List of Albanian football transfers summer 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Solar energy. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation Case

The Mediation Case involving Solar energy has been opened, I will be mediating the case for Medcom, please review Mediation Policy to understand the intent of this process and then post an initial statement at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Solar_energy#Discussion. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hagardom.jpeg

Oops, I must be blind. Of course it's on commons... enochlau (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured they must have "intended" to have put it onto commons - and found it quickly on my first guess. Apteva (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Atlanta, Georgia

Unfortunately, Atlanta, Georgia is not the "largest Southern city" as you noted in your recent edit. While the population within city boundaries is in fact the densest in the southeast (and I recently added verbiage explaining that fact to the lead paragraph), the almost bizarrely small city limits of Atlanta proper make it only the sixth largest city in the region. If all the various nearby suburbs were included, Atlanta would easily dwarf the others, since it is, as the article notes, a poster child of urban sprawl. Todd Vierling (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is if you include the metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you added the "largest Southern city" link to the city limits population number of 486411, not the metropolitan area population number (which already has a link noting Atlanta's 9th-in-the-country status). That given, Atlanta isn't the largest Southern metropolitan area, either. That status would go to either DFW or Miami depending on your definition of "South" (and I won't address the colloquially hot topic of whether Florida is "Southern" here). I've been to both areas personally, and they're pretty bad when it comes to metro-urban sprawl too. Todd Vierling (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Texas and Florida are definitely not Southern states. Try driving through the south if you doubt me. Apteva (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From an encyclopedia standpoint, as far as census statistics go, they are. As I noted above, the definition of "South" is not up for debate here (I grew up in Florida and live in Atlanta today; I do understand what you're saying). Population numbers come from census stats, and those same census stats define regions, and by those stats, all of Dallas, Houston, and Miami are larger than Atlanta in the "South". Even if you think that's somewhat cold and impersonal, that's what appropriately goes in an encyclopedia. Todd Vierling (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive response appreciated

I just wanted to say I appreciated your most recent and positive response at Solar energy. I have been (and could be) very critical of some of your past contributions when you were a relatively new user, but we try not to do that here. Your enthusiasm for solar energy is a valuable contribution to the project, but it is important that this is channeled through Wikipedia's policies. In this spirit cooperation is far more effective than confrontation and I am working towards this end. Please contact me if I can help in any way. Thanks again for embracing the cooperative spirit. Geometry guy 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that I am a lot more pragmatic than you make me out to be. As you will often hear people say, I'd run my tractor on pig manure if that was what was most practical. Except they use shorter words. So it isn't really that I'm enthusiastic as that it's the only game in town - coal and nuclear are very limited and have horrendous side effects, oil is quickly running out, natural gas is even more limited... There actually is more solar available than I realized, now that I look at the article, and its references. It's a pretty interesting subject. You know it's funny, when I was doing a book search I found an encyclopedia from 1882 that said that when the world ran out of coal it had an endless supply of solar energy it could use... Apteva (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatism is good. You may be right that solar is the only game in town, but not everyone agrees, and Wikipedia has to be scrupulously neutral about that. Some say nuclear has a role to play, and not necessarily fission: there's fusion too, maybe even in an essentially clean form using tritium. Others argue that the market will favour the most economic sources at any time, and non-renewables still have quite a bit of life in them. I lean towards your view and agree that it is an interesting subject. However, the bottom line here is policy: fair representation of all points of view, no original research, and all that jazz. Getting Solar energy featured on the main page would be a good thing, in my view, but that means making it into a compelling, carefully balanced, and beautifully sourced article. Geometry guy 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The word crime has multiple meanings, one being "any serious wrongdoing". Yet crime is rampant in many societies. To willfully disrupt the life of billions of people and thousands of species - even causing their extinction, could probably be considered a crime, whether there is any law against it or not. Yet that is what our "most economic" choice would provide. In the Nocera paper he states that the nuclear option would require building a 1,000 MW reactor every 1.6 days for the next 45 years, but we would run out of fuel for them in 30 years... Climatologists say we have 7 years to fix global warming (although in my opinion "fix" means restore to 1850 levels of CO2, not "stabilize at twice today's levels"), so don't even think of looking to something that would take 50 years to develop (fusion). The Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association says (and pardon their English, but their meaning is clear) "The 21st century must be a century of widespread use of solar energy, which is to be the foregone conclusion on social development and cannot be transferred by any people's volition." Unfortunately society doesn't have the means to protect themselves from themselves in many situations. I remember someone saying that Wikipedia doesn't predict the future, it documents the past. However, if you have documentation that you are on a dead end path, there is no reason to not report that. As to "but not everyone agrees", I'm not really concerned about that. There are people who think the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, too. This article is no where near as controversial as some, like the global warming article. I wholeheartedly agree that it would be great to have the article on the main page, but I think its biggest shortfalls right now are that it is poorly written, lacks citations (which can be solved just by deleting the affected paragraphs), and is way, way too long. It has, for example, sub-paragraphs of sub-articles. What's up with that? Just delete them and put them into the sub-articles. Anyway, my biggest strength is fact checking, so I'll keep an eye out to see that the article is factual. Apteva (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with many of your views. However crime prevention is not Wikipedia's goal. A better statement than "Wikipedia documents the past" is "Wikipedia documents the current state of knowledge according to reliable sources". If reliable sources state that society is on a dead end path, then Wikipedia can report it; otherwise, that's outside our mission.

