| Revision as of 00:29, 13 November 2006 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits "The nature of consensus is disputed"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 January 2015 edit undoOiyarbepsy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers26,310 edits ←Redirected page to User:John254 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|] | |||
| ] Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised. | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"|''' ''' | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Could you do me a favor and block the Ip users who's been vandalizing my page for sometime now? He won't stop. Thanks. | |||
| ] 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question from ]== | |||
| I was about ot remove some vandalism on the ] article, but you had beat me to it! Being fairly new to RC patrol, what is the quickest way to revert such edits? Thanks for the help. | |||
| <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">0L1 - ] - ] - ] - 17:25 22 2006 (UTC)</font></span> | |||
| :The quickest method of reversion is the use of a rollback script. To install the script, you can copy the text of ] into ] When viewing a diff that includes the latest revision of a page, you should see a '''''' link, that, when selected, will revert the page to the last revision not by the latest editor. ] 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">0L1 - ] - ] - ] - 18:57 22 2006 (UTC)</font></span> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Thank you for participating in my recent ]. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Misplaced Pages, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --] 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA thanks == | |||
| {| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#DFE8FE; padding:5px;" align=center | |||
| |] | |||
| |Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful ], which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --] 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Semi-protection policy == | |||
| You recently added quite a drastic change to ] concerning the protection of policy-pages, but I don't believe that two days of discussion constitutes a consensus at all. This requires a much wider input from the community, and there were indeed quite a bit of opposition to this policy. It may be best to first seek input from administrators and from more people from the village pump and give this a few weeks before making any major changes such as this, as this essentially rewrites the semi-protection policy. Thanks. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, the above statement by ] is misleading. As ], the only editor who objected to the proposed amendment, stated "it is absolutely ''not'' a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand ." ]'s purely procedural objection to the amendment, on the basis of its failure to follow the policy making process that he has invented is spectacularly unpersuasive since ]. Furthermore, ] has essentially taken the position that unregistered users must be permitted to rewrite the semi-protection policy in manner -- which remained on display for ten minutes before being reverted -- but a change to the policy to semi-protect a relatively small number of pages must not be enacted without several weeks of prior discussion. If all substantive changes to official policies ''did'' require such an elaborate process before being effectuated, this would be a strong argument ''for'' semi-protection of all official policies, to prevent new and unregistered users from modifying policies in a manner inconsistent with a unpublished process of which they are almost certainly unaware. I don't see how further discussion on this policy amendment will be productive: ] was the only editor to objecting to the amendment on ]; however, all of his objections were refuted, after which he discontinued his participation in the discussion. By contrast, five established users (including myself) offered strong arguments in favor of the amendment. ] has offered no substantive objections whatsoever to the amendment, but merely insists that it requires additional process before being enacted, purely for the sake of process itself. For any additional discussion of the amendment to be useful, ] would need to explain how ''not'' semi-protecting all official policies would actually improve Misplaced Pages. ] 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for supporting my RfA == | |||
| {| width="93%" style="border:2px solid gray; background:#f2f2ff; padding:3px; cellspacing:10px;" align=center | |||
| | <div style="border:2px solid gray; background:white; padding:0px; width:200px;">]</div> | |||
| | valign="top" |'''''Thank you''''' for your support in ''']''', which passed with a final tally of '''(56/0/2)'''. It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. | |||
| I know I have ] to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. | |||
| :Again, '''''thanks'''''; <sub>└</sub> <sup>''']'''</sup> / <sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub> <sup>┐</sup> 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Thank you... == | |||
| ...for your support of my recent RfA. If I can ever assist you with my new buttons or just to review a page with fresh eyes, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|Semi-protection proposal}} == | |||
| Please don't post a notice of your policy proposal to all the policy pages. his is not how we publicize policy discussions. In any case, that's clearly material appropriate for a talk page. You should use ] and other centralized locations to announce proposals. ]·] 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the policy proposal was to semi-protect all official policy pages, the notices related to a proposed action that would be taken on the specific pages to which the notices were posted. I did '''not''' post notices concerning unrelated policy proposals to these pages. ] 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, please see . ] 21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Stop spamming. It's pretty clear this proposal as it stands is not going to be accepted. More reasonably would be to relax the semi-protection policy for policy pages to allow them to be semi-protected on slighter vandalism and for longer periods of time, but this would not be a major change that would warrant spamming all the policy pages on the wiki; a discussion about that belongs at ]. We don't, for example, spam the talk pages of every article before making a change to ]. I hope you remove these messages as zealously as you have added them. —]→] • 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :. Additionally, such notices appear to be necessary to consider the opinions of a larger number of contributors on this matter, as users who oppose this proposal have frequently insisted that the number of participants in the discussion concerning this proposal is inadequate. ] 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That person is mistaken, and made that statement when almost no one knew about the proposal; the people who saw it in your first round of spamming are the same people who would see it in your second round of spamming. Anyway, such notices are not necessary to summon opinions. It is sufficient to post, like all other policy proposals, on ] and ]. The number of participants was inadequate when it was 4 people and was done after less than a week, and there was even present opposition on the page that was not addressed. It has been advertised quite enough. —]→] • 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It appears that you did not post it at either of these places at all. Also, the proposal was noticed when the attempt to semi-protect several pages was made, so even the first round of spamming was inappropriate. —]→] • 05:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::See . ] 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, I searched for the new title, but the page was apparently renamed. I have added the page to ]. —]→] • 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you for your support!== | |||
