User talk:Sue Rangell/Archives/Sunday 6th of January 2013 04:49:09 PM
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sue Rangell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sue Rangell, thank you for interest in the account creation process. I have verified your Identification[1] and I have approved your request, welcome to the team. You may now access the interface here. Before you do so, please read the account creation guide and our username policythoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You should also join us on IRC#wikipedia-en-accountsconnect on where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot(No bot at this time) and "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC. Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! Mlpearc (powwow)22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You !
The Civility Barnstar
You seem to be have a problem in regards of the recently deleted page about a meme. Thank you for your great work on maintaining the encyclopedia against those wild swarm of IPs. Have a nice day! Medirantalk to me!01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!! That may very well have been one of the wildest times I have ever had on Wikipedia. There was something like 12 IP vandals all saying Loveley Things. Reverting reversions as fast as they could be made. At one point the page was deleted only to be re-created instantly. I think they finally deleted it and salted it, due to the over-the-top efforts by the vandals. I felt like I was being swallowed up! :) --Sue Rangell[citation needed]22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome for that and don't mind those should I say "useless" IPs whose hobby is to vandalized and to harm only other editors like you. That is their problem now, at least, you have done your responsibility to collaboratively maintain this online encyclopedia. Have a nice day! :) Medirantalk to me!02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thrash Metal
did you see the reason. that other person Omair00 Cut it from the Metalcore Page, Im in the process of checking a few things and posting it back. If someone wants those points added to the story then, whoever does needs to re-write their own version of the same facts, not take it from Metalcore thats kind of ridiculous. Its going back I am checking some dates to put it BACK in to The METALCORE PAGE with more impact than before by Placing it as Chronological as possible. However if Wiki allows copying one page and posting word for word on another than it will be the second version as thats been on the Metalcore page for at Least One Year, If I remember correctly. maybe longer . hope that was clear and easy read. I am in hurricane crushed area.24.0.67.248 (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that he simply copied it over. That's not very helpful or accurate. I will whitelist your edits. It will also help if you tag the page so people can tell you are working on it. Nice to meet you! --Sue Rangell✍ ✉06:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi !, Nice to Meet you too. I was signed in and somehow when I left the message above I had been signed out somehow, have no idea, I am going to analyze and idealistically maximize. Thats really cool to have edits whitelisted. I feel like I won a Wiki Award.
anyhow have a really great day/evening , and thanks for looking in to what my message meant. Thank You again Miss Sue Rangel CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
You are very welcome! Just for the record, I am not an admin or anything like that, so you edits are only whitelisted on my own personal tools, but looking at the work that you are putting into these topics, it's clear that you are one of the good guys. Be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉06:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I may go to sleep, been a long tired storm. I have the paragraph on my desktop and my plan as of now is wake up, and tomorrow blend and add that section/paragraph in to the Metalcore Page. Only because after a recharge I can assess the article and take appropriate action . Thanks again, times seven. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
Hi, I havent put the cut-paste material back in metalcore but the same person just changed the whole page again and its not in tune with consensus . erasing sourced material. the same material that got the one editor to semi-protect the page. this person has a lot of warnings maybe they go and erase pages often. He effectively erase how it started and got until today. could you please show me what to do, or have him stop erasing mtv bands and others with sourced material. he cant change history. at Metalcore this guy / vandalize-r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omair00 this person all it does lately is Erase at metalcore. funny thing his edits arent true. all the stuff he/she erases is sourced . sorry hope that was easy to read. happy turkey day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sue Rangell , How are you! Happy New Year ! . that page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omair00 is at it same as before. that page reverted all that we did. Most everything that page does, gets reverted from what I checked at other pages. If you look at the page history of metalcore its basically nothing helpful from that page. its been months erasing sourced material, mtv and real bands, and erasing real history. what to do ? Thanks CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected until April, with yours as the last edit. You should be ok at this point. If not, remember the 3rr rule, and feel free to post back here if there are any more problems. Don't edit war. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉08:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
AfD Barnstar of Distinction
Please accept this AfD Barnstar of Distinction and my personal gratitude for your tireless work in AfD. Every time I see the pastel cloud, I know that we we are one step closer to having a great encyclopedia. - MrX01:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow thank you very much! I belive that is my first "Original" barnstar. It's one I've always kinda wanted because it was the first, thank you very very much, I really appreciate it. Your edits are pretty awesome too. :) Be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉18:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Susan Branch
Hi,
I just saw my submission for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Branch was again declined. I really want to get this right, and I thought I had done that by following the previously posted guidelines. I beefed up the references, tried to make it basic black and white facts, and am confident her work is notable.