My own view is that mixed solutions are inevitable, just as different types of solar energy use have individual applications. Nuclear is not the ultimate global solution, but it has worked quite well for France, just as secondary solar sources (wind and hydro) have worked quite well for Scandinavia. I think you are a bit down on economics: carbon taxes and other incentives can be used to motivate more solar use; peak oil is going to kill off most non-renewables within only very few years now. Solar is clearly the long term solution in my view and yours. But it isn't the job of Wikipedia to advocate our views, whether we agree or disagree.

I admire your conviction, and your help with fact checking will be invaluable. Lets work on fixing sourcing and structural issues. As I state on the talk page, the article is not "way, way too long". However, that does not mean it has the right content: some material should be spun out, some should be added. In the process, however, material which is not supported by reliable sources has to be reworked or removed. Geometry guy 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was only suggesting that WP should document what we know, from RSs. After all, there are people who actually use WP as a primary source. I would estimate that this is still less than 10% of the population, though. Apteva (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumptions

There is an ongoing presumption that you and User:Oakwillow are the same editor, and that you have carried on where IP addresses 199.125.209.x left off. You have not denied these presumptions, as far as I am aware. Is this correct? If so, why do you use more than one account to edit? Multiple accounts are allowed, as long as they don't violate policy: in particular, it would be helpful if you provided user page links between all the accounts you use.

Another presumption: you seem to believe (if I have understood several subtexts) that User:Mrshaba's edits are motivated by employment, or favour towards the nuclear industry. I don't see any evidence of that, and it seems to be colouring your approach to editing Solar energy. Do you have any evidence you wish to share. You can email me if you prefer. Geometry guy 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba has accused me of being a sock of multiple other editors. Anonymity dictates that I will never confirm nor deny any of these accusations. As ti byckear oiwer oops, need to move hands over, as to nuclear power, I do think it odd that as soon as I made the accusation, Mrshaba quickly deleted his userpage (don't worry, I saved a copy). I do always give people the benefit of the doubt, but his ownership of the solar energy page is blatant. Apteva (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You have the option to confirm or deny whether you are User:Oakwillow. If this comes to a checkuser, it will look much better if you have confirmed any accounts you control. Don't worry about saving pages: I've checked out the background already (yours too), and read Mrshaba's deleted user page some time ago. I find no evidence for your implicit accusation that his edits are motivated by employment, or indeed by any favour towards the nuclear industry. I suggest you retract or remove any such comments you have made now and reflect hard upon whether your editing pattern is compatible with the spirit of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whatever happened to not biting the newbie? As to a retraction, I already gave the response that I now believe that to not be the case, what more are you looking for? Apteva (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're an experienced editor and I wasn't biting. Anyway, that last sentence is a step in the right direction. If you do use other accounts or IP addresses, another useful step would be to read the policy on alternative accounts and make sure that your contributions are compatible with it. Geometry guy 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is always a little give and take between the cabal and the anti-cabal - however, I believe that if you wanted to create other accounts you would be free to do so, as long as you did not use any of those accounts inappropriately. Several examples of legitimate reasons for creating additional accounts are provided at wp:sock. Apteva (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability template

Hi and thanks for the note about the above. I've left some thoughts about it on the TfD page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock Case