| {| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#FADDA8; padding:5px;" align=center | |||
| |] | |||
| <small>23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |style="text-align:center;"| | |||
| If I'm a bit pale in the face now,<br /> | |||
| it's because of the amazing support <br /> | |||
| during my recent ]<br /> | |||
| and because of all those new shiny buttons.<br /> | |||
| And if in the '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''<br /> | |||
| my use of them should not always be ''']''' <br /> | |||
| please don't hesitate to shout ''']''' me<br /> | |||
| any time, sunset, noon or ''']'''.<br /> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==] - about translations== | |||
| Hey, I just wanted to say regarding this policy: the guideline you linked to in your edit summary says that English sources are preferrible to foreign language ones. Well, wouldn't a foreign language source be preferrible to one translated originally by an editor here? That would be the editor's original interpretation of the text. I think the verifiability guideline refers to third-party translations being preferrible to third-party foreign language sources, not first-hand translations. Don't you think it's best to stick to the work of others when writing articles? ] 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That English sources are ''preferable'' does ''not'' imply that they are ''required''. Characterizing self-translations as original research ''forbids'' their use in Misplaced Pages articles, which is inconsistent with ]. ] 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfA == | |||
| {|cellpadding=1 style="border: thin solid pink; background-color: white" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| | Hi John254. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) taking the time to participate in my ], which was successful. I'm very grateful for your kind words in support, and especially for your insightful comment in response to the opposes on ethical grounds. I truly appreciate that you would judge me on my record rather infer suitability from a narrow moral perspective. I assure you I'll continue to serve the goals of the project to the best of my ability - irrespective of my personal opinion - and strive to use the tools wisely and fairly. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, ]<font color="black">e</font>] 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ==RfA thanks== | |||
| {| style="border:5px solid gray; border-color: #082567; background:#50C878; padding:10px;" align=center | |||
| |] | |||
| |<font style="color: #082567"><center><big><strong>Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!</strong></big></center></font> | |||
| <font style="color: #082567">Thank you so much, John254, for your support in my ], which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of '''82/0/2'''. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to ]. Best regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)</font> | |||
| |} | |||
| == speedy deletion for ] == | |||
| I absolutely do not agree with the proposed speedy deletion of this template. It is a warning to users who have committed serious vandalism to articles that is probably "divisive and inflammatory" in itself. -- ] 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Regardless of how vitriolic the vandalism committed by a user to whom a warning is issued, warning templates should be written in civil language. Describing a user's edits as "puerile" borders on a violation of ], and is entirely unnecessary in any case, as ] is quite adequate for warning users who commit serious acts of vandalism. Nonetheless, if you disagree with this proposed speedy deletion, you are welcome to add <nowiki><noinclude>{{Hangon}}</noinclude></nowiki> to the template, and to describe why the template shouldn't be deleted on its talk page. ] 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that policy, but I don't think that describing vandalism as "puerile" constitutes a personal attack. Under ] it states, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." -- ] 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Describing vandalism as "puerile" might not actually amount to a personal attack. Indeed, I've seen editors use stronger language in their reports on ]. However, the language employed in templates placed on user talk pages is held to a high standard of civility, since the templates will be issued to a large number of users. A description of vandalism as "puerile" could be seen involving a user's personal character, by asserting that the user is "puerile". In any case, there is no need to employ this term in a warning template, as the term "unconstructive" employed in ] is quite serviceable. ] 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I disagree that it might be seen to involve a user's character (and even if it did, a user that committed the type of vandalism that would warrant this template is in my opinion most likely a puerile person) but I suppose the other template serves the template. -- <font color="green">Robert</font> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sub><font color="yellow">]</font></sub> 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == That 'Peurile' template == | |||
| Hi! I went over to ] myself, trying to sort out what he was trying to accomplish. I've never heard of the template myself, but it looks like he was trying to use a warning template that had been deleted, then he got himself messed up trying to work around it. See my comments to him on that page. -- ] ] ] 05:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, that's pretty much what happened. Sorry, guys. --] 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA thanks == | |||
| {| style="border:3px solid black; background-color: orange; padding:5px;" align=center | |||
| |] | |||
| |Hi John254, and thanks very much for your support during my ], which succeeded with a final tally of '''64/0/0'''. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Misplaced Pages. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please ]. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == "The nature of consensus is disputed" == | |||
| Wherever did you get that idea? (]) 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 January 2015
Redirect to: