→RfA comments: new section |
m →RfA comments: sp |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
== RfA comments == |
== RfA comments == |
||
Cassianto , please stop |
Cassianto , please stop asking every supporter at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson]] who fails to give a detailed rationale to expand on his or her reasons. You've made your point, and this is becoming disruptive. A mention in the General Comments section of why you think detailed rationales are needed would be appropriate, but repeated more or less duplicate comments, along with heated words at least when people challenge your request, does not contribute positively to the discussion. There is long-standing practice that such comments will be read as agreeing with the nominator's reasons. Perhaps that should change, but it hasn't changed yet. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:03, 16 September 2015
Please leave a message; I'll reply here.
Rod SteigerEvening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC) You or Schro have anything to add or are you still on a break? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ditto! I'm lined up for Brian's first (starting tomorrow), should get to you by Tues pm or Weds. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC) tksThanks for the kind words. Maybe I'll see ya 'round some time. Cheers! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC) This is a note to all participants in the recent peer review. Many thanks for your help; the article is now at WP:FAC Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC) A diamond in the roughHi Chris, I have a slightly rough Diamonds Are Forever (novel) which is at FAC for a final polish, should you have the time and inclination. No rush, given the many calls on your time. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
AIV or go right to the guy with the mopIn cases of blatant vandalism it is best to report to WP:AIV. While some admins require a final or only warning prior to blocking, policy allows obvious vandals to be blocked without warning. This does not mean that an administrator is required to, but they may. Frankly I see no reason in giving a full ladder of warnings to someone who is clearly acting in bad faith. If I was the first person to get to every single vandal report I would imagine that the rate of blocking without warning for people who replace portions of a page with "poopy" and such would go up. While it is fully within the discretion of an administrator to decide to act with more leniency towards such vandals, I am not one to do so. If you find that an obviously disruptive user/ip is not being prevented from being disruptive via the regular red tape you can come by my talk page and I will look at it personally. If a page is being disrupted while you are trying to work by persistent vandals I will certainly consider semi-protection and probably be a bit more liberal about it than an average admin on a noticeboard. I do indeed seek to use my tools to improve the project, and if I can help you protect the encyclopedia let me know how. Chillum 21:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Wow, I'm gobsmacked!! I'm most impressed Chillum.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Moors Murders?Hi Cassianto. You seem to have forgotten to add an edit summary for that revert? Just two questions immediately sprang to mind: 1. "Ann West, the mother of Lesley Ann Downey, was at the centre of a campaign to ensure that Hindley was never released from prison, and until West's death in February 1999, she regularly gave television and newspaper interviews whenever Hindley's release was rumoured." Do you think that sentence is adequately supported by the existing source? The ip edits seemed an improvement. 2. "Then Home Secretary David Waddington imposed a whole life tariff on Hindley in 1989, after she confessed to having been more involved in the murders than she had admitted." The source for that, again not a very good one, suggests it was 1990, as the ip had put. When was it? Not too sure why you reverted after only 16 minutes, with no explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
RfA commentsCassianto , please stop asking every supporter at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson who fails to give a detailed rationale to expand on his or her reasons. You've made your point, and this is becoming disruptive. A mention in the General Comments section of why you think detailed rationales are needed would be appropriate, but repeated more or less duplicate comments, along with heated words at least when people challenge your request, does not contribute positively to the discussion. There is long-standing practice that such comments will be read as agreeing with the nominator's reasons. Perhaps that should change, but it hasn't changed yet. DES (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |