User talk:Grye

Invitations

Yes, I know. Anyone who might possibly not appreciate me was invited to vote, but neither for me or against me. I'm pleased the list was as short as it was, considering how active I am on so many projects. - Amgine/^talk 20:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Were you the IP blocked for 6 months on Wikinews? I unblocked. There is no basis in policy on Wikinews for more than 30 day block on WN at the moment. - Amgine/^talk 22:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Jahbulon

Although the word's usage is POV, I don't believe I ever tagged it as such. I questioned whether it was a word which meets inclusion criteria, as there is no use of the word except as a purported use. That is an RfV - Request for Verification - not a POV question. And it was verified by the process here, so of course that should be removed once verified. - Amgine/^talk 19:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah tthat was a AfV not POV. You'd just mentioned POV in the summery. Grye 03:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

<nod> Thanks for the updates! - Amgine/^talk 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that this work needs to be done. I usually wait until at least one week after the last edit to make a decision, then proceed at my leisure. In this case the article will probably be kept but the image deleted. The votes are not relevant to the decision, in this case particularly because many of the voters do not otherwise edit in this project, and would be thus unfamiliar with our policies. The image is not referred to in the article itself. I don't think that it is a copyright violation, but at the same time I have a hard time seeing just why it's there in the first place. Eclecticology 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the "users not editing much here" issue, but the vote is for the actual article. The users are pretty wiki-experienced, & their basic concepts of wiktionary policy are probably pretty sound. Probably not an issue of being familiar with policies here, but rather of having a voice here at all... At any rate, is there no consideration for the comments that might show that this really isn't a word, so to speak? & BTW, I'm the one who brought this word over from wikipedia (OK, ungracefully). I brought up that it is not an encyclopedia entry; I said maybe it's a dictionary entry, so put it there & see if it legitimately evolves, but it hasn't. Grye 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of the Transwiki of this word, I don't see the problem as one of the application of Transwiki. The purpose of that process is to find a way to move an article from one project to another recognizing that the two projects may have different rules for determining what they will accept and how it will be formatted. What seems to have happened is that someone at Wikipedia decided that Jahbulon should be transwikied to this project, and it was accepted bu someone here. From that point on what happened to the article in Wiktionary became the concern of Wiktionary's editors. From the time that the article was transwikied from Wikipedia, any subsequent activity in their article, including whether it should be deleted from Wikipedia, would be solely a matter of Wikipedia's rules. I normally prefer not to participate in those debates in Wikipedia. Eclecticology 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)