Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) |
Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) →Malleus Fatuarum (current username Malleus Fatuorum): stop stop stop |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
::::::::::Go right ahead. You can either justify it or you can't. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::::Go right ahead. You can either justify it or you can't. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::No, no, no. Just stop. Everyone stop. The more attention we pay to Demiurge's antics, the more he'll perform. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 05:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:59, 16 December 2012
User | Talk | Articles | To Do | Toolbox | Subpages | DYK | Awards |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!
I'm moving into a period of low activity. Do not expect a rapid response from me.
This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers. |
Possible RfA in future?
Quite some time ago, you performed a brief review regarding my potential for an RfA; you didn't think I was there yet, and I would agree. I'd understand completely if you're too busy right now, but would you be able at some point to check out how I am looking now? dci | TALK 22:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi dci. After I chatted to you in March, you went quite quiet for 6 months, a total of about 300 edits. Rfa has been fairly tough on candidates recently, especially ones who haven't shown the required experience. I don't think you're doing anything wrong per se, but I do think you'll need to be aiming for at least 5000 edits before running for RfA in the present climate. It's got to be a "keep doing what you're doing" for the time being. Having said that, I've only done a cursory review as I'm a touch busy at the moment. WormTT(talk) 14:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Adoption
I'm ready for the test.—cyberpower OfflineMerry Christmas 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Carthage44
Hey Worm, what would you think about unblocking Carthage44 as time served per my comment. Ryan Vesey 03:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd generally be against it, depending on the unblock message. I've worked with a lot of blocked editors - trying to rehabilitate them into Wikipedia, and I think I had about a 50% success rate on them, which is pretty good IMO. However, it took significant effort on my part and even more effort on their part. With Carthage, I gave him a way back, I suggested he edit another project for a while to show that he could act civilly. He hasn't made a single edit to any other project. I'm not keen on unblocking indefinitely blocked editors unless they show that they are willing to change. WormTT(talk) 09:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Centre text
Hi Dave (or staplers). I added a green box to the top of here similar to my talk page one. Can you get the text to centre in the middle of the box? I tried aligning code (borrowed from tables) but it didn't work. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Categorization of redirects
Right now Pedro Bugle redirects to Pedro, South Dakota. The Pedro Bugle [1] would certainly be considered a defunct newspaper. My question is, should the redirect page be categorized as Defunct newspapers of the United States, should the target page be placed in the category, or should none of the pages be placed in the category? I also have this issue with Murder of Maria Ridulph. Should Maria Ridulph, a redirect, be placed into 1957 deaths? Ryan Vesey 22:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- You know what, I didn't even think we categorised redirects - it seems like a very perverse thing to do to me. WormTT(talk) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure either, but I just now found Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. So Maria Ridulph should be in the category. On another note, do you or one of your staplers (or you and one of your staplers) want to share a DYK with me? It meets the length requirements now; although, I'm not entirely sure it's comprehensive enough to not be considered a stub. I'd also really like the article to be more complete before nominating it; however, I'm busy with finals these next three days. Does anyone want to help me make it more complete before we nominate it? Ryan Vesey 16:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
- Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I saw your name listed at the top of "Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user" section. I don't know if you're still actively interested but I will go ahead and try anyway.
Consider Shirt58 for adminship. I have interacted with him once or twice but followed his editing pattern. I think, with his considerable experience and amiable attitude (plus almost as charming a voice as mine ) he will really make a fine administrator.
