:Come now, she's worth more than a mere page. Chaptering Ariel! — [[User:Timotab|Timotab]] [[User_talk:Timotab|<sup>Timothy (not Tim </sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Timotab|<sup>dagnabbit!)</sup>]] 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Leave a new message!I will reply and drop a note on your talk page unless I know you'll check back here. Please be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who you are!
Hello Ariel. Just wondering if you'd be interested in stepping up your outstanding work here on Wikipedia by having access to the admin tools. If so, and if should you be needing a nominator for an RFA, I hereby offer myself for the task. :-) Best regards, Húsönd17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, take a number! I think you're approximately the 18743rd person to offer to nominate Ariel... (if it makes you feel any better, I'm #18739). I think her RfA could easily make WP:100, judging from the nomination offers alone... EVula// talk // ☯ //17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel, I would personally reccomend accepting a nomination from husond. He was my nominator. As much as I would like to nomiante, I can settle for supporting a nomination from Husond. Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~*Laugh*~ I don't think that's possible, but thanks for the encouragement, dear Henrik. Husond, thank you so much for your kind words and your offer. As EVula so humorously mentioned, it has been brought up once or twice, and the honest answer is that I simply haven't decided as of yet. It means a great deal to me that you offer, as I've seen your work, admired your patience and diplomacy, and I consider you an excellent administrator. I am deeply honored by your offer, and I hope you'll understand if I would like to take some time before I make a decision. Ariel♥Gold19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<last, but not least> In the classic RFA comment, you mean you aren't an admin already? Your patience and diplomacy are badly needed and I'd be delighted to support your application. Accounting4Taste:talk20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call to take some time to consider it... Adminship isn't all secret cabal meetings (complete with aged cognac, brie, and funny hats), pissing on the serfs, and having fun. Quite a bit of it is actually tedious work and getting constantly cajoled about how your actions are wrong & abusive. Every time you use the tools, no matter how well you explain yourself, there is always a chance that someone is going to completely freak out about what you've done. It's less a privilege or mark of distinction than it is a responsibility and service. That fact that you are taking time to think about it suggests you have the right temperament for the job, should you want it.--Isotope23talk20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply haven't decided as of yet. What is there to decide? You don't have to use the tools even if you have them, nor do you have to publicise your adminship. As always, very willing to support ;) Tiddly-Tom22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't believe it when I popped by to see what was going on with the prior post (similar header) and saw this was yet another offer. It's an incredible testament to that you're doing a whole bunch of things right.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha Húsönd! Oh that's awesome. Did you see the thread on Riana's page, where everyone switched signatures? It was one of the funniest things I've seen. Distracting, sure Maser, but c'mon, it is fun! :D Sort of like a Wikipedia Easter Egg hunt - Guess the sig, guess the poster! ~*Giggles*~ Okay maybe not, but it was a pretty funny reply there, Húsönd! Árìël11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I was bored last night. :-) Anyway, I forgot to thank for what you said on my talk page, and I sincerely hope that you will soon decide to launch an RfA. We desperately need more friendly admins. Best regards, Húsönd17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks, I figured if I could source some of it, then the silly edit warring might go away. But, I can't really find sources to back up most of the sports records, although I don't doubt they are true, it is just this is a AAA school, so not really covered except in really small local papers. Even the school's website doesn't have the past stats online, go figure that, eh? Ah well. Ariel♥Gold14:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sig Design
Ariel, did you design your own signature? I think I am ready to break down and get a custom signature and wondered if you did your own or if somebody deisgned it for you? If somebody did it for you, can you point me in their direction? If you did it yourself, could you possibly help design me a cool signature? If not, thats ok too. Hope all is well and glad you liked my new picture! Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did mine, and I've done many for other people as well. What colors do you want? Do you want it to be fairly short? I'd make the suggestion of linking "Chris" to your userpage, and "Kreider" to your talk page, and leave out your username altogether, but I'd need colors to know what options you'd like. Ariel♥Gold18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would it be too much to include my usernaame and my real name? I may someday get a name change but until then I would like my real username to be the firs thting in my signature. I like blues and greens for colors. Really you can suprise me though! Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris = Username link. lk02 = Contribs link, small /sup'd full name = Talk page link. Edit to copy the code, or let me know what you'd like changed. Don't forget to check the "Raw signature" box! Ariel♥Gold18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to add it (I like the 4th one), but i keep getting the "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." I dont see anything wrong with the tags and am not all that familiar with sig requirements. Any ideas? Chrislk02(Chris Kreider)18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing some background information. Reading through your comments on Goodshoped's most recent RfA (which I missed commenting on, but had seen before in the archives), I completely agree with you that he was not ready to be an administrator at that time, and that he has an unfortunate tendency towards immaturity and odd behaviour. (While I try to avoid stereotypes, I strongly suspect he's quite young in real life.) I also agree that his repeated tagging of U.S.A as a meatpuppet of PeeWeeHermann was unacceptable.
