| Revision as of 19:11, 12 June 2006 view sourceElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits →Oops!← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:06, 23 August 2008 view source Thatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 editsm Changed protection level for "User talk:Thatcher/Alpha": possibly not needed |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
{{User:Thatcher131/Piggybank}} |
|
|
|
{{User:Thatcher/Links}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFCU clerk == |
|
== History archive == |
|
|
This page contains the entire history of my previous talk page. As it has become a vandal target, but has over 5000 edits, making deletion a problem, I moved the history to a history-only archive, to start a fresh new talk page. For most purposes, my traditional archives will be more useful. ] 11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Hi Thatcher, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just recently volunteered as a clerk at ]. I see you have been the most active (if not only) clerk at RFCU lately. I have gone through the ] & reviewed a few of the past cases, so is there some unwritten rule or advice you can give? Also I see you are quite busy with the subpage archival of the old cases. Anywhere I can help? Thanks. ] <b><sup><small>(] | ])</small></sup></b> 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Thanks for the tip. I'll do so from now on. BTW in ], I asked the user to provide some diffs for suspected sockpuppet behavior as he orignally hadn't. Did I overstep my authority? --] <b><sup><small>(] | ])</small></sup></b> 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hey Thatcher, I've noticed that many archived cases don't have any additional info next to them. Some may be due to lack of evidence provided, but some may have been missed out. Should I add that info to those cases? Also I have been archiving many of the recently resolved cases, are there any methodical flaws on my part? Thanks. --] <b><sup><small>(] | ])</small></sup></b> 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I just started cutting the March archive (seeing you are doing the February one) to subpages & have seen quite a few cases like Lightbringer's having too many sockpuppets listed. I think in such cases listing all the socks is an unnecessary chore, so I'll just add the info on cases with, say, less than 10 socks. Hope that's fine. And what is the exact procedure you use to archive? Any shortcuts I can use? BTW thanks for all the help & guidance, I really am grateful for it. --] <b><sup><small>(] | ])</small></sup></b> 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Thanks for the tips, I'll do the needful. Good Night. --] <b><sup><small>(] | ])</small></sup></b> 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(De-indenting) I see you have just restarted on the cutting of the Feb archive. I was going to do so myself but I'll back off now to prevent edit-conflicts. BTW can you look at case. I can't seem to decide who to name as the puppet master. Anyway do you have access to IRC? If yes then we can probably coordinate at #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks. Cheers & happy archiving :P --] <b><sup><small>(] | ])</small></sup></b> 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==StubHub== |
|
|
I thought I had explained it on the talk page and elsewhere. A new user with no edit history other than to this page, creating the headline "CONTROVERSY", is exactly echoing the behaviour of other usernames who have been blocked and caused the page to be semi-protected before. That's ]. Because he keeps doing it and keeps screaming louder and louder, you assume he must be right and his version of reality must be written and he wins. |
|
|
|
|
|
"For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
] 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Poll on footnotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
You are right about #2. I posted my rsp and modified the proposal accordingly. I don't consider it a procedural vio since it is a trivial issue, and since the same end result will be feasible by the ''global variable'' proposal (see comments section). Actually, personally I wouldn't mind if it was dropped alltogether. If I have covered you with the rest of your points too, and you have no other objections, I'd appreciate changing your vote. ] <sup><font size="-2">] ] ]</font></sup> 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== <nowiki>{{rfcua}}</nowiki> == |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverted. I only saw if used improperly, and I (incorrectly) assumed the problem was in the template rather then the page. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Where was it used wrongly? ] 00:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Clerk == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok then, I'll go ahead and add the info about the date. --<font size="1">] <sup>]·]</sup></font> 16:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Oops! == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about ; I was unfamiliar with the process (never done anything on a checkuser before, just AfDs and TfDs). It won't happen again. ] 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Hiya, just as a bureaucratic point of order, should Evula's commentary perhaps be moved lower on that page, since the section was already under a "don't modify" rule? I do appreciate Evula's involvement in the matter, but want to make sure that the various evidence chains are kept as clean as possible. :) --] 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
This page contains the entire history of my previous talk page. As it has become a vandal target, but has over 5000 edits, making deletion a problem, I moved the history to a history-only archive, to start a fresh new talk page. For most purposes, my traditional archives will be more useful. Thatcher 11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)