The fact to note here is that I have never nominated anyone before and have generally avoided RfA with only a few comments in that category. Hence, it will be a great support if you reviewed his editing and nominated him and I can co-nominate with you. Cheers and thank you, Mr T(Talk?) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind, didn't see you got back to Shirt58's talk. Can I also co-nominate? Would that be something you want or advise against? Mr T(Talk?) 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- i'd rather chat to him first, see where his interests lie, what he intends to do as an admin and so on. Assuming there's no problems (and i havent seen any yet), you are certainly welcome to co-nom, unless Shirt would prefer a single nominator. WormTT(talk) 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Oh goodness gracious me. I'd say my interests are in Australian history, politics, culture, literature and sports, Japanese history, language and literature, Korean history, language and literature, Chinese history, language and literature, C20 western Fine Arts, C20 western modern classical music, Jurisprudence, Cricket, Football in all its forms, invertebrate zoology, biographies of zoologists... and then there's stuff I wrote like Ego Leonard and Hevisaurus.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- i'd rather chat to him first, see where his interests lie, what he intends to do as an admin and so on. Assuming there's no problems (and i havent seen any yet), you are certainly welcome to co-nom, unless Shirt would prefer a single nominator. WormTT(talk) 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind, didn't see you got back to Shirt58's talk. Can I also co-nominate? Would that be something you want or advise against? Mr T(Talk?) 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi WTT and Mrt3366. Just to state this clearly. Yes, I would like to be nominated for adminship. I would be honoured if you could co-nom me.
Were this to happen, I might write this oppose:
- While Shirt58 has a good record in administrative actions at WP:CSD and WP:AfD and so on, he appears to shy away from confrontations and disputes, and does not appear to have the dispute resolution skills that would be expected of an administrator.
- His content contributions so far have not been a "net positive", but a "gross positive", with little or no disruption to the project. Nevertheless, it would appear that the majority of them are small stubs that the editor has started but seem disinclined to improve.
Are you two sure about the co-nom?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers Shirt. I've like what I've seen so far, but I've been waiting for that say so before I get stuck in to a review. I'll get back to you shortly :) WormTT(talk) 12:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Flickr/copyright question
OK...so thanks to your advice i have someone offering to change the licence of an image i need to CC-BY at the strictest. This is the image My question is what would happen if he changed the license back after i upload it to a stricter one where we can't use it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, once it's been released under CC-BY license, he can't change it back (even if he does change it on the flickr site) I'm not exactly sure how evidence would work in that situation. I assume that the fact it will allow upload will be sufficient, but I cannot be certain. WormTT(talk) 14:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Finally uploaded =D
- It's too big for the infobox though so i'll likely just include it as a thumbnail. What do you think? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could make a montage, like the one on New York City? WormTT(talk) 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet?
It's off topic at that discussion, but your "yet" made me chuckle : )
And if the guides are to be believed, you have a much better chance than I do : )
Anyway, thanks for my smile of the day : ) - jc37 09:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how much stock I put in the guides to be honest, I got the impression that the moved the votes up and down by about 5%... Either way, I always get the impression that the people don't get elected are the real winners, I think I enjoyed last year a lot more having not got in! Are you utterly sick of the waiting too? I do wish you the best of luck, whatever the outcome... WormTT(talk) 09:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I keep thinking about all those RfA discussions and proposals involving the length of RfA, and how even 7 days is just too long to be under such scrutiny... lol
- And no worries about the guides, I left some comments about them on Jclemens talk page, but honestly, it's like any talk page, people are free to express their thoughts as long as it stays within our interaction policies.
- As for me, I spent a lot of time asking others to run and got a lot of "no way"s. I only decided to run after Carcaroth and AGK (among others) nudged me that way. (See their talk pages for more info if interested.) Course at that point only 10 people were running for the 8 seats. How that changed lol.
- So I'm not concerned at all if I don't. (Honestly, there are like a dozen or so community-wide RfCs I want to start and haven't as I've been distracted by this.)
