User talk:Cecropia

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page so I can find them easily. Thanks!

Please see archives for earlier talk. If you wish to add to a conversation already archived, please copy only that item from the archive to active talk, and then respond here. If you respond in the archive I may never see it.

2004: January – March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December

2005: January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August-September | October-December

2006: January | February | March | April – June | July – December

2007: January-March | April-May | June

Hey. No prob. I was taking a little longer on this one because the last support was not signed, and it caught my eye that the account was only a month old. In cases like this, I always look into the account's history, to make sure. I was actually thinking that I might get an edit conflict when I tried to close the page (I had it in edit mode already). Thanks for closing it. We're all here to help after all, so the more the merrier. :) Cheers, Redux 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this request was tagged in error [1] – the logs show you renamed 3 users this morning and the target account on this request was already taken. Obviously do go ahead revert me if I'm wrong... WjBscribe 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. My error. Thanks for catching it. -- Cecropia 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Not Fair I have been doing as good a job as evil clown 93 and I have not been made an adm I deserve to be one to please make me be one or nominate me to be one I do as good work as evil clown does and have been here longer I demand to be adm to please please please declare me an adminstrator from Shrek976 also can you change my username from Shrek976 to Jeffrey The Magical

Would you care to lay off the personal attacks, please? Evilclown93_(talk) 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? Majorly (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Not Fair That You Mad Evil Clown 93 Evilclown93_(talk) 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely a typo of "made". Majorly (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to create neutral documentation for a production company called Smuggler Inc, just like any other company such as New Line Cinemas or Warner Brothers. The username Smuggler has already been taken so i was forced to cerate a different username "Smug6". Unfortunately "Smug6"also became the title of the page that I created. I would either like to change my username to "Smuggler" or if it is possible how can I create a page with a different title than my username? Please let me know what I can do, Thank you very much.

I read your comments in response to my essay on WT:RFA. I'd prefer not to respond there, as I'm not interested in prolonging that conversation, but I did want to let you know that I read your reaction and understood it.

Obviously, with RFB as with RFA, people have different standards. In both cases I perceive my standards to be more lenient than for the community at large. Partly I subscribe to the "no big deal" mantra, and partly I don't analyze candidates as carefully as some of the more dedicated participant in these processes.

I've considered that maybe WP:CHU should be downgraded to an administrative function rather than a bureaucrat function. If anyone dared to propose it, I would support. However, I do see the logic in that the bureaucrat functions all relate to user status and user access levels.

I acknowledge that one controversial bureaucrat decision really can divide the community, and such cases are well known to Wikipedia history. My counterargument was and is that about 90 to 95 percent of RFAs are so easy that even a caveman could decide them. For example, I would have no problem giving User:WJBscribe bureaucrat access now or anytime in the future, even though he's been an admin only three or four months as I recall. He already helps out at WP:CHU, and frankly I'd trust him to call RFAs even though he isn't active there. Of course, if the scribe actually ran for b'crat within this calendar year, he'd be shot down with machine guns for lack of RFA activity.

So I do understand why people are put off by EVula's sense of humor, and I do understand that the consequences of a mistake by a bureaucrat can be serious and long-lasting. What bothers me is the seemingly arbitrary nature of the adversity b'crat candidates come upon. It seems to me something like the theory in some religious traditions that our generation can never be as good as our fathers and grandfathers before us – translation, we'll never have b'crats as good as Secretlondon and Warofdreams and Raul654 etc. with all their experience. I just wonder, why not? Surely there must be someone who has earned the community trust to consider decision very carefully without just counting votes. I can't blame anyone in particular, but my overall impression is that people as a whole are making unreasonable demands upon their peers. Until I perceive a change there, I will prefer to err on the side of leniency.

