User talk:Philosopher/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, Philosopher, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! Chenzw  Talk  07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC-5) Getting Started How to: edit a page • write Simple English articles Getting Help Administrators • Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy The Community Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Peer review • Cleanup Other Useful templates • Stubs

Timestamps

Think you must have hit a wrong button on this edit, for some reason it changed all the timestamps to UTC-5? Archer7 - talk 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC-5)

Sorry about that - I'm not sure how it happened...disabling my javascript until I find the bug. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! For all your hard work and for being kind and thoughtful, I award you this Barnstar! — AE (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Razorflame's RfA

Hello Philosopher, and welcome to this wikipedia; your comments on Razorflame's RfA are very welcome. I am a new Bureaucrat, this is the first RfA I close. It looks like with the 100 edits (this year) I set the bar too high. You have edited here before you voted on Razorflame's RfA, your vote is about your 25th edit. For this reason, I revised my opinion. The only invalid edit in this RfA I can see is that of Swatjester (who has about 10 edits before voting here). I am really sorry for the inconvenience caused. --Eptalon (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - you've got a particularly difficult RfA to close for your first time; one of the reasons I don't intend to go through RfB for a long time, if ever. All the best. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I managed. :) - 54% support (rounded to the nearest percent), that's 11% off the required 65%. --Eptalon (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your concern on my Talk page. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Times

I don't know what's going on here but, you keep changing times, like this. Any clue what's causing that, and could you turn it off so it doesn't do that? Thanks, Either way (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not good. I've fixed it now - that script was supposed to change what I saw, not what existed on the page - I've removed it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I've fixed them all now. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated, Either way (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Philosopher, Thank you for taking part in my request for adminship, which closed as successful with 20 Supports and 1 Oppose. I will do my best for the project!
Barras (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hello. I'm a bit dismayed that you reverted my changes to Ronald Reagan. The section I deleted had no references, and was very biased I thought. 92.234.49.238 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries in the future to explain your edits. When someone removes the section about someone's presidency from the article of a president and doesn't explain why, it should be no surprise that the change will be reverted. I agree that the section isn't very good - particularly the first sentence - but since the statements aren't actually false and since they are central to the article, rather than removing them, I would recommend tagging the article with {{NPOV}} and/or making the article more neutral. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you here

Very nice to see you here now :) Great work so far on your vandalism reversions! Keep it up, and I might just support you in a future RfA! Cheers, Razorflame 20:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful

Do not rollback every change that you think is incorrect....[this] edit was probably a Russian Wikipedia user changing an interwiki link to the correct link. Please be more careful in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 06:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was changing a correct interwiki link to a page that hadn't (and still hasn't) been created. Perhaps I should have used "undo" so I could explain it, though. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wijerd Jelckama

The article in itself was good. Many people told me. But you said it had "readability issues"... I understand that. But I am not a native speaker or reader of the English language. Could you perhaps resolve those issues? Could you make the article more readable (without making it shorter)... I do not have the ability to do so. :) -'J. B. A. Evháh'- (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is mostly words like "alternatively" that are used where "also" would work. I'll fix the more obvious issues. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be great! -'J. B. A. Evháh'- (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so there aren't too many "quick fix" issues. Commenting at DYK. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You'lle comment at the DYK now? I'll be watching. -'J. B. A. Evháh'- (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

?

Why did you warn a user for making a test edit to the Sandbox? Is the Sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox not to test edits? this edit is what I am talking about. Please make sure to not warn users for testing in the sandbox in the future, as that is where testing is supposed to be done. Razorflame 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

