Royalbroil (talk | contribs) Discussion on events related to your current RfA |
Usurpation questions |
||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
==Discussion on events related to your current RfA== |
==Discussion on events related to your current RfA== |
||
Please respond here on your talk page to keep the thread together. Do you support an edit like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoyalbroil&diff=117354515&oldid=117335533 this]? Do you think that opposing your RfA quote "reflects badly" on me? I notice that some of my contributions have been closely scrutinized over the past day. Today was the first time in over a year and a half than one of the articles that I started received an AfD nomination, and there were 2. I am not saying that you personally did any of this, because clearly you didn't. Wikipedia should be a place to have fun doing editing and creating the world's best encyclopedia, not a source of stress. I would like your opinion on what you think about these developments. Do you think that I should cave in under pressure? How would it make you feel if I did? What would you do if you were in my shoes? [[User:Royalbroil|<font color="#000000">'''Royal'''</font><font color="#FFCC00">'''broil'''</font>]]<sup> <font color="#FF0000">[[User talk:Royalbroil|T]]</font> : <font color="#000000">[[Special:Contributions/Royalbroil|C]]</font></sup> 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
Please respond here on your talk page to keep the thread together. Do you support an edit like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoyalbroil&diff=117354515&oldid=117335533 this]? Do you think that opposing your RfA quote "reflects badly" on me? I notice that some of my contributions have been closely scrutinized over the past day. Today was the first time in over a year and a half than one of the articles that I started received an AfD nomination, and there were 2. I am not saying that you personally did any of this, because clearly you didn't. Wikipedia should be a place to have fun doing editing and creating the world's best encyclopedia, not a source of stress. I would like your opinion on what you think about these developments. Do you think that I should cave in under pressure? How would it make you feel if I did? What would you do if you were in my shoes? [[User:Royalbroil|<font color="#000000">'''Royal'''</font><font color="#FFCC00">'''broil'''</font>]]<sup> <font color="#FF0000">[[User talk:Royalbroil|T]]</font> : <font color="#000000">[[Special:Contributions/Royalbroil|C]]</font></sup> 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Usurpation questions == |
|||
WJB - Yes to both of your questions: 'Vaya' is too new, and I have no qualms about giving away 'Basil' to somebody who will make good use of it. I don't think we need a hard minimum age for the target account -- common sense will, as so often, suffice -- but it seems only fair to leave the newer accounts alone. Thanks as ever for drawing attention to these issues; your help is invaluable. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:28, 23 March 2007
I'd welcome thoughts on what to do now that the AfD was closed, despite noone arguing to save the article.Chrislintott 08:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your question (I suppose I should've put a rationale there), "no consensus" doesn't mean "someone wanted to keep it", it means "there wasn't a clear consensus as to what people wanted done." Granted, no one seems to wants an article there, but there were arguments (not votes, remember!) that the location would serve better as a redirect then a redlink (with or without a merge), which seemed to be well-argued. The decision to redirect or delete can certainly be hashed out on its talk page, if the decision is redirect, that can be done without AFD, else it can be sent back with the comment that those who wished to redirect now agree to delete (and of course, those confirming it). If you'd like to DRV, you're welcome to do so, though-I don't take offense at things like that, I make errors sometimes like anyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The close was already several days overdue, I didn't get the idea that relisting would get anywhere productive. If you disagree, though, please go ahead and relist-hopefully you're right, and a second one will achieve consensus. There's nothing against doing a relist on a no-consensus AFD, and hopefully a wider slice of people will comment this time around. (If you'd prefer, I'll refrain from closing the next one around.) I don't like closing anything no consensus (it tends to cause exactly this), but if that's how I read it, that's how it gets closed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you were right! Next time I run across one like that, I'll go ahead and relist it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The close was already several days overdue, I didn't get the idea that relisting would get anywhere productive. If you disagree, though, please go ahead and relist-hopefully you're right, and a second one will achieve consensus. There's nothing against doing a relist on a no-consensus AFD, and hopefully a wider slice of people will comment this time around. (If you'd prefer, I'll refrain from closing the next one around.) I don't like closing anything no consensus (it tends to cause exactly this), but if that's how I read it, that's how it gets closed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Usurpation question
GAH. I totally missed that message. x.x Um, I would agree that requests should generally be archived unless we have some fairly pressing reason not to. Not sure how big of a deal it is, though -- say, checkuser requests need a searchable archive, not as sure about declined username changes (how often do people look at the archives, anyway, eh? ;) -- but as I said, not sure). Hm. I guess we could restore it and let the bcrats tag as not done. Or we could just add it to the archive by hand. Those seem the two ways to go. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems to entail the least fuss and embarassment for all involved. Clerknote sounds a good way to do it, just a quick explanation. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, are you following me? =P — coelacan — 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just working my way through todays AfDs and spotted a name I recognised :-). WjBscribe 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Awww, pooh. Say, tell me, do you think I'm working from a faulty assumption here? That's a bit old, commons deletions take forever to close, but it's been bugging me. — coelacan — 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mmm. My understanding was that although Federal works were PD, State works and below were not (there was a huge fuss about the official photo of George W Bush when he was governor of Texas I seem to remember- that was decided not to be PD). The State of Florida does not seem to regard its works as PD (see [1] for example). So absent any specific information about the City of Largo's policy on copyright to the contrary (and their website clearly says, "© 2007 City of Largo. All rights reserved"), I am inclined to think that NYC JD is correct and that the person who emailed was mistaken as to the image's copyright status.
