User talk:Nathan/Archive 3

Archive 3

Simply outstanding.

I'm going to do something I have never done before, so hopefully I won't make mistakes. :)

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		I, Rudget, award you the The Barnstar of Liberty barnstar for your eloquent, exceptional and quite remarkable comments here. Rudget. 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		It is for those reasons above, and the general comments you make around here that impress and inspire me so much. I always see outstanding attempts at reasoning, understanding and portraying, I find your edits, as a Tina Turner song would put it: "Simply the Best". Rudget. 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you move things

You should go back and change your related tags. You moved Category:Gayass Wikipedians from CfD to UCfD but didn't change the tags on the cat's page or on the notice you left on my page. Therefore, the links to the "discussion" don't work. I've since changed the tags so they do work now. Thanks. ALLSTARecho 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't change all the tags but the originals don't actually not work, they just link to a spot where there is another link to the correct spot. ^Avruchtalk 17:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

You said, what would be the point of any punishment we could deliver? Your point appears to be that we should just shrug out shoulders and do nothing, because blocking a person who makes death threats doesn't accomplish anything. Therefore I feel my disbelief is appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posting)I said 'Blocks are preventative, not punishment' and he said 'Even for death threats?' and I said 'what would be the point of any punishment we can deliver?' and I stand by that question. The dude is blocked for a long period of time, and the IP is as well. The reason blocks aren't punitive is because there is no point - its a pretty weak form of punishment, wouldn't you say? I didn't argue that it shouldn't be reported to Mike Godwin, or that he shouldn't be blocked. Just that punishment per se is pointless. You may not agree, but you should at least consider that I wouldn't argue that blocking someone who made death threats is pointless in and of itself. Next time, before you express disbelief, anyway - particularly if you are going to include it in the irreversible edit summary that everyone sees on a watchlist. ^Avruchtalk 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My disbelief still stands. Corvus cornix_talk 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, ok. Apparently the responding admins at AN/I disagree. ^Avruchtalk 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Filippella AfD

Thanks for stepping in to discredit bogus votes. I was wondering if Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Omniarerum might compel some more of those votes to be discounted? Many thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re monobook

try it now, you were missing the function $() -- also, did you intend to also copy the script I have to stop me from saving without an edit summary? —Random832 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning"

While I appreciate your intent, by the time you had left the template warning on my page, the issue had long since become a non-issue. I had not done anything close to reverting the page for hours and had last left a short message about the vote change. I just wanted to point it out to you so you're not under the mistaken impression that I am in an edit war. I already yielded to the superior firepower of those who have been attacking me and my edits (including personal attacks that no admin will rebuke). Thank you for your interest, but it is misplaced at this point. (Though I am curious which logged-out editor left the complaint, long after the fact, with the IP-only.) VigilancePrime (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the edit war

I really did not want to start anything at all, I just felt that the person was deleting notable info. If there is anything though that you can suggest I can be able to take the argument about the info being on the Wachovia Spectrum page, and see if it could be ok to leave on, or if it should be deleted, please let me know, so I can be able to avoid a situation like this again. Thanks :) Whammies Were Here 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., what do you mean by RR? Just curious, thanks. Whammies Were Here 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, that helps :) Whammies Were Here 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Apollo RfA

I transcluded it per this diff (see lower part). The user in question didn't know how to transclude, or so I concluded and as such I assumed that they obviously wanted it put out. Dreamy ^§ 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. If it were me, I would've explained how the RfA was unlikely to succeed and given him an idea of what he could do in preparation for one that is more likely to be successful. Transcluded, it'd be closed within half a day at most. ^Avruchtalk 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,understood. Dreamy ^§ 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensevivid

Personally, I've always found the placeholder image sort of ugly myself; it strikes me that he's not actually doing any harm as such, he's basically just removing something that says 'We have no picture'. In essence he's replacing a picture of nothing with nothing. HalfShadow (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to be the case. Still, since he's upsetting a crowd of people he should probably stop and seek consensus to continue. ^Avruchtalk 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comments

My comments[1] were not meant as a personal attack, but to show the guilty by association comments that have frequently appeared in some editor's posts and the chilling effects they have. I regret that they may have appeared otherwise. Pairadox (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fasach, again.

