Revision as of 02:08, 4 July 2008

• Popular page listing

Did you know

• 17 Dec 2024 – 1925 Tri-State tornado (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by EF5 (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 01 Jan 2025 – Amnesty (band) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted)
• 29 Dec 2024 – Bruz Fletcher (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Diegg24 (t · c) was closed as keep by OwenX (t · c) on 05 Jan 2025; see discussion (10 participants)
• 18 Dec 2024 – Lone Tree, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Doczilla (t · c) on 09 Jan 2025; see discussion (8 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

• 08 Jan 2025 – Category:Braun family of Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 09 Dec 2024 – 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by EF5 (t · c); start discussion

Requested moves

• 26 Dec 2024 – 1925 Tri-State tornado (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Great Tri-State Tornado by Departure– (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 03 Sep 2024 – Edwardsville Formation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Borden Formation by Allan Nonymous (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Sep 2024 – Spickert Knob Formation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Borden Formation by Scope creep (t · c); see discussion

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

RFA

Right now I'm going thru an odd time. But, logging on and seeing the 1APR RFA made me laugh, and I needed it. Thank you for your sense of humor, sometimes we can use that. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Shalini Ganendra

I know you have a penchant for humor, but there's a fine line between being humorous and merely being a pest. You're inching perilously close to that line. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What humor? I'm quite serious. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone hasn't read your userpage. :) Enigma 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of your userpage, the state flag image for the Wikiproject Indiana userbox appears to have been deleted. Enigma 04:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Oh my god! They killed png!" (use Image:Flag of Indiana.svg?) Shenme (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Kmweber. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tiptoety 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I have started the ANI thread Tiptoety mentioned. Sorry for not notifying you immediately, that was my bad. Nsk92 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It really wasn't necessary, since Tiptoety already let me know, but thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

John Bot

Natural to ask ;-) The bot operator contacted me asking if I could revert a series of edits by the bot, as there appears to be some kind of problems. I must admit I haven't investigate further. Better to ask Compwhizii himself ;-) Snowolf 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. My bot made a boo-boo :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Valtoras, hereby award a valued contributor with the original barnstar in recognition of all his outstanding contributions to Misplaced Pages. Valtoras (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

As an arch-inclusionist, you may be entertained by the matter of Ealing Broadway Platform 9 which continues to spawn remarkable developments like Station Jim. I am not soliciting your !vote since I suppose you have stalkers who would follow you there. I just thought it would entertain you. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy was speedily deleted in violation of policy (misapplication of G5). 129.174.91.119 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian National Convention

Kurt, are you planning on attending the 2008 Libertarian National Convention? Maybe we can meet there... 129.174.91.119 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I don't even know who you are, so why would I want to meet you? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for coming out of the oppose section in RFA's and supporting an RFA. Go Kurt!!! Dusti 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He has already done so in the past, when he deemed the candidates worthy of his support ;-) Snowolf 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: The man who could have been

Thank you for your wise words. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 11:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- my name certainly is a shortening of "Gail Wynand" from The Fountainhead. You're quote certainly seemed Rand-ian, although I didn't recognize it immediately (haven't actually read that novel in ages). Who says this in the novel? Wynand? Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 11:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits of inclusion

I noticed your vote here, which seems to boil down to "if it is verifiable and excists, we should have an article about it". I have been thinking on things related to the issue, and I'd like to hear your opinion on the following: In the area of Alkmaar, the town I live in, every week about 20 soccer matches are played in the amateur competitions. The outcomes of those matches are all published in several newspapers, 2 or 3 each, of which one "real" one, and 1 or 2 sunday only mainly adds, free door to door newspapers. I was wondering what your opinion on those matches is. Do you think we should have articles on those matches? Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course is a bit of a strech here, I think most wikipedias would disagree with you there (and though I haven't found my exact stance on in/exlusionism yet, I also believe we should not have those articles), but thank you for your opinion! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For not letting crap from people responding to your RFA comments get to you Phoenix-wiki 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

A new template for your convenience and greater speed of commenting, which will make it possible to cover more ground in a shorter time with respect to RFAs...Give this a try! User:Kmweber/Adminship comment‎. Invoke it with {{subst:Kmweber/Adminship comment‎}} Personal use (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, I deleted this from your talkpage once already, and I'll do it again. Just say the word. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And Kurt I deleted the said page, as it was a page created by another user in your own userspace. If for some reson you want it undeleted, just ask. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

International Negotiation Institute

Sometimes it doesn't hurt to actually check whether something exists before you assert it does.  RGTraynor  14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Response

