This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Truth Mom (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 8 April 2011 (→MoMK: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:30, 8 April 2011 by Truth Mom (talk | contribs) (→MoMK: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please click here to leave me a new message.
Userboxes
|
| Misplaced Pages:Babel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Search user languages |
WikiProject Wikfiy's April Drive
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog to 18,000 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive started April 1, but you can still join! |
Hi
Hi, could you take a look at the Colin Hatch Afd result. I personally believe its not a clear cut Delete case. Many of the comments provided were actually in favour of Keep. I believe a No Consensus result would have been much more appropriate. But I let someone more neutral decide.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Heya, I'll have a look today for you. Have you considered WP:DRV? Listing it there might allow you to make a new argument for un-deletion. --Errant 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have done so now. Check it out. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Ronn Torossian page and your ocmments...
Ronn Torossian what is the source for example for -- "works closely" with Christian supporters of Israel, including the Christians United For Israel led by TV evangelist John Hagee who he also represents. WHAT IS THE SOURCE FOR WORKS CLOSELY ? Rabbi Morris Allen spoke about 5wpr, not Torossian - This quotation, along with the sentence after is about 5WPR, not about him. Nothing in either of the references implies that he was responsible for the actions, that he knew of or approved of them. Why would they be here ? Am responding to and appreciate your comment. greenbay1313 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, unfortunately I haven't the time to look in depth at the specific issues you raised. My area of "expertise" in this case is in WP:BLP checks, and from my perspective there is no obvious or gregarious libel in the article. I suggest you raise those points in a polite and restrained manner once at a time on the article talk page. If you run into any problems I will try to help, but as I said this is a topic area I tend to avoid. --Errant 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Forensics
greenbay1313 is now a blocked sock of a community banned user, so please allow me to divert you onto something else :)
A brand new user turned up on my talk page asking for help and advice with their first ever article, which happens to be about forensics. The particular type of forensics involved is not your expertise at all (as I understand it), but I thought you might be able to make some suggestions about the type of sources they should be looking for, and places they should look for them. (Their choices of sources are proving problematic right from the start, with one that's on the Misplaced Pages blacklist, and another that seems to be a fringe-theory blogspot mainly focused on UFOs!) Many thanks for any help or hints you can give. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Brill :) you're right, not my area but happy to chip in if I can shoots over to your talk.... --Errant 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Quick request, could you make me a confirmed user. I have a photo to upload but when I went to Misplaced Pages:Upload it said I couldn't. I read the policies and it said you need autoconfirmed access which I dont so I found out from the permission request page that confirmed id the next best thing. mauchoeagle 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
SuperblySpiffingPerson
re: the sockpuppet investigation of user SuperblySpiffingPerson - user:Pikeman327 looks like the next as evidenced by his love of the "minor edit" option . noclador (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- They haven't done anything drastic yet. I'd go with... let it slide for a moment and keep an eye out. --Errant 15:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#Misplaced Pages:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation (REVIVED)
Hi Errant. I contacted you last month about closing two RfCs. You closed one and relisted the other. The second, Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#Misplaced Pages:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation (REVIVED), is now ready for closure, I think, since no one has participated in it for three weeks. Would you close it and implement any consensual changes? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done, thanks --Errant 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've posted a request at WP:AN#Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities for an admin to close Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities, but no one has stepped forward to do so even though the consensus is clear. Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities may need to be updated after that discussion is closed. If you have no time or don't feel like closing the debate, I understand. I've been pestering you a lot to close discussions that other admins are too lazy to do. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, no it's fine, someone has to get it done. I'll try and do it at lunch :) --Errant 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! By the way, when I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. For List of YouTube personalities, I closed the previous RfC and started the current RfC after a request at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 22#Underwood. I have not advocated a particular position as I have no strong opinion about the matter. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have left the thread at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have contacted you. This is because the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it. And that wouldn't be good after a month of discussion and consensus building. :) Best, Cunard (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, sorted that one out for you :) it was pretty conclusive really, don't worry about looking involved, you've dealt with it well. Thanks for taking the time to prompt me about these and as always if you spot something else that needs closing feel free to ping me about it. --Errant 14:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind comment and for closing the discussion. There is another discussion which has been open for a while: WP:ANI#Proposed restrictions. It's been archived once by the bot but then restored to ANI. I asked Courcelles (talk · contribs) to close it at User talk:Courcelles#WP:ANI#Proposed restrictions, but he has now participated in the discussion and cannot close it. Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) asked EdJohnston (talk · contribs) to close it, but Ed has not replied to his request even though he has edited. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities needs to be updated after the closure of the RfC. Because the page is protected, I cannot edit it. My proposed changes are here. If you agree, feel free to revise if necessary and make the changes to the editnotice. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done both :) --Errant 09:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities needs to be updated after the closure of the RfC. Because the page is protected, I cannot edit it. My proposed changes are here. If you agree, feel free to revise if necessary and make the changes to the editnotice. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind comment and for closing the discussion. There is another discussion which has been open for a while: WP:ANI#Proposed restrictions. It's been archived once by the bot but then restored to ANI. I asked Courcelles (talk · contribs) to close it at User talk:Courcelles#WP:ANI#Proposed restrictions, but he has now participated in the discussion and cannot close it. Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) asked EdJohnston (talk · contribs) to close it, but Ed has not replied to his request even though he has edited. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, sorted that one out for you :) it was pretty conclusive really, don't worry about looking involved, you've dealt with it well. Thanks for taking the time to prompt me about these and as always if you spot something else that needs closing feel free to ping me about it. --Errant 14:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! By the way, when I ask a specific admin on their talk page to close a discussion, I usually have minimal or no involvement in the debate. For List of YouTube personalities, I closed the previous RfC and started the current RfC after a request at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 22#Underwood. I have not advocated a particular position as I have no strong opinion about the matter. If I had actively participated in the RfC, I would have left the thread at AN (and posted periodic timestamp updates to prevent archiving) and would not have contacted you. This is because the close could be seen as tainted if a participant actively sought out a specific admin to close it. And that wouldn't be good after a month of discussion and consensus building. :) Best, Cunard (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, no it's fine, someone has to get it done. I'll try and do it at lunch :) --Errant 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've posted a request at WP:AN#Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities for an admin to close Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities, but no one has stepped forward to do so even though the consensus is clear. Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities may need to be updated after that discussion is closed. If you have no time or don't feel like closing the debate, I understand. I've been pestering you a lot to close discussions that other admins are too lazy to do. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey
Hi Tom, I don't recall running into you back when I was a regular here (08-09) but on catching up on things to get back up to speed I've noticed you at several places. I admit my memory isn't what it used to be, and if we had interacted back then, then I apologize for forgetting. Couldn't have been too bad if I forgot huh? Anyway, I just wanted to say I've read through some stuff that you've posted (more board and talk page stuff than article building), and I am truly impressed. Your patience, understanding, and willingness to work with people just amaze the living daylights outta me. That's really all I wanted to say, "Hello, nice to meet you - I like your style" kinda thing. Hope to work with you on something soon.