I was just about to get back to it on ANI: Disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, and refusal to get the point, and civility issues.Diffs: ([2] [3] [4] refusing to get the point [5] [6]). Will ^(talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, I think - he is not being as diplomatic as he could or should be, that is true. He is clearly among those who have become frustrated with enforcing NFCC policy and has to an extent dispensed with most of the discussion that used to accompany these types of actions. I think that makes the situation ripe for an RfC - except that previous RfCs have been filed about this sort of conduct, as well as Arbitration cases, and they have not come to the conclusion that this sort of behavior is a violation of policy. ^Avruch talk 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to enforce NFCC, I've given him better ways of doing so. He's ignored all of them. It's sliding into disruption if it hasn't already, and fair use enforcement does not give carte blanche. Will ^(talk) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking too, unless you have a good explanation. Will ^(talk) 22:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be catching some flak

It appears that a leaving editor has classed you as the epitome of Wikipedia's indifference/negativity toward editors who wish to self identify as regards their sexuality with the use of categories. As a Bleeding Heart Liberal, who welcomes contributions from every class of permissable sexuality in subjects in which they have a stake (and those that merely interests them), I think that they are being unfair. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed... I was hoping he would finish after the first couple of posts, but posting to AN is going too far. I don't think my notes in his talk page history or the actual actions I've taken that he has been aware of really support the implication of his many messages, but apparently he was quite offended and decided to make sure everyone knew it before he left. I appreciate your note and that you are the only person, in any forum, to point out that his messages have been in any way an unfair description of me or events. ^Avruchtalk 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have commented at WT:LGBT, not all of us think you are anti-LGBT just because you nominated that category for deletion. I would think the vast majority do not think that. Aleta (Sing) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, although... That anyone thinks I am anti-LGBT is a troubling result of what I imagined were relatively uncontroversial actions. Something I will have to keep in mind for the future: the controversial nature of an action is judged by those who it will effect, not those who perform it. ^Avruchtalk 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment formatting issue at AfD

Hi - I concur with your work in moving the long discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) to the talk page for clarity.

One editor has restored his long response to my !vote, at here, but he did not restore the rest of the thread, that includes responses from several editors. Without the context, his comment has excessive weight and deprecates my !vote.

It seems inappropriate for an excerpt from the thread to be restored without the context of the way it was discussed. What do you think about this? I started to restore it, but then did not, because I don't want to get into a conflict with User:Strichmann, and he might see that as a provocation.

Would you be willing to undo that change? Or should the entire thread should be moved back to the main page?

I added section headings on the talk page to identify the various threads. This is the one at discussion 5.

If you decide you don't want to take any action on this, please let me know so I can consider an alternate approach that's fair for all.

Thanks for your help. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received your reply, thanks for considering it. I think I'll just add a one-sentence response and link to the thread on the talk page. It's a really long thread, too long to move the whole thing back.

I think you're right it will be a no-consensus close and it's not worthwhile to work on it much more. Have a good one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians UCFD

I have reverted your close of the UCFD as withdrawn. After an argument to delete is presented, withdrawing nominations is usually disallowed, particularly in cases where there is actually a majority of delete arguments such as in the case at hand. I moved your closing comment under your original nomination statement, feel free to strike your comments and put any additional rationale you wish, but let's let this one run its course. I realize you have gotten some unjust flak for nominating this which is perhaps why you wanted it withdrawn, but letting this UCFD finish will be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, even if it does indeed finish as no consensus. If you had withdrawn it would have been renominatied immediately, stirring up emotions even further. Hope you can understand. VegaDark (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Can I have a link? I haven't sent the request, the community should have a chance to look over it before it gets oversighted, in my opinion. Keilana|^Parlez ici 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll include that. Keilana|^Parlez ici 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin vote

oh ok, so where do I go to vote--Yankees10 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why shouldnt I vote for his--Yankees10 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its over, did people vote no or just he came to his senses and relized that it wasnt good idea--Yankees10 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh alright, thanks for answering my questions--Yankees10 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

your note at the DRV

Hi Avruch

Regarding this note you added at the top of the DRV for Adult-child sex, you wrote:

Userfied version of the page available: here

-- I appreciate your efforts for completeness in the debate, but that user page is nothing at all like the one that was deleted. If you want to post a userfied link, please ask an administrator to restore the actual article as it was during the debate. The one you linked to there is one user's idea of what he wanted the article to be, maybe with help from a few others, but it was not the deleted article and it gives an incorrect context for the discussion.

I'm letting you know about this on your talk page instead of on the DRV page to avoid creating any extra drama in an already tense situation.

Thanks for your understanding. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank-spam

Nathan/Archive 3, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Di Stefano

I won't. I have no intention of getting into an edit war on that page or any other. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for that. The discussion there were getting pretty off-target... — DarkFalls ^talk 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Is it OK to comment on the idiotic contributions, if I refrain on name calling of the individual itself? Not sure how to make my point, be consise, and not offend anyone.VandleBlaster (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks a lot. [7] Have a great week. Trav (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New category

Well done on Category:LGBT Wikipedians - good explanatory section, and the whole thing very much appreciated following the recent "heated debates". DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo DuncanHill's comment, and express my gratitude as well for taking the initiative to create this category, and to add an appropriate, thoughtful, and concise explanatory section. It is very much appreciated. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll third that. Very nicely done! :) Aleta (Sing) 14:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;-) ^Avruchtalk 14:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

Avruch, in creating the category:LGBT Wikipedians and including a strong justification for its existence, you may well force other Wikipedians to examine their attitudes to user categories. In taking this action, you have restored some of my belief that wikipedia can be a place where principle is important. As such, I award you

		The Special Barnstar
		For making an outstanding contribution to the resolution of the user category issue, and by doing so in a way that recognises the value of the community of LGBT editors Jay*Jay (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar is meant to be awarded as a gesture of appreciation, and with the rainbow motif as well, it seemed particularly appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jay*Jay! ^Avruchtalk 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT

The work you did on the LGBT usercat is phenomenal! Thank you, many, many times, for your efforts to bring about equity. WP is a better place for your presence and contribution. --Phyesalis (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:24.166.188.91

Why did you wipe out most of the edits on this user's talk page? I don't believe he asked you to do so. Please fix it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wipe it out, I just put it behind a collapse box. If you click the 'show' button its all still there. Most of what is now behind the box is repetitive warnings, which I've collapsed in order to make a new start on his talk page and emphasize the importance of paying attention to messages about getting an account etc. The object is to address your concern constructively without being bitey about it or unnecessarily blocking someone who could ultimately become a useful contributor. ^Avruchtalk 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but are you an administrator? If you are that's fine, but if not you had no right to refactor the user's talk page. It's fine to add to his page and make comments on the ANI, but unless you are an administrator with good reason, you should not have have hidden messages on his talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that strongly that the entire history should be immediately visible, then remove the hat/hab. It doesn't seem necessary right at the moment, and improved visibility of the newest attempts to corral the editor into editing within content policies would seem to be beneficial. If you disagree, make whatever changes you think are necessary and post about it in the thread on AN/I. ^Avruchtalk 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is not whether the information should be visible, but that you unilaterally decided to refactor the user's talk page without his consent and without administrator privileges (assuming you are not an administrator). You have overstepped your bounds by refactoring a talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you are correct. Feel free to cite a policy if you like, and I will undo it myself. If you don't think the actual action is problematic (just that I shouldn't have made it) then I don't see what the problem is. Perhaps some IAR is in order, if indeed I violated a WP:TALK policy. ^Avruchtalk 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG: "Behavior that is unacceptable ... don't edit others' comments". That would include hiding them, especially on the talk page of a user who probably doesn't know how to find the hidden messages. Ward3001 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue with you about it, if you like just reverse it. If you read the page the section you refer to actually links to IAR. It also lists a series of exceptions, including refactoring. If you go to the bottom of the page (the User talk pages section) it says more latitude is generally granted. Nothing specifically says "You can collapse a huge IP user talk page in order to help solve a conduct problem" but I don't think arguing over the nits and nats of a guideline is really conducive. ^Avruchtalk 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not going to change the talk page. It's not mine to change. Secondly, IAR is way overused to justify policy violations and acting on a whim. And thirdly, you don't know the consequences of refactoring a user's talk page. Like I said, what if the user is naive and simply thinks the messages disappeared. I am not assuming bad faith; your intentions may have been fine, just very thoughtless and without regard for the consequences to others. What if I had moved everything on your talk page to another page without previous warning, even if you knew where the information went? Would that be OK with you? What if I archived your talk page every day? Would you just assume that it was OK because of IAR? If you had done that to my talk page without my consent (and in this case, not even an explanation to the user), I would have given you a level one vandalism warning and reverted it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree on this I think. ^Avruchtalk 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