The comment was not notable, as I also stated in the edit summary. -- JT 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying so doesn't make it so. Any relevant information is valid, no matter how "notable" you or anyone else thinks it might be. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NN would disagree with you. -- JT 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We're not obligated to abide by it. It's meaningless. So-called "rules" are not important; what's best for the encyclopedia is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well, if you add it back in, I expect to see every single town in the Midwest added to the list of towns where 911 calls were placed. -- JT 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount Carmel photos

You're welcome go ahead across the bridge, because as I said on the talk page, I couldn't find the find the cord to the digital camera. However, I did find something that could have saved me $20 if I found it a couple of months ago! I have a nasty cold, so don't expect to do to much editing anytime soon. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the cord to the digital camera, but I'm still sick. I might be able to take a few pictures at some point. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Recher theatre" deletion

Hi. With all due respect, this is very much a clear-cut A1 with "little or no context." This doesn't even qualify as a valid stub IMO. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is inherently wrong. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether it "qualifies" or not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... Usually, people use "Therefore" if they're making a conclusion that is supported and based on facts. The statement "Speedy deletion is inherently wrong" is subjective and is not supported by these things known as facts. Thanks. 81.105.28.52 (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Nothing is ever subjective. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Your comment here was a little harsh. While I agree that the user is out of line, a little more courtesy should be expected. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#KMweber.27s_welcome_template.

Could you please add a link to IAR just for a bit of extra clarity...otherwise, nice work, I like it! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh...by the time I woke up this morning it was already closed. Anyway, I'm not so sure about that...IAR implies that there are in fact rules in the first place, which I categorically deny. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I love your new template. I'd like to start using it instead of {{subst:W-basic}}. Please could you give me the code that I'd need to copy and paste? Thank you. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:User:Kmweber/Welcome template}} Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have come to express admiration for your new template. It's very cool. --Sharkface/_C 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bamblerose

I'm asking you nicely, Please do not start an edit war over welcome templates. In case you are afraid I'm singling you out I'm placing the exact same message on 87.112.5.130's page. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. The IP is a known sock of banned user Fredrick day. This particular IP address has already been blocked. His placing of a welcome template himself was fine; his removing my own was not, and so what I am doing is perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that him removing your template was inappropriate. My concern is that by simply reverting his edit it looks like the beginnings of an "edit war" (please forgive me if there is a policy addressing that which I'm unaware of). I've seen most of the discussion going on at AN or ANI and although I may not agree with some of your opinions but, I'm fully behind you expressing them and welcoming new users is always a good thing in my eyes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Singular They

Hi Mark, I was enjoying reading the boxes on your user page and noticed a conflict - sorry, I am a former copy editor. One box is against the singular they (I agree with you on that) - but another box says the user would choose "their (versus 'his') employess over a one-night stand." Good user page.Kek15 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with another editor. My name is not "Mark." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:38, 25 April 2008

I'm sorry Kurt, but I did mean you and your user page. My apologies for getting your name wrong. Kek15 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I saw your user name at the following thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Keeper76&diff=prev&oldid=208142214 I took exception with the way Keeper76 addressed you and also his promise to quash your free speech - just because he didn't agree. In the end, he deleted the thread from his talk page.Kek15 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the warm welcome. I was just wondering if your message meant i broke a rule or if u were just informing me. Thanks anyway, Jurj (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletionpedia Patrol

Deletionpedia Patrol has been launched; I invite you to become a part of this groundbreaking effort. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

EoGuy

Although I acknowledge a bit of gray area, I mostly disagree. If you look at common usage in respected publications, you are far more likely to see plural used. Each of them was a Beatle, and collectively it simply sounds better to a native English speaker to say that The Beatles are performing rather than The Beatles is performing. The vast majority of English grammarians would agree with that statement. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, British bands are referred to as "are" instead of "is". This is trodden ground. "The Rolling Stones are", "the Beatles are", and "Oasis are" all British bands. "Foo Fighters is", "Metallica is", and "Kiss is". Get the gist of it now? British grammar treats bands plurally. Hope this clears up any confusion you might have, Kurt. Scarian 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then the British are wrong, aren't they? I see no need to perpetuate wrong grammar. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good one. Your sense of humour is immense. Consensus states it on Misplaced Pages. You will be reverted by numerous different editors if you attempt to change British bands from "are" to "is". Additionally, there is no such thing as "incorrect" grammar. I believe it's called "standard" and "non-standard". Thanks! Scarian 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How dare those nasty Brits, trying to change American English! Don't they know that English started ... uh oh ... never mind. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

If there was anything that made my day yesterday, it was a support from you :D Thanks Kurt! -- Naerii 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4

Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 4 • 30 April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Arbitration case closes USRD gets a couplet of Featured Articles The Road to Chicago	State and national updates Leaderboard Arizona Michigan Nevada New York Texas Utah
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Committee

Not sure whether you are still following this ANI thread, but I'm letting you know here, for the record, that I've commented there, initially in your defence and then to object to your use of the phrase "Arbitrary Committee", which I managed to miss entirely when reading that thread (I must have misread it as "Arbitration Committee"). It all got a bit confused, really, but I notified those who I said should apologise to you, so in fairness I'm coming here to ask if you will apologise for what you said? Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC) PS. Sorry this notice is late, but the servers had problems yesterday about the time I was trying to leave you a note.