If you would like to respond, please do so on my talk page. Best regards. Shalom ^Hello 01:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your note on my question a few days ago. In response, I can say 100% that I would not have promoted Danny. This is not because of any personal opinion on Danny; I didn't vote on his RfA and have no opinion. I would not have promoted him because he only had 68% support, and because all the (more than 100) oppose voters offered their opinion in good faith, and the opinion of every Wikipedian should be given equal weight. In principle, I am opposed to having bureaucrats at all. Ideally, we should have an automated bot which counts votes and promotes those who achieve over 75% support. To prevent sockpuppetry and SPAs, we should have a minimum suffrage requirement of 100 edits, as they do on Spanish Wikipedia. See m:wikidemocratism for a fuller summary of my views on these matters. Walton^talk 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was your follow-up question on Deskana's RfB addressed to me or to Deskana? Walton^talk 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it refers to a "response", I assume it was aimed at me. I thought it was aimed at Walton, no idea why. I've replied to it now, anyway, if you'd like to take a look. --Deskana (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask excellent and generally acclaimed questions on Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship, but don't actually give opinions. (Not to mention that most people say you are the currently most active Bureaucrat, and generally like your work.) Please don't stop the questions, but could you also boil your opinions down to some supports/opposes/neutrals, please? Basically, out of the 8 candidates, I found one I like, one I don't like, and the other six basically seem fine, so I'd generally support – except I don't want seven new ones all at once! If you could indicate which of the flood you would find "the best", and why, that would be a strong argument to me, and, I suspect, a number of other editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question, AnonEMouse. Even though I can't respond as you ask, the question brought up so many thoughts for me that I moved your question to WT:RFA and responded there. Cheers, Cecropia 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! The one candidate you express an opinion on is the one I liked? And you may just torpedo him! I feel like I wished on The Monkey's Paw... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned, I don't express opinions unless I feel it's very important do so, and then I recuse myself from closing, which is what happened in this case. In this case, my problem isn't about the candidate, but about an expressed fear of the community that has already manifested itself. Some things shouldn't be mixed. As to the Monkey's Paw thing, remember you still have two wishes. -- Cecropia 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! You did it! For my second wish, I want the hideously decayed animated corpse of Ral315 as a bureaucrat... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cecropia, since you are what I deem to be the most active crat at the moment, and since you are a crat, I was wondering if you could help me out. I have created the page for User:SkyBot (no – this isnt a request for flagging), but forgot to (beforehand) create the acoount User:SkyBot. Now, when I try to create the account, I cant, because it says there is already a user with this name – which is simply the userpage of User:SkyBot. In short, there is no official user:SkyBot, but because the userpage is there, there never can be an official SkyBot. What can be done? Please reply on my talk page. Your help would be invaluable. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted to WP:CHU)
Relaying message from WJBscribe (currently having connection problems):

I seem to have missed an error in the coding of this rename request. As such the user has been renamed to User:.snoopy not User:.snoopy. They are likely to have difficulty logging in if they don't realise this is the name they have been renamed to. The following link should correct the error: (rename to correct name) Thanks, WJBscribe.