No it wasn't yours so much as the one's that followed. We're all trying to figure out how to evaluate RfA's, but sometimes it just feels like an overwhelming number of questions. It all started here. Then something just snapped. Dlohcierekim 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on AN/I

Hi Avruch. Thank you for your comments here. This is the first time I have intervened in a dispute like this, and I don't seem to have done a terribly good job at making it better, but I'd like to learn from the experience. When the user continued PAs after being admonished on RfC, maybe I should have just left a message myself on his talk. But I dislike empty words, which is why I thought it would be better to get an admin interested. Turned into a train-wreck, though. Anyway, thanks for your help. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not entitled to edit there

Hmmm...
If you're going to actually enforce the "only the chosen few are allowed to edit" please do so with some consistancy. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You're making fun of my spelling for goodness' sake? Forgive me for finding that extremely small-minded and petty.
2. I was operating under the working assumption that since no one reverted no-nonsense changes made but others who were !clerks and !arbs, the notes at the top were guidance only.

I'll presume then that you'll drop a message on the pages of the others who've edited the page reminding them they "aren't entitled"?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at WP:AN

Avruch, I feel that I should inform you that I have added a comment to the WP:AN discussion about the departure of William Coleman. I want you to know that I do not intend it as an attack, but that I do feel it is important for me to understand what has led him to accept your explanations. I have looked at the comments posted on his talk page, and in other places, and whilst I believe that you did not expect the controversy your nomination provoked, I am concerned about aspects of your response since then. I don't want to move on from this with a negative impression of you, and so I'd appreciate it if you could give some thought to what I have written. Of course you have the right to choose not to respond, and I am not saying that you owe me an explanation, but I would appreciate you choosing to expand on what has happened so that I (and possibly others) don't form an opinion without flagging concerns to you and providing an opportunity for a response. I recognise that you were likely upset by some of William's comments, and I also recognise that some of my comments may be overly harsh - I can't be entirely rational on a topic like this, and so I ask that you accept that my comments are meant as an appeal for information, rather than a direct criticism. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Avruch. I have, in turn, responded. For the record, I am pleased to find that the impression that I had formed is inaccurate, and I hope we can work well together into the future. No hard feelings? Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on, I don't know if you are still following this discussion or not, but you might want to have a look. Cheers Jay*Jay (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, I have started a thread at WP:AN about your closing and marking as 'resolved' the above discussion. Here's a link. I want to make it clear that I am not asking for any sanction of you, and I completely understand your desire to have the thread archived. However, I am not sure that the action that you have taken is a good idea, as it removes the context from the part of the discussion which you separated. I'm also not sure whether it is considered acceptable, which is why I have asked. You may want to monitor any response and / or make a comment. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, I am not surprised that you added a comment to the WP:AN thread - that was why I left you a note to advise that I had asked the question. I have added a link and explanatory note, to the earlier discussion, and marked the present discussion as resolved. Feel free to add if you think this is an inaccurate summary of the outcome. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch: I have registered as you suggested. I really don't understand how to do all of this stuff because I am a low-tech person who knows only how to type. It is my desire to edit the Shoplifting Wikipedia Article to include some mention, if not the history, of Civil Recovery Demands. In a world where Civil Recovery Demands against "first offense" shoplifters is growing every day and where the law surrounding arrests and city tickets for "stealing" which is prosecuted and defended as misdemeanor or felony larceny is algo growing, Wikipedia could help to bring some light on the subject matter ----if they want to. Some of the Cities have already stopped sending their commissioned police to store security offices to ticket "first offender" shoplifters who have surrendered the merchandise with an offer to pay and are using the Civil Sanction ONLY against first-offender shoplifters who have no criminal record of any kind. They probably still have an option to use the criminal sanction and call the police but maybe the police will now make the Retail LP security personnel (in their agency of city-licensed security police, file a complaint with the Prosecutor??instead of traveling to the security offices of the retail stores.