I have done nothing that requires an apology. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I left the note for the record, because I left similar notes for others. They also didn't see a need to apologise for what they said about you, or they explained why they had said what they said. I'm not going to ask you to explain right now what you mean by "Arbitrary Committee", but do you think you could in future articulate your concerns somewhere relevant, rather than taking pot shots? Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You may think that you've done nothing that requires an apology Kurt, but continuing to take potshots when you've been asked nicely not to, is something at least I think you should be apologizing for. Again, cut it out. If you have suggestions to improve the ArbitraTION Committee, I suggest that you bring it forward. if all you have is potshots and attacks, I think that it'd be best if you didn't say any thing at all. SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When an admin removes your comment...

....it's not generally considered a 'smart' move to put it back. HalfShadow (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is when there's no valid reason for it to be removed. That you disagree with it does not make it "trolling"...my severe objections to the existence of the Arbitrary Committee and my denial of its legitimacy are well-known, and you're the first to try any stunt like this. Stop it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you'll find I am surprisingly apathetic when it comes to what you think; my only interest is in keeping the peace as I see it. If an admin feels your comment is unnecessary, it stays that way until another admin decides otherwise. HalfShadow (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Kurt, the softsoap approach didn't seem to work, so time to put a bit of steel behind it. Do not continue to edit-war and reinsert potshots at people or institutions that you don't agree with. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacing comments that should not have been removed is not edit-warring. Those who insist on removing those comments are the ones in the wrong. And "Arbitrary Committee" is a perfectly appropriate moniker for an entity for which every single facet of its existence is, indeed, arbitrary. Don't tell me what to do. If the community has a problem with it, I will answer to them. I do not answer to anyone else. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the members of the community have spoken above, several times over, and told you in no uncertain terms to quit it, I would hope that you would indeed cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Two individuals do not a consensus make. I answer to the community, not to two individuals. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it on the basis of soapboxing at AN/I. Want to whine and complain? There are more appropriate venues, such as WT:RFARB. Ranting in various threads that have no relevance to your topic will only see your discussions removed without notice, and as what has happened at various RFAs and at AN/I, a precedent has already been initiated. seicer | talk | contribs 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the first time anything I've said has been removed. It was a perfectly appropriate venue--it was a discussion of a block of one individual, and I was giving my reasons as to why that individual should be unblocked. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume I'm dumb, Kurt. I know about your history, and your bloody minded stubborness on principle. (oppose, self nom=power hunger, etcetera?) All I care about is that you cut out the potshots and not edit war those potshots back in where they don't belong. You haven't so there's nothing that needs to happen. SirFozzie (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are a servant, not a master; therefore, you are not entitled to enforce your own will but only the will of the community. Show me the community at large has a problem with it. So far every indication is that it doesn't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to User:SirFozzie/Accountability

Please explain this to SirFozzie. I'm not sure whether it's a joke or serious. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He's serious. While I consider it frivolous and unsupportable, it's his right, per the terms I've set. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I added my request. It was based on the exchange above. It was not appropriate for SirFozzie to threaten Kmweber as he did. This is a request that SirFozzie relinquish his admin bit, per his promise to do so if requested by five users in a two week period. I'm certainly not going to campaign for this, and I have little opinion about SirFozzie in general, but the little example I saw here raised concern already, for me, and when I saw this questioning of Kmweber for making the request, I looked, and thought about it carefully. On the one hand, I congratulate SirFozzie for his courage in making the Accountability promise. On the other, the promise is there for a reason. If SirFozzie apologizes to Kmweber, I expect I would withdraw my request. As to being "frivolous and unsupportable," there is a real issue here, and that SirFozzie thinks it frivolous is one reason I'm taking it seriously. It is like some actual removals of the sysop bit I've seen: an initial offense, relatively mild, becomes a real problem when the offender doesn't get it and defends and even responds more intensely (though the threats may have stopped). Administrators are properly servants of the community, not of their own opinions, and should tread lightly and carefully. If Kmweber committed some offense, pursue it. Don't threaten him for doing what he has a right to do. And if you make a mistake, admit it and we can all move on.--Abd (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked him not to edit war his attacks (Arbitrary Committee, etcetera) back in, he didn't any further (he was at 2 or 3 Reverts when I asked, (note, none of the reverts were mine)) and as far as I was concerned the issue was resolved, and I never followed up on it or anything, until Mr Weber showed up on my recall page. I can show you the time stamps of the whole thing, if you want. I honestly do not think that I've done anything wrong here (of course, I would say that, wouldn't I?). My frivolous and unsupportable comment was that I found it unusual that he wanted to have me recalled for enforcing policies on civility and personal attacks, that's all. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you were "enforcing" them where there was no violation. It's that simple, really. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa

Your oppose here made me giggle. Just FYI. Qb | 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

question

I'm just curious as to why you have a big, ugly, red linked image in one of the infoboxes on your userpage (the infobox saying you're a member of WikiProject Indiana). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi Kurt!

Missed some debates lately :) Was wondering if you could kindly point me of where you explained you reasons why you dislikes the coachees :)

Also, when you're around on IRC, could you give me a ping? ;-)

See you, Snowolf 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA

Hello Kmweber, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow

What can I say? One the one hand I applaud your ability to pierce Obama's rhetoric and shake off his Svengali-like influence. On the other, I fear you've gone so far over the top, there's no more up or down! Dlohcierekim 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Someone's calling for your head on AN/I. Just FYI, WilyD 21:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As a followup to that: If Travellingcari (talk · contribs) expresses an opinion saying some article should be deleted, it does not make her a "deletionist vandal". Misplaced Pages is a community, and as such the community can make up its own viewpoints of what articles are notable. Misplaced Pages is also an encyclopedia, and the community is formed to support the encyclopedia. I'm starting to wonder if you have an interest in supporting either. --Elkman 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI

You are the subject of a thread on ANI (that I didn't start) located here. Saw that you weren't yet informed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, above post links to the same thing (not sure why it wasn't an edit conflict...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfas

What do you frown apon in a Rfa?and Why? Just wanna know. thanks. Trees Rock 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For sticking to your guns (RFA votes) while still contributing to the project, even if a boatload of users disagree with your RFA views. I too disagree with them but have come to respect you as an editor, as a man who knows that the administrative stuff doesn't matter if the mainspace falls into disrepair. Day in and day out, you are attacked by users for your unpopular views (and are sometimes interrogated in foreign languages) and yet you still contribute to the mainspace. I would be hard pressed to replicate such a feat. I thought such men as Howard Roark only existed in fiction. It is good to know that there are a few principled men left in the human race. This surreal barnstar is for your perseverance and your service to the project. On behalf of the users who respect you as a person and who are grateful for your contributions, thank you. --Sharkface/C 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill second that Trees Rock 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess Trees Rock didn't click the "foreign languages" link within the barnstar. --Sharkface/_C 16:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sharkface has just given me my daily dosage of wiki-humour, haha. asenine 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

power hunger

I admire the fact that you stick to your guns (as noted by others above) and think your concern over self noms is entirely legitimate. But I have to really, really urge that you leave terms like "power hunger" out of your opposes. No matter what you think of users who self nom, civility should rule the day, and I don't think that you really believe accusing people of power hunger is civil. Please note that I am not at all questioning your reasoning, as I think it is totally valid. I just don't think that the brusqueness is necessary. Please consider this.

Cheers, and happy wiki'ing. - Revolving Bugbear 13:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfAs

Even if you did oppose my RfA and insult my candidate in a slight degree.....I'd just like to thank you for being one good Wikipedian who, after taking crap for so long, continues to act and communicate in a civil and mature manner. While I may not agree with you on a few points, there is no doubt in my mind that you have the best interests of the project in mind when you act, specifically with RfAs. I've never been one for giving Barnstars, so I guess that this is my form of barnstar/thanks to you. Happy editing, Mastrchf (/_c) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm interested in this in the context of your self-nom = power hunger belief? EJF (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My running is not on my own initiative, but after being talked into it by another individual (who will make himself known if he wishes)--I was very resistant to the idea myself. The reason I put it up myself is because, unlike RFA, the WMF board election process does not have a provision for third-party nominations. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First of all, I don't think Kurt has claimed that self-nomination (also known as volunteering) is equal to power hunger. Rather, those who are power hungry may indeed self-nominate, so it is a sign of power hunger. Rebuttable. Kurt simply, as I understand it, decided to consider self-nomination a disqualification, and, in fact, I'd agree that self-nomination really should not be allowed; in fact, what I'd like to see is a nomination, not by the candidate, and a second, also not by the candidate, and then an acceptance by the candidate, and only then, discussion. And no votes until the discussion is complete. I.e., what was developed over centuries of experience! Avoids a lot of useless debate, and voting prior to discussion is total insanity, it makes discussion half-useless.