– Steel 02:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back from my break and able to edit normally now. Sorry I didn't spot the mistake in that request before you performed the rename – thanks for fixing it. As you may have noticed I made a change to the {{renameuser}} template before I went away – [2]. This means the code is considerably more simple and should avoid a similar error cropping up in future – it also means that there is only one link to rename the user which also works from secure login (for crats like Secretlondon who use that). WjBscribe 18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Due to your constant work on renaming users. Cheers, Mystytopia 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of user renames, do you have any idea why for some users, some edits don't get moved to the new username? Cheers, Mystytopia 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice barnstar. No, I have no idea about edits not getting moved. I think that would be a question for a developer. -- Cecropia 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for renaming me! :D --SUBZ3R0 ^{( Talk | E-mail )} 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to change my signature! --Sébastien Leblanc ^{( Talk | E-mail )} 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! :) -- Cecropia 06:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for renaming me. Georginho 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing my username. It's very much appreciated! QuietWikipedian 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the request Psychless ← The Psychless, I think Secretlondon only asked for a comment from the other account in case the request could be performed more quickly than 7 days (as it could have been if the target account consented to the rename). You may wish to check with her but given that the target account has been notified (including by email) the usurpation request would be valid even if the account requesting the username had not claimed to have created it. It seems an odd result for the request to fail because of that assertion (which cannot be substantiated) when it would have been performed had no assertion been made... WjBscribe 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more I owe you thanks. You know your stuff! -- Cecropia 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I can't believe you! I was just ready to request that my name be changed from Jahiegel to RTV070707a, and I discovered that you'd already assigned it. (See, this is why I always say we have too many bureaucrats.) :) Cheers, Joe 04:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All hope is not lost! You can ask to usurp it! ;-) -- Cecropia 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cecropia. If you look at Special:Contributions/Lights, none of my edits were moved! Cheers, Mystytopia 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed others have commented on this but the problem has previosuly always been sorted once I've looked. I suspect there may be a lag in the database reassigning edits at the moment- we'll see if the contribs are sorted in a few yours. WjBscribe 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like those contribs have all been reassigned now – but the lag was over 10 hours... WjBscribe 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me up-to-date. At least we now have an answer to the question. -- Cecropia 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing my username (I'm not the first, I see!). Have a nice day. Bye --Mau db 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come most of my contribs history has disappeared since the username change? All my contribs since April have vanished from the history, and Wannabe-Kate says I only have 501 edits (whereas I previously had over 6,000). What happened? Walton^talk 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, strange that my admin logs are still accurate. Is this an ongoing technical problem? Walton^One 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the above – problem seems to have been fixed. Walton^One 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much longer this problem's going to last. Walton's contribs caught up with him in under an hour unlike yesterday, where Lights' took over 10. If it continues it might be worth a reasonably prominent note at WP:CHU informing people that it may take several hours for their contrib history to be properly allocated to their new username. WjBscribe 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got worried when I performed a rename and the new account had all the log entries and did exist, but the old account didn't exist but still had all the contributions. It fixed itself in 5 minutes, though. --Deskana (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally clicked the wrong button when another page was loading, and then wasn't able to cancel the revert. I'm not quite sure what I clicked but evidently it was something Twinkle related. I'm toying with the idea of removing the script, since I don't use it that much anyway. Sorry. --Deskana (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I guess that does sound a bit wrong! I meant WP:TWINKLE. --Deskana (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for changing my user name back on July 6. I would of gotten back to you sooner but I have not been able to log on since July 4. Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I assume you're in the same (or nearly the same) time zone as me, can I get your input here Raul654 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to thank you for your thoughtful participation in Ral315's RfB. I was influenced by your comments, though I did not end up opposing, but I wanted to drop you a note to say how much I appreciate seeing a well-thought out and intelligent position posted at an RfX in an unemotional way. Thanks for the time you spend on these issues. Mike Christie (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. In my experiences at CHU I've noticed so far how indispensable the CHU clerks are. I've already figured out a few of the quirks of the renaming process, but I'll ask if I have any questions. Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Andre (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's been very helpful so far. Andre (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that having Ral as a bureaucrat and a Signpost editor is bad -- for the Signpost. The Signpost isn't part of Wikipedia policy. The Signpost could publish pure nonsense and I don't see how it could impact the running of our community. I agree with you that the RfB article's treatment of Ral's nomination was bad, but I don't think it impacts on Ral's ability to do the job. Regardless, it's a moot point by now. Andre (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecropia, you are mistaken towards what upset me about your participation in Ral's RfB. I'm not at all annoyed with you opposing him, you are more that entitled to do so, you had a legitimate reason for opposing him, which all users are able to do. The fact that you're a 'crat makes no difference – all users get to voice their opinion in RfB, I don't believe you had any conflict of interest in your oppose. At the point of the oppose however, that's where your bureaucratic duties should have stopped and you should have recussed yourself from making any comment on closing the discussion – however, this did not happen. This is what got to me – despite you opposing the candidate, you spoke as a bureaucrat to say that you strongly objected to promotion and suggested an extension – you were not speaking as a regular user, you were speaking as a 'crat – In my honest opinion you crossed the line of a bureaucrat as your advice was based on your own opinion of the candidate, not on a neutral view looking at the consensus. In a nutshell, you were absultutely fine to oppose, and your reasons for opposing were fine – but the fact that you still acted as a bureacrat when discussions on closing the nomination were happening was wrong. I trust you cecropia, I think you're the best person to judge consensus on the project – but I really believe you had a serious lapse of judgement here, and used your own personal opinion of the candidate when offering advice on closing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think agreeing to disagree on this one would most probably be the best option. As I said, I'm certainly a fan of yours, and I look forward to seeing you around – I just hope for once we can agree on something! Sorry if you thought I was arguing with you above, I just don't like holding grudges and if you get something off your chest, it's much easier to stay friends for the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I see you've got this already but here it is again for your tireless work – Wardhog 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to your userspace, see above. NawlinWiki 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, you inadvertently posted it in mainspace (see "what links here"). :) NawlinWiki 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. You originally posted it in mainspace at Closing RfAs and RfBs. Are you saying you wanted it there? NawlinWiki 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to answer those questions. What you say is very sensible and helped me in understanding the whole thing a little better. :) – TwoOars 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that nobody should delete votes. I don't agree that there are issues which are closed for debate and discussion. Andre (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If our statistics are correct, the other day you made your 400th promotion of a user to sysop. Just wanted to drop by and express appreciation (and a certain awe) for your dedication as a bureaucrat. Best wishes, WjBscribe 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close it and ask what the other bureaucrats felt, but I support your decision to call it as no consensus. Raul654 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the closure; I think the issue at hand lies with the childish behavior on both sides. Unfortunately, I think Elonka has become a victim of her diligence. Clearly, Wikipedia still has a lot of growing up to do. — Deckiller 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it was not my desired outcome (disclaimer), good job on this closure. It was another one of those high visibility, rancorous ones, where you are likely to take flak no matter what you do. And I second Deckiller's post-mortem analysis completely, on all counts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I edit conflicted with you, changing my !vote to weak support. I doubt this makes consensus; but after Elonka went to some trouble to answer my questions, it seems only fair to let you know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essentials to happiness are something to love, something to do, and something to hope for. Blake. Best wishes, El_C 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all that plus cake. Joe 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the Evergreen Huckleberry has a latin name as its title. I was wondering if it should be renamed as the latin Vaccinium ovatum is mentioned later and more people would search for Evergreen Huckleberry – Pheonix15 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Heres a barnstar for that and everything else mentioned above Pheonix15 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I need some advice from someone more senior than I, such as a bureacrat such as yourself. I have been asked, as a fairly junior admin, to help in a persistent multiple IP sockpuppet vandalism problem in which I feel wholly out of my depth. Could I please ask you to look at user:Scorpion0422/Hidden Message Vandal, (User:Scorpion0422 being, of course, the user who approached me), and tell me if there is any action we can take? While I am aware of range blocks, I have never done one, and would not do so without a lot of senior advice because of the vast amount of collateral damage that such a block can generate. But user:Scorpion0422, who is not an admin though probably should be, is clearly seriously troubled, and I wiuld like to help if possible. Can we do anything? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My problem of course is that I do not know of any way that a range block can be applied without disrupting hundreds, maybe thousands, of blameless editors. I will take your advice, for which I thank you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Cecropia. I was wondering what should be done to this article which I stumbled upon as a random article. It's a bit short and I don't think it's notable. I was considering nominating it for deletion but it could be improved if it prooves notable. I was wondering what your opinion was seeing as you have more experience in dealing with these matters – Pheonix

