Merging accounts |
A Man In Black (talk | contribs) →Merging accounts: reply |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
Guy, is there a way to merge multiple user accounts? Someone suggested that another user do this, and I've been trying to find someone who knows whether or not this is possible, I do vaguely recall something about this. The situation in brief (ask if you need more info, or suggest someone whom I might ask): a user has multiple accounts because they are like me and simply sign up for new accounts when they can't remember the old one, or use a different computer, and can't get the password e-mailed to them because they can't remember what e-mail address they used, nothing problematic with any of the accounts behaviour (although a bit snarky a couple of times, but who am I to talk with that), and they do not deny being the various accounts, nor have they attempted to hide that they are multiple accounts. Another editor asked them to merge the accounts and use only one, they've agreed. But, can they? Do you know the answer or know who would know the answer? Yes, I know you're on break, but I don't know who the technically savvy admins are because I don't pay any attention to that area of Wikipedia. [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 04:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
Guy, is there a way to merge multiple user accounts? Someone suggested that another user do this, and I've been trying to find someone who knows whether or not this is possible, I do vaguely recall something about this. The situation in brief (ask if you need more info, or suggest someone whom I might ask): a user has multiple accounts because they are like me and simply sign up for new accounts when they can't remember the old one, or use a different computer, and can't get the password e-mailed to them because they can't remember what e-mail address they used, nothing problematic with any of the accounts behaviour (although a bit snarky a couple of times, but who am I to talk with that), and they do not deny being the various accounts, nor have they attempted to hide that they are multiple accounts. Another editor asked them to merge the accounts and use only one, they've agreed. But, can they? Do you know the answer or know who would know the answer? Yes, I know you're on break, but I don't know who the technically savvy admins are because I don't pay any attention to that area of Wikipedia. [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 04:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I'm not JzG, but I can handle this. It's technically possible, but we don't do it on Wikipedia for a variety of technical and practical reasons. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:27, 27 July 2007
So much for that.
- I'm entirely supportive of your actions. Please do not leave, Wikipedia benefits from your presence. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hold 'em, don't fold 'em
I've been taking some unwarranted shit over the past few days as well.. but I won't let it get me down, and I really hope you won't either, WP needs JzG. I was pretty stunned to read you had been blocked, and without knowing the exact ins and outs of the BLP / wheel war deal it seems most who have posted on ANI are behind you. Deiz talk 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Haven't been around in a while but it sucks to see you even contemplating leaving. I hope you reconsider, but please take all the time you need. Stay happy. Best wishes, ~ Riana ⁂ 08:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a break. And hope you return as soon as you feel able. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Never surrender
Let's face it, you're one of the absolute best admins we've got, and a Wikipedia without you would be a far worse place. I don't say this kind of shit often (the last time I recall was in '05 when RickK left) but Wikipedia absolutely needs you. At the very least, don't leave over some piddly little block that most on ANI felt was unnexessary and unwarranted. It's times like this that we need you most of all. Keep your head up and never, ever surrender. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto on Starblind, you do need a break, but don't leave completely. Do some article writing for a while and comeback when you feel ready. That what I do at times Jaranda wat's sup 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. Eusebeus 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Come back rested and ready
Take a break if you like, but the Sanity Squad needs you. Besides, we have too few editors who know the delights of Portsmouth Sinfonia. Raymond Arritt 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- fx: Portsmouth Sinfonia playing Also sprach Zarathustra.
- Please come back when you can. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it's not just this idiocy with Baby 81, it's the whole culture. People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt, to the detriment of people who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia. A couple of tabloid stories is not what I call multiple independent sources, I think that human-interest stories in the press are just about 100% worthless as primary sources for an article and not much use for filler either. I don't have a problem with Jeff, because his focus is pop culture and I know we have a problem with sourcing pop culture articles within policy, and we need people who understand and love pop culture to help us fix that, but all these articles on the cause du jour of less-than-serious newspapers simply do not belong in an encyclopaedia; they have no evident lasting impact or significance. Yet the fact of their being covered in a couple of papers during the slow news season is deemed to be "multiple sources", ignoring of course the fact that all papers have space to fill and shamelessly fill it with whatever tittle-tattle happens to be doing the rounds. Like the erectile dysfunction crap in Rudy Giuliani. Does anybody who is even remotely serious about politics actually give a shit about that? It is pointless nonsense publicised by his detractors in order to belittle him; it's no more significant than someone being bald or short-sighted, undeniably common in men of his age, not in any way a distinguishing feature (hey, you look like Rudy Giuliani, but I'd like to be sure, so if you wouldn't mind...)
- In short there are too many idiots and too few people prepared to tell them to fuck off. And yes, that is precisely what we should tell them, because anything less encourages endless debates and Wikilawyering. Want to tell the world that Lance Armstrong takes drugs? Fuck off. At least until he has stopped successfully suing the newspapers for saying it. Want to tell the world about the evil world Jewish conspiracy? Fuck off, forever, and never even think about coming back. Want to tell the world how the scientists are all wrong? Fuck off - until it's in Nature, anyway. Want to out someone as a paedophile? Not here. Want to explain how 9/11 is a conspiracy and no plane crashed into the pentagon? Web space is cheap, get some of your own.
- The real problem, though, which underlies all of this, is that I am a depressive, and these people are making me angry and that makes me depressed. I know how people feel when their neighbourhood is vandalised or overrun with beer-swilling louts. The louts may think they own the place, but in the end they don't, and the people who are prepared to put the time, money and effort into building the neighbourhood should get more consideration than those who view it only as a venue for their own selfish pleasure. Wikipedia will be a better place when Jonathan Barber grows up, to name but one persistent offender. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I echo Tony. The opposition you are getting indicates you are doing a good job, which IMO you are, SqueakBox 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- JzG...that is the unfortunate reality of an open editing environment. Your leaving us won't help us in our efforts to eliminate the kind of POV pushing and misuse of this resource you have mentioned. In a nutshell, if you don't return to editing, you'll make MONGO mad and well, that's a bad thing. However, I am willing to grant you a short vacation, but you better be back to work soon, or else.--MONGO 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's rather interesting the level of ridiculous nonsense including in articles about living politicos. Until we have eye color for every candidate, there's certain tabloid information that does not belong. I'm posting this on my talk page and user page:
- "People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt, to the detriment of people who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia."
- It will just be seen as another sign of my tendency to be hot-tempered, but it sums up a few of my most recent encounters, and they do get tiresome. BLP should get the utmost scrutiny--Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used as a political tool. KP Botany 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- "People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt"
- Seems more like a disagreement with WP:AGF than anything else 74.86.69.178 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Come back when you can. Rationality is in short supply, especially in admin space lately. The reality is that there are editors here who have your back even if they don't agree 100% of the time. Even when it seems like your neighborhood is being vandalised by hooligans there really is a block watch. Come back when you can because we'll still be fighting the good fight and need all the help we can get. Cheers. --Tbeatty 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to restrain the urge to depopulate the tabloid-fest that is Category:Rape victims, using the awesome power of Delete. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jesus. I hate seeing crap like that. What's even more pathetic is all the keep votes. Who are these people? --Tbeatty 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to me-too, but in this case, I really hating losing any of the good guys.
We aren't going to lose. It's just annoying as all get out sometimes. If you need a break, take it, but don't give up hope. Georgewilliamherbert 23:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Take heart
I totally see where you're coming from, but I also know this: IT'S GETTING BETTER. When I joined WP in late 2004, there was open war between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", hardly anyone gave a crap about verifiability, reliable sources, or how we treat BLPs. But in time, due to the efforts or yourself and many other great editors, something miraculous happened: things got better. We have BLP and other tools to help get rid of the worst of the worst articles, and just about everybody now acknowledges the need for reliable sources. People will still wank off to policy, and that's fine: they'll either go way, be ignored, or their precious policies will change right around them. Wikipedia is far from perfect, and perhaps never will be. But it's better than it ever was before, and it's getting better every day. And I know one thing: It's damn well worth fighting for, Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Honesty; come back refreshed
After stumbling upon some edits that you made recently (the redirects I/others deleted, you know which), it might be best to sit aside. I'm not saying you're wrong or bad at all, but sometimes the best way to grow as a wikipedian is to leave for a little while, maybe a voluntary desysopping, just make some time for yourself, and come back refreshed and back to doing what everyone is supporting you for. Wizardman 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Voluntary desysopping? Absolutely not, if you are going to stay here we need you as an admin and as a heroic BLP fighting admin. That's the way to go, SqueakBox 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I meant that when he comes back feeling ready to tackle our problems he gets it back of course. I know what you mean though, we need the BLP fighters around. Wizardman 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Guy
Guy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. Love, |
Don't let that Guy get away!
I may not always agree with you (though I certainly do far more often than I don't), but good God, I hope you're not heading out for good. If I were to make some kind of top-ten list for the people around here, you'd be pretty damned high on it. Take a break if you need to, but if and when you come back, a hell of a lot of people will be glad to see you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Stalking
I have come to the end of my tether. The campaign by User:Mallimak and his countless dynamic IP sockpuppets has now descended to pure stalking behaviour. The Wikipedia community cannot allow this behaviour to continue. I am asking you, and other Admins and Users who have had to deal with Mallimak in the past, to review the situation. Please see:
--Mais oui! 10:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you speedy deleted the Hot Air article in December 2006. I restored the article because I disagreed with the speedy deletion rationale. I've put it up for afd to see what the consensus is for the article (Hot Air afd). Thank you.--Jersey Devil 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Merging accounts
Guy, is there a way to merge multiple user accounts? Someone suggested that another user do this, and I've been trying to find someone who knows whether or not this is possible, I do vaguely recall something about this. The situation in brief (ask if you need more info, or suggest someone whom I might ask): a user has multiple accounts because they are like me and simply sign up for new accounts when they can't remember the old one, or use a different computer, and can't get the password e-mailed to them because they can't remember what e-mail address they used, nothing problematic with any of the accounts behaviour (although a bit snarky a couple of times, but who am I to talk with that), and they do not deny being the various accounts, nor have they attempted to hide that they are multiple accounts. Another editor asked them to merge the accounts and use only one, they've agreed. But, can they? Do you know the answer or know who would know the answer? Yes, I know you're on break, but I don't know who the technically savvy admins are because I don't pay any attention to that area of Wikipedia. KP Botany 04:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not JzG, but I can handle this. It's technically possible, but we don't do it on Wikipedia for a variety of technical and practical reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)