Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) →Shut Up: +where to reach me |
UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) fact checking |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
==Shut Up== |
==Shut Up== |
||
Just shut up. Don't type on wikipedia. Something! Shush! I'll apologize later, talk to me on irc or send me email before you say or do anything. [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
Just shut up. Don't type on wikipedia. Something! Shush! I'll apologize later, talk to me on irc or send me email before you say or do anything. [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
||
Well, I suppose everyone had their own problems with what you did at VFD. I myself was not particularly concerned about the "rulez." Rulez are tools and have their place. ''My'' concerns were: |
|||
# Due to the extensive history of VFD, the deletion and subsequent undeletion bogged the database. This sort of thing has happened before and you should have at least considered the possibility that technical problems could ensue from your edits. |
|||
# It appeared that, overall, you were acting impulsively. We just spent ''weeks'' discussing and voting on some fairly minor tweaks to the criteria for speedy deletion. Would it not have made sense to at least discuss what to do with VFD for a day or two? Sure you got everyone's attention. But wasn't there a better way? |
|||
# By deleting VFD you have exacerbated the perception in the community that there are two sets of rules: One for the senior admins, and one for everybody else. Of course you can get away with it, but demonstrating that you can do so alienates people who are getting their hands slapped for comparatively minor faux pax. Look at how much reaction [[User:Master Thief Garrett]] got when he deleted the [[Ass hook]] article (and several others of equal long-term value to the project) out-of-process. |
|||
All the business about it being "against the rules" is a red herring. I think the tone of the RFC should have made that clear to anyone reading it with an open mind. I hope you'll find a way to recover from the wikistress of this all, and take a lesson from it, and stick around to continue the great contributions you make here. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:59, 3 August 2005
Personal comments at the bottom of the page, please. All others, please contribute at Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion. --Ed
enjoy
enjoy the vacation! Gabrielsimon 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, G. Take care. Uncle Ed 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Quotes
I can go to bed happy now that I know I've caused at least one person to have to change his pants. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Cyrius, returning the favor ... See Got Deleted at Ward's Wiki. Uncle Ed 12:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've had enough!
I'm feeling rather unappreciated, of late. Maybe I'll just take another vacation. :-(
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD for my parting shot. Goodbye! Uncle Ed 11:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
why leave when i just got back? Gabrielsimon 15:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Dude! Are you off suspension again, lol? What am I going to do with you ... Uncle Ed 16:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
RFC
Ed, don't delete an RFC about something you did. Fine upstanding contributors to this site, such as yourself, do not endeavour to supress discussion about things they have done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Gosh, I wish I had seen this notice before my second delete. I'll abstain from a third, simply on your say-so.
- But the rules (which everyone is so fond of) approve of my deletion of the vfd rfc, if not of the original deletion of vfd.
- Please do not chide me for breaking rules and for following them. That would make me crazy. Uncle Ed 17:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have listed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD on VfU. Please don't delete RfC pages where you are involved. DES (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ed, nobody deletes their own RFCs. Make your case and leave it for someone else to delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Add that rule (even post facto) to the RFC-removal policy, and I'll gladly follow it. I removed the RFC because it was in itself a violation of the rules.
- Don't you care about rules? Or did I compute the 48 hours wrong? Uncle Ed 17:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- You did, Your timestamp is 17:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC), it must be 21:07 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I read the rules on this, you have to wait 'till 21:07 3 August 2005 (UTC) . (which is still a couple of hours away), because folks get 48 hours to get their business in order. I suggest you let someone neutral do the deletion this time. :-) Hope this helps! Kim Bruning 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- See my apology below. Uncle Ed 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ed, though the RFC is worded in particular about your deletion of VFD, the broader point is that you are not exempt from the standards of behavior that everyone else follows. This is a recurring theme, and many (dozens?) of people have taken up this matter with you in various forms at various times, beginning some time prior to my participation here. You up and deleted VFD, well, fine, you better be prepared to take your lumps from the community. Deleting your own RFC is childish and, coming from you, is a terrible example to set for the rest of the project. If you're going to be the elder statesman around here, then start acting like it.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- See my apology below. Uncle Ed 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies
- Kim, I'm sorry, I messed up the time zone thing. The "history" link of the page is 4 hours off. I mistakenly relied on that, and then deleted the vfd rfc 4 hours early.
- Uninvited, if I understand you correctly it was not the 'letter of the law' that was being discussed (pursuant to the specific incident named in the RFC), but a broader pattern or "recurring theme" implicitly obvious to all but those with tunnel vision. It was not for 'this shooting' but for 'shooting from the hip' that the RFC was started. I'm sorry that I failed to make enough effort to appreciate this point.
Shut Up
Just shut up. Don't type on wikipedia. Something! Shush! I'll apologize later, talk to me on irc or send me email before you say or do anything. Kim Bruning 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I suppose everyone had their own problems with what you did at VFD. I myself was not particularly concerned about the "rulez." Rulez are tools and have their place. My concerns were:
- Due to the extensive history of VFD, the deletion and subsequent undeletion bogged the database. This sort of thing has happened before and you should have at least considered the possibility that technical problems could ensue from your edits.
- It appeared that, overall, you were acting impulsively. We just spent weeks discussing and voting on some fairly minor tweaks to the criteria for speedy deletion. Would it not have made sense to at least discuss what to do with VFD for a day or two? Sure you got everyone's attention. But wasn't there a better way?
- By deleting VFD you have exacerbated the perception in the community that there are two sets of rules: One for the senior admins, and one for everybody else. Of course you can get away with it, but demonstrating that you can do so alienates people who are getting their hands slapped for comparatively minor faux pax. Look at how much reaction User:Master Thief Garrett got when he deleted the Ass hook article (and several others of equal long-term value to the project) out-of-process.
All the business about it being "against the rules" is a red herring. I think the tone of the RFC should have made that clear to anyone reading it with an open mind. I hope you'll find a way to recover from the wikistress of this all, and take a lesson from it, and stick around to continue the great contributions you make here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)