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cecropia obtusifolia starr 12.jpg

I hereby award you the Cecropia obtusifolia, a stub article that my bot Polbot made just for you! The Latin name means either "thick-leaved Cecropia" or "the Cecropia whose pages are dull-witted", depending on the looseness of your translation. :-) It's common throughout Central America, and is in no danger of extinction. It grows quickly and is low-maintenance, needing relatively little water. Enjoy your plant! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (vice-Chairman of the MTA) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated, there is not that much info on him as it relates to the MTA, and being an !expert, I'm not quite sure how well I can flesh it out. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! MrPrada 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♠TomasBat 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cecropia! How are you? I would like to change my name. What should I do? Thank you. RS2007 11:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has been renamed... WjBscribe 10:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found a link to this page in my browser favorites. Can you explain why it is there?

Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed you were online at the moment. There's a Bot waiting for a flag at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved – it would be great you also had a second to deal with that... Thanks, WjBscribe 03:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming only the top one that says "NEEDS FLAG" needs a flag – but I'm not sure why the second one says it has a flag when it doesn't... WjBscribe 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the second is flagged (see here) but the Bot was renamed so the flag log entry is under the Bot's old name. I wish the devs would fix things so logs move when accounts are renamed... WjBscribe 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page contains every Bot ever approved (whether it needed a flag or not) – I've never really looked at the bottom of the list... WjBscribe 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The man's on a roll! El_C 06:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For re-naming me! Thanks very much. El-Nin09 15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much appreciated. Smartyllama 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (first sig under new name)[reply]

Thanks for the rename! Jlerner 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For re-naming me. God bless you and keep up your brilliant work! Indianescence 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rename. I must have given you 60 edits at least! :) Rudget _{Editor Review} 13:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you just review me, i tried one ages ago, disaster, so i want to know how long i should leave it F9T 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pic of the C-man on my talk page. Illustrations of Lovecraft characters are so much better than even on most of the Arkham jackets, not to mention the dreadful renderings on the Beagle Books (IIRC) of the '70s.

I think it was deCamp who described many of Lovecraft's monsters as resembling an Italian fish dinner. I'm not getting near Cthulhu armed only with bottles of olive oil and vinegar, if you don't mind. Cheers, Cecropia 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. True, true. I always thought of him as a humble (hubris-less) Spagetti monster of some sort. Tasty! Speaking of C, have you ceen The Call of? I thought it was a rather brilliant rendition; very atmospheric & quite authentic. Best, El_C 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For putting me over the line and your kind words, Cheers! Dfrg.msc 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cecropia, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes. The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Expand for picture....

After you mentioned The Call of ... I looked at the reviews on amazon and ordered it, and I'm now waiting...

