User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 12

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.220.184.129 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.220.184.129 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! While generally I agree with you on "voting", this seemed to be a rather simple matter-simply to see if there was still interest in holding the debate, or whether it should be tagged historical and possibly merged. I see no trouble with getting a "quick snapshot" of opinion in this case, so long as no one's going to consider it binding. Seraphimblade 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original writer of WP:MALL (actually adapted from WP:CONG). I would appreciate a chance to comment on my views on making this a permanent guideline, and that chance has been taken away. What alternatives do we have to make our case outside of more formal dispute resolution procedures? If I make a comment on the talk page that may invite another closing of poll.--Msr69er 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited WP:POLL specifically says that polls are allowed: "The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise. In this context, a few well reasoned opinions may affect a debate much more than several unexplained votes for a different course. In the context of Wikipedia articles, straw polls are most helpful, if ever, in evaluating whether a consensus exists or in "testing the waters" of editor opinion among a few discrete choices such as two choices for an article's name. Even in these cases, straw polls may never be understood as creating a consensus, but merely as one tool in developing a mutual and voluntary consensus." Now you have banned a strawpoll on whether the assertion by Radiant is true that " This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. , debate has died down, mostly superseded by WP:LOCAL anyway)" Please advise how to determine whether the proposed guideline WP:MALL should be trashed and redirected to WP:LOCAL. Thanks. Edison 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Don't use a poll, simply discuss and reach a consensus. It saddens me that you both assume surveys are the only way to reach a compromise. Furthermore, you seem to expect that the poll is going to be a formal result, whereas a poll is not binding per guideline WP:POLL and policy WP:NOT. Yuser31415 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being "saddened" is a bit of an extreme position IMO, and I take slight offense at that. I am a relative newbie as far as procedure and guidelines are concerned, and I would appreciate some consideration of that on your part. Much discussion has taken place as to the validity of this guideline proposal in the wake of unfairly appled speedy deletes of shopping mall articles, and it is the seeming lack of a consensus on WP:MALL that seems to make a poll useful; otherwise the debate may drag on for a longer period than needed. I will investigate some more formal means to get a final decision on this guideline.

Simply put, we have gone the "simply discuss and reach a consensus" route but we still have no consensus after about two or so months.--Msr69er 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are a newbie in that respect, and will attempt to take that to heart in my discussion. In my (very personal) opinion, the best way to get feedback would be to say, "If there is no serious opposition within ${\displaystyle {x}}$ time frame, then I will do ${\displaystyle {y}}$." In that way, you add a virtual "time limit" to the discussion, but however do not create a poll in which the best options might be discounted. Yuser31415 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser, I apologize for stepping on your toes, but I dearchived the poll. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone is trying to use the poll to stifle consensus, rather than to gauge current opinion. Maybe we should work on some kind of template to warn people what they can and can't do with polls, but I haven't seen anyone do anything with this one that contradicts WP:POLL. Thanks, TheronJ 02:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, but I would appreciate the result not being taken as binding. Thanks, Yuser31415 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there appears to be some opinion that the remarks you struck here were not personal attacks. I don't see it, myself. Friday (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was a little lenient in my definition of calling them personal attacks. In any case, the message appeared to me as if to be lobbying the very adminstrator people were complaining about, and also opposing Lightcurrent. Then there was calling the WP:RD "crap" ... maybe I was a little over the top. Yuser31415 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and of course it would of been nice to bring me in the loop but hey... I see you fancy being an administrator in future, I'd suggest you work on your understanding of policy and your communication skills. (if you strike someone's remarks and then project what you think the meaning behind them is - as you are doing here, it's sensible to you know ask the editor about it, not just engage in conversation about the matter with third-parties) --Larry laptop 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - to be honest, I could have phrased my comments far better than that - you were working with the best interests of the project in mind - so I cannot fault you for that. --Larry laptop 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser, he has full authority over his RfA votes. We can't strike out votes just because the tone might be overly harsh or incivil. Also, don't make threats against other users ("formal action"). He is entitled to his opinion, and he did provide a reason for his oppose vote. Nishkid64 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser, sorry I didn't address the concern. I was talking about your comments to Matthew.Fenton regarding this subject (striking the vote). Nishkid64 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not really apply that policy to RfA's. RfA's tend to get heated sometimes, and uncivil comments are flung around. In Matthew's case, he even stated his reason for opposition was valid, but possibly uncivil. Given the nature of the response, I wouldn't really find it appropriate to strike out that vote. Nishkid64 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Would you be able to contribute to this thread at WP:AN about an AfD for Troll organization that you closed? I'm not sure what you meant by the close of 'redirect', and it would be good if you could clarify things. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, was there any merging of content? thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 10th you reverted my contribution to the Jesse Norman article and claimed what I had entered was vandalism. Please familiarise yourself with the meaning of vandalism before reverting constructive edits in future. WindsorFan 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. This is my third RfA, and it is again going to be denied, not because I don't qualify, but because many administrators don't want to "share the power". The truth of the matter is, I don't look at adminship as a way to control people, but as a way to keep Wikipedia as reliable as possible. Other admins do not feel this way. They use adminship to demonstrate their power at making innocent people upset.