- And thank you. But afaik, I'm mostly an unknown figure since I don't hang out at all the cool kid places : )
- Whereas, from what I can tell, you seem to. So I'd be very surprised if you aren't in this time. - jc37 10:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cool kid places, ha! They're only cool because I make them cool... I think it's a great thing that you ran, even if things don't work out. Arbcom elections are far worse than RfA, going on for a good month and with discussions all over the place. It's really odd for me wandering into a page and finding I'm being discussed. I'm glad the question phase is over, that was fairly taxing with the sheer number of questions. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Lol, Im sure that must be it. You should pass out a schedule so that we all know when to show up for your illustrious presence : )
- And thanks. Do you say that because I typically finished the questions first and gave everyone something to crib from? : )
- I did a search to see what was being said about the elections outside of Wikipedia. There wasn't much (and very little about me). So once this is over, I can go back peacefully under the radar again : )
- Nod the multipart questions were something. Though it was kinda nice to be able to have the opportunity to express my opinion. I find that it's rare that we as Wikipedians actually have the opportunity to express how we think about Wikipedia and it's policies and processes as a whole. (besides re-expressing what we know about policy etc)
- And I was able to use my response to BSZ's second question (about civility) to answer part of the civility questionnaire : )
- This time "in between", is actually kinda nice. Discussion is over, it's just waiting til they release the totals. - jc37 10:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cool kid places, ha! They're only cool because I make them cool... I think it's a great thing that you ran, even if things don't work out. Arbcom elections are far worse than RfA, going on for a good month and with discussions all over the place. It's really odd for me wandering into a page and finding I'm being discussed. I'm glad the question phase is over, that was fairly taxing with the sheer number of questions. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
SPA blanking large sections of Article Talk Page
Looking for guidance and restoring large deletions from an article talk page, WormTT. User:Ttellouc is an SPA who edits only Alphonso Jackson. I stumbled onto the page while checking recent changes for vandalism on 1 Oct 2012. Tried to intervene in contentious exchanges between Ttellouc and a couple of ISP contributors and thought it was working (gave each half barnstars). Alas, I now see that Ttellouc blanked much of the article's talk page including all of the exchanges and discussions of recent changes contrary to WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. He also deleted related exchanges from his talk page but it's his page and he has latitude to delete contents there.
Please roll back the Talk:Alphonso_Jackson page so the discussions of content are again visible. I can only revert the most recent. Then I ask for your advice. Should this go to WP:ANI? I would advise him first, of course. Or should I just warn him even though it will likely sound like a threat? I'm no longer a disinterested party since I edited the article and commented on talk pages of the ISPs and Ttellouc. Your advice would be appreciated. Will watch for your reply here. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 06:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It was over a month ago... seems hardly worth mentioning. I've reverted and dropped Ttellouc a note. That's about it. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hand-coding
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Your adoption pages
Hi, Hall of Famer! I'm consider starting up an adoption course of my own and adopting a few editors. As I understand it, most adopters out there have copied your work, but just the same I'll ask first: Is it ok if I copy your curriculum? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- knock yourself out :). If there's anything I can do to help just ask WormTT(talk) 08:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try to remember that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sensible as always. Come to think of it, I might put my acceptance off for a few days.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- of course. If there's anything you'd like to talk about my talk page or email are open to you, if you'd like to leave it even longer I can delete the RFA and recreate it when you are ready. You can even put off that decision ;) it's all up to you. If you do decide to run, make sure you answer the questions before you transclude! WormTT(talk) 08:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuarum (current username Malleus Fatuorum)
Hi Worm! You previously suggested a two-way interaction ban between myself and the user originally known as Malleus Fatuarum, who is now using the name Malleus Fatuorum. I don't know what other names he has used, if any. (On my talk page you pointed out this diff where he said "Perhaps you assume too much. Certainly Malleus has never been an admin, and never will be, but I'm not Malleus. That's just the name of this account.") When you suggested the interaction ban, he was strongly opposed to such an arrangement.
He's recently re-affirmed his interest in my activities on Wikipedia, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page he appeared to be raising an interaction ban as a "threat" of some sort. I'm not really sure why he would think that would be considered threatening :) Sandy, being wise, archived the whole nonsense.
