This is an archive of my talk page. Do NOT add anymore comments to this archive. If you want to talk to me, please add comments to my current talk page. Editing this archive will be considered vandalism and will be reverted and unanswered.
:-) Indeed. You know I've got pretty good at subst-ing the vandal warning templates, but for some reason it never occurred to me to subst:unsigned. Now you mention it, its completely obvious. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Best, Gwernol23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship
Hi, since we're passing messages back and forward... have you considered applying to be an admin? If/when you're interested I'd be honored to nominate you for an RfA. I've been very impressed with your work as editor and vandal fighter. Best, Gwernol23:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been active since late January, so I doubt I'd accept a nom for another couple of months (plus I won't be on the internet for 7 weeks this summer). How about you? I was going to find your RfA to see how long you had been on WP when you became an admin and... it wasn't there. (Template:RFA cliche1 anyone?) --Rory09623:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I think you're wise to wait another month or two, particularly given some of the recent RfAs. After that I expect you'd sail through, and I'd be happy to nominate you then (assuming you don't go Squidward or something :-). I'm pretty much in the same position. Although I've been active for a while now, I'm still learning and I want to get another couple of months under my belt before I feel comfortable trying it. Let me know when you're ready to try. Best, Gwernol00:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Rory, I think you should probably try for an adminship soon. You've been here almost three months, have a massive editcount, and seem like an all around decent guy. And that you will eventually miss a period of editing is not really that relevant. It isn't like there are a limited number of adminships. JoshuaZ00:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, of course, would be pleased to support your RfA, but I think Gwernol is likely right that, given the disposition of some RfA voters of late, waiting another month or two might be advised; I can't imagine any non-temporal concerns one could posit. Joe05:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your support for the disambiguous page I created as a compromise relating to Multiverse and also in general relating to your preserving the integrity of Wikipedia by your vigilance. Netkinetic05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain yourself?
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. --Rory096 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from sticking vandalism templates on users' pages unless they're actually committing vandalism. If someone who appears otherwise to be a positive contributor takes an action that you disagree with, please assume good faith and _talk_ to them about it. --Christopher Thomas05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An action that I disagree with? How am I supposed to know it's not vandalism when a user blanks a page and redirects it to a disambig without an edit summary? I don't investigate every user I warn to see if they might be in good standing. --Rory09606:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_I_ do investigate users before sticking vandalism templates on their pages. Even when they're IP addresses. It takes two clicks and, when vandalism is present, flags other articles that need reversion, so I don't see why it's an imposition to expect it. --Christopher Thomas06:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to thank you for voting on my RFA- it appears to have passed (56/1/1) (pending closing decision). I am thanking you, but not everyone because I hear that is a waste of disk space and the community discourages it. But since we talk on IRC, I wanted to thank you personally.
Second, I didn't really understand the commented line above my post here. You are asking me to blank out someone else's comment. hehe. So I added a new section.--Adam(talk)15:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hoary (who was the one who added it with his AWB message) was trying to tell you to change his topic (but leave his image), because now it's just empty with his thing on the sidebar, or something like that. --Rory09615:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After extensive edit warring, article protection, and the statement of the extended version supporting side regarding both the name of the article, and the intro paragraph, a poll has been placed. The
brief version supporting side is to keep the name of the article AND the intro paragraph free of the UN name (FYROM). Keep in mind that you can select more than one of the options (8! to the moment) that may suit you. Please participate in the vote and ask other editors you know to do so too. Increased participation can make the outcome of the vote as NPOV as possible. NikoSilver(T)@(C)16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:
"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
The Stress alertsprogram aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Information
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!
The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
Hello, Rory096! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma(討論)02:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights05:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology requested
On the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker2 page, you supported Tawker2's nomination while I opposed it. You responded to my opposition by saying, "This account being a clear sock..." Because you stated your opinion as fact, and because you are in a position of power, your statement carries extra weight. There is no bigger abuse of power than to use your authority to belittle another editor who voted against you. I would appreciate an apology. --Dragon's Blood19:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what you're talking about. Generally, accounts voting on RfAs the day they're created are socks. I am not in a position of authority at all, however, and you didn't vote against me because I wasn't the one requesting adminship. --Rory09620:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This account being a clear sock made me think of something. This comment is like saying that checkusers shouldn't be admins because they shouldn't have the power to block off the information they gain while doing a checkuser. Would we ever do that? I doubt it, and it's a pretty stupid idea, too, if you ask me.