I started a sock puppet case against you. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Apteva. Mrshaba (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Solar energy. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Apteva (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There were no warnings, not even a notification that a complaint had been made at WP:ANI, certainly by Mrshaba or his meatpuppet Skyemoor who is simply gaming the system to use his version of a file even though it has serious problems.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain attacks or accusations against others are not acted upon; see WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  07:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Don't edit reviewed unblock requests or this page will be protected.  Sandstein  07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the instructions said that I could revise my reason at any time. However, if you prefer I will add a revised request.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Apteva (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There were no warnings, not even a notification that a complaint had been made at WP:ANI. 3RR is not mechanically applied, and I certainly would never have committed it if I felt that my actions were inappropriate. I would request that a page that is under dispute be discussed, though, and I did feel that it was appropriate to revert to a consensus version while the page was under discussion. Please see Talk:Solar energy#Lead section for my attempt to resolve the problems with the page. If it helps any I will agree to edit other pages for 24 hours, although I would hope that restriction not necessary. My reason for editing Wikipedia is to fix things that are hopelessly wrong, which is why I do a lot of WP:RCP

Decline reason:

This was definitely a 3RR violation, and this certainly seems to be edit warring to me. You posted a comment on the talk page, but then insistently reverted to your preferred version. Your claim that this was the "consensus version" can't really be justified when you were the only one backing it at the time. Whether or not you got a specific warning doesn't matter, because they are only encouraged, not actually required. Mangojuice^talk 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Warnings are encouraged for a good reason - if you see someone making 2 or 3 reverts and warn them you will 90% of the time see them cease and desist and go on to continue to productively participate in the WP project. I view all users of WP as potential aids in developing a good encyclopedia, even the incorrigible. A vandal only account can be blocked without warning, but if you have someone who is contributing productively, a warning is better than a block, which is highly disruptive, and very antagonistic. What actually happened is not as you portray it but it is all water under the dam by now as the block has expired anyway. In my case probably 90% of my time is spent researching edits, so I haven't lost a lot of edit time over the 24 hours as I have been spending my time looking for vandalism and making a list of edits to make. I don't antagonize easily - I'm one of those who are able to keep a cool head no matter what happens. I did note however that in the instructions on 3RR it states that "Where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides fairly." Since there were three editors involved all three should have been warned, or blocked, much to the chagrin of the participant in the edit war who filed the 3RR notice. Apteva (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that you reverted 4 times while the other two editors reverted 2 times each. So, only you violated the rule. Mangojuice^talk 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets are counted as one editor. Skyemoor since then has proceeded to revert 2 more times when I attempted to edit the article, after setting up the sandbox, which ironically Skyemoor suggested, and Itsmejudith and myself agreed to. Apteva (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop slinging the meatpuppet allegation. These editors are separate people with long histories of Wikipedia editing. Just because they agree doesn't make them meatpuppets. Mangojuice^talk 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidently the term is "tag team", not meatpuppet, but the effect is the same. I'm working on the article and they are just hitting undo. Apteva (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

Note to User:Skyemoor and others. Please proceed to create a sandbox for the lead section. In the meantime, until a new lead section is agreed to, by a minimum by myself, Skyemoor, Itsmejudith, and Mrshaba, please also restore the lead to the last consensus version,[1] which is not "my version", it is simply the last version before Mrshaba changed the lead. If you look, there were less than a dozen problems with the version proposed by Mrshaba, and if Mrshaba had followed policy and discussed those problems instead of insisting that no one knew how to use the history tab and insisting that his version stay visible in the article "Let other editors have a say." in an edit summary, totally ignoring the fact that the article has a talk page. Had Mrshaba followed procedure and addressed the problems on the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war with myself and Skyemoor the problems could have easily been resolved long ago.

Note to Itsmejudith - the solar energy article is about how we get solar power from the sun, not the effects of the sun on the earth, which are covered by other articles. So the fact that we feel heat from the sun is not relevant to solar energy, other than in an anecdotal manner (wow those solar hot water panels must be working well today, I can feel the heat of the sun on my face).

Note to Mrshaba and Itsmejudith, please work on the lead in a sandbox, not in the article. Trying to get me blocked and then making an unpopular edit is a favorite trick of Mrshaba's. Don't do it. It isn't "your" article.