I've seen enough of this sort of immature behaviour, and I know exactly what an interaction ban involves, per WP:IBAN. How do we take this forward and get it put in place? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) WP:ANI Would be the right venue for it. Are you sure you want to take such a route? Sometimes, iteraction bans make more harm than good. — ΛΧΣ21 05:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Hahc, thanks for your feedback on this! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't it seem even a little bit strange to you that rather than just not interacting Demiurge1000 demands an interaction ban? I've taken no interest at all in his Wikipedia activities, and I don't even know what they are. Until he turned up earlier on SandyGeorgia's talk page out of the blue on a matter that was nothing to do with him I'd completely forgotten about him. What I refused, and refuse, to accept is a two-way interaction ban. Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather recommend each one to stay away from the other if there is no way you can make a clean start and have a editorial relationship, with no disputes. Interaction bans are dangerous and unproductive, and should only be used when enforcement is needed. If a more relaxed way to solve the situation is available, then the ban would make no service. — ΛΧΣ21 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hahc! Great to see you here again. And indeed, I thank you once again for your kind and wise words. However, I had already written a reply to Malleus, so I will proceed to post it below.
- Gosh, some amongst us read "You were very lucky to get away without an interaction ban" rather differently. I will withdraw the proposal for now, if you are still so strongly opposed to it, but in the long term I think it may benefit the encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Demiurge, it looks to me like you were the one who reaffirmed interest in Malleus's edits, not the other way around; it was a throwaway comment, not requiring any followup by you. If you just leave Malleus alone, I'm sure he'd do the same for you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, really? I didn't see it that way, but I'll look forward to it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Demiurge, I've never taken the time to fully examine the relationship between you and Malleus; however, I do understand that there seems to be some amount of bad blood. What that doesn't change is the fact that it is common for you to include some sort of unrelated pieces of information as if it somehow makes your point. In this case, there was absolutely zero reason for you to use the section title "Malleus Fatuarum (current username Malleus Fatuorum)" and to again make the comment about the name change in the text of your statement. When you put information like that into your posts, I find it impossible to assume good faith on your part and consider your actions disruptive. Ryan Vesey 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You find it "impossible to assume good faith"? And then you decide that it's "disruptive" to suggest an interaction ban? That's... interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, what makes you think no-one should be allowed to mention his past actions? Some kind of censorship? Or what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're wilfully mis-quoting me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're on dangerous ground when you accuse me of lying. I will give you an opportunity to rethink that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't the interaction ban that I said was disruptive. I said it was disruptive to pull out his username change as if it was somehow related to the actions in question. Imagine if every time someone posted about you they used a section header "Demiurge1000 (once blocked for personal attacks or harassment)". Unless the issue is related to personal attacks or harassment, the statement would be disruptive. On that topic, who is this personal attack directed at? Ryan Vesey 05:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x4 You know what would be awesome? If you, Demiurge, would stop baiting Malleus with vague, implied, unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing and just drop it. I can't think of any other reason why you would bring up his old username other than to insinuate sock-based wrongdoing. If you want an interaction ban, just stop interacting with Malleus. It's that easy; no AN discussion required. Just...frigging...stop. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, can I get a 2nd opinion on this edit? Demiurge appears to disagree with me. Ryan Vesey 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "blocked for personal attacks or harassment" doesn't bother me at all, since I know exactly who used those words with regard to me, and I know exactly why. Funnily enough, they mentioned it the immediately following time they had another content dispute with me - maybe you should look for that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but what? I created a completely hypothetical situation so I don't understand where you are getting this immediately following a content dispute information from. If you see nothing wrong with a past block being referenced every time you are mentioned, then there's no point arguing with you about why mentioning Malleus' name change was inappropriate. The only resolution will come when you someday get yourself into trouble for it. Ryan Vesey 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "blocked for personal attacks or harassment" doesn't bother me at all, since I know exactly who used those words with regard to me, and I know exactly why. Funnily enough, they mentioned it the immediately following time they had another content dispute with me - maybe you should look for that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. You can either justify it or you can't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, no, no. Just stop. Everyone stop. The more attention we pay to Demiurge's antics, the more he'll perform. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. You can either justify it or you can't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)