Cheers and Best, — Ched : ? 13:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Heya. Thanks for the kind words, you put a smile on my face :) I've only properly been around since the middle of last year (ye gads, it's nearly a year!) and before that I was briefly an editor in 06 (it's horribly embarrassing to come across stuff I wrote back then... slightly less patient ;)). I really want to get back to article building... since Feb (basically since RFA) I've not seemed to find enough time to get my teeth into an article :( Fingers crossed for this month. Good to see you back, even if I never saw you leave! --Errant 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Administrator culture discussion
Rather than prolong the thread at AN, I thought I'd run this past you here where you can ignore it or not, and where it won't bother anyone else.
I have absolutely no interest in the specific case being discussed by Hpvpp, nor do I think that he/she has a clear idea of what needs to be said and how. But I am absolutely convinced that there needs to be some form of dialogue about an administrator 'culture'. I believe there has been a noticeable shift in the way sysops conducted themselves prior to about 2008, and the way administrators exercise their authority today.
I don't have any specific groups of admins in mind, nor do I want to narrow the dialogue by targeting individuals, but how do you hold a discussion in the abstract without specific examples? And if you use specific examples, how do you prevent that from becoming a war?
By looking at broad trends, I guess, these will be questioned as trends for lack of specific examples, right? But let me tell you that I could give such examples for at leas two features of undesirable administrator culture: longer-term administrators are observed by their more junior colleagues, who emulate their actions and are quick to agree with their seniors without necessarily making independent assessments of the issues at hand; and some administrators routinely pick on only one aspect of a question, challenge or request, to the exclusion of all other aspects, and of context or intention. That's either so careless the people involved shouldn't be administrators, or so tyrannical that they deserve to be called 'Wikistapo'.
A disturbingly common attitude displayed by adminsitrators I have observed since returning to regular edits after a longish absence has been one of presumptive impatience and disrespect, particularly for 'newbies' as adjudged by number of edits or 'mistakes'. It is an attitude captured precisely by iridescent's comment 'virtually no edits to en-wiki', as if that somehow invalidates someone's humanity or potential for worthwhile ideas.
It is also true that I have some personally galling experiences with administrators who have struck me as blithely dismissive of what I've had to say, sometimes to the point where I believed they had deliberately and vexatiously misconstrued what I had written rather than addressing my concerns. Underlying that attitude, I thought, was either a sense of being overwhelmed by a 'them-us' perspective, or an astonishing, swaggering arrogance about the ability to ignore rationality when it suits to achieve some kind of ego gratification, and to then use administrator powers to censure and/or censor uncomfortable counter-comments.
That said, I have also been extremely fortunate that in a couple of circumstances where I refused to back away from threats by administrators suggesting my 'privileges' would be curtailed if I persisted, some other administrator stepped in to cool things down and communicate with me constructively. Much the way you did at AN, even if no real tensions or threats existed there.
Nevertheless, before you joined the discussion, I was acutely aware that I was running a risk just by daring to criticize. That I should have such a consideration in mind is not healthy. Sure, frivolous and spiteful challenges to administrator decisions are bullshit time-wasters, and we all rely on admins to keep some order in the chaos. I'd suggest that a search of even just the last two weeks of my activities would reveal that I have weighed into a couple of heated debates to defend administrators, but always because I thought they were rational and reasonable, not because they were administrators.
I intend to to spend some more time thinking about this, because I think it is a real problem for Misplaced Pages if there's a them-us divide, and if some administrator accountability isn't seen to exist much more prominently than it is seen right now.
If you were me, would you risk considerable animosity and possible boomerang retribution (by the book or contrived, it makes no difference) for an uncertain outcome by championing a debate that relied solely on a capacity for self-criticism by administrators?
I would be most interested in your feedback. Regards - Peter S Strempel | Talk 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I need to take time to consider your comments & write a decent reply :) so bear with me (just in case you see me wandering round doing other editing w/o responding) --Errant 15:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK
Hi, as you helped me alot with the Schenecker double homicide article I just want to inform you that I have put the article up as a GA-article nominee.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
MoMK
Can you please, I know your are so busy and I would really appreciate if it is in anyway possible, that you stay on the page. It is just like a huge war zone it seems. Nothing is really getting handled as its a constant battle. This was the reason I asked SuperMario to help me to start a new section. