Contents

1 Thanks for the help on the Joan Dale move request 2 London Congestion Charge 3 Only Four Days? 4 Martin2000 5 ANPR 6 Requested move 7 Reason? 8 Help? 9 Thanks 10 Request For Comment page filed to stop standard unilateral "ownership of site editing" by Violetriga 11 Thanks 12 Support 13 references 14 3RR and Irate 15 Irate arbitration 16 Ohthere 17 Thank you 18 Minimum number of votes? 19 Re: (The) Episcopal Church 20 Sanetation 21 Google Gulp 22 Arbitration request 23 Vandalism 24 Talk:Péter Cardinal Erdõ 25 Status development 26 Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch 27 User_talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment#Comments 28 Bit Harsh 29 J.A.I.L. 4 Judges &reg 30 Casual relationship 31 Round-robin tournament 32 Your Featured Template changes 33 Talk templates 34 Template change - a suggestion 35 My go at templates 36 spammed page 37 Neural Network 38 Templates 39 "Strong monochrome" templates 40 Spreading the word 41 Project templates 42 Templates based on yours? 43 Signpost 44 Fixed BR Tags 45 Template images 46 Funeral of Pope John Paul II 47 Final solution 48 User:Irate 49 Decades in music (UK) 50 Arbitration case - final decision 51 User:217.33.74.20 52 Freedom of Information Act

Thanks for the help on the Joan Dale move request

...and I respect your desision not to move it. Now that I know more about how Wikipedia works, I realize that there was no need for a move. Chyel 20:32, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

London Congestion Charge

The annoucement that the congestion charge was to be increased to £8 from July 4, 2005 was today, why did you delete the edit?

You need to remember to cite your sources – I'll sort it now. violet/riga (t) 17:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Violet, it is inappropriate to use the rollback (aka the vandalism button) just because a user, who may be new to Wikipedia, didn't cite a source. It was trivial to find a source to support the claim. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it is, but I thought it was an April fools hoax! LOL, I should've checked for news stories first. violet/riga (t) 17:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok! April 1 is indeed a more difficult day to edit on than most! Pcb21| Pete 11:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only Four Days?

I saw you changed the Schutzstaffel article to failed FAC. I point out, it was only nominated the afternoon of 28 March which was less than four days ago, if not only three. Medal of Honor was an FAC for well over two weeks (I was involoved with its rewrite too). I plan to make to the changes and resubmit it. 3-4 days is not enough time, in my opinion. -Husnock 18:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually only changed the tag from {{fac}} to {{facfailed}} - it's Raul that makes the decisions to promote or archive. Though he may have been a little quick to remove it, there's no real problem with renominating it after the changes have been made. violet/riga (t) 19:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000

I have unblocked Martin2000 (talk · contributions) because currently all the pages he was misbehaving on are protected. I may change my mind on this if he starts being a pain again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good decision, and as you say we can always block him again if required. Thanks for letting me know. violet/riga (t) 19:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ANPR

Can you explain to me why the stuff about "big brother," "data protection," and "freedom of information" stuff is relevant, but stuff about the technology's safety and the economics of its implementation are not? It seems to me like the quote I put in is at least as relevant. Thanks, Dave 19:38, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't understand your position. It seems to me that "data protection" and fear of surveillance also relate more to the way the technology is used than to the technology itself. It seems like any problem (aside from mistakes the system makes) would be excluded by your standard. I don't think it's good (or particularly neutral) to excise all critical references to the way technology is actually implemented. An extreme example that illustrates my point would be an article about nuclear weapons that doesn't mention that bombs kill people. I think that the extensive content in the article about the way police departments have used the technology means that the article is not just about the technology works and should also consider its implications. If you refuse to allow the quote (or a similar one) in, I'll have to oppose its featured status.

Also, while the article has quite a bit of information about how the technology has been implemented by the British police, it has none (or nearly none) on the United States. I think this quote would help remedy that. Dave 20:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

New Easterbrook quote in the article. It refers to "machines that issue speeding tickets and red-light tickets" without human intervention, which is clearly ANPR. Also added your privacy concerns from my talk page to the article. Hopefully this is mutually acceptable. Dave 20:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Thank you for all the work you do on requested moves. I'd like to ask your help on Michael Bilirakis. Currectly it is at Michael Bikirakis, which is a simple typo. This is partly my own fault, I'm embarrassed to say, but I can't fix it because of the history. Can you help if you have time? Jonathunder 21:44, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

No problem - done. violet/riga (t) 21:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reason?

"Reverted edits by 62.252.0.9 to last version by JeremyA"

This is an action, not a reason. Please say why you are deleting someone's work. We are all supposed to be equal here.