In my twenty years of administering websites and bulletin boards, I've found judging the character of other people to be my strongest suit. I research each user completely before deciding whether to support or oppose a promotion. I state my position clearly and it is never based on a personal attack against the user or against those of the opposing viewpoint. When someone of the opposing viewpoint sullies my name in order to promote their nominee, that is a conflict of interest in the best case, but when they make statements of fact regarding my intentions and the nature of my vote, I must ask for an apology.
I had every reason to think of you as a person of power because that is how you represented yourself by referring to the actions admins and checkusers while asking, "Would we ever do that?" You also claim to be a member of the "Counter Vandalism Unit" and several other influential groups.
If you have an opinion about another editor who voted against your candidate, I would appreciate it in the future if you could state it as an opinion. I also request satisfaction for the mistake you made about me. --Dragon's Blood20:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. If Rory made an error it won't have any general result. The best way of showing you are not a sock is to continue editing, not to make demands for "satisfaction." JoshuaZ21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rory is not an Administrator, Bureaucrat, Steward, Arbitration Committee member, ArbComm Clerk which are the only positions of "power". Membership of CVU or any other group is not a position of power irrespective of how influential it seems. Please note that when an editor refers to "we", it is taken to mean the Wikipedia community as a whole. Also note that after your account was created, you made 9 article edits, waited 12 hours and began voting in adminship requests. You'll find on Wikipedia, this invariably raises suspicions of sock-puppetry. Green Giant21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious. Is your failure to apologize due to a belief that it is unwarranted, or are you just the kind of person who doesn't admit and take corrective measures for mistakes? --Dragon's Blood16:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My failure to apologize is due to my not being sure that you're NOT a sock; why did you start voting on RfAs just over 12 hours after your account was created? --Rory096(block)17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Separation of power
On a different issue, I wonder if you could expand on your statement about the separation of power (or lack thereof) at Wikipedia. It appears that Wikipedia has a guideline of administrators not using their power when there is a potential conflict of interest, yet nobody seems concerned when such conflicts of interest arise. On the Tawker2 nom, I wrote:
Tawker's programs and bots do so much for Wikipedia that Tawker definitely "deserves" to be an administrator, but he has said that he will start enforcing the same areas that his programs control for information, giving him God-powers over Wikipedia with no oversight. The people who take action against others based on specific information should never be same people who generate the information.
You responded with this:
This comment is like saying that checkusers shouldn't be admins because they shouldn't have the power to block off the information they gain while doing a checkuser. Would we ever do that? I doubt it, and it's a pretty stupid idea, too, if you ask me.
Are you seriously suggesting that arbcom members are above reproach, that they would never use their power and influence to bias the content of an article? --Dragon's Blood22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think ArbCom members would be bias the content of an article, or even have the power to. Not only do hundreds of Wikipedians vote for them (and I trust a few hundred people not to make bad selections), ArbCom deals with disputes between editors, not article content, and so wouldn't be able to do that at all. If they ever abused admin powers by protecting an article in a content dispute while still editing themselves, they'd be desysopped immediately and brought to the rest of the ArbCom, just like any other admin. How could you say someone who tested an open proxy and confirmed that it was one should have to get another person to block it just because they might be biased. What does that have to do with anything at all? --Rory096(block)18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ProhibitOnions's RfA
Thank you, Rory096/Archive1!
...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, ProhibitOnions22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You can revert vandalism yourself, you know. Just click history, click on the time of the edit before the vandalism, click edit, and save it. --Rory09618:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rory. I followed your advice. I just hope MarinaC will abide from now on by the Wikipedia rules and not alter and publish anything unless it meets the Wikipedia standards of "verifiable, published, reliable" information. MarinaC's past changes I had challenged with you were not backed up by any such sources, reason for which I considered them vandalisms, for whose reversals I am thankful to you. Stefanp22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you! Hello Rory096/Archive1. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili說嗎?