You stated the article could be possible if sourcing were improved. Can you please explain that a little more so I can do just that and finish this up?
Thanks so much for your help and your comments. I really want to make this work.
The article has a number of issues. (Not just the sourcing) Most of it is simply due to your inexperience with Wikipedia. If you like, I would be happy to rework the article with you. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉18:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I would most gratefully and humbly accept that offer! I thought I was doing things correctly, but am not getting it quite the way Wiki wants it. What would you recommend as my next step?
The next step is for me to have a look at the article. Give me a day or three to play with it and see if I can find some sourcing. :) --Sue Rangell✍ ✉18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I cannot thank you enough for your help. I really appreciate it!
I made some changes for you, I hope you appreciate them. You might want to consider researching some of the other similar articles about other authors and examine how they are worded, formatted, etc. It will give you a better handle on improving this article, or writing similar ones. Be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉21:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate your comments and your willingness to spend time on this more than you can know. Thank you so much for your help, your additions, and your time. I will continue to look at other similar articles and try to refine it even more. As far as the sourcing, do you think I need more references or is it sufficient? thanks againa nd all the best in the new year to you and yours!
Editwriter98 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sue Rangell, I recently noticed that you added "The Barnstar of Diplomacy" to the page User talk:Beyond My Ken ([2]). May I ask you why? I find it hard to understand, considering the user in question recently violated WP:3RR (see [3], [4], [5] and [6] [he even made further reverts during the next few hours, as you can see at [7]]), and then went to my talk page, and threatened to report me for "disruptive editing", even though I had not violated the 3RR. In the history of his talk page, one can find material such as "You are totally out of your league in this instance, so I suggest you deal with subjects about which you know something, and keep your nose out of things about which you clearly know nothing. In other words: please fuck off." ([8]), as well as an edit summary containing the passage "this piece of bullshit" ([9]). The user in question also strikes me as uncooperative; I invited him to take part in a discussion found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, and he ignored that ([10]). This is not what I associate with diplomacy, and I'm curious why you appear to think otherwise. Best wishes, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! It is nice to meet you. The barnstar I awarded him was a reflection on my experience with him in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Essien Etok discussion. Even as other editors were getting nasty, he seemed to be keeping a cool head and remained quite civil with me. The 3RR rule is a very important rule, and editwarring is not acceptable. If you feel he has done anything untoward, you should report it. My barnstar comes from my own experience with this editor, and reflects that. I am very sorry that you did not enjoy the positive experience that I did with this editor, as you seem to be a very nice person. This just goes to show that we, as human beings, tend to have many faces. One person's thorn-in-the-side can obviously be another person's barnstar awardee. Be well, and have a wonderful new year. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet another Barnstar
The Special Barnstar
To also reiterate thanks for your much improved comments and work at WP:AfD and your particularly supportive 'oppose' on Darkwind's RfA. As you said, truly an experience I'd never wish on any editor, friend or foe. Mkdwtalk08:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment re RFA
Hello! At Darkwind's RFA you recently changed your opinion from oppose to support. You struck out the word "oppose" from your original comment but you failed to delete the counter mark (#) in front of it, so that it is still tallying as an oppose. I'm not familiar enough with how these things work - whether you can simply delete the # sign or will that mess up the tally. But you might want to take the appropriate step to make sure that you are not tallied as both "support" and "oppose". Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sue, I found this really cool tool that tallies your AfD !voting history against the AfD closing results. It might be helpful for you to see and review cases where your !vote did not match the result. You'll have to put '250' in the number of outputs since you have so many AfD's that have not been closed yet to get any stats. Mkdwtalk22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey. Not my intention to bother you or come here as a mad user :) But I believe that the keep votes had stronger reasons that those who voted merge. Would you like to reconsider to relist the nomination for another 7 days? — ΛΧΣ2103:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I was nudged to do just that originally, but considering that this article was up for AfD previously, and considering the controversial aspects, I feel that the opinions to Merge had a slight edge. Let us continue this on the topic's talk page, I regularly find myself rethinking things, but I do not think that the AfD process applies to this article anymore. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉03:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Fair enough. Although I'm not interested enough in the topic to start a discussion on the talk. Too much fans of GaGa are already discussing topics abour her for us to get involved there. — ΛΧΣ2103:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