The edit summary is given like that when an admin uses the automated "rollback" link to undo an edit, usually vandalism. What you added to the Michael Schumacher article was against the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia and I thus removed it. violet/riga (t) 23:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, I'm Harry491 from earlier on the ANPR page. This isn't a terribly big deal (meaning I'm not interested in arbitration or anything), but I was hoping you could help me with a personal issue on Wikipedia. I'm asking you because you're an administrator, have lots of experience here, and it involves a user you've had similar issues with. On Talk:Milton Friedman#Libertarian template, user:ExplorerCDT was really nasty, calling my desire for a template on the page "silly" and my attempt to resolve it with a vote "bullshit," then threatening me with policies about pushing my views and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (even though I had only acted on the talk page since he made his objection known!).

My question is how I should best deal with people like this. I'm fairly new here, but I really enjoy it and want to contribute, but I get really frustrated when something like this happens (it's not the first time: see Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron for another example). What's the best way to deal with people like that and not get too frustrated?

Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 02:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want anyone to arbitrate this... that will just make it worse. But thanks for the advice.

Thanks

Thanks for moving Capitalism.org. I had tried to do it myself, but it didn't work. It makes a lot more sense here. Dave (talk) 17:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request For Comment page filed to stop standard unilateral "ownership of site editing" by Violetriga

I am filing a RfC page against you with a view to getting you de-sysopped as you unilaterally act as if you own the right exclusively to edit the site. As numerous complaints against you here testify. Anyone interested is requested to file their complaints against Violetriga on the RfC page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comment/Violetriga Kreen

By all means progress with that if you think that is the best course of action. Usually better to discuss things beforehand, but each to their own. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for your attempt to vote for my adminship. I appreciate the thought. ;) - BanyanTree 20:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem - sorry I didn't get there in time! :) violet/riga (t) 20:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

No problem; sorry that you're being targeted by so many problem users at the moment (unless they're all sockpuppets of course...) — Matt Crypto 20:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

references

I found that if you ask Mozzerati nicely, he will fix the references himself/herself. See libertarianism, which he did earlier today for me. Good luck. Dave (talk) 23:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

One problem is though that I don't really like footnotes, preferring the currently-implemented method. I don't see it as a major objection anyway and it won't stop ANPR becoming featured (that'll be down to too few votes!). Thanks for the suggestion though. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR and Irate

Hi Violetriga. You will no doubt be aware of Irate's VfDing of your user page. When I blocked him under the 3RR, he demanded to know if I had blocked the other users involved. As a result of this, I listed both you and Matt Crypto on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, so that the other admins could give their opinions. Thankfully, the consensus on that page is that you were well within your rights to revert your own user page. Maybe I should have told you that you were up there earlier... anyway if Irate causes any more similar problems, don't hesitate to contact me. - Mark 01:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm on WikiEn-L and watch AN/3RR so I knew about it anyway - thanks for your handling of the situation, which was absolutely great. violet/riga (t) 09:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irate arbitration

You may not be aware of this, but I believe I was the first person "honoured" with having his User page put on VfD by User:Irate: [1] You might want to add that to your list of user pages Irate has put up for VfD on the Smoddy evidence page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll add that in! violet/riga (t) 09:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I've had the diffs lying around for some time. I'd like the evidence to be logically structured for arbitrators, so I wouldn't mind if one of you incorporated some of these events into your evidence in the forthcoming RfAr. The user has a clear pattern of discourteous behaviour. Grouping similar problems together is more powerful, I think. Cool Hand Luke 10:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best organization would be chronological sections, one listing all personal attacks, one listing all VfDs on user pages, one listing other behaviours. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When RFAr progresses I'll set it out like that - best way, I agree. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ohthere

Thanks for moving the page :).--Wiglaf 20:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) violet/riga (t) 20:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minimum number of votes?

Is there a minimum number of "Support" votes needed to approve a nomination? Would two "Support" votes count as the necessary "consensus," if they were the only votes? Rad Racer | Talk 12:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raul makes the decision based on consensus voting. To avoid instruction creep there isn't a set number of minimum votes, but based on previous candidates I would say that around 5 supports with no major objections is the usual minimum. violet/riga (t) 12:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's why there isn't a set period for this page. Some articles take longer to get the necessary number of votes, and get left up here longer. →Raul654 14:09, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Well I guess it's not a big deal, since there's no firm time limit on FACs. If something doesn't get enough votes in a week, I imagine it would just stay there till it did. Rad Racer | Talk 14:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: (The) Episcopal Church

Cool, I didn't even think of that. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] 18:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sanetation

Thank you for your kind award. which I assume stems from my weighty contributions regarding bathroom hygiene and sanitation accessories, a subject always close to my heart, and sadly undervalued by so many. I shall endeavour to always provide some humour around the site however warped it may at times appear. Thanks Giano | Talk 18:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google Gulp

Sorry for blanking out my page! I'm new to Wikietiquette. I like the larger size for the Google Gulp bottles because you can see the design better, and it's kinda more attention grabbing. Thanks. If they look too big on your browser you might want to consider changing the resolution or text size on your PC--Mb1000 03:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration request

The case relating to you requested by User:Spinboy has been rejected by the arbitration committee. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 23:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Recently, blanked Black Death, a page I've worked on. Upon investigation, every edit this user has made, starting in December, has been vandalism. He or she has replaced chunks of text with vandalism and personal attacks at George W. Bush, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Joseph Stalin, Stupidity, Black Power, and others. Never been blocked as far as I can tell. Can you do anything about this vandal? --Dmcdevit 01:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the vandalism is so infrequent I think a warning (as was placed there today) should be sufficient for now. I'll watch the contributions for any more vandalism and sort them out – thanks for the warning. violet/riga (t) 10:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Péter Cardinal Erdõ

Please see Talk:Péter Cardinal Erdõ I have tried to list the diffrent options. Please make sure that my cut and past job reflects your position. Philip Baird Shearer 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Status development

It's starting to look promising. Do you have a top and bottom to finish of the borders? Also, this may be hard for newbies to implement. Any idea on how to help them? Don't forget to add categories if you start using it and I would recommend only to use it on new articles. It may be too hard to trace back the history of certain old articles to make a complete and accurate status table. Mgm|^(talk) 16:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. I think should ask the community what they think and see what happens. Mgm|^(talk) 16:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch

The intent of this project page is stated as "Part of the campaign to include school articles."

I would like to see the intent refined to state "A campaign to ensure that articles on notable scools are allowed to develop on Wikipedia". However, I am checking with you as the establisher of the page to ensure that offence will not be taken.

I appreciate there are different perspectives from the range - all school articles should go, to all schools are notable and therefore any article on a school should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia and develop. I am in the middle range, unless notability is established and the article justifies that notability, I am not sure the wikipedia entry should survive, particularly if it can be rolled back into a locality article as per Jordan Middle School which can be rolled back into the education section of Palo Alto, California.

For your consideration, Regards --AYArktos 19:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment#Comments

I've added another comment.

No problem. "Princess Charles" is not exactly an intuitive naming system! - Nunh-huh 11:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bit Harsh

its harsh not being able to swear! User:B1link82

Perhaps, but there is a no personal attacks policy here. violet/riga (t) 17:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges &reg

Hi Violet:

Thanks for fixing the title to the page. The organization is known by its registered acronym of J.A.I.L. 4 Judges &reg . Sometimes this confuses people, who try to make it into Jail 4 Judges, which is incorrect.

Thanks! Agwiii 19:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you missed the talk page when doing the move. I fixed it by moving following the chain of redirects. --cesarb 19:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Casual relationship

Well, I merged the 2 articles the best I could. Actually I noticed the whole "love/intimate relationship" set of topics on WP is a bit of a mess, there is certainly more potentital for merger and cleanup. Too bad it's not quite my area of expertise. :) -Ld | talk 20:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Round-robin tournament

Hi; I'm a bit confused about the reason for not moving: "This is a page merge not a move." I had already done a merge+redirect when I nominated. (One of the supporters subsequently undid the redirect, but not the merge, on the basis that it hadn't been voted on yet.) I could cut&paste all of Round-robin (sports) over Round-robin tournament and just leave a redirect, but I didn't want to confuse their respective histories, which is why I wanted admin help in the first place. Should it be under Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page#Swapping_two_pages ? Seems a bit longwinded for a redirect. Joestynes 10:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was caught up in something else and haven't had chance to reply. I'll look into the situation this evening. violet/riga (t) 12:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Featured Template changes

For clarity, I am responding to this message from you on my Talk page: >>Please talk about the change rather than forcing your views. Go to User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment or Template talk:featured and discuss your objection. It is very easy to change the text (which I believe is an improvement) and the new style works better when coupled with other relevant templates. I've reverted once again and will see any further enforcement of your viewpoint as bullish and a bad faith edit. violet/riga (t) 10:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)<<

I notice you have quite a habit of saying others are editing in bad faith but perhaps it's time to hold up the mirror? It is obvious that more people dislike your "improved" template than like it, yet you just keep reverting to get your way. In fact, you are now in clear violation of the 3RR on Template:Featured and, if I'm in the mood for it tomorrow, I will be alerting some sort of Arbitrator to that fact. The people who have given you encouraging feedback on User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment were responding to the idea of improved templates, not to your specific attempt at an improvement. That attempt has met with reverts from two users (which is why you needed to break the 3RR) and a negative vote on Template talk:featured by User:RoyBoy who says "Poor layout issues... could you elaborate? Because the current version ain't an improvement from my POV." In short, your new templates are not appealing and you need to try again, gain a real consensus for them and only then hit the Save button.