However, I wish to thank you for your kind message, since I'm sure it will be the only one I recieve in regards to my recent Request for Adminship.

Rhythmnation2004 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested about adoptation thanks--"P-Machine" 08:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yuser, thanks for your support. I wouldn't really consider myself a deletionist (I'm signed up at AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD), though I don't mind them - my personal wikiphilosophy is here. Your point about frustration though is a very good point. Like that chap on my RfA said, I'm going to take all this criticism to heart and be even more nice than I already am, whether the RfA passes or not. ;D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuser31415, I cordially accept your adoption offer; I like Wikipedians who are very active and dedicated (1000 edits in fourteen days is no small feat!).

I've been on Wikipedia for a long time (since 2004, I think), mostly to browse through the articles... Only recently have I seriously considered to become a contributer. I'm actually looking to learn about the conventions, procedures - just about anything Wikipedian - and become a more active and productive member in the community. By the way, you can just call me A.Ou 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Many thanks![reply]

I don't mind if you periodically look at my contributions...after all, I'd like to know how others think of what I'm doing and how I can become a better wikipedian :) - there's always room for improvement! -A.Ou 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser31415,

I have been watching the talk page for 24.10.238.144 (talk · contribs) and noticed that you've just accused this person of being a "blatant spammer".

I think a little bit of WP:AGF is in order. The person behind that IP address is Dell Schanze, a rather well-known person in the Salt Lake City area who is widely known to be a paragliding enthusiast. His attraction to Wikipedia is not typical - what led him here was the presence of a Wikipedia article about him. After you read the article, finding him writing about paragliding is no surprise.

Seeing him insert a couple of inappropriate links is no surprise either. Mr. Schanze isn't a seasoned Wikipedia editor. And having been here for a while myself, I totally understand the gut revulsion to seeing anonymous IP addresses drop links into articles. However those edits are relatively few compared to his other ones. This person didn't "drive by" to drop links. To give him a "final warning" as his only warning, and accuse him of being a "blatant spammer", is biting the newbies in the most textbook sense. Please lighten up the warning and replace it with a more appropriate one before I do it for you. Reswobslc 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some full research on a case before making a "3RR" accusation and posting it on my talk page:

• I am not reverting someone else's edits repeatedly; someone else is reverting mine and cannot adequately justify why (indeed, initially my interlocutor declared rudely that he did not have to explain to me why he was immediately reverting my edit - not good form; falsely accused me of vandalism; then accused me of lying when I complained about the baseless accusation of vandalism);

• You could have joined the debate before immediately joining in on the reverts to my edit and making the "3RR" accusation;

• I am deleting text which is vague, does not make sense and which has not been adequately defined since I asked the question about it over a fortnight ago;

• I am trying to insert in its place a statement which is clear and valid to the article (are you saying a person who has lived in Ireland most of their life is less Irish than someone who decides to "adopt" an Irish "identity", whatever that means?);

• I notice you did not place a "3RR" warning on the talk page of the person reverting my edits, nor a warning about his falsely accusing me of vandalism then calling me a liar when I objected to the claim.

WP:AGF?

86.17.247.135 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to go for now, but there is a semi-completed 3RR form here if you want to file one, or if he continues to be so uncivil. John Reaves (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, I get dobbed to teacher about "3RR" by the person repeatedly reverting my work! Uncivil you say, Reaves? Is that like accusing someone falsely of vandalism; then calling them a liar when they protest the false claim; then rudely telling them they do not deserve any explanation for a revert? My intial questions on your page were perfectly polite as all can see: your replies on mine were supremely arrogant, rude and condescending, as all can also see - and followed by your two baseless accusations. Please live by the rules you apply so strictly to everyone else. 86.17.247.135 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's how it works, folks. I get lynched then I'm the one reported when I defend myself. What you actually mean is that I did not toe the line and fall into your position. While both of you lecture me, at the very same time you are both getting slapdowns from others for your knee-jerk over-reactions. Hypocrisy anyone? 86.17.247.135 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuser, please accept my apology for replying to him on your talk page. User at 86.17.247.135, please accept objective advice that you are being a dick. That's a major part of the problem. Make an account, sign in, and don't treat other people like crap, and you'll instantly find more respect than what you're getting/deserving now. Reswobslc 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I bring to your attention WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA; ad hominem. Also, Reaves started the "treating people like crap" - before I posted anything more than my initial polite question he had managed to call me a vandal (wrong) and a liar (wrong) and declared he did not have to explain why he reverted my edit (wrong). Seems established, account-holding editors are as likely to follow the rules as anonymous editors. But of course it's the anons who get reported and other account-holders who join in the "cheerleading" from the sides. 86.17.247.135 09:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed by chance that someone changed the text of the userbox

This user supports the United Nations.

from "This user supports the United Nations" to "This user DOES NOT support the United Nations". I don't think that change was legitimate, so I reverted the edit back to the previous one. I'm not exactly sure if it qualifies as vandalism, but the person behind it is User:Soldier2000 - I'm wondering what to do about it. Please see the Page History

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JH.Ou (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 January, 2007 (UTC) Oops...forgot to sign it