However, I felt, looking through his talk page archives, that Goodshoped had very clearly been subjected to a totally inexcusable level of harassment and trolling by PeeWeeHermann's various sockpuppets, and that his irrational reactions were understandable (through not justified) under those circumstances. As such, the impression I got was that the community should have generally given him slightly more leeway.
I was not aware, until you informed me, that EVula had discussed the block at ANI (my own fault for not watching ANI). This was certainly the correct action to take, and I see from the link you provided that there was a clear consensus in favour of the block. So I am not in any way suggesting that the block was inappropriate.
I was also slightly concerned about the posts, from EVula and several other people, regarding Goodshoped's use of Wikipedia as a "social networking site"; in my opinion, such use of Wikipedia does not in itself harm or disrupt the project. As such, a user who is spending, say, 90% of their time/edits on social networking and 10% on productive editing should not be warned or sanctioned in any way, just gently encouraged in the right direction - unless, of course, they are actively disrupting Wikipedia, in which case warnings and blocks are obviously justified. Your evidence has shown me that many of Goodshoped's actions were disruptive, so I understand the background to the case a little more (although I'd still like to hear EVula's own words on the matter).
Just to re-iterate that I strongly support EVula's RfB, and that support will remain regardless of his answer to the question. WaltonOne19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think many of that editor's intentions were indeed good, but the actions that followed seemed to invariably cause grief.--Isotope23talk19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes :-) It won't hurt your future RfA chances at all, you thought you were reverting vandalism and got it wrong, I've done that a few times before so don't worry about it. I see you've explained the mistake to the person that templated you, there's really no need to worry. Ryan Postlethwaite23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you are doing recent changes patrol, you will probably come across other recent changes patrollers making mistakes. If I recognise the user name or think it might have been a mistake, I normally just revert the change without a warning, but if someone makes a habit of it, leave a polite note :) Don't worry about it :) Tiddly-Tom23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Warning
Thanks. I named the article being vandalized within the title of the section that I created. I'll begin to use the parameters you mentioned. I usually do sign my edits. Sorry. will381796 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see that now, yeah. It is helpful to use a month header if one doesn't exist, so admins and editors know what level warning the editor is on, but making a subheader with article name is fine too. Thanks for the note, and no worries, I forget to sign sometimes too! :D Ariel♥Gold17:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the IP edits done prior to the protection, and they amount to this. This is not vandalism, it is removal of a bit of information, and the addition of an improperly formatted wiki link. Not something that is a huge issue, but I will leave this message on Maxim's page as well, and if he feels it is a valid reason to remove it, he can. Ariel♥Gold18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I didn't realize, and figured it was just a mis-placed talk page comment. No worries that you removed it and blocked them, I wasn't familiar with that sockpuppet. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Media Monitoring at AFC
Hello. I noticed you recently declined this submission to AFC as "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject." I certainly wouldn't argue against declining this submission given the vague-to-the-point-of-impossible-to-verify sources, but I was wondering if you honestly felt that "Chong Newztel is a New Zealand’s largest media monitoring company" actually didn't constitute an assertion of notability. I doubt anything will come of this either way, just wondering. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a toss up between that, and between no reliable sources given. I'll be happy to change the reason it was declined. The only sources that can verify that claim are the site itself, which is obviously not neutral, nor reliable. Additionally, the submission was done by a promotional username, who previously used their userpage as advertisement spam (which was deleted), which would indicate that their purpose is to advertise the company. If there were reliable news/media sources available, advertisement efforts such as this would generally not be attempted. I will, however, change the rationale as to why it cannot be created, as it did not have any reliable verifiable sources given. Thanks for pointing that out! Ariel♥Gold22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry my reply was so short, let me expand on my explanation a bit, I changed the warning left on User talk:67.168.166.3 because it was done for a revert that I had made, and I do prefer to leave my own warnings, as I sometimes use custom templates to encourage editors to stop and think, a bit more personalized, less "templatey". Note that you did not revert any of the Corn dog edits, [1], so yes, I did remove your level 3 following a level 1, and replace it with a non-bot, custom message, hopefully designed to get the editor to stop their nonconstructive edits. I sincerely apologize if you were offended, but I feel it is best to allow the person who reverted nonconstructive editors a chance to leave a notice, and if they do not, then yes, then I will sometimes leave a warning, and of course, that would be great for you to do as well. Additionally, the editor only made three edits to the Corn dog article, and yet you accidentally added a fourth and last warning for editing Corn dog. Now, please don't take this wrong, because I've run into you in reverts quite often, and you're awesome at RC patrol, but I've noticed that many times (in fact, a great many times), Twinkle will lead me to believe I "got" the revert, take me to the editor's talk page, but