User talk:CharlotteWebb

	This user is under the microscope of the cabal. For more information, try joining some mailing lists.	Drama portal
F	This user has been rated as F-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Archive	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation)

Guess what - it got kicked to another venue... My fault for not seeing it was best done as a request move if the first place I guess. Anyway, you may wish to express an opinion (again) at Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation). WjBscribe 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G6 is calling your name. — CharlotteWebb 10:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:$1

One of your subpages is in a Category:$1 that is now nominated for deletion. Even more awkwardly, the category was created by the addition of the cfd template. This looks like it is an unintentional accident with the code and not a deliberate attempt to create a category. Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3 or possibly rewrite the code? Dr. Submillimeter 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"$1" is a placeholder to be replaced by an actual category name when the script runs. I did not know it was possible to "categorize" a monobook.js. There is no indication of this when viewing the js page, so I am puzzled about what extreme lengths somebody must have gone to in finding this error in order to confront me about it. Let me be clear: I did not create the category [4], I do not know why it was created, and I had little reason to think I might be accidentally populating it [5], and I have no interest in keeping it. — CharlotteWebb 10:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarfiy my position: I realize that you did not create the category page itself. Also, I suspect the category was found by someone viewing an alphabetical list of categories; you probably are not being stalked. Anyway, the situation has been resolved. Sorry to cause you distress, and thank you for your time. Dr. Submillimeter 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the current tags timestamped

I had suggested this too (and at the Pump), but couldn't get any traction on it. I figured I wasn't asking at the right place. The change will certainly make life easier! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks very much for your help in reverting the deletions on the Dargur page, but you may want to check before you rv too hastily! Thanks anyhow for your help, and happy editing! Whiskey in the Jar 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that wasn't an edit conflict. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh

I have seen so many RfAs consisting of "Oppose! He's an evil, inclusionist troll out to wreck Wikipedia's credibility by retaining awful articles!". Equally common is: "Oppose! He's an evil deletionist who's part of an devilish cabalistic plot to leave Wikipedia with no articles at all!!".

They're both equally common and equally wrongheaded. One of RfA's more frustrating aspects, I suppose. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So naturally you claim to be actually be at an unspecific point in the middle, right? — CharlotteWebb 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid opposing someone's RfA on the grounds of their views on deletion, as I don't think it's relevant. Despite being on the opposite side of almost every deletion debate to badlydrawnjeff, I supported his RfA because I felt I had to trust him to properly differentiate between his private views as an editor as his duty as an admin to judge consensus. AGF, etc. Had he been requesting full adminship I would have supported him for that, as well. I freely admit I'm more deletionist than not but I trust myself to ignore my private feelings on things like television episodes and to obey and carry out the consensus of the community. Admins are more like butlers than masters. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

At the same time you would hopefully not carry out a decision that you feel is not in the project's better interest. — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if a cabal of ten (say) get together at AfD X to blindly ignore WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc you in turn ignore them as closing admin, because the microconsensus of AfD is irrelevant to the macroconsensus of our policies and guidelines. When it comes to matters that are more a matter of personal taste and editorial judgment - like I, as far as I can see, these TV episodes - you have to pay more respect to the consensus of those who have expressed an opinion at the AfD. It's a great mistake people make in assuming that every dispute eventually boils down to a clear-cut "right or wrong" expression of policy. Admittedly, the great majority do, but not all. Having said that, a number of individual "interpretations" of policy are so whacky you just have to ignore them as well. Moreschi ^Talk 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy CharlotteWebb's Day!

CharlotteWebb has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as CharlotteWebb's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Charlotte! Love, Phaedriel 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Swiping your "slut" userbox. The picture doesn't work as well for a testosterone-case such as I, but until/unless I want to put in another photo I'll go with it. Thanks...
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Charlotte

Yes, I did read the whole thread; and yes, I do understand the context in which you brought me in at the mailing list. After this issue was notified to me by WAS 4.250, I understood the concern, and it has always been my way to solve controversies by avoiding them altogether, which is the reason why I immediately deleted the quotes that could raise a copyright concern. As you know, this matter has been subject to debate, and it remains a controversial topic; yet I prefer not to dwell on it, and if something I do, no matter my intentions, can make a discussion go even more heated, I'd rather stop doing it altogether. It has always been my way of doing things, and this is no exception.

Which is the reason why I would have preferred a private message telling me something along the lines of, "Hey, Sharon, this doesn't look good... mind to remove it?" I wasn't taken aback because I was suggested not to use copyrighted quotes, it's just as possible to use free material as I did, even if not as meaningful to its recipients; I did because being thrown into the public eye when something could have been easily solved in a painless, smooth way, is never nice.

Dear Charlotte, I only said what I did above so you can fully understand why I reacted the way I did, and how I would have reacted through a different channel. But I also appreciate a lot that you've taken the time to explain yourself instead of ignoring me entirely. Your sincere words regarding that you didn't want to hurt my feelings and your apology are much, much appreciated and accepted. I'm sure this but a misunderstanding, and nothing that can't be solved and put behind us just as easily. I hold no ill will nor the slightest grudge to you, and if your Day made you smile (even tho it was copyrighted!) then its purpose was fulfilled, and we can look forward to brighter days. So... no hard feelings, little shiny spider? Love, Phaedriel - 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you were anybody else, I might have just been bold and removed the lyrics/poems myself, and then stopped worrying about it, knowing nobody would seriously question it. On the other hand, I have some respect for you, and so does everybody else. I realize that's an unfair attitude toward decision-making.

But I did not realize I'd be attacked/scrutinized (by others, not you!) no matter what action I took. Not even any action, but for making one simple comment to suggest that "If A and B are or aren't condoned, then probably the same should apply to C", and because I wanted to get a better grasp of applied policy before commenting (I hope I understand the theoretical aspects well enough ). I felt that would be an appropriate use of the mailing list, though I'm willing to admit I might have been wrong.

I did think about sending an e-mail, but decided it would be better if I knew for sure what I what I was talking about first, as I did not want to sound clueless to someone as experienced, popular, and friendly as you, but maybe that is not avoidable unless I completely ignore issues that I know will be difficult to handle well (but I don't really consider that a good option in the long-term).

I had been waiting for a someone on the mailing list to clarify the (apparently) ambiguous interpretation of "fair use" for text as compared to images, so I could get a better idea of what I should do next. That hasn't happened yet, and (probably) won't happen now, considering this (pardon my French) Grande Faux Pas d'Enfer.

If you can accept my apology, and if can stop mistaking the mailing list for a Dear Abby column, and if your friends can assume a little bit of good faith, maybe this can all be laid to rest! Maybe I should take a break too... Thoughts? Anybody watching my talk page and wanting to comment, feel free to do so. Love you all. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)