Oh wait. I just re-read the 3RR. It says "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." So you have reverted 3 times, but not more, so far. I will now revert for my 3rd time, so a retaliatory revert from you now will clealy be a violation. I know your steam is probably up, but you still have a chance to avoid discipline. Just settle back, ask people what they don't like about your version and take it from there. JDG 10:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk templates

While I agree that the idea behind your changes are very good, I don't think an edit war will help this issue at all, so I won't revert the featured template. This is not a very minor change IMO, and I think that there should be more discussion about it first. I noticed your project just because I have one of the templates you changed on my watchlist, so maybe you should get more attention (through the village pump or goings-on for example) on your idea before you implement it. --Conti|✉ 13:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a poll could help to gather some consensus here, polls usually bring alot of discussion with them. ;-) Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the idea at all, the only thing people can (and apparently did) complain about is the design, and that can be changed in the future anyways. --Conti|✉ 18:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help out/mediate a bit here. It seems that everyone likes your idea, just not everyone likes the design of the idea. So, maybe we should first get a good design everyone likes before the templates can be changed accordingly. --Conti|✉ 19:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template change - a suggestion

Copied from User talk:Raul654

I like Violet's idea. Do you think it's a good idea to hold a poll/vote over the idea and if it passes have a design contest? This way both Violet and JDG get what they want. Overall look would be more consistent and JDG could suggest another look. And not in the least, we'd have a wider consensus. Mgm|^(talk) 19:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

My go at templates

Hi Violetriga, I'm a fan of your proposal to have a new template look for articles. I've had my own go at making versions of these templates, they are at User:Talrias/Templates. Your feedback is welcomed. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 16:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're watching the talk page for my go at the templates, but just to be on the safe side, I've made some changes (see the talk page for details). Talrias (t | e | c) 16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

spammed page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#History

Neural Network

thanks for moving the page and for starting the "non-disamb page". Ben (talk) 06:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Not a problem - I could see that the weight of comments were negative and wanted to address the balance a little. Much as it may pain you, though, I think the best approach would probably be to revert to the old templates for a while (bad as they are, compared to your suggestions) and discuss the proposed changes to reach a consensus, hard as that may be. Although I appreciate your dediction, edit warring is not going to achive much in the long run other than heartache for the participants. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take your friend's sensible advice. JDG 11:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would make me the better person. violet/riga (t) 11:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Strong monochrome" templates

Hiya, me again. :) I have just one suggestion for this template system. Perhaps you could try having the size of the capital letters column for each template be the same width? I do like the idea of the "categories" for the different templates. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spreading the word

Hey there, nice going with the template standardisation. Would you mind if I'd announce it on goings-on? :-) --Conti|✉ 20:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I guessed so. Better being safe than sorry. ;-) --Conti|✉ 20:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Project templates

When the winning style is decided, please make sure and are updated to match. Hrm... I suppose I have to find some nifty icon for them.... :) - UtherSRG 20:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Templates based on yours?

Hi, I think standarizing the talk page templates is a good idea. I like your "strong monochrome" ones the best, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind me "forking" that one, making a few changes and submitting it. Thought it would be nice to ask first. (I would start from scratch, but I've only just started learning HTML.) Probably they will be here.

Basically I'd just be switching certain font styles -- specifically I think it would look good if a few things on Wikipedia were in a serif font. Zach 22:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that whatsoever. That is my favourite at the moment, and I've been trying to think of slight variations of it, so it'd be great to see what someone else could come up with based on them. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I'm almost done with them now. Zach 23:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signpost

Do you think you can summarize the process that brought the template standardization contest into being into a nice NPOV article for the Signpost? Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'll work on that. violet/riga (t) 10:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It'll need a little fine-tuning, but it's pretty good already. I'll run a final version past you after I've finished editing it myself. Mgm|^(talk) 17:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed BR Tags