*groan* Okay, this time you got me. He removed the "don't remove this line" line that explains what the Sandbox is ... and my anti-vandal patrol instincts kicked in. Probably shouldn't have templated him now that I think about it - I've adjusted the comment on User talk:Jodybaby73. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems :) Just wanted to let you know about this first so that you can adjust it in the future to not make any mistakes like this in the future :) Cheers, Razorflame 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually... we have a template for that purpose: {{uw-sandbox}}. Use that :). Goblin 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I read the DYK rules and all. But I did not see when it is updates? Is it updated weekly? Or every two weeks? Could you tell me, perhaps? My article on Jelckama will be on the main page, right? I mean, it is now on the DYK Next Update, so... :) J. B. A. (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's on DYK Next Update, it should appear on the main page as soon as we have a complete "set" of 5 entries. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you have an entry aswell! Looks fine man! I've read the rules and it fits all the criteria, so I am going to vote for it now! Why did you put the image with the hook at the nomination page, btw? J. B. A. (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To suggest that that image be used on the main page with its set of DYK nominations. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I voted "yes", then I put it on the "next update" page. Was that okay? I mean, since it fits all the criteria... ? I did not put the image though, there was already one image at the DYK Next Update (that of Jelckama ;) ). J. B. A. (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, as I mentioned, please don't move hooks that you have nominated or reviewed. Please wait for a "clerk" to come along... or propose another rules change. Goblin 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man, for adding the image along with the hook on Jelckama at the nominations page! That was exactly what I wanted! Since there has already been some "reviews" I guess someone will be adding it soon to the "Next Update". It can't be me, though, but perhaps you or BlueGoblin could put it on the next update page along with the image? I'm afraid it'll expire, otherwise! J. B. A. (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we will get round to it. Approved hooks never expire, hooks that expire are the ones without input. Regards, Goblin 13:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that answers my question. J. B. A. (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Google DYK

I have simplified the Google article somewhat. Can you re-review my DYK request? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kings Cross station DYK

I expanded and re-arranged it. It is no good enough for DYK, I guess. It is much more then 800 characters and looks good. Perhaps you could take a look at it, maybe you could simplify it? I havent written it myself, btw, I'm just doing some work for DYK. J. B. A. (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Clean up" on my page

Thanks for the advice.

Is there a list of cleanup templates somewhere ? I know where it is on the main English Wiki, but not on here. ThisIsAce (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. ThisIsAce (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA

I am thinking about nominating Wijerd Jelckama for GA. Do you think it has a chance? Mighty Wodan (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to ask since I'm not greatly involved in the GA process at this point. However, after a quick look-over of the article, it appears to meet the criteria. A few suggestions: source the last sentence of the article and the last paragraph of the "Rebellion" section if possible; switch the order of the pictures - the one with Jelckama in it appears to be more directly relevant to the article than the picture of his uncle's statue. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the images should be switched. Thanks for the tips. You could vote, perhaps, in favour of the article (after I've made a few improvements, from suggestions from you and others). Mighty Wodan (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About Gershwin article

How do I put this in simple terms? Hmm.....oh!

Me no care. — This unsigned comment was added by (72.230.185.92 • talk).

You don't have to care - if you don't do things here. If you do make changes here, please follow our policies. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi! Perhaps in the middle of June (now, as far as I'm concerned), I'd really like to see you go for adminship. I'd be happy to nom you; or you can self, or choose someone else. I think know you'd be a great addition to our team. All the best! fr33kman ^talk 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be honored to accept a nomination for adminship! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to nom. you as well. (Or at least a co-nomination) Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I would be honored to accept your co-nomination! I have created a (non-live) form at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher if you would like to post your nomination(s). They won't go live right away b/c I have limited internet access for a few more days, but I'll be back to "normal" before too long. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I post your RfA now? Do you still have limited access? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner (I wanted to give Fr33kman a chance to post). But I'm back and have good access again now. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated you for adminship. Please accept and transclude the page onto WP:RFA. Thanks and good luck! fr33kman ^talk 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a co-nom - hope you don't mind :). Goblin 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

No, that's fine. You know I'm chill about most things! btw: I'm adding more articles for our VGA today. I'll send your blinds in a couple of days also, I had a system crash :( fr33kman ^talk 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop...

...and look at some of the edits you have made... they are completely pointless. Especially the user space ones. Goblin 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Um...excuse me? I'm cleaning out the backlog at Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references (very nearly done). And how is making the references on a page visible - so the person reading the page can actually see what sources are used in the article - pointless? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to talk and user pages, especially one that has since been deleted. Please be more careful in future :). Regards, Goblin 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

And why don't visitors to talk or user pages want to know what's hiding behind those little numbers? :P Especially since they were mostly draft articles. I left people's sandboxes and article archives alone, btw. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)