When you consider that in States like Florida and Washington State, the Retailer can demand $200 and attorney fees for a $2.00 wholesale item that retails for $10.00, the incentive is there to arrest for profit for the store and for the LP personnel. The cities and small towns who have rehab schools and plea bargains for first offenders who are arrested or ticketed for "stealing" also earn revenue in the term of fees and fines and bonds etc.. and legal fees for the local bar and justify the use of the resources provided by the taxpayers to travel to the stores to arrest and or ticket first offenders ---with the view that the arrest/ticket etc.. together with a civil recovery demand letter will certainly act as a deterrent to any second attempt to steal by an amateur shoplifter. The public records DO indicate that there is no defense in the lower court to a ticket for stealing and it is the city who bears the responsibility for the ticket or arrest and any prosecution of the matter, and the retailer is protected from lawsuits.

I don't understand why I wasn't allowed to edit and post the Tennessee Law for shoplifting and the civil demand letter. Tennessee seems to have updated the law but I am not an attorney and I don't understand fully all of the implications. I do know that several years ago, The Vice Mayor of Nashville was arrested for shoplifting at Target during the Christman season. He was running for public office and his opponents must have outed him to the Tennessean, the newspaper in Nashville, who ran an article about his rehab in a "school across the river" and how this had been his second offense against Target, etc.. It is public policy and the policy of the police to make sure that the "notables" and the "famous" make the papers because it reinforces the civil demand sanction and the civil recoveries while protecting the police (who do not make the public policy) who implement the policy of the cities and the retailers.

Thank you for any help you can give me. I think I am registered, now!

CJKC ---30 Jan 08 ll:45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJKC (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA and IP.75

Av,

Why can't IP.75 chime in. He agrees with Down's reasoning, and he has a point about BZip about to piss himself if he doesn't get the tools by the end of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.7.198 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Candidacy

Shalom! I aprpeciate your input on my RfA candidacy. I withdrew my bid -- this is not for me. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CJKC (talk · contribs)

For your information [8]. Ward3001 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another one [9]. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. What is the NRF link showing me? ^Avruchtalk 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I put the wrong link (should not have been NRF). I fixed it above. Ward3001 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator

My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Alan Dershowitz

The article Alan Dershowitz you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Alan Dershowitz for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. jackturner3 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACS userpage DRV - contradiction with prior statements?

