→Ongoing dispute between users: nevermind - Durova took care of it. |
Congrats |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:Just seemed like the right thing to do based on the discussion. Best regards, [[User:Navou|Navou]] <sup> [[User talk:Navou|banter]] </sup> 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
:Just seemed like the right thing to do based on the discussion. Best regards, [[User:Navou|Navou]] <sup> [[User talk:Navou|banter]] </sup> 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Congrats - you're now a sysop== |
|||
[[User:Rdsmith4|Rdsmith4]] has closed your RfA as successful so you should now have a shiny new mop and bucket. Use them wisely! Add your name to [[WP:LA]] if its not there already and feel free to get in touch if there's anything I can help you with... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:52, 6 September 2007
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.
|
Top
Please feel free to leave me a message. Thanks. Navou (talk · contribs · count)
References
Re: Mathbot and AFD
The bot used to link to open discussions on /old like : 1 2 3 4 5 and so forth. This feature was great, can you bing it back? Navou banter 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The feature does work, but only when there are under 20 articles, like here. Some people think going beyond 20 articles is too much, and I agree. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Community enforceable mediation
Great effort. I hope it works out. I can give you some suggestions if you're interested. I may also want to become involved, e.g. as an apprentice mediator. --Coppertwig 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Outstanding. Put yourself on the list at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests under training. Next case I get I'll clue you in, also, you might let Durova know. Also, suggestions are always good, make a section at Wikipedia talk:Community enforceable mediation so that they can be discussed! Best regards, Navou banter 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Most disappointing.
On requesting unprotection for Radhabinod Pal, I notice you requested protection for it. I'd like you to note the comments I left on the protecting admin's page. I doubt you even read the talkpage, or attempted to check the records of the editors involved, including what they were doing at the time you requested protection[1]. There are good reasons why protection should not be the first attempt at resolution, especially a fixed-period protection. You acted in this case without acquainting yourself more closely with the concerns, which is not acceptable. "Cooling down" edit wars is important, but not if they are cooling down on one side themselves. Hornplease 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I actually followed the dispute from the 3RR board, as you can probably see form the history, I've been working on the archiving. I'll note that
I stopped counting at the point, however, one should note that when I request page protection, I do not consider the dispute. Protection is usually achieved during an edit war in m:The Wrong Version of the page, which is whatever version the page happens to be in. I'll admit, I did not know an editor was blocked in the case. Regardless, the editors should resolve the dispute before reverting. I hope this helped. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! Navou banter 02:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of where you followed it from. That indicates precisely my point; that you were aware that one of the users had been warned after breaking 3RR, and that the other had indicated his unwillingness to take it further. That hardly qualifies as an ongoing edit war. If I had thought an edit war was in progress, I would have requested protection myself; I have indicated as much on two unrelated talkpages in two unrelated disputes (in which I am not a participant) in the past 48 hours. What you chose to do, even knowing - or at least in possession of sufficient information, if you had been on the 3RR board, that one could deduce - that the edit war was over, was apply for protection of the page.
- There is no need to quote m:The Wrong Version to me, and in particular, snidely. I am well aware of that essay, and it is used too easily as an explanation for carelessness, which is not its intent. You will note that my primary concern is not the version that it is currently in, but that your conduct in this matter was lacking in thought, and that as a consequence this page is locked for five days unless I fight a pointless little battle elsewhere. (Five days during which, as I point out, the Japanese Prime Minister is busy making a big deal out of this individual and he is on every front page in Asia and a few in the rest of the world.) "The editors should resolve the dispute before reverting"? Yes, I know. Again, you should know when stepping in is needed and when it is not. And making obvious statements like that to someone who has ten thousand or so edits and no blocks for 3RR (or reports, either, actually) takes the cake. Hornplease 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to appear snide or disrespectful, and if it appeared so, please accept my sincere apology. I notice that you did take it up with the protecting sysop, I have no ability to protect or unprotect this page, perhaps that sysop will be better assistance in that regard. Again, please accept my apologies for the "obvious" statement, I did not intend to insult you. Navou banter 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, though I do hope you see why it would come across as, at any rate, unnecessary. Hint: never quote - or, heavens, paraphrase - policy to established users unless you do not care if they are going to get irritated. Personally, I think making the point as if policy did not exist and then wikilinking the appropriate section of policy to an appropriate bit of text gets the message across without hitting the other person on the head with it.
- Of course, my concerns about the original complaint still stand, but, as you say, there is not much you can do about it, and I think you have explained yourself as best you can under the circs. Hornplease 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to appear snide or disrespectful, and if it appeared so, please accept my sincere apology. I notice that you did take it up with the protecting sysop, I have no ability to protect or unprotect this page, perhaps that sysop will be better assistance in that regard. Again, please accept my apologies for the "obvious" statement, I did not intend to insult you. Navou banter 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Lameness!
Good call on that MFD. It would have been a very lame deletion otherwise :) >Radiant< 07:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just seemed like the right thing to do based on the discussion. Best regards, Navou banter 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats - you're now a sysop
Rdsmith4 has closed your RfA as successful so you should now have a shiny new mop and bucket. Use them wisely! Add your name to WP:LA if its not there already and feel free to get in touch if there's anything I can help you with... WjBscribe 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)