Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs) →Autoblock: re |
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs) →AfD closure?: comment |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
Any comment?--[[User:Golden Wattle|Golden Wattle ]] <sup>[[User_talk:Golden Wattle|talk]]</sup> 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
Any comment?--[[User:Golden Wattle|Golden Wattle ]] <sup>[[User_talk:Golden Wattle|talk]]</sup> 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
:No comment. See [[WP:DRV]]. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black">Nearly Headless Nick</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black" title="Contributions"><sup>'''{C}'''</sup></font>]] 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:16, 15 February 2007
|
|
![]() |
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington for your Support! |
- ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your message
First, what I don't understand is that, no matter how many times this comes up, and how many times it's pointed out that there is no policy – not even a guidline – that limits the use of rollback, people still make this sort of challenge. When even anons can use popups, and editors are reverting using "undo", it's especially difficult to see why anyone should even think that there might be a problem in the first place.
Secondly, an editor suddenly reverted a lot of work copy-editing, wikifying, and MoSing, with a pointless and unrelated edit summary; I'm supposed to spend even more time than he's already wasted just because you and others are unaccountably squeamish about using rollback? I mean, you did look at what was involved, didn't you? I also explained to him, both at his Talk page and at the article page, why I'd done what I'd done.
Is there a reason for your getting involved on the side of those who want to return the poor English, the incorrect wikilinks, and the lead that goes against the MoS? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, I said "near-vandals", and I stick by that (it is, in fact, a mild term in the circumstances). One of the people involved referred to my edits that merely introduced better English, correct wikilinks, etc., as vandalism; I do hope that you wagged your finger there too.
- Secondly, if you want to change the guidelines or policy on rollback, go ahead and try (such changes have always been rejected in the past); until then, please stop pretending that your finger-wagging is backed up by anything but your own preferences.
- Thirdly, this dispute has been over for some time; why do you want to stir it up again? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, you do that. Now could you leave me to do things that are actually useful for Wikipedia? There must be lots of other people who are in desperate need of your finger wagging. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar...
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
There you mate... you deserve this for reverting vandalism on my page! Amey Aryan DaBrood© 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
- Yeah, and perhaps one more for reducing your edit-count by 178 edits. D'oh. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Philwelch
Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeaaaaa....nnooo. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
MOSLOW
Is it important to use the {{MOSLOW}} tag on filmographies that are not written in chronological order for example a tag that was added on Aishwariya Rai page and by reading the WP:LOW its hard to tell--Cometstyles 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have never been much of an editor. Perhaps the YellowMonkey might be able to help you out. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Advice is needed
Hi. I wish to submit a complaint regarding one of the Admins' bullish behaviour, and abuse of his administrative rights (User:Mel Etitis); and, since I was unable to find the relevant page/form, therefore I am taking your time. I would be grateful if you kindly advice me by return. Regards Surena 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Mel has not abused his core administrative tools, such as the block, protect and delete buttons. Please assume good faith while dealing with other editors, and try to resolve disputes peacefully by using the talk pages of the articles for discussion. In case you are not satisfied by my answer, feel free to file an informal complaint on WP:AN or go to WP:RFC or WP:RFAR as you deem appropriate. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Warning and blocking
Sorry about that, I just saw that he'd been given an "only warning", and so reported him when he vandalised again. Otherwise, what's the point of the "only warning" at all? In general, I don't even like the "only warning" (although I have used it once), and am always fair with vandals. But since it was clearly vandalism (diff), and not an honest mistake in any way, I don't really think it's biting the newbie. ConDemTalk 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Query
You said that you "have seen systematic reverts of other users' edits, without trying to engage them on the talk pages. The WP:CREEP incident would be a good example." Please take a look at the talk page of WP:CREEP and you will see that yes, I am engaging people and discussing the issue. I've been on the talk page since december 7th; the dispute with Jeff started several weeks later. >Radiant< 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Autoblock
Thanks for removing the autoblock! What is an autoblock though? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is a tool that blocks the IP address of the blockee. So, even if your account gets unblocked, you will not be able to edit until your IP address gets unblocked. The IP addresses are not available, even to administrators. They are identified with this tool – [1]. View my blocking log – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. WP is more complex and sophisticated than I had thought. I learned something! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was very surprised when I learned that you got blocked. I always took you for a smart-one. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, some people think I am smart. My girl friend thinks I am stupid and she got a kick out of my block. My cat did too, I think, he was giving me superior looks. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was very surprised when I learned that you got blocked. I always took you for a smart-one. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. WP is more complex and sophisticated than I had thought. I learned something! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
CyberAnth
Um, I thought in my 3RR reoort I indicated why a block would not be that necessary. May I ask why you choose to block her? JoshuaZ 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I did not read your message very carefully. However, the version to which you were reverting was no WP:BLP violation, and the words were done fairly. In case you feel that it would be appropriate to unblock, please go ahead. I have no objections. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK...
I dont know who you are but please leave me alone. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would see that he personally attacked me first. Again, please leave me alone. I have work to do. WikiTony 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
PS:I know you proably meant well but it certainly seems like certain parties who will remain nameless are ganging up on me. Again, i do not mean any hostility but i believe there is hostility being directed at me from various people. I just dont think you know the full story of what happened when you wrote what you did on my talk page. i have already left that guy a note to explain to him (politely) how i feel about the incident. WikiTony 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page. I have watchlisted your talk page, you can respond there and I will notice any messages you address to me. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
AfD closure?
You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous only in death with delete. I count 9 delete votes, 7 keep votes excluding a keep comment by a newly registered user: 56.25%. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is relevant but I note the relevant article, Consensus_decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?, states Rough Consensus is the process used by the IETF working group, where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough". Rather, the question of consensus is left to the judgment of the working group chair. While this makes it more difficult for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, it puts increased responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to divisive debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD).
Any comment?--Golden Wattle talk 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- No comment. See WP:DRV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)