We supposedly don't vote here, but RfAs are an obvious exception. Votes are explicitly counted and there are pretty clear standards. They are still only recommendations, technically. But that does not change the substance. And votes without deliberation *first* is pretty much an implementation of what has always been considered the worst kind of democracy: mob rule.

As to self-nom for the Board, that's the only process that exists. So it cannot be taken as any sign of power hunger. So... take the implications of hypocrisy and stuff them where they belong. Away. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If it means anything, you can count on my vote. The disrespect shown by the Board to the community must stop. To your points Abd, I'm not convinced about hypocrisy either way, I was interested more in how Kurt justified it. Still, I'll be supporting because the Board elections are far more important than silly RfA voting. EJF (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, EJF, I apologize. You didn't express anything in your question about hypocrisy, and Kurt just answered you straight. Given all the flack that has been tossed at Kurt, apparently I over-reacted, assuming a fairly obvious implication that might be made by certain editors, writing as you wrote. Eh, then, what about this? (and the subtext would indeed be, Hypocrite!). Rampant incivility, as we have, tends to breed more of itself, it's one of the reasons that action against true incivility should be swift and clear and reliable. Frankly, we don't block enough, in my opinion. But getting to an indef block should be more difficult than it now is for some. (Blocking should be the equivalent of a chair saying, "Will the member please sit down!" and the sergeant-at-arms escorts the member out if the member does not sit down. And there is no punishment at all. What's really weird is that I've seen blatant incivility encounter no response at all, but then, in other cases, mild incivility results in blocking. It really gets bad when editors are piling-on; it was truly striking, Fredrick day would toss in a massively uncivil accusation, pure bad-faith interpretation of actions of the worst kind, and nobody would comment on that, but there was only comment on the situation Fd had pointed to. That vandal was, apparently, simply serving as an expression of what the others were thinking. This is how mob rule works. Someone functions as an instigator and normally reasonably civil people lose it. So I've seen indef blocks arise out of such a mob scene, when the target of the mob was unpopular for some reason (unrelated to the incident that gets the mob fire up), for offenses that hardly raise an eyebrow when someone else does it. I think I understand how to fix this.... but the community largely is uninterested. It's a common problem, it's not just Misplaced Pages! Anyway, again, I apologize. --Abd (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of a personal opinion, I think that an RFA self-nomination is not that different from an ordinary job application and shouldn't be viewed as a disqualification per se. If there is actual "power hunger" involved, it is usually pretty easy to spot it in the behaviour of an editor in question throughout their editing history. E.g. has the editor been pushy, judgemental, tried to monopoloze or manipulate some discussions, etc. If yes, this will almsot certainly be brought up during the RfA anyway.

I think allowing self-nominations actually makes the process more straightforward. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, self-nomination, then, should not start an RfA. Rather, there would be a page where one volunteers to serve, or it could just be a category one adds to one's user page "User available to serve as an administrator." Then someone else nominates. And, in fact, I'd require a second of the nomination before opening an RfA for comment. And I would not allow !voting until comment was closed. Standard deliberative procedure, actually, bedrock of democracy. In standard procedure, you don't vote on a motion or action until a two-thirds majority agree that discussion is over, essentially that all arguments have been presented. Then you vote, and votes don't include comments. They are just votes. Clean. And the process can get even more detailed. How this would apply to an RfA could be this: there has been a nomination and second. Routinely, the nomination would then be referred to a committee that would compile a report on the nominee. Anyone could serve on the committee, and the committee *talk* page would look a little like current RfAs, but without the votes. The committee project page would be an NPOV document, a report. When done, it should be a consensus report on the candidate. Polling might be used to measure consensus when there is contention, but NPOV can actually sidestep that need, if we simply consider all verifiable facts relevant if any editor thinks them so. Really, we should know how to do this, how to make a coherent report that includes all points of view, with verifiable facts ... and we have loads of verifiable facts here, reportable with diffs. When consensus of editors agrees that the report is done, then there is an RfA. The committee report is presented by reference. An addendum to the report is available for new comments ... maybe it is just the RfA talk page. The RfA itself is very clean. Just votes go on it, and the conclusion of the 'crat reviewing it.