I've undone User:Krimpet's early closure. DRV debates are normally closed after 5 days; while some can certainly be closed sooner due to snow consensus, this is not the case, as the verdict was "a complete lack of consensus" for either solution. And, as User:Krimpet voiced "delete" in the AfD in question, I don't think User:Krimpet is in the best position to close this DRV as an endorsement of the deletion result. Also, I'd like to recommend that administrators who have voted keep/delete in the related AfD steer clear of closing this DRV discussion and let an uninvolved administrator close it. Thanks and best regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet you closed the next DRV, despite having expressed an opinion in the article DRV and its talk page. Seems to be a contradiction there, particularly since you closed to overturn despite the lack of consensus either way. ^Avruchtalk 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction here. Have you ever read her rationale: "Deletion overturned; pages kept in userspace don't meet speedy criterion G4. No prejudice to MfD listing should other issues arise." The deletion of the user subpage was a blatant violation of CSD G4. This rationale is indubitably enforced by policy and bears no reflection of the closer's pov. @pple complain 15:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the closing note. Its a policy opinion, not a determination of the consensus of the discussion - which is how DRVs are supposed to be closed. My question still stands, though - PeaceNT advised other admins not to close a similar DRV if they had commented in a related discussion, and here she has done that same thing. ^Avruchtalk 15:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any contradiction. I questioned Adult-child sex DRV closure because of too clear reasons, it is both premature (the DRV had not finished its 5-day run) and visibly biased, as the admin had commented in the AfD directly related to the DRV (i.e that was the DRV for that AfD).

As for my closure in this DRV, I performed it after an expected sufficient amount of time, and I'm not involved in the deletion/undeltion of the user subpage in question (which is entirely unrelated to a mainspace article) The previous article DRV has no connection to this dispute of the speedy deletion of a page in the userspace. Thus I find your claim that I have done the same thing as user Krimpet rather objectionable. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - PeaceNT (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did the same thing as Krimpet - you simply seemed to have contradicted your statement with future actions. Semantically, the DRVs of the article and the userpage version are not connected. I would disagree with any claim that they are not intrinsically linked, however, since the content at issue is the same. Since you don't agree that your action contradicted your above advice, can you explain how you determined consensus in this DRV? ^Avruchtalk 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what did you mean by "here she has done that same thing"?

About my closure, I consider it a simple one. Arguments in favor of overturning the deletion are based firmly on specific Wikipedia policy, while the other arguments largely exhibit a contempt for the POV content of the deleted article (sounds pretty much IDONTLIKEIT), and concerns about the fact that the subpage could be moved back to userspace, which apparently has yet to happen. Best regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess "done the same thing" isn't clear - I was referring to the same thing you advised against in your comment. Apologies for the confusion. ^Avruchtalk 15:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gee whiz

Avruch, my dear, you really must stop deleting comments from discussions! Don't you know pissing comments are the Wikipedian way?!? That's how we show each other we care. Jeffpw (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, its becoming a habit. I have this thing about discussions not going off on tangents with people spitting at eachother... Its a disease, is there a cure? ^Avruchtalk 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd offer to cut off your fingers, but I have a feeling you'd just start typing (or deleting) with your nose. I restored my delete vote, so I'm not really bothered. Jeffpw (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, thank you for being a voice of reason. In your place, I may have (and have in the past) done something similar. (That is a place to discuss the categories not user actions. Once it was clear where it was going, I should have taken the discussion to a talk page "somewhere".) As an aside (though it means little, I'm sure), I was merely responding to the accusations of others commenting. Anyway, thanks again. - jc37 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good idea

[10] Lawrence § t/e 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Avruch, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Re: javascript

I haven't set it up to be compatible with importScript, so you'll just have to copy the script for now. For TW, have you enabled the compatibility gadget in your preferences? Also, Twinkle's use of importScript with on-load hooks is vulnerable to a race condition, which seemed to happen more often on modern than monobook for me; try copying my addOnloadHook function from my modern.js. —Random832 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about your comment