Now whether or not she, acting as an agent of City of Largo, had authority (or apparent authority) to waive copyright is another matter- and one that requires specialist knowledge of Florida law to answer, though my suspicion is not. In any event such a waiver could only be as regards your using the photo- it would not be valid for downstream users to whom she had not made the representation. WjBscribe 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mmm. My understanding was that although Federal works were PD, State works and below were not (there was a huge fuss about the official photo of George W Bush when he was governor of Texas I seem to remember- that was decided not to be PD). The State of Florida does not seem to regard its works as PD (see [1] for example). So absent any specific information about the City of Largo's policy on copyright to the contrary (and their website clearly says, "© 2007 City of Largo. All rights reserved"), I am inclined to think that NYC JD is correct and that the person who emailed was mistaken as to the image's copyright status.
- Awww, pooh. Say, tell me, do you think I'm working from a faulty assumption here? That's a bit old, commons deletions take forever to close, but it's been bugging me. — coelacan — 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Coelacan, if you have a sec when you read this could you swing by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large pathetic galaxy (second nomination) and offer an opinion? Its been difficult getting enough people to comment to get to concensus. Would be grateful for your input. WjBscribe 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Took a snack break and then did some amateur astronomy. ;-) As regards Largo, I see what you're saying and I've got no reason to doubt your judgment. If you feel it amounts to a delete !vote, do make that clear over on commons. And thanks for looking into it! — coelacan — 07:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather not comment on Commons as I'd prefer not to express legal opinions in actual debates unless really necessary. And I don't know enough about Florida law to be sure. NYC JD has made the point already so I think I'll just let that one run its course. WjBscribe 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right then. If it gets deleted I'll just get on the uploader's case about photographing Stanton in person. Mikereichold lives in Largo but is probably sick of me bugging him by now. — coelacan — 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather not comment on Commons as I'd prefer not to express legal opinions in actual debates unless really necessary. And I don't know enough about Florida law to be sure. NYC JD has made the point already so I think I'll just let that one run its course. WjBscribe 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. It was successful, and I hope to put the tools to good use. Shimeru 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there's no need to remove speedy tags from articles that are also at AfD. It speeds up the process if those articles are also listed at CAT:CSD (hence why I tagged it as well as commenting in the AfD). WjBscribe 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the speedy process already ran its course without resolution, then the AfD should clear it up. If it did not have a chance to run its course, then the AfD was premature. The excessive taggage is unpleasant to readers. The encyclopedia IS for readers. Read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil Jerry 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already replied at User talk:Jerry. WjBscribe 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see latest thread at User talk:Jerry. Jerry 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I regret that you state I did not present our discussion neutrally. My comments on his essay talk were twofold in purpose: to ask him if his essay applies to what we talked about, and to begin a dialogue about future content for his essay. For that reason, additional context was added intentionally. I did provide a link to our actual discussion, and asked him to read it, so I did not feel it was necessary to recreate a faithful duplication of it on his page. I was not asking him to decide which of us was "right", just asking him if stacking of templates associated with wikipedia deletion procedures and maintenance tagging was also among the things he was describing in his essay. Jerry 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see latest thread at User talk:Jerry. Jerry 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already replied at User talk:Jerry. WjBscribe 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the speedy process already ran its course without resolution, then the AfD should clear it up. If it did not have a chance to run its course, then the AfD was premature. The excessive taggage is unpleasant to readers. The encyclopedia IS for readers. Read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil Jerry 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :)
I needed the moral support more than you can know :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to have helped- I'd vaguely noticed the discussion on my watchlist but it was only when I visited your page that I realised what an unnecessary number of posts there had been on the topic. Don't worry about it- you're doing a great job mate ... WjBscribe 04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon (GMT time); thank you for your input regarding my reading of consensus at the above MfD. Further to your comments, I've revised my decision, and the "Archives" of Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association have been speedily deleted. Further details are given at the discussion page.
As all Wikipedians should be, I am striving to implement advice given to me by other editors - this area of closing deletion debates is new to me, and your input was greatly appreciated. Hopefully future edits of this sort should be of a higher standard, and more in line with your advice and the par the community expects from Wikipedians who undertake these essential duties.
Don't hesitate to me a message at my talk page if you've got any more comments, suggestions or advice. Otherwise, Happy Editing!
Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 15:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My next interview
This should be interesting. Jeffpw 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to WJBscribe for beating me to the rollback button. :D Kaori Mogami 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
I know you've thought about it. I'm willing to write it. :-) Grandmasterka 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- And if Grandmasterka writes it, I'd like to co-nom, if that'd be alright. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow thank you both very much for the show of support. I'm very touched. And I no longer can see any good reason to put off asking the community to support my RfA. However, if I can ask you to indulge me a little. I would very much like to ask the first user who expressed a willingness to nominate me for adminiship if he is still willing to do so and take it from there. Thanks again- I've been quite lost for words for a while... WjBscribe 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- You asked for it ;o) Go here when you're ready, follow the instructions and we're away. Stay cool and don't let the process stress you (I barely slept during mine). RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Two CNRs
Hi WJB, could you just look over these two CNRs:
- Background articles for ongoing events (hist) ⇒ Portal:Current events – Disjointed history between that, Current events and Portal:Current events
- List of dog topics (hist) ⇒ Portal:Dogs – List of misc dog topics that didn't fit into any other category. This was whittled down to zero and redirected to the portal.
Do you think either of these be deleted if consensus was to do so due to their edit histories? I just wanted another opinion before (re–)nominating them for deletion. Thanks, mattbr 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the dogs list was used as a list of uncategorised articles which were eventually categorised and the pages effectively blanked before the redirect. I'm not quite sure what happened with the other. The history ends in 2003, and the histories of Current events and Portal:Current events don't start until 2006. As far as I can tell the content wasn't incorporated, but the page was redirected about three years before the target (Current events) appears to have existed?! mattbr 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Template skills request
(quoted from User talk:Ben#Template skills request)
Hi Ben, wanted to ask a favour as you're a wiz with templates. Have a look at Uranium, which is the main page FA at the moment. We had a bit of a problem when one of the templates used in it was vandalised tracking down which the problem. As you can see it uses over 40 templates to create the infobox. Do you think you (or someone else who's good with templates) could create a single (or a few) template (s) with multiple parameters to do the same job? That number of templates just to create an infobox seems ridiculous. Would appreciate your input. WjBscribe 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a look.... -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, it's a beautiful modular design: {{Elementbox_header}} starts the infobox format, then subsequent subtemplates get slotted in as they're invoked, and finally {{Elementbox_footer}} closes the infobox. This makes any single template fairly simple by comparison, and thus easy to maintain. Considering the total amount of information conveyed, and the opt-in feature (the subtemplates are only invoked if, and in the sequence, you choose to invoke them), it's the most efficient and flexible design I can imagine.
There actually are single templates available already -- {{Element}} and {{Elementbox}} -- which do take multiple parameters as you suggest. Not being modular, such a template is much less flexible in terms of what it lists and where, but if you want to put all your eggs in one basket ("and then watch that basket!", as Mark Twain wrote), try that.
Either way, you'll want to protect anything transcluded into the Main Page, and cascading protection should work as well on the infobox subtemplates as on a single {{Element}} or {{Elementbox}} template; conversely, leaving either method unprotected is still an opportunity for vandals. -- Ben TALK/HIST 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
About my edit summary on the Final Fantasy VII page...