HPL movies have been almost uniformly bad, with an occasional effort with some redeemable features, such as the dreadfully named "Die Monster Die" (IIRC) which was a passable (and unreferenced) version of The Colour Out of Space. But I'm looking forward to my "Calling." -- Cecropia 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff! Let me know how you find it to be. Yes, that has been my experience, too, but in this case, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Speaking of somewhat old, though not quite as old, fiction: I recently read the Hebrew translations (among the books I brought back from Israel a few months ago) of City and The Martian Chronicles. Man, was that ever fun! Best, El_C 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched and liked "Call" a great deal. I think using the silent film technique was extremely suitable to this kind of Lovecraft work. This is the first filmed Lovecraft that I feel captured the feel of Lovecraft's style of writing. It is sort of "ordinary people and scholarly gentlemen confront and react to the unbelievable." Very well done. I would very much like to say the HPLHS attempt two of my favorites, The Colour Out of Space and The Shadow Over Innsmouth. -- Cecropia 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, excellent! I concur. I knew you'd like. (it was the first silent reel I've seen since, well, I can't even recall since when!) El_C 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jim, what about City and The Martian Chronicles? El_C 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For promoting over 400 users to administrators. That's more promotions than any other bureaucrat. I hope you won't resign again from bureaucratship anytime soon. You're on a role!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has just desysop-ed (for one week) an administrator for simply reverting a block he placed before leaving on a weekend trip. In my opinion, this was a clear mistake, and should be reviewable by the community. The AN/I on his actions has resulted in nearly overwhelming consensus against the action. I fully understand that Jimbo is NOT "just another administrator", but I believe that ALL of us have to have accountability for our actions, either with the administrator's tools, the editor's tools, or yes, the tools of the steward. As the promoting bureaucrat for Zscout70 (the desysoped admin), I wanted to bring these actions to your attention. Thanks, and best regards, K. Scott Bailey 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that JWales should be emergency de-stewarded? What other purpose would you need to directly appeal to Cecropia for? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that someone other than a mere editor (which I am)communicate with Jimbo regarding his actions, which I consider rash. Nothing more, nothing less. K. Scott Bailey 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bureaucrat doesn't have the power of removing rights, only of granting them. I also believe it would be up to the community to sanction someone (great or ungreat) for a wrongful action. I know nothing about this issue. Can you point me to the relevant information? -- Cecropia 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Are you the guy to talk to about access to the IRC admin channel, or is that Deskana? Thanks again! GlassCobra 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I noticed this edit. The next autoupdate by user:Rick Bot (tomorrow morning) will reorder the list, using unix "sort -d" order. I run this pretty much every day, so new admins will get added as well. You're welcome to continue adding newly promoted admins, but the bot will do it the next time I run it. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no big thing, but I use printer's sort. Since a bot is doing the chore, who am I to argue. ;-) -- Cecropia 07:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When User:Bearian told me that his RfA nomination of me failed because I nominated myself two years ago, I had no idea what he meant, until I found that page from July 2005, much to my surprise. I totally forgot about that, and didn't know anything about answering candidate questions, and looking back, I feel really foolish about that. I didn't know to check back there or know that no one would notify me about it. But just out of curiosity, why would this affect someone else's nomination of me more than two years later? Thanks. Nightscream 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Nightscream 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably wait until Majorly's RfA is over (and I'm going to try and avoid that RfA over the next few days anyway – it has really got under my skin for some reason), but I was just re-reading your comment over there: "This [RfA] must run its course unless Majorly withdraws it". I was wondering what would have happened if he had withdrawn it, and then asked for his tools back? Would the withdrawn RfA negate the "voluntarily left, can have the tools back" bit? Carcharoth 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am back for a while after my hiatus... thinking about requesting RfA Membership again... any suggestions? xerocs 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucrat action and under-70% RfAs. Please discuss there. Thank you, Cecropia 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cecropia, I wouldn't want to go so far as to edit a post of yours to an RfB, but I'm pretty sure the word "not" is missing after "As usual, do" in this statement ... which may confuse people. WjBscribe 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another great catch, WjB! Thanks for catching that. There have been stories about typos/errors that changed the meaning of documents. See, for example, Bible errata, of which my favorite is the "Wicked bible." -- Cecropia 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cecropia.
I have a question for you, regarding your edit on this talk page here [3]. That's the talkpage of user Semberac, proven sockpuppeteer in at least two cases.
Was there some kind of his request for username change?
I'm asking you, because the page [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Semberac]] is currently an "empty" link, but with two pages on it (two sockpuppets). I'd like to put some content there, so that page isn't empty, and that it can be found by searching on category:Wikipedia sockpuppets.
On the other hand, how shall we name the category page? Wikipedia sockpuppets of Semberac or Wikipedia sockpuppets of Majstor Mile (if latter, shall we change the data on the pages of his sockpuppets)?
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, the userpage of user:Semberac is empty.
Isn't there supposed to be the tag {{sockpuppeteer}}?
I can put it there, but I don't want to do that, before asking the admin. Maybe there's a reason why's that left empty.
Also, I've encountered few more uncategorized and "red link" categories (wikipedia sockpuppets of ...), with few accounts on them. I'd like to categorize them also. I think that Wikipedia needs some tiding up in that area, there're still some mess.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a Wikipedian active mainly on Japanese Wikipedia. We got a difficult problem there and I am wondering if you could help us a bit.

It is about the standard questions for admin candidates used on Request for Adminship page. It turned out that the questions used (quite frequently) on Japanese Wikipedia came from English Wikipedia, but the person who imported them did not give proper credits. It is quite likely that the use of those questions did not and still does not, comply with the terms of GFDL. The simpler solution to GFDL violation is deletion, but that means Japanese Wikipedia would lose a lot of its past records.

So I am trying to identify who exactly wrote those questions and get a permission from authors to keep those questions on Japanese Wikipedia.

The oldest I could find of those questions used on English Wikipedia is posted by you, 14:16, 2 July 2004. Am I right here? Did you come up with those questions by yourself (as opposed to reusing questions someone else have used in the past)?

And if you are the author of those questions, would you be so kind as to allow Japanese Wikipedia pages (including past revisions, template, etc) to be kept (rather than deleted)? Again, those pages or their histories do not seem to indicate that the question come from your post, nor does it say that it is from English Wikipedia's RfA.

Tomos (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your reply on my talk page. (And thanks for coming up with those questions. Japanese Wikipedians have been making use of them rather extensively.)

GFDL requires users (such as a translator in this case) to preserve revision history, for example. The license, as its preamble states, has the goal of attributing authors properly. Japanese Wikipedia's questions are probably not attributed to you, as far as I can tell. So it looks as if some Japanese Wikipedian created those questions. And they are licensed under GFDL, which means that the translator is likely to get credits, if anyone is, as if she is the original author.

Would you be fine with that? Tomos (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your generous answer! Tomos (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to ask one more question on the matter, if I may.

I originally asked about the questions you created and posted on 14:16, 2 July 2004. I now realize that you made another major contribution later, by replacing one question. Again, this contribution is reflected to the questions used on Japanese Wikipedia, and attribution to you seems to be missing. The replacement I am talking about is introduction of a question on conflict and stress in place of the one on candidate's biggest regret. If I am correct, this is the first time you made that change. (See question #6)

Given your previous answer, I thought you would be fine with this particular question being used on Japanese Wikipedia like other questions that you created. But I wanted to ask you than relying on my guess, since the stake is rather high (the stake is deletion or keeping of many of the past RfAs on Japanese Wikipedia).

And I could be wrong in assuming that you are the one who came up with this question, so I wanted to ask about that, too.

Well, okay, so I am asking two questions, not one, but 1) are you fine with your question on stress and conflict (referred to above) being used on Japanese Wikipedia without proper attribution and under GFDL? 2) are you the original author of the question?

Thanks a lot for your time and attention!

Tomos (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your answer. And I am quite sorry to bother you time and again.. :-(

I got two more questions.

1. It turns out that Japanese Wikipedians copied your questions (in translated and adapted forms) and used as questions for CheckUser candidates and Bureaucrat candidates as well, on separate templates. Again, although I assume you are fine with that, I want to make sure that is the case.
2. The way the questions are used, it turns out, is not quite GFDL compliant in a plain reading of the license. The templates are used with "subst:" leaving the attribution behind. Again, I want to know if you are okay with it.

Regarding the question #6 above, I did some extra research, and found out that Meelar requested you, on your talk page, to use it. [4]

Again, thanks a lot for your attention! Tomos (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Merry Christmas :-)! So, I see that you rename me, and can you rename my bot User:DarioBot to User:.snoopybot.? or I must done a request in the rigth page.
cheers --.snoopy.  08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --10:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Welfare Cadillac, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Welfare Cadillac. NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your, albeit late, contribution to the discussion. The community's discussion about RfB promotion standards is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar if you wish to join in that. For my part, I regret that you have not been around to contribute to the discussion. I am sure you could have helped me better understand where the consensus for the 90% bar had come from. I think the important issue now is to get clear guidance from the community as to how they wish bureaucrats to close RfBs in future. Regards, WjBscribe 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"10% IMO is too much. Going below 90% should never happen."