Neologisms
Thanks for updating my prod notice. I'm very happy for this to be termed a non-notable (not to mention non-verifiable) neologism. However I think WP:NEO does suggest that being a neo- or proto- logism is sufficient in itself to warrant deleteion. Either way, I don't think there's much chance that Radcool will survive as an article :-) Best, Gwernol 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi I saw on WP:FAC you just reverted stupid vandalism by an IP thanks. I was the nominator of the entry that was vandalzied. Apparently everyone hates the nomination. The nomination page has just become a place for vandlism and lamenting. I wrote "Nomination withdrawn" on the page but how do i officaly unnominate it. Tobyk77719:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the msg. I assume you are referring to the anon test msg. My preference is not to subst test msgs, and not to sign those. I ought to date them though. I have reasons, but it's not a big enough issue to go on about. Should it become policy, I'll do it though. Thanks again. Derex19:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for 24 hours for repeated insertions of statments implying vulgar comments and reverting the B'crats removal of them. Thus, disruption according to the blocking policy. Additionally, a violation of WP:NPA in this edit summary: [2] further increased the disruption. pschemp | talk05:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a personal attack; it was saying that I didn't want a hypothetical pervert to be an admin. Clearly since he already responded to my question saying I was mistaken, lightdarkness is not a pervert. By this logic, we should block everyone who said that paedophiles shouldn't edit Wikipedia (or worse, because they didn't want them editing at all, and I'll settle with keeping perverts out of admin posts)! --Rory09605:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request to be unblocked denied. I'm sorry, but this is not appropriate behaviour, and you were well aware of that. Please use more tenor in your future comments. Thank you.--Sean Black(talk)05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a bit more specific? What wasn't appropriate behavior? Was it asking a question to determine further what lightdarkness meant in the answer to his question? Stating my opinion that perverts in general should not be admins? Partially reverting a bureaucrat's edit while removing the portion of the comment that he was concerned with? --Rory09605:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a personal attack; I was just curious. That's why I said "On a side note." I'd reply on my talk, but I'm currently blocked. --Rory09605:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am the same user. Sorry, but as I think you may know, I've had a bad time over there. So, I'm kind of sensitive about people bringing it up.--Primetime05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just needs to be a little less POV. Try replacing some "soon, he..." with specific dates, and have less adjectives inflating him. Also, you need to provide a source for that picture, or it can be deleted in 7 days. --Rory096(block)16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cleanup. I'll give it more work. In addition the photo comes fromTokey himself but I don't think it can be distributed online or used for any other reason other than Wikipedia. Does this pose a problem?--Gnosis16:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, because it's fair use, but you have to say where you actually got the image. If you scanned it, you have to say so on the image's page, if you got it yourself, you have to say so, etc. --Rory096(block)16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD's without prod
I noticed that you currently have 22 (I think) separately nominated articles listed on afd. I was wondering if you were familiar with the fairly new (and less resource intensive) {{prod}} process. As far as I can tell, many of the nominated articles are not controversial and thus candidates for prodding before taking straight to afd. --Fuhghettaboutit21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I just saw confirmation on the prod talk page. I looked at your editcount and figured you must know about prod but was trying to be painstaking in not wording the comment in a chastizing manner. Turns out I didn't need to bother. Question and answer. --Fuhghettaboutit23:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Vandalproof for the first time & it has a lot of script errors so trying to remove them I accidentaly reverted that edit & thanks for the heads-up about the haha page image (I didn't you also required uncopyrighted images in userspace)
I accidentally uploaded these with the image names backwards, I reuploaded them correctly with slightly different names. So these 2 are not only dead, but incorrect. If there is a proper procedure for reporting image deletions please let me know. Bobby19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted another blanking of John Brignell from 125.255.16.233 who is a sock puppet for User:Engjs. Engjs is using blanking in response to his dissatisfaction with the outcome of content disputes, as discussed on the talk page. I regard this as unacceptable behavior, but he interprets the guidelines to say he can do what he wants to three times a day. I'd appreciate it if you could take a closer look, and if you agree that this is unacceptable, take steps to block him. He might pay some attention to intervention from someone not involved in the dispute. JQ01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
