RFA
As requested, I have cleaned up your RFA. fish&karate 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For constantly reverting vandalism from Wikipedia. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much, I really appreciate this sign of appreciation. :-) SoWhy 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
User box followup - all looks fixed
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
Good answer
Good answer to my question on trivia, you have my support. Good luck! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words and the support of course. You do a good job cleaning up those sections without deleting the content, keep it up! :-) SoWhy 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hiya!
Heyyy, thanks for the change to my userpage :)
I wanted to ask you, why do people put an exclamation mark in front of the word vote? !Vote seems a very silly euphemism to me for something that obviously means vote anyway, so . . . it can't be that, surely?
I also have a hypothetical question. Not hypothetical because I haven't come across the situation, but hypothetical because it was a while ago now and too late to actually do anything about it. An experienced user (recently became an admin, actually) reverted (using Huggle, I think) a good edit which had deleted some content within a section. The diff, however, made it fairly clear that it wasn't just a mass delete – select sentences were retained and sentence structures changed, and because I'm familiar with the article, I know that there has been on-going discussions regarding the need to drastically reduce the size of the article, so the edit was definitely on the right track. It was done by an IP though, and apart from the section heading, there was no edit summary. So, the person who reverted it made a booboo, in my opinion, and I seem to have been the only one to spot it. It's too late to just undo, so I plan to go back and edit the text to reflect the IP's original edit. So, having said all of that, the question is: should I have told the admin about his revert (not just an undo) to a perfectly acceptable edit? Should I go to the IP's talk page and delete the vandalism warning? Or do I go there and just leave a comment, saying that the warning was left in error? Or do I just let it go? Presumably, it isn't a mistake which is likely to happen again or very often.
And one other thing: did you get my email? It was ages ago now. And I sincerely apologise to you for getting involved, too, I had been trying to stay away! It seems like the more one tries to stay away, the more one is likely to then come charging in, guns blazing or sword raised or axe swinging or...ok, I've run out of weapons. Enjoy your Sunday! :) Maedin\talk 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem.
- The !vote indicates that things like RfAs are no votes (in the "Wikipedia is not a democracy"-sense of the way) but discussion points. The ! comes from programming languages, where it usually indicates that something it NOT to be done (i.e. if (! $i = "hello" ) in PERL will only execute if $i is NOT "hello").
- If someone makes a mistake, you should always tell them. They might really have done so or maybe they knew more than you did about it. Talking about it will usually not hurt anyone. If not really needed (to prevent a block for example), you should not remove other people's warnings. If you tell the admin in question that it was placed in error, I am sure he will remove it him-/herself. But I think it's nice of you to try and work the edits back in the text, remember to indicate it in your ES though :-)
- No, I did not get any email from you. There is also none in my junk mail folder. What was it about, that you are apologising for? SoWhy 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand about the programming language and wikipedia not being a democracy – still find its usage slightly strange. I'll make sure not use vote without the !, I wouldn't want to be accused of thinking a vote is actually being taken. I can clear up that misunderstanding just by using the "secret code", so !vote it is. Sorry for the sarcasm, lol, I had to giggle about it. It is a euphemism, and most euphemisms are funny, :)
- Good points, thank you. It hadn't even occurred to me that if I informed him of his mistake, he would probably remove the warning himself, thereby saving me that whole dilemma. I always make things too complicated, lol.
- Ummm, I wonder why you didn't get the email. Are you sure that the email address you have set up with Wikipedia is correct? I know, stupid question, but I don't know what else might have caused you to not get it. It must have worked, because I asked for a copy to be sent to myself, and I received that.
- The apology is for the comments I made at your RfA; I had fully intended to be an uninvolved party with a simple support !vote (see? lol), as my status as an adoptee is suspicious enough to begin with (and because I remember Jamie & Majorly). But then, you know, I just...well, I gave in and defended and I don't think I should have. So, the cause of the apology was that: my comments, but the reason to apologise for it is on a few different levels. Adios, señor. Maedin\talk 14:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's just something people use here. I do not think anyone will think otherwise if you forget it and I forget it sometimes too. ;-)
- I got my e-mail set up correctly, as I just yesterday received mail fine. Weird thing but if you don't mind, you could send it again :-)
- Ah well, RfAs, the drama of Wikipedia. I noticed that you tried to hold back but I also know that some !votes must have seemed very weird and needed some clarification. Still, as all those you responded too did not return to discuss it further, there is nothing for you to apologise for. I have faith that you will try your very best to sound as neutral as possible. I appreciate your help there of course and I do not think it was wrong to do. If you hadn't, someone else would have pointed those things out. I think the drama calmed down now and I hope it's over for good. Still, three days to go to find out if that's so. :-) SoWhy 14:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Very quick question
I knowwwwwww, it's me again.
Here just to ask: what does (e/c) mean?