It is already the case that 5 of 28 successful RFBs were promoted with under 90% support. 3 were in 2004 (i.e. the earliest days of RFB) and 1 each in 2006 and 2007. Dragons flight (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I standby my point. In the early days, there were very few participants. I believe I originally became a 'crat on a vote of something like 25 to 2. Everyone pretty much knew everybody else. -- Cecropia (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well do you mean something like "it should never happen now"? Obviously it has been accepted in the past. Or do you mean that it shouldn't have happened even in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Going forward, I think a minimum 90% with no substantive opposition should be the standard. By "substantive" opposition I mean any reasonable complaints or doubts that could demonstrate compromise in a 'crats ability to enjoy the almost universal confidence of the community in his/her decisions. -- Cecropia (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here, I realise this is what you think the threshold should be, my concern and the reason I advocated the promotion of Riana, is that I don't think this reflects of the views of the community, who in my assessment view that as too high a bar. In particular, people seem to feel that rather than leading to the best candidates becoming bureaucrats, we are ruling out equally suitable or more suitable candidates who have made unpopular decisions in the past. Ongoing discussions at WT:RFA, WP:BN and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar all of which you may which to read up on and contribute to. The community seems to me to be fairly angry that we haven't taken these views into account. WjBscribe 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have a number of things that require my attention in real life that make it difficult to participate here as I would like to at the present time. It will be what it will be in any case; I would just ask you to use your good judgment and be prepared to explain and defend your decisions to the community in a way which will uphold their faith in the bureaucrats and the process. The future functioning of RfA will be the most relevant critic. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should really consider your position as a bcrat if all you do is use a calculator to determine consensus. I supported your RfB with the hope you'd act with community consensus in mind, and not a mindless percentage a bot could do. Your comments on the bcrat chat are really disappointing and unbecoming of a bcrat. Majorly (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are unfortunate, and if you had gone through your RfB with the sentiments you expressed today, and probably your overall outlook on set percentages for RfAs you would not have passed – you are supposed to determine consensus, not act like a bot. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My record as a bureaucrat is an open book that is not changed by inaccurate characterizations. -- Cecropia (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May – November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that you have registered as a member of WP:NYCPT. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Participants and add or correct you status as an active or semi-active member, as well as if you are an admin, whay projects you work on, and a sample of the work you do in the NYCPT scope. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 15:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXIII - April 2008
Project news Elections are now taking place for coordinators of the project for the next six months. Any editors interested in seeking a coordinator position, or who want a say in who is selected, should indicate as much here. Member news The project has currently 381 members, 69 joined & 0 leavers since the start of March 2008. Other news The project's long-time lead coordinator, Kevinalewis, has announced he is not standing as a candidate for another term in that capacity. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to him for the extraordinary work he has done for this project. To Kill a Mockingbird and El Señor Presidente were both recently promoted to Featured Article status. This brings the novel FA count to 14! It has been suggested that WikiProject Sword of Truth be merged into WP:NOVELS, perhaps as a task force. Task force news The Shannara WikiProject was merged into the project as the Shannara task force. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. Two inactive projects were converted into task forces, so Chronicles of Narnia task force and Lemony Snicket task force have been created. People interested in the aforementioned subjects are encouraged to support the new task forces. (Thank to Wassupwestcoast for the tip) Novel related news The science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke died on 19 March aged 90. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz won both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for 2007. Current debates There is a discussion regarding further task forces for other genres of fiction now taking place here.	From the Members Welcome to the Twenty Third issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor Collaboration of the Month This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is A Farewell to Arms. Newsletter challenge Last month's challenge (South Wind) was completed by member User:Blathnaid with a nice starting stub. The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Kate Christensen's 2008 PEN/Faulkner award winner The Great Man.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)