This may seem complicated. The reality is that it would create a readable report on the candidate, not a mess of mixed opinions, responses, etc., etc. Votes would be what they really are in the case of RfAs: advisory votes, not binding, but by tradition being followed by the 'crats. The 'crats would have the freedom to look at the report and make their own conclusions, if they think the community opinion represented in the votes is somehow distorted. In other words, same system as we now have, but with a little orderly process. Questioning of the candidate would take place on the committee page, without a time constraint. Committee process, leading to a purely advisory document including all points of view, can be much more collegial than decision-making process where everyone is trying to advance their own point and get others to think that their point is really the most important one. Detailed debate over particular issues can take place without necessarily showing up in the final report: only the conclusions from that debate -- true consensus conclusions -- would show up in the final report. A single poll out of the committee could show the degree of consensus *on the report*. (This vote is one that says "The committee report is complete.") And, of course, time for my occasional plug for WP:PRX. Consideration of proxy assignments would have no effect, ordinarily, on that report itself, except possibly if we have proxies assigned, there might be fewer participants in some processes with higher quality of contributions. Maybe. However, if we did have a proxy system in place, together with the direct vote on the report closure might be reported a proxy expansion. Which, again, those who vote in the RfA can choose to accept or neglect. And, again, with the outcome of the RfA itself, the 'crat dealing with it could consider proxy expansion or ignore it. But, in theory, proxy expansion of !votes would, if a significant number of proxy assignments were made, through delegable proxy, allow a broader estimation of consensus, possibly balancing out participation bias. No guarantee, but it's possible. WP:PRX merely suggested setting up the proxy assignment method, it did not propose any policy or procedure for actually using the assignments in votes, and there are other purposes besides voting that proxies would serve. But, of course, WP:PRX aroused a firestorm of outraged response, and, for a blatant incivility by the frustrated proposer (an image of an upraised finger), what would have resulted in *at most* a 24 hour block for most editors -- even blatant vandals get several warnings before being blocked -- was an indef block for the proposer. Hmm. What does that say? Do we have problems in River City? No. Move on. Everything's fine. Nothing to see here. --Abd (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, how would one vote for you in this election? I'd be honored to cast my vote for someone who wants to limit the power of the WMF. --Sharkface/_C 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day Candidate!

First I thought I'd offer a thank you for being brave / foolish enough to put your hat in the ring as a candidate for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees! - I wonder if you might have any time, interest, and enthusiasm to record a brief 10 / 15 minute audio interview about yourself / the reasons for your candidature / your wiki philosophy etc. etc. ? - I've been promoting a project on the english wikipedia called NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which is a grassroots effort to promote good communications through (semi) regular 'podcasts'.

If you have a couple of moments free, would you mind taking a look at this page and signing up if you're interested! It'd be great to chat with each and every one of you, and I hope you'll be amenable to this idea! Let me know if you've any questions at all, thought perhaps my english wikipedia talk page is the best spot.

The best of luck, and kind regards,

Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Sorry to bother you about this again, but you have yet to update your information at Highly Active Users. If you do not update your entry, it will be removed within 48 hours. Thanks. Useight (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Curiousity re: Inclusion

Hey Kurt. I was thinking about something today regarding what you list as the only two items you think should be eligible for deletion. It doesn't seem to account for utterly false information, hoaxes, etc. Like an article on Herby Meldman, King of Ohio and Wisconsin. I'm talking about gibberish or any slander, just a bunch of made up stuff. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you may consider these things a subset of "Nonsense", which might render this discussion useless. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you might be available?

For a brief audio conversation via. Skype (or the regular telephone service, should skype not be suitable) to talk about your candidacy in the Board of Trustees election. Per the above thread - I've now started recording short interviews with cnadidates, and will be publishing a podcast on 6th June in a bid to help inform potential voters about you and your ideas for the Wikimedia Foundation.

It would be great to have your participation! You can sign up for an interview time here - or uf you have any questions, please don't hesistate to contact me and I'll try and help! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Was gonna vote for you, dude.

But they managed to raise the edit count bar just high enough to keep me out. Little buggers and their Anti-BP Cabal. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Misplaced Pages:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology, Thanks, and Good Luck.

kurt,

I wanted to apologize for my behaviour towards you at Guest999's RFA. you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else and bringing up your 2005 RFA in that manner was petty and immature. please accept my apologies for this.

I would also like to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. I am seeking community input at User talk:Xenocidic/RFA on a number of issues that were raised, and your comments are welcome.

Best of luck with the ongoing board elections. I respect the stance that you've taken to limit the WMF influence over the various projects and suspect you will garner a good amount of support based on this (including my own).

