afraid I don't understand the Reuters reference, sorry :).

Has there been any discussion about "two party preferred" versus "two-party-preferred"? I know Tony brought that up, but my instinct is to stick with the un-hyphenated one, just 'cause that's how I've always seen it. I'll go along with everyone else if I'm wrong, though...  -- Lear's Fool 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about their movements sorry. Check out pollbludger, it has information and updates about essential, and about reuters. The Reuters poll average combines all the polls. Currently the reuters average for federal politics is Labor with 53.5% 2PP. Pollbludger is excellent for getting all the poll information as it's released. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nielsen: Labor 54-46 Coalition, Morgan: Labor 55(/55.5)-45(/44.5) Coalition. Timeshift (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lovely! Timeshift (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

More polls out, see PB. Timeshift (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just flagging your awareness of the latest Newspoll. No need to reply. Timeshift (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy+Morgan 52/48 to Labor, Newspoll 50 all. Timeshift (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Union Hall (Adelaide)

Further to our conversation in April.
I went into the State Library yesterday to look at the Oz Galipoli VCs, and then popped down the hill and took some pictures. I don't think any of them are better than the one you took, and there are no leaves on the trees in August! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Adelaide University Union Hall 2010.JPG 3,264 × 2,448	File:Union Hall 2010-08 front.jpg 3,264 × 2,448	File:Union Hall 2010-08 right.jpg 3,264 × 2,448
File:Adelaide University Union Hall 2010-04c.jpg 1,500 × 850	File:Union Hall 2010-08 front-c.jpg 1,000 × 500	File:Union Hall 2010-08 right-c.jpg 1,500 × 1,000

P.S. The one from the right was taken from the almost-never-used ceremonial steps of the Barr-Smith Library. I find it interesting what the light-pole is not verticle ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, they may be worth uploading to the commons. Unfortunately what was once a nice-looking building has been ruined in the last few years, that sign in the middle is awful, the construction site to the right ruins the best angle, and the now-dead tree on the right no longer frames the front facade. I might try to grab another in spring when the sky is blue and the trees are green.  -- Lear's Fool 07:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Sad, isn't it. Good plan, but the dead tree will still be dead ... (There MUST be some decent free use photos around somewhere ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, it was built in 58, which is just after 55, before which everything is public domain. Most of the other buildings around campus have images with expired copyright, but Union Hall doesn't.  -- Lear's Fool 07:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the "heads up". Have you any suggestions on a (dare I say it?) "way forward"? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Well there are a couple of pics at Picture Australia (here and here) from the 60s, and there's also this one from the University's archives. According to commons:template:PD-Australia-CC, the copyright has expired where it is owned by a state or federal government and produced before May 1, 69. The state library claims to have the copyright of the first two there, so perhaps they qualify? I'm not sure, are there any editors around who are good with Australian intellectual property law?  -- Lear's Fool 08:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. (I hate filing in those templates.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Spence (bishop)

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk