No edit summary |
→Thank you: new section |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
Thank you for the explanation. I have contacted User:Blanchardb explaining what had happened and asking permission to remove merger suggestion[[User:Weglinde|Weglinde]] ([[User talk:Weglinde|talk]]) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you for the explanation. I have contacted User:Blanchardb explaining what had happened and asking permission to remove merger suggestion[[User:Weglinde|Weglinde]] ([[User talk:Weglinde|talk]]) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Thank you == |
|||
Thank you for your reply. I see your point. |
|||
While you disagree with bringing it on ANI, someone already threatened me that he would bring it there. So I was trying to make a defendant's statement without waiting to be accused. I'm not sure how to do it differently since the threat was already made to bring it to ANI. |
|||
As far as tag teaming, what should be the correct way to do things? In ANI, I see accusations all the time of tag teaming, meat puppetry, etc. To deny that tag teaming ever happens is lying to yourself. However, your point of not mentioning it is well taken and I will try to not mention it. |
|||
As far as Bo the dog, if you look at the discussion, you will see that there was no support for it. All the support for it has been reverts without discussion. The discussion that against the dog was that the references support that it was a gift to the daughters and makes no mention of it being a gift to Barack. Good editors, not tag teamers, would search for reliable sources to show that it was a gift to Barack. Furthermore, there was a discussion that the dog was more trivial than other things that weren't being put in to the article. This seems to be a case of more people failing to make an adequate case or participate in a discussion but getting their way. How can this be solved (not the dog specifically, but like if there were an AFD and the vote was keep but the reasoning was delete - Here it's even worse because in the AFD case, the keepers are voting and leaving discussion which isn't the case with the dog issue). |
|||
Looking at the edits, some editors seem extremely resistant to article improvement. As proof that it is not a matter of being pro- or anti-Obama, all my suggestions for article improvement are Obama neutral. Comments? |
|||
To give you the courtesy of reply, I will refrain from any editing on the Obama article for an additional 24-48 hours. Thank you for your thoughts. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:17, 23 February 2010
|
Thanks
Just to drop you a note that your how to create a barnstar thing imspired me to create this, and to thank you for reverting nasty vandalism on my userpage while I was away. Thanks again, Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
:-)
- ;-) Anna Lincoln 09:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
RfA
Would you mind if...
...you comment at WT:WPWPA? (That's a new shortcut I made a few minutes ago, by the way.) I've noticed a lack of editors participating. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 11:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
MuffleThud
You all can publish stories about mythology of demons, and dreams of people who may of never existed...but let someone bring the knowledge that they have collected about an individual over the years, and you all delete it because you lack the knowledge about the individual. MuffleTard deleted the page I created before even giving me a chance to explain...This guy has gotten a little power hungry. There is no way that he has unlimited knowledge and can say that my topic was not legitimate just cause he had no knowledge of the individual. I am very upset with the administrator MuffleThud and would like to know who I need to contact to began a legitimate complaint against MuffleThud? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethenite29 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reverts, Kingpin13. MuffledThud (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. --The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on my Talk Page, too. (Taivo (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Andrew Byrne article
As you asked, I have userfied it for the author at User:Tb240904/Andrew Byrne (paedophile), though I am not convinced there is an encyclopedia article here, as opposed to a true-ghastly-crimes article. I have pointed him to WP:BLP (particularly), WP:BLP1E, WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS and others, but I am still rather uneasy at the idea of a 16-year-old boy (which this editor is) trying to write this kind of article. Would you keep an eye on it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiAlerter
Kingpin13, I would be interested in testing WikiAlerter. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks! Dspradau → talk 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Your Request for Adminship
Dear Kingpin13,
I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations! May your mop always be dirty with all the work it's doing! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and welcome to WP:100! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations! May your mop always be dirty with all the work it's doing! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support guys! I have to admit, I was slightly overwhelmed by the amount of support I received, but it was definitely a more enjoyable experience than my last RfA :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to hell. Check your self-respect at the door. Tan | 39 14:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, don't listen to him, it's not that bad. Limbo maybe. Congratulations are in order I think, your RFA certainly became an impressive vote of confidence. Happy admin-ing and if you need any help, feel free to bother me. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats for becoming a sysop! I didn't check that since I was a bit busy with a new article, land use conflict. I know you will be a great admin and help the 'pedia a lot! Again, congrats! Kayau Voting IS evil 05:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, don't listen to him, it's not that bad. Limbo maybe. Congratulations are in order I think, your RFA certainly became an impressive vote of confidence. Happy admin-ing and if you need any help, feel free to bother me. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
IP 81.38.219.5
Merits more than a 31 hour block considering the nature of his "edits" which are quite beyond the pale (making accusations that a living person is a "mafia boss" etc. and that an editor is a "pedophile" (note the official position about such accusations) warrant a stronger result IMHO than 31 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- See, Kingpin? You're being criticized already. Block was fine; there was no past disruption and block length for IPs is rarely calculated using the "nature" of the vandalism. Tan | 39 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- <g> I did not intend a "criticism" as I find Kingpin13 to be a very able editor. I, by the way, find "pedophile" to be a term which has been found in the past to be especially actionable. Collect (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was mainly following the advice of WP:NAS/B in the time choice. Collect, if the account has only be vandalising for a short period (as with this one) there's a larger chance that the user is editing from a dynamic address, or that they are one-timers, in which case a longer block would be pointless. With IP accounts who continue to vandalise, it's obvious they're going to keep coming back, and come from the same address, so a longer block would be sensible for persistent vandalism only accounts. I doubt the user will return after a 31 hour block, and if they do they will be quickly re-blocked for a longer period. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Spot on. Tan | 39 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Which reminds me, there are probably shed loads of indef blocked IP addresses out there which we should be reviewing and probably unblocking. ϢereSpielChequers 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs. NW (Talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Which reminds me, there are probably shed loads of indef blocked IP addresses out there which we should be reviewing and probably unblocking. ϢereSpielChequers 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Spot on. Tan | 39 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was mainly following the advice of WP:NAS/B in the time choice. Collect, if the account has only be vandalising for a short period (as with this one) there's a larger chance that the user is editing from a dynamic address, or that they are one-timers, in which case a longer block would be pointless. With IP accounts who continue to vandalise, it's obvious they're going to keep coming back, and come from the same address, so a longer block would be sensible for persistent vandalism only accounts. I doubt the user will return after a 31 hour block, and if they do they will be quickly re-blocked for a longer period. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- <g> I did not intend a "criticism" as I find Kingpin13 to be a very able editor. I, by the way, find "pedophile" to be a term which has been found in the past to be especially actionable. Collect (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and a question
Thank you for the barnstar. On a different note, would you know of a easy way to work out how many edits a user (my self in this case) has done? --blue520 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Should have remembered my preferences (and it will do just fine), but will have to explore Soxred93's tools, very interesting. Thank you very much for pointing that one out.--blue520 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
re: your message
Hi Kingpin13, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Bot name blocks
I've noticed a few blocks for username policy due to 'bot' in the name, and you may be interested in this past discussion on the policy page. After considering their lack of contributions histories, and a glance at the names, I think a couple of them could have used some prior discussion before an outright block. This is simply a heads up as a few admins can get snippy with username blocks by arguing we're scaring away new users who aren't likely aware of the policy, and who are unlikely to actually cause anyone real confusion. One that comes to mind is Babybot209, possibly even Relbot1. Anyhow, cheers. NJA (t/c) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
FaleBot
Thankyou :) Fale (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you were unfair.
You went directly to a level 4 warning. The next one should have been a level 2 warning. - Zhang He (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be delete User:Uosis55. --Uosis55 (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what happened there. I think you deleted that exactly as I was moving it. Talk:Newfoundland (atoll) is really the one that should have been deleted. If you could delete the others, that'd be nice too, as I don't want to tag them all for G3. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. That ROT13 edit summary turned out to be rather boring, BTW. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
congrat, help
You are the newest admin. Can you help moderate a discussion on your talk page (or elsewhere if you prefer)? How about 8 days maximum to prevent too much time on your part. The purpose of the discussion is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Editor_threatens_to_bring_things_to_ANI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seb_az86556#Seb._please_help
Furthermore, in a show of unilateral restraint, I have declared that I will not edit the related articles for 36 hours and even longer if some others do the same for some time (even a shorter time). At least one of the others refuses to but that is ok, just makes them look obstructionist.
Can you be available for a discussion here? Thank you. JB50000 (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow
I wanted to delete those big letters? It looks like some bug! :) All best! --Tadija (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's ok, it is probably my mistake somehow! :) P.S. You have so much awards! :) :) Can i send you something on e-mail to advice me? Is it a problem? -Tadija (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Guildford Cathedral
I had intended to load an article entitled "The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral" but gave the title of "The exterior of Guildford Cathedral". This lead to a suggestion that my article be merged with that already existing on Guildford Cathedral. Realising my mistake I thought I would start again with the correct article title and add a note of explanation. What I am trying to do is add the article earlier entered as "The exterior of Guildford Cathedral" but titled "The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral". Guess I have approached this in a clumsy way "Kingpin 13" but if you can help and allow my new submission to go through I would be most obligedWeglinde (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Guildford Cathedral
Thank you for the explanation. I have contacted User:Blanchardb explaining what had happened and asking permission to remove merger suggestionWeglinde (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your reply. I see your point.
While you disagree with bringing it on ANI, someone already threatened me that he would bring it there. So I was trying to make a defendant's statement without waiting to be accused. I'm not sure how to do it differently since the threat was already made to bring it to ANI.
As far as tag teaming, what should be the correct way to do things? In ANI, I see accusations all the time of tag teaming, meat puppetry, etc. To deny that tag teaming ever happens is lying to yourself. However, your point of not mentioning it is well taken and I will try to not mention it.
As far as Bo the dog, if you look at the discussion, you will see that there was no support for it. All the support for it has been reverts without discussion. The discussion that against the dog was that the references support that it was a gift to the daughters and makes no mention of it being a gift to Barack. Good editors, not tag teamers, would search for reliable sources to show that it was a gift to Barack. Furthermore, there was a discussion that the dog was more trivial than other things that weren't being put in to the article. This seems to be a case of more people failing to make an adequate case or participate in a discussion but getting their way. How can this be solved (not the dog specifically, but like if there were an AFD and the vote was keep but the reasoning was delete - Here it's even worse because in the AFD case, the keepers are voting and leaving discussion which isn't the case with the dog issue).
Looking at the edits, some editors seem extremely resistant to article improvement. As proof that it is not a matter of being pro- or anti-Obama, all my suggestions for article improvement are Obama neutral. Comments?
To give you the courtesy of reply, I will refrain from any editing on the Obama article for an additional 24-48 hours. Thank you for your thoughts. JB50000 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)