I see it the beginning of a line when someone responds to a comment which isn't the comment directly above theirs, so they usually un-indent to the appropriate margin, too. I tried googling it but I just got stuff on E=mc squared. Maedin\talk 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind, I like you, you know that ;-)
- (e/c) stands for edit conflict. It means that someone wrote a reply to the original statement but someone else wrote their reply faster. So the original statement was replied to already, but sometimes (if not answering a question for help) people like to add their reply as well. (e/c) is added to indicate that the poster tried to reply but got into an edit conflict when doing so and to indicate that have not just indented their reply in a wrong way (and that the reply is not to the other reply but to the original statement). I hope that was clear :-) SoWhy 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06
Thanks for tidying that up :) Much needed, --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. It was something I could do while eating my lunch. ;-) SoWhy 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Chuckle! I normally have the dog climbing all over me while I'm eating mine so I need both hands to fend her off! --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Good Bye
Thank you wery much for helping me in the begining I have learned a lot.No Hollaback Girl (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mmmh...sure, no problem. Are you leaving Wikipedia or do you just want to end the adoptionship? SoWhy 12:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Question 14
I've add a follow-up to an optional question you've already answered:
- Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical approach is compelling; and for me, what you've already explained is on-point. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?"
It seems reasonable to press for a more fully-developed comment and analysis. In my view, this is a hard, fast pitch, but it is not at all inappropriate in this context. Your answer will be read by a number of editors who would not necessarily pay much attention to what you do or say in other venues. This becomes a unique opportunity to affect the evolving consensus on a key point which comes up again and again in all sorts of circumstances.
Now that your elevation to the ranks of administrators is virtually assured, you have an opportunity to introduce a salutatory comment. In effect, my question becomes an invitation to convert this confirmation exercise into something constructive.C)
Asenine presented a lady or the tiger conundrum -- excellent, unavoidable, illuminating. The only correct answer is the one which illuminates the way in which the alternatives and consequences are evaluated. The question goes to the heart of the reasoning processes which inform good judgment. It also creates an opportunity to grapple with the most difficult challenge which the most highly-valued administrators face with grace and tact -- expressing themselves persuasively and constructively.
Diplomacy is sometimes the art of avoiding saying anything which might possibly cause a ripple of a problem to arise; and many appear to have been persuaded that this kind of non-specific diplomatic prose will serve Wikipedia's broader, long-term objectives. I see the merit in that cautious, restrained attitude; however, in my view, in this very limited setting, that approach is misplaced. This is a unique opportunity and a more revealing answer to a difficult question should be seen as appropriate, seemly, and welcome. --Tenmei (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think I will answer here the same as on the RfA: There is nothing more to elaborate on. The example provided is sufficiently short and basic - it does not allow further answering. You can answer what is to be done - discuss the edits, try to change consensus, using the various dispute resolution tools available to the community. One cannot give a more thoughtful response if the question does not give away more details. So I am uncertain as to how you think I could give a different response to this question and I would like you to tell me how you think this can be done or why you feel this could be necessary. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I've already acknowledged, "your rhetorical approach is compelling; and for me, what you've already explained is on-point." Nothing needs to be added; and indeed, you may know that you already have my support in this RfA.
- In this context, I am sorry to admit that the conceptual approach you favor is by no means universally accepted or applied. Perhaps your experiences have been different than mine, but the fact-of-the-matter is that I have encountered only a few who would have responded to Asenine's question as you have done. I could go further -- I suspect that Buckshot06 perceives no issues as lady or the tiger conundrums -- not that this should be a reason to deny his desire to become an administrator ... but the conceptual gap, if valid, becomes noteworthy and dispriting.
- I'm concerned that your pragmatic step-by-step plan for addressing prospective, impossible-to-parse conflicts between WP:Consensus and WP:Verifiabilty is not as commonplace as I would have hoped. Just take a minute or two to scan the corollary responses to Asenine's question in the few active RfA threads. There is something unsettling, in this, because I doubt that you see your own outreach skills as standing out starkly.
- It occurred to me that RfA creates a unique venue. The invitation for an open-ended response to Asenine's question was a genuine gesture, an informed attempt to encourage you to present a restatement. It seemed remotely plausible that this narrowly-focused venue might be converted into an opportunity for something more constructive to develop. I simply thought I'd give it a try; and obviously, you are letting me know that this tentative strategy needs much more work and further refinement. --Tenmei (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Beat the crat congrats!
Just saw your RfA closed as successful! Congrats! Nice userbox, by the way :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Beat the crat congrats!
Just saw your RfA closed as successful! Congrats! Nice userbox, by the way :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Beat the 'crat congrats!
It seems that you just got promoted. Good luck. I am sure someone else will come along shorty to give you your shirt. Now, get to work!- Icewedge (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)