Moving this from the RfC to here. Have you been following AT's increasingly bizarre postings, as well as his semi-resistance to simply accepting the terms Ryan drew up? If so, how can you say you agree with AT's opinion that my striking of my support for mentorship is "additional drama"? At least that's what it seemed you were saying in your last post. Correct me if I've wrongly apprehended your meaning there. Bellwether ^B_C 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been following the strange comments. It is clear that the mentorship proposal enjoys support, and if it fails everyone involved in the RfC will support a transition to ArbCom. Since that is the case, there is no point in cluttering the RfC up with further (bitter) arguing. (Also - I was specifically referring to his description of judicial process, which does offer an interesting comparison - he was correct there). Avruchtalk 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying. My main contribution there in the last 24 hours(other than switching from support to oppose on the mentorship) has been to restore replied-to comments that Arch had deleted for strange and mysterious reasons. I'll probably not contribute there again, save to fix Arch's butchering of the threads, if nothing new emerges. Bellwether ^B_C 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CJKC (talk · contribs), aka 24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs)

Just an update. It seems that this user (Carol) has an axe to grind and is trying to use Wikipedia to do so. See here. Ward3001 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents

Please sign your nomination. I responded as Yoda. :-) Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops you did sign your comment. Who made the nom? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other person in the edit history, I don't recall the username off-hand. I'd reverted the AfD nom from the page because the redlink to the discussion stayed red for awhile, but its back and whatnot now. Avruchtalk 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Israel

I find your use of the flag of Israel (absolute top) inappropriate. This is in no way a comment on Israel, Zionism, or related topics; I'd find a flag of China or any other country used in the same way equally inappropriate. I'm not sure how to say this without appearing to assume bad faith... For me, and quite possibly other users, it indicates that you consider Wikipedia a pro-flag placed in top left corner place, rather than a neutral one, or a seek to create such a place. Whether this is your intent, this is the way it can be very easily construed. It also means your edits may not be taken at face value, and thus may make conflict more likely. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean necessarily by a "pro flag placed in top left corner place." I wouldn't expect (or agree with) the larger placement of this flag or any flag on other pages, and I don't think that it implies prejudice in my editing anymore than would a userbox of the flag (or indeed the Zionism userbox, which I have on my userpage) or the use of a Hebrew username (such as Avruch). In some ways, I think, declaring an interest going into a dispute makes the lines clearer - I'm not trying to hide a point of view, but I do not think my point of view should be represented directly in any articles. I haven't been involved in too many Israel-related disputes, but so far none of them have raised the issue of bias in my editing. Regardless, I've removed the more prominent of the two Israeli flags on my talkpage per your objection. Avruchtalk 08:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's something I've thought about for myself, and I'm not sure there is an answer. Whether you declare your biases or not, it's best to be aware of them when editing, and hopefully one's edits speak for themselves. Thanks for your polite response - I hope I'm that courteous when someone points out a different perspective on my actions! Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um...

...why did you remove a post I placed on another user's talk page? Ungovernable Force^Poll: Which religious text should I read? 23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, can you be more specific? Avruch^T 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that was JzG (Guy's) page. If you read the page, at the bottom near where you posted he asks that the main talkpage be left for condolences for the death of his father. He has a link to a "wp-stuff" userpage, I moved your post there. Avruch^T 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks. Ungovernable Force^Poll: Which religious text should I read? 03:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

One of my favorite pictures

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board

Thank you, as it turns out your message was the first I heard it was actually official. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement at ANI re. Betacommandbot

I take this statement "If you are getting spammed messages from BCBot on your talkpage it is because you are doing it wrong." as extremely offensive. If you had taken 2 seconds to read, you might realise that 1. This is not about new uploaders (I have not recieved any tags because I know what I'm doing), and 2. this is about the effect on all editors, not just uploaders. Stop pretending this is just an issue for noob uploaders, this is pissing everybody off. As for countless other debates, if there are that many (which I actually believe and have seen, there are, such is the nature of this bot) why is no-one addressing this in a community manner rather than letting one user make 20,000 controversial edits in one day, why is there no FAQ, no project, no precedent, nothing. Everyone who has issues with this bot just seem sto be getting the royal wiki finger. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you were offended. I share your frustration with the level of community distress on this issue, but I approach it from a different perspective. I think it is understandably human that people are upset when a portion of their work is tagged for removal - obviously, most folks here are contributors and no one likes having contributions undone. The problem is that in this area, not all contributions are performed in a way that supports the Wikimedia Foundation goals and policies. It seems to me like BetaCommand is unfairly singled out here as the culprit (partially this happens because of his communication style, which wasn't great even before he started getting thousands of complaints). The truth, in my mind, is that the culprit if there is one is the policy.