When I said "rvv", I meant to revert Grossout's vandalism, I didn't mean revert vandalism by you (which there was none of). Sorry if the edit summary offended you. What makes it even worse is that I hit "mark edit as minor" by accident before hitting "Save Changes", so it makes it look like I perposely reverted something by you. Sorry about this. --LuigiManiac | Talk 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- No offence taken- there's a lot of activity going on to revert vandalism on that page and wires are likely to get crossed. Don't worry about it... WjBscribe 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Your RfA
Hi, best of luck on your RfA. I think you are overdue for the tools.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
The revert on my user page. :) Acalamari 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
^demon's RfA
All right, thanks for reporting it. Fixed ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Bloody hell that was fast.
What are you doing, refreshing my contribs or what?! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does seem bizarre. I wonder which user will take on his job. We're running out of unemployed Wikipedians... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
My talk page / archive setup
I just moved old messages to an archive subpage (my first!), but am leaving them transcluded onto the talk page until mid-April. If you click on the "+" (new-section) link at the top of the talk page, your entry is actually on the talk page. If you click on the "edit" link of the last archived section to add a new section, your entry is actually on the archive page. However, as long the archive's transcluded, which page you actually posted to doesn't matter; it's all visible on the talk page anyway. About a week or two into April, I'll sort it all out, and then the sections concluded before April 1 will be on the un-transcluded archive page.
Hey, I was getting page-too-big messages. I did what seemed feasible. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If you get two seconds, could you have a look at this? I've googled the subject and haven't found very much, and don't have the time or inclination to dig through and cite everything. Should I AFD it? Or delete it? Or leave it? Cheers Chrislintott 08:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, glad you could be bothered! See my comment on your RfA - will be free for most evenings next week if you're not too busy cleaning. Chrislintott 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing RfAs
When closing unsuccessful RfAs as you did with Kermanshahi's, please remember to list them at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, for example [2]. Thank you! --Durin 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Replied at User talk:Durin. WjBscribe 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Simple rename requests at WP:CHU/U
Oh, whoops. I guess we can just copy them over, then. I should've figured it's all the Bcrats watching the same pages, anyway... should we move them, or just leave them as is, you think? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's probably the best way to go. CHU seems to have a much faster turnaround time than it used to. I'll do that for next time, moved the one that brought this up. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:USURP
I went to correct a mistake of yours, but then found you had already done it when I got to the edit window. Then I found out it wasn't a mistake because you didn't fix anything, and you were right the first time. .........Finally, I found out that the right message is commented out for some reason. I don't know why, so can you fix if it should be commented in (which apparently it should be). I'm referring to the last name on the page. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Replied at User talk:TeckWiz. WjBscribe 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
You've made WP:100! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Thanks. I really wasn't expecting the level of support that RfA has seen... WjBscribe 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- To think you didn't believe me when I predicted this at the beginning. oh, ye of little faith! Jeffpw 11:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Your message
I agree that users are allowed to delete messages from their Talk pages, though the guidelines point out that it's generally frowned upon. What they can't do, though, is insist that others don't leave messages, as happened here. So yes, in a way they are forced to receive messages; what they then do with the messages is more open. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks For The Welcome
ICUDocMD 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please respond here on your talk page to keep the thread together. Do you support an edit like this? Do you think that opposing your RfA quote "reflects badly" on me? I notice that some of my contributions have been closely scrutinized over the past day. Today was the first time in over a year and a half than one of the articles that I started received an AfD nomination, and there were 2. I am not saying that you personally did any of this, because clearly you didn't. Wikipedia should be a place to have fun doing editing and creating the world's best encyclopedia, not a source of stress. I would like your opinion on what you think about these developments. Do you think that I should cave in under pressure? How would it make you feel if I did? What would you do if you were in my shoes? Royalbroil T : C 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Usurpation questions
WJB - Yes to both of your questions: 'Vaya' is too new, and I have no qualms about giving away 'Basil' to somebody who will make good use of it. I don't think we need a hard minimum age for the target account -- common sense will, as so often, suffice -- but it seems only fair to leave the newer accounts alone. Thanks as ever for drawing attention to these issues; your help is invaluable. — Dan | talk 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)