And please, "many 1000s of orders of magnitude"? It takes less than 100 orders of magnitude to describe the ratio of anything from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest known universe with any parameter. A fact quickly learned by anyone using a calculator that "only" goes to 100 orders of magnitude (to ten to the plus or minus 99), and wonders will that really be enough for my work? Apteva (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Jaysweet: Solar energy was rejected from being a GA only because the lead section was too short. Apteva (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva, please don't escalate problems by making accusations. You've been accused yourself, of having a sockpuppet. That's serious - is it true? No way do I want to own this article. I am really pleased to have other knowledgeable people around - the pleasure of collaborative editing is why I stick around on this encyclopedia. The point above about feeling the heat of the sun was part of an argument why I thought "heat and light" was not inappropriate. As I've said "light and radiant heat" is fine by me. Using a sandbox for the lead could be a good idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The only one who has ever been legitimately complained as thinking they WP:OWN the article is the WP:SPA Mrshaba. You should know that. And using a sandbox for the lead is an excellent idea. I do think that {{discuss}} should be added at the end of the lead as an unobtrusive request for input to the lead. Apteva (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva, could you point me to a diff or permalink where the GA reviewers said the lede for Solar energy was too short? I frankly would be shocked if they were just like, "Two paragraphs? FAIL!" In fact, if that's the case, I'ma get after 'em ;) I am guessing it is more likely that they thought it didn't contain enough information, in which case seeing their comments could be a useful guide for those working on the article to help improve the lede. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a sec, I'm working on something else. My recollection is that at the time it had one paragraph and we were advised that for an article > 30,000 characters it should have 3 or 4. Apteva (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. Just click on the list of GA rejections. The first one is the one I was referring to.[2] Apparently at the time there was only one paragraph and they waited a week for someone to add at least a 2nd or 3rd before rejecting the nom. I do believe that the topic has so many subjects that 3 paragraphs is clearly justified. Apteva (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Skyemoor: So everyone else can edit the lead and you auto revert any changes that I make? What a hypocrite. The most serious problems with the lead are 1) it does not mention solar power, which is actually what the article is about, 2) that it is only 2 paragraphs, and 3) that it uses the inappropriate 99% (99.7%), when it needs to say "most" instead, as discussed many times before. Apteva (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit help

{{helpme}}

What's a template that says something like "this section is under discussion - see talk page" with a link to the proper talk section? I found {{discuss}} but that seems to be more for a questionable statement, not an entire section. Thanks in advance. Apteva (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find the template you're looking for at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, or possibly elsewhere at Wikipedia:Template messages; all the messages seem to indicate why the section's under discussion, though, rather than just that it is. Hope that helps! --ais523 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You have been a fantastic help. I suppose that if I can't find what I am looking for I can just add yet another. After all, if I'm looking for it surely others will want it as well. In general I view WP as a fairly mature project with well developed tools, but there are always exceptions. Apteva (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lady Gaga The fame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lady Gaga The fame.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Psychology sidebar