in fact, my revert never went through, due to someone else getting there first. I've made it a habit to double-check the article history in most cases, to be sure that someone else would not be leaving a warning, resulting in duplicate notices. This is what happened, I recognized it, and I'm sorry that you thought I was removing your warning, but I didn't want the editor to be double-warned. Sadly, it seems they did not heed my advice, and they did end up being blocked. :( Anyway, I just wanted to expand on that, I couldn't reply immediately at length, but wanted to clear it up! Thank you so much for understanding, Ariel♥Gold03:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for that, an apology is not needed from you, as you actually didn't do anything wrong! :) I, however, am apologizing for wrongly accusing you of down-grading my template, when my rvt didn't go through. thank you again for your response Ctjf83talk03:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need not apologize. I fully understand, as more than once, I've had an edit conflict and thought, Hey! lol. I think it is partly my slower ISP and laggy browser, that causes Twinkle to act like that. If it doesn't happen often to you, feel fortunate! You're lucky, lol. Ariel♥Gold03:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh be safe, my dear Moon! Have a wonderful, happy day, filled with love and friendship, family and good food. Travel safely dear! Ariel♥Gold03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm one of those people who just can't let it go, so I figured it out... I think. Please tell me if I did it correctly. Again, I'm really sorry! Night! --Daniella95 (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel, a little while ago you created a Category for me; "South Carolina-related lists". I was wondering if you would either 1) teach me how to create one myself, or 2) create another for me? I need one named "Georgia-related lists". Many thanks, Rocketmaniac (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what happened here? The font size totally changed when I saved my question. Did I do this? If so, I have no idea how I did it and did not intend to do this. Rocketmaniac (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, learning is done by "See one, do one, teach one", so I did one, the SC category, now you do one, simply go to Category:Georgia-related lists, which, yes, that's a red link, but that's okay. Edit the page, and add [[Category:Georgia]], and {{portalpar|Georgia|Flag of Georgia.svg}} at the top. This will "Create" the page. Technically, you can add pages to a non-existent category, and they will still show up, but the category link will be red until something is actually added to the category page itself. So, for things like this, just adding the portal link, and the main category, will "create" the page. Try it out and let me know if you have any problems. Ariel♥Gold19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, I did it!. Ok, now....which piece of code actually created the category? (I did it, but I need to know the process so I can do it again with a different example) Rocketmaniac (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, categories aren't created until you add a page to them. And if you add a category to a page, but don't actually put something onto the category page, it will be a red link, but that doesn't mean the page you added to that red-linked category doesn't show up, you can add hundreds of pages to a category, and never actually "create" the category page and it still will categorize them. But once you edit the category page itself, even to just add a single period, the link turns blue. Categories work differently than articles, in that they can exist without actually having anything on the page, but to keep them from being red links, you add the main category to them, and that turns the link blue. And, conversely, you can create a category page by putting something on it, but if there are no articles with that category linked, then it basically doesn't exist, it is just an empty page that does nothing. An area you may find interesting, is the categories for deletion discussions, as they will help give you a background on what exactly categories are used for, and how they function.
Categorization itself is can be a complicated matter, but the page Wikipedia:Categories might also be worth reading. Basically, if you remember back to high school biology, think of categories in the way you might think of species, there is the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, in a hierarchical organization, this is sort of what categories do. So, for example, in Category:Georgia, there are pages to counties, cities, boroughs, towns, and each of those is also a sub-category of Georgia, which is a sub-category of Category:States, and in addition to the various sub-categories related to places, you can have sub-categories related to things, like parks, schools, etc. Not sure if that answered your question, but I hope so! :) Ariel♥Gold20:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help!
I've got myself in a mess of trouble. I started working on adding "lists" to my new Category:Georgia-related lists, and while editing the "lists of newspapers for Georgia" I accidently edited a US Template. Now I can't figure out how/what to undo my mistake. Please help me before I get blocked for "VANDALISM" Rocketmaniac (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries hon, you would not be blocked for that, nor would it be called vandalism. We all make mistakes when learning, especially with templates. I simply reverted back to the revision prior to your edits, which restored the "lists of" category code. Don't worry! Holler if you need any more help, and have a nice hot cup of cocoa to sip on while you work. Ariel♥Gold21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have started back here, but there don't seem to be any requests for the subsequent accounts, or sock tags done to track the various accounts. My memory fails me, so I'm not sure I remember them all, but I found that checkuser, and this one. Maybe the real Agüeybaná will remember more, but it isn't a frequent issue, one of them crops up now and then, and is swiftly dealt with, so I wouldn't think it is a huge deal. Ariel♥Gold21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