List
Thanks for this. I don't know why this got repeatedly relisted and why didn't get closed any earlier, but thanks for doing the honours. I used to think I was a pretty good bellweather of what the community thought should stay or go, but I may be losing my touch. It's clear that there are a number of people here who believe stuff like that ought to stay, much to my exasperation, but such is life! -- Ohconfucius ping / poke03:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You're capable of remaining (almost painfully) civil even when people are complaining about your edits or other actions, or when offering feedback even in opposition to something. I wish you could teach that skill to others! —Darkwind (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh Wow, THANK YOU! I *try*. In my profession (when not dealing with students) I deal with a lot of cranky people who have been dealt a bad hand in life, then passed around the system two or three times, so by the time they are sitting in front of my desk, they can be pretty difficult to deal with. I suppose it's much the same here, afterall people are people, and to expect everyone to be Happy-happy-happy, is unrealistic. I have found that smile and a few nice words in such cases are preferable to pointless posturing and other negativity. Thank you again, and be well, Darkwind. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉03:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Sue Rangell/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is ACC related. Message added 05:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Here's a toast to the host
Of those who edit wiki near and far,
To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par".
We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose,
And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows.
A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians!
- From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}
~TheGeneralUser(talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~
~TheGeneralUser(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Please note that I opened an ANI thread about your actions. You were told by a dozen of users to stop non-admin AfD closures, but unfortunately you do not seem to get it. If anybody wants to file an RfC on you, I would be interested in certifying it. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sue, if you're unable to distinguish between "intentional, bad-faith harm to the encyclopedia" and "following the spirit rather than the letter of the deletion policy" we have a problem here. Nobody Ent's action caused no harm to the encyclopedia. It did not violate a positively written rule (there is no rule saying 'non-admins can't re-open', merely a rule saying 'any admin can re-open'), and it did not rise to the level of vandalism. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sue, I've undone your re-closure(?) of this AfD. It seems fairly clear from the ANI thread that people do not feel you've closed it properly; in those circumstances the proper process is to, well, accept that, and learn what the problem was. Rollback is...not the solution. Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that I was reverting an illegal closure by a non-admin. I would suggest that the discussion be taken to DRV where it belongs, and not simply reverted. The people there know how to handle these kinds of disputes. Than you and be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sue, given your continued failure to understand the nature of vandalism, I've removed your rollback rights. You may re-apply for them whenever you like. Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You are free to do as you wish, of course, for you are an Admin, and I am but a lowly editor. I will not re-apply. Wikipedia will have to do without my anti-vandalism work. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with userrights, or relative standing, it's to do with how well you use the tools you've got and the judgment you exercise. Sue, I get the impression from your userpage and general attitude in this discussion that you seem to think userrights and 'powers' are the be-all and end-all of how you're valued as an editor. They're not: good judgment is. In this situation, your judgment was questioned and you fell back on justifications which didn't stand up to scrutiny. It's nothing to do with you being a 'lowly editor'. I'll be sad to see you not reapply, because we always need more helping hands, but the key word there is 'helping'. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If I may, Sue; I think Ironholds' main concern is your usage of the term vandalism here, along with your reversion of the AFD's close using your rollback rights. Do you understand why something like that is unacceptable? I wouldn't be opposed to seeing you become a rollbacker again, and I don't think Ironholds would either. But rollback is a privilege, and a powerful tool; we need to be sure that the editors trusted with it comprehend what they're allowed to use it for.
You do great work, and I don't hesitate in referring to you as a valued editor. But, even with all the good you've done for Wikipedia, there are things that cannot be ignored. This, along with the NAC issue, is something we'll need to address before we move on.
So, that being said; do you understand why we are concerned? If you do, can you explain what you should have done, and what you will do in the future in case a similar issue pops up (with a contested close)?
If you've got no interest in doing this, then you don't have to. I'm just offering you the chance to explain your actions, to learn from these mistakes and to continue being a respected member of the community without all of the questions above hanging unanswered.
It's not just rollback rights that you don't get. Your responses to the reversion of your closure of the AFD suggests you don't get that process either. It may be best to remove yourself from AFD closures before you are banned from them. The archiving of the ANI thread prevented any further progression toward a topic ban, but it seems like the discussion was headed that way. DreamGuy (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted, DreamGuy; let's keep that discussion for another time, though. I don't want Sue to feel that she's being piled on by people questioning her competence. We're here to improve on ourselves as editors and learn; discussion about whether or not restrictions are necessary can wait until Sue has responded and the situation has cooled a bit. m.o.p01:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem. The reason(s) that I referred to the rollback of the closure as vandalism is three-fold. First, WP:NACD specifically states that only admins can do that. This was done by a non-admin. Second, it was done in the middle of a discussion about whether or not the close was valid. Hardly an hour passed before the editor took it upon himself to arbitrarily make the decision, depriving everyone of the discussion. Third, the proper venue for the discussion was DRV, there should never have been a revert of the close prior to the DRV process at all.
Now those were the reasons that I took that action and referred to the act as one of vandalism. One may argue my interpretation of WP:NACD, but I feel that rule is very clear. I do not think that it would be wise to apply today's logic to other guidlines that specifically mention when an administrator should be the one doing things. One can argue that the revert of the close was done in "good faith", to that I would only answer that the close itself was done in good faith, and FAR more in line with policy.
I've been a vandal patroller for almost six years, I find it odd that my ineptitude is being noticed only now. If you REALLY believe that I will use the rollback responsibility to harm Wikipedia, then it should be kept from me. I doubt if anyone actually believes that, but if you really do, then by all means protect Wikipedia. All of my closes are done in good faith. I contemplate on them deeply. I balance each opinion and give each a great deal of thought. Because of the scrutiny my closes get, I would venture that I give them more thought than most admins. Today's close was a slam-dunk, and the only reason it was contested is because certain editors now look for my NACs and contest every single one of them. If I am to have a close reverted, the very least I ask is that it go through process, because when that happens, the close ends up happening exactly the way I closed it in the first place. Process has a way of dealing with bad-faith complaints. That is why admins are specifically stated as the ones who revert closures, and that is why we have the DRV. That entire process was denied and ignored. This was a WP:WITCHHUNT. If one of my closes is contested I expect to be treated fairly. That didn't happen today. Another editor was allowed to arbitrarily bypass AN/I and DRV in one swoop...and I was the one punished for daring to call it vandalism.
Would I, or will I, ever do it again? Absolutely not. I am not an idiot. As far as I am able to determine, ALL AfD closures are "contested", I have had reverts done on 8-0 snowkeeps. It is clear to me that NACs are just a recipe for trouble. The mop isn't supposed to be "anything special", but clearly it is. I have to wonder what sorts of punitives I would have collected today, had my closure been as far out of line with policy as some of the things I have seen in the last few hours. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. No, it won't happen again, I have absolutely no desire to repeat the actions of today. None at all. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉06:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
But at the same time you seem to be taking the stance of "I was totally right, but people are being stupid so I won't do it again because they'll persist in being stupid about it". Ironholds (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, I have to be honest with you. Aside from today you have always been one of my role models, so this entire thing is really weird for me. What exactly do you want me to say here? That I am sorry for doing something wrong? I simply don't feel that way. I honestly think you missed on this one. I could lie to you and tell you what I think you want to hear, just in the interests of getting this over with, but I respect you too much for that. We will simply have to agree to disagree. If you *honestly*, in your heart of hearts, believe that my use of the rollback responsibility is doing harm to Wikipedia, then it is your responsibility as an admin to keep it out of my hands. If not, please grant it back so that I may continue fighting vandalism -- you made your point. Be well, Ironholds, I mean that. I have nothing against you. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't expect you to say anything that isn't honest; it's the fact that the above schpiel is your honest opinion that worries me. You're grinding away restating over and over again that NACD is a policy and that the policy says this and that if we were to take this tack with different policies we'd be in real trouble....which completely obscures the initial point of even if something were in violation of a policy this does not make it vandalism. Frankly, yes, I have some real concerns about your use of advanced permissions. I appreciate you've been here for six years, and all, but that simply makes the failure to understand the distinction between vandalism and a policy violation less excusable. I'm sorry to hear I've fallen in your estimations. Ironholds (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