Hi Violet, Talrias turned me onto your work with CSS. anyway, I was sifting through your coding, and I noticed that all of your br tags were actually not corret for XHTML. there is supposed to be a space between the letters "br" and the backslash. I fixed that, hope you don't mind. it just helps some browsers to recognize it easier, but would have worked anyway without the space. Hope you don't mind -- Zeerus (ETCWFD) 20:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate it – I did them all and forgot to change them over. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 20:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I've been coding HTML since I was 10 years old, and I started learning CSS and XHTML two years ago, when I was 12, so it all comes naturally to me, and I just fix it as I see it. BTW, the template standardisaiton is looking pretty good. I would submit my own, but I don't have much time on my hands. I think Coffee Roll by ClockworkTroll is the best so far. it's simple, and has nice graphics. -- Zeerus (ETCWFD) 20:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm too used to Dreamweaver nowadays (forced into it), losing my Notepad coding roots. Thanks for the comments about WP:TS – I agree that Coffee Roll looks very good. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ugh, I hate Dreamweaver. mostly because it adds its own coding in, which can distort page views in browsers, but I also despise it because of usability issues. I'm an Adobe person. But when I code, I do everything by hand, just to make sure I do it correctly. I can imagine that you'll have quite a few barnstars after the WP:TS is over. I know I'll be awarding you with one. Which reminds me, I was thinking about creating a barnstar for design and creativity, as far as user pages and templates go. I'll have to make up a design and submit it for review. -- Zeerus (ETCWFD) 20:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template images

Hey there. I'm very much liking your Coffee Roll template scheme. I've borrowed your image organisation for my new "Obvious" scheme – I hope you don't mind. violet/riga (t) 21:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Heya Violet! It's fine with me. I'll be happy as long as we end up with a set of templates that are both aesthetic and functional. :) – ClockworkSoul 23:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funeral of Pope John Paul II

I noticed that you added the failed FA banner on the top of the talk page of the above-mentioned article. I actually didn't even know that it was nominated for a Featured article status, since it's clearly not ready, and I just put it on peer review about a day ago. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to put the review banner back on the top of the article? Thanks. 03:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sure - go for it. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. Thanks. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk random} 20:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Final solution

Heya, Violet. Just a head's up: I'm not sure that the name "Final solution" will be terribly well received by some people. – ClockworkSoul 19:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, oops, good point! Forgot about that. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 19:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, close one! It's all good, now though. :) – ClockworkSoul 21:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Irate

Hi, Violetriga. I just want to say thanks for dealing with the Irate arbitration case. It looks like it's coming to a fairly satisfactory solution now. It's a shame, though, that an editor like Irate, who clearly did have some regard for the project, has refused to listen to reason. Anyway, cheers again. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 20:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. The case is almost over and, while I don't like such measures, I think the decision looks to be the correct one. violet/riga (t) 14:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decades in music (UK)

I was thinking, as an introduction, we could have a page for the decades of music such as 1990s in music (UK) with links to the year in music (UK) pages from the decade. The page could summarise the trends of music during the decade, notable artists, singles, albums, chart records, musical events and other things that would allow the reader to almost read a summary of the 10 pages that the page would link to plus the additional information that is irrelevant to a year in music (UK) page. There are many decade pages on music, but most are either global or not very detailed, and I feel they would explain things quite well. Having them for just the UK allows the article to display popular trends and popular artists specific to the UK that had massive impact here, but not globally. The actual article itself does not have to be very long; a few paragraphs on trends, a few paragraphs on artists, singles, albums & events and links to the year in music (UK) pages plus also the Number 1 Singles from x (UK) if the re-structure for those pages is done. Please let me know what you think. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 22:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea – music is often looked at in decades and it should make for a good article to summarise that timeframe. Great suggestion. violet/riga (t) 14:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to User:Irate. He is to be banned from Wikipedia for three months. Should he return after this time, and the committee receives further complaints of personal attacks, we may apply a personal attack parole for up to one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 21:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you put a message on the talkpage of the anon above to report any vandalism by that IP to you. Well, he created 1981 Milan Furniture Fair which contained no more than the word "crap". It's probably deleted by the time you read this. Sjakkalle 08:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've checked and it wasn't someone in this place – damn shared IPs. violet/riga (t) 09:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act

You may remember some time ago I nominated that Freedom of Information Act was moved to Freedom of Information Act (United States) so that the former page could become a disambigation page. it ewas eventually decided that Freedom of Information Act would become a redirect to Freedom of information legislation. User:Neutrality appears to have unilaterally decided to reverse this by deleting the redirect page and moving Freedom of Information Act (United States) back to Freedom of Information Act. Jooler 07:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last updated: 05-27-2005 23:08:43