Why did you make these edits? On the surface of it, it looks like vandalism (removing the RfC statement and the link to the template that is important for users who see it on the main RfC-science list). You called it "fix link", but in reality it removed an important link. But before calling it vandalism, I'll wait for your explanation. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can try to re-fix it, I was simply making the link from the rfc link to the correct section on the talk page. No it wasn't vandalism. You will note that it is useless to include a link to the template from the talk page for the template. Apteva (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note, however, that when an RfC is set up, the link also goes on the RfC-sci list, which you botched up when you made your edit. A link in an RfC heading is more than a link on that particular talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I came from the RFC list. I clicked on the link and it went to the wrong place because it had been set up incorrectly. All I did was fix it. I see no reason for a link to the template and the talk page for the template. As I said you are welcome to make any fix you deem necessary, but there is a bot that makes the list on RFCsci, so it can be difficult to get the fix to work properly. What they had done wrong was make a subject heading that included RFC: and told the bot that the subject heading did not include RFC: Apteva (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry but you're wrong. Your edit removed the link to the template talk page from the RfC list. When you click the link on the RfC list, it goes to the top of the talk page, and then you must scroll down. I think I'll have to re-list it to get it back on the RfC list. No problem. Everyone makes mistakes. Just pointing it out so you don't make the same mistake twice. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked again and it's back on the list. All is well. Ward3001 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be very frustrating dealing with the bot. You make an RFC and it never shows up, you manually add it and the bot removes it, etc. You do realize, I hope that when you "restored important information", you simply broke it again? I will fix it again, this time by only fixing the section heading so that the bot and the section heading agree. Apteva (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No!!!! The link is on the list. Don't change anything. It is exactly the way it was when I set up the RfC, which is the way I wanted it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see now that you are the very same editor who broke it to begin with by telling the bot one subject title and using another. The easiest way to fix it, and I will let you do it, is to change the beginning of the section heading from "==RfC: Should " to "==Should ". When you click on a link in an RFC you are supposed to go to the proper section in the talk page, not to the top, which only happens if the {{RFCsci}} template is not correctly filled out with the proper section title. If you wish to retain RfC: in the section heading, good luck fighting with the bot to get it changed in the RFC list. Apteva (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, please, take my word for it. It is set up exactly the way I set it up to begin with. Please leave it as it is. I don't have to fight with the bot. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making it very hard for someone to help you by responding to the RFC - they can't find the RFC as easily. You are also wasting an awful lot of typing to type in a very long section that is not going to be used at all because you didn't type all of it in - you would have gotten the same results by leaving it blank or leaving it as section=section. So in both cases I fail to see any method to your endeavor. Apteva (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, but the RfC is set up as I originally set it up. I put the link to the sidebar in the RfC title so someone who arrives at the RfC on the talk page can click to see what the sidebar looks like. If you'll read the debate, a major issue is how large the sidebar should be, so I set it up that way to give editors a way to get a quick look at the sidebar before commenting. That may not fit into your view of how things should be, but it's the way I chose to set it up. I hope you and I can end this peacefully without having to set up another RfC to discuss how the original RfC should be set up. I appreciate your concern for getting things "by the book", but I have chosen a slightly different approach. If you disagree, that's fine, but I personally think that is splitting hairs. So I hope you'll leave things as they are, although obviously I don't own either the RfC or the talk page, so I can't stop you from making changes. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it that I am not talking about the link to the template, do you? That was not what led me to make the edit. I went to RFCsci and clicked on the link and it took me - no where - no RFC, just a talk page. So I fixed the link so that anyone who did the same would actually find the RFC. It has nothing to do with doing things by the book. As I said, in my edit summary, I was fixing a link. The link in the RfC, right now, is to Template talk:Psychology sidebar#Should_Occupational_health_psychology_be_included_in_Template:Psychology_sidebar, which goes nowhere, because there is no section with that name. What it should go to is Template talk:Psychology sidebar#RfC:_Should_Occupational_health_psychology_be_included_in_Template:Psychology_sidebar. Or you can change the section name. Either one. Try clicking on the two links and I hope you will see what I mean. Apteva (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes I get it. I have gotten it for the last several messages. I understand exactly how you think it should be. That is not my point. Please re-read my previous message about how I changed things from the way they normally would be. I fully understand that is not perfectly "by the book". I get it. I had reasons for what I did, reasons that are becoming painfully obvious to me that you don't agree with. And I accept that you don't agree, but that doesn't change my mind about how I would like for the RfC to be set up.

What I don't get, however, is why you are carrying on this seemingly endless debate over whether clicking the link goes to the specific RfC section or to the top of the talk page. But I will accept that the specific point in the page to which the link takes someone is extremely important to you even though it is trivial to me. Like I said, I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, I just don't understand why you demand that the RfC be set up precisely the way you want it (which I acknowledge is the way an RfC is usually set up).

So I do get exactly what you are referring to, but I don't get your motivation. Can we just leave it at that, or do you plan to edit the talk page to get it exactly the way you want it despite the fact that it differs from the way I want it? If that's your decision, things will just have to go the way they go. Nothing personal, but there are many, many more important things on Wikipedia than this (not to mention life in general), so this is my last message on your talk page about this matter. Thank you for your concerns. Ward3001 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is if you wanted people to go to the top of the talk page you could have saved yourself an awful lot of typing... Apteva (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about how much typing by me was required. Ward3001 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I was just fixing the link. Apteva (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Apteva. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I responded because you had just nailed someone who had vandalized an article (I know that doesn't sound very special, but it was relevant to something I was working on at the moment, and instead of my attempt to nail jello to the wall you succeeded), and I wanted to show my appreciation. I have seen an escalation of the rfa's - you have to have at least 500 edits, no 5,000, no, 50,000, no 500,0000, and you have to get at least 5 votes, no 50, no 500, no 5,000 to pass... You get my point. WP does not have enough admins. I'll apply in due course, maybe. Apteva (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)