It may be an imperfect policy (although I don't think this is the primary problem). People consistently don't understand the nature or importance of the policy, and blame BCBot for the impending deletion of their work. But BCBot does not delete anything, administrators do. Compliance with the policy is, per the policy, supposed to be verifiable by an automated process. Failure to comply triggers tagging. My point with saying you're doing it wrong isn't to attack people, but to shift the focus of these complaints back onto the people making them in some respect - if you (speaking generically, not you personally) are receiving many invalid FUR warnings then the simple fact is you are incorrectly uploading images. You point out that you don't receive any tags because you know what you are doing - that is the solution, not stopping BCBot.

To address your other points - I did read the threads, and I've read many other similar threads. I realize it isn't just 'noob' editors getting tags, and that a lot of people are upset. I also realize that the policy has not always been the way it is now, and so many images that were previously compliant have been made non-compliant not through the actions of the uploader but through changes in policy. Unfortunately, this is how it works - the community and Foundation decide that to support our goals a policy must be revised and strengthened and enforced. The tagging process is really a compromise - it would surely be within the purview of the Foundation to summarily delete all non-compliant images at once, in order to nullify any legal risk and to ensure that our content is reliably free (at least in the area of images). Finally - there is a FAQ, I believe, and a helpdesk, and a policy, and directions to these things are supposed to be (I think) included in tag notices or in the tags themselves. These shortcomings have been raised before and they are reasonable and should be/have been addressed. Folks should have a reasonable opportunity to fix images before they are deleted. Thats why the bot has been tagging as slowly as it has been - ask BCBot how many times he's throttled it down to satisfy speed concerns. There are still hundreds of thousands of images left, and the deadline is fast approaching. Avruch^T 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally believe the points made in the third para are contradictory with the first two. At the end of the day, if it was realised in advance that the release of this bot would cause tagging of thousands of legacy images, then I would say a drastic measure like delete everything and start again would have been appropriate. All we have now is 50,000 people who didnt follow instructions, 50,000 who did but at the wrong time, and 50,000 who did with good intent but not meeting the bot's requirements (a ridiculous piece of code for the task at hand), all treated to the same draconian message, with no intelligence applied to the process at all. The argument that the bot doesn't delete anything is facecious, especially with the idea that the only person that can fix an image is the uploader, who in many cases is long gone, leaving an unconcerned admin to do the easy thing. At the end of the day, the bot is tagging at best in my experience only 1 in 25 images that have actual copyvio concerns, the rest are easily fixed but no-one gives a rat's ass. The bot at the end of the day looks more and more like a hobby of a wannabe be programmer and not an encyclopoedia contributor. His stated wish of not seeing images deleted is patently and proveably (had anyone actually done any analysis) wrong. There is no point in forums when this bot produces thousands of identical posts that no one, inluding the creator, can be bothered to answer the same question for the millionth time. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :. File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful. Avruch Thank you for casting the 75th vote in support and helping the discussion.      "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

Adminship nomination

I have always been impressed with your work and as those who I feel could use the tools continue to be nominated by others, I figure I may as well go ahead and attempt nominating someone myself. You definitely would put the tools to good use and I suspect many suspect you already have them, which may explain why you have not yet been nominated, unless of course you have been contacted privately about a nomination. Assuming not, with your permission that red link will become blue. Let me know, SorryGuy  Talk  01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than willing to wait. I was unaware that you had entered into admin coaching, and if that is your preference I totally understand. The mainspace contributions were my main concern when reviewing your contributions, but you have contributed significantly to several articles, even if they are GA or FA. But if you would prefer to wait for more substantive mainspace work, I think that would make your RfA even more of a slam dunk. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]