P.S. if you prefer An Impersonal Templated Thank You™, I've included one below! ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Standards

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

• Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
• I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
• An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Misplaced Pages could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
• One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
• As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)

    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)

12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)

    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)

35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Thanks

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Sorry, never ended up voting. –xenocidic (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, Kmweber. I've noticed you identify as an Objectivist Wikipedian and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to Objectivism. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts WP:AYN WP:RAND

Voted for you

I entered in my only vote for you in the WMF Board Election. Good luck. We need more guys like you. Mac Davis (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Same. You were my number 2. :)<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on the ecological impact of the WMF

Dear Kurt, I was appalled over your opinion on the ecological impact of WMF. To claim that organizations should slip out of their moral responsibility to make up for the damage they inflict on the environment is frankly preposterous. –Zinjixmaggir 05:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such responsibility. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Weber is a libertarian, that view isn't surprising from him, though there are libertarians who do recognize the right of communities to take collective action. Since the question involved voluntary action on the part of WMF, not coerced action, which would be the normal basis for libertarian opposition, I'd urge Kurt to reconsider. He's being elected, if he's elected, to a board that does not coerce contributions; people voluntarily contribute toward WMF funds, generally. The WMF board is charged with spending those funds and is, in fact, obligated by general corporation law (often neglected) to consider the general public welfare, it has the authority to define its own purview and powers, within its bylaws and other law.

Kurt sad that he recognized "no such responsibility." I wonder what responsibility he does recognize. The responsibility involved here, if there is one, is a diffuse one, and it's certainly possible to argue that, with respect to individual actions, it's best regulated by market forces. I don't necessarily agree, the market isn't a magic wand, merely a device, invented a long time ago as humans developed the customs that we tend to consider natural rights. And like most devices, it isn't perfect and can fail under some circumstances. And the consequences of failure, from an evolutionary perspective, could be the extinction of the species, along with other species.

However, as I said, that's a reasonable position. But WMF isn't an individual, it's a charitable organization, and has different responsibilities. I appreciate that Kurt has the courage to assert his unpopular opinion, but I wonder if he'd think a little more deeply about this question. What would he think if a majority of those contributing, responsible for a majority of contributions, wanted some of it to be spent reducing the carbon footprint of WMF activities? I'd say that a libertarian response wouldn't be that money couldn't be spent for that, but that, for example, the *amount* spent might be related to the level of support from those who wanted it. Does he think that the WMF board should be aloof and unresponsive to the views of those who support it? Indeed, that seems contradictory to other positions I've seen him take. What if donors made donations conditional on, say, 10% of the donation being spent on reducing carbon footprint? Should they be refused? Does the WMF board have the authority to make a promise? What if it voted, by majority, to make such a promise, so that all contributors would know to expect it. This would leave Kurt totally free to not contribute, if he's opposed to reducing emission of greenhouse gases, and, indeed, still free to consume those beans, which he obviously already has done. I'll be blunt since he is often blunt, saying it as a friend: Kurt, your thinking on this stinks. Lay off them beans.

I would advocate rejecting those donations wholesale. The WMF should not be in the business of kowtowing to an irrational anti-philosophy that advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit. Primitivism is antithetical to the WMF's goals. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you say this in ordinary English without using loaded phrases with no obvious referent? What is an "anti-philosophy that advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit"? What is "primitivism" and what does it have to do with voluntary mitigation of carbon emissions? --Abd (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it troubling that a WMF board candidate is ready to dismiss a potential voter's supposed views as “irrational anti-philosophy that advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit” and “primitivism”. I see the board primarily as a cooperative organ, not a field of war where this sort of abstract accusations can be worrylessly thrown around. I second Abd in the request to clarify these statements. –Zinjixmaggir 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary history

Thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy ratification vote. Look at oppose votes #12 and #14. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

Hope I did this right. Macaw2000 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Colts edit

It sounded very POV, like only the politicians wanted the Colts. I mean just read their edit summary "A large percentage of the actual public STILL wants the Welfare Colts to move on." doesn't sound like good intentions to me. HoosierState 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Motives don't change factuality. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

Please add a reliable source for this information. Thanks - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for adding it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Aloha.

Do you "do" email? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that hurt

I think you were saying i should never be an admin and that hurts, I have replied to your hurtful comment.Gears Of War 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for opposing ;) I'll wait a few months :) User:Cream/scrolling --Creamy! 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA comments

I just wanted to tell you that whilst I disagree with your comments about self-nomination, I strongly agree with your right to say it and think that you are being given much too many a harsh comment and remark on various RfA talk pages and wherever. Good work for sticking to your guns over what you believe in, my friend.

I have also been wondering, since you self nominated yourself 2 years or so ago - was it power hunger that drove you to do that? Or are your comments based on the possibility of power hunger?

I look forward to your reply.  Asenine  08:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Colts Invite

Template:ColtsInvite HoosierState 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

In this. For once, I think we agree on something :) Al Tally 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for chiming in. I respect your point of view on self-noms, and thought about it for quite a while before deciding to go ahead and do it. I'll do my best to prove you wrong. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation

Yes, it's me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Schroeder on Freenode. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

Q. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?

• Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy: Brief blocks for the sole purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation.
• Me: Absolutely not. Not for any reason, not for any purpose.

Now your oppose is based on my answer to #9 (which is the question posted above), but I am somewhat mystified by this since it looks to me like I answer the question correctly. Could you maybe clarify your position a little for me? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt disagrees with the policy, so his question was essentially a trap. Enigma 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So it was essentially a show trial? That sure reeks of foul play, not to mention a gross violation of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. A quick look at his contribs shows that he opposes pretty much every RfA that comes up. This was the only support I saw in his last 100 Misplaced Pages: space edits. Oren0 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

Using AN/I to desysop,: Bad Idea

Theory. Arbitrary Committee, WMF, and the keys to the place. Where did I put those damn keys?

I wrote this for an AN/I report on the bad block of User:Cryptic, then realized that I was doing what I've decried, cluttering up AN/I with content issues and other irrelevancies, which might be quite interesting in themselves, and we argue about them at the drop of an edit, but ... wrong place. Rather than deprive the universe of my pearls of wisdom, I'm putting this here, where you can make of it what you will. Best wishes, here goes:

While I agree with Kurt in theory, he's not understood, I think, certain aspects of Misplaced Pages structure. The keys to the place aren't in the community's hands, they are in the hands of certain stewards trusted by the owners of the place, I think Kurt will get the concept of private property -- though this this isn't exactly private property, he'll love this: it's owned by a corporation, which is an entity chartered by the State of Florida.... In any case, the owners listen to advice that we give, which they can choose to follow or not. If it is coherently expressed, they will usually follow it. Now, as to giving the advice through an AN/I report, it is a totally, really, miserably Bad Idea. This is a hot environment, utterly unsuited to deliberative process. It's really 911 for administrators. We would not expect parties to a divorce to work it out on the phone with 911, where the operator really wants to know whether or where to send the police or an ambulance or fire truck. An RfC would be about the minimum level where I'd expect stewards to consider acting, and it would have to be crystal clear, not only that an error was made (there is, I'd say, consensus for that) but that the error is worthy of desysopping (there is not consensus for that, at least not yet, and much -- including my own opinion -- will depend on the admin's eventual response. or is it the Carroll's Queen: verdict first, evidence later?) More commonly, after an RfC, if the matter is not resolved there (some will resign at that point, if the writing is on the wall -- or perhaps the offended party wants it withdrawn), there would only be ArbComm for something like this. ArbComm will want to see something like an RfC first, anyway. Kurt's opinion that the "Arbitrary Committee" is illegitimate is rooted in a misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is: it is really two entities (or more) that cooperate: The WMF, which owns the place and has the keys, and the Community, which does the editing and other work. The Community could refuse to do the work, or even vandalize it, and the WMF could block everybody, even pull the plug, turn the lights out. But that's not likely to happen like that. The Arbitration Committee was set up by WMF, really, and is elected through Community advice, voluntarily accepted by WMF, and WMF is advised by ArbComm, but can refuse to accept the advice of either the Community, or ArbComm, or both, and, in theory, they might be obligated to do both. Ahem. Here I go, distracting this AN/I report, just what I've decried so many times. I tell you, it's seductive, we need to fix this. So I'm going to note this here and leave a comment on Kurt's Talk page.

Which I've done, now. One more point: you ran for a Board position. Were you aware that WMF was free to disregard the results of the election, if I've got it right? It's up to the Board, or a designated officer, to accept the results. This is classic Free Association stuff, if you've ever read my FA/DP (Free Association/Delegable Proxy) stuff, which is radically libertarian.--Abd (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly suggesting AN/I was the place to desysop, although I certainly can see how you might get that idea per my reponse to Wisdom89. What I was really going after was that it's the community's prerogative, and the consent of neither the subject of the action nor the Arbitrary Committee is properly required.

Also, I've never denied the right of the WMF to run things however they please. That doesn't make me obligated to like it, though. Brazen hypocrisy is still brazen hypocrisy, whether one has the right to engage in it or not. There's a reason I've always advocated action from within, rather than use of the legal system, to reform what's wrong with Misplaced Pages; and that's simply because the WMF has always acted within its rights as owners of private property, so the government has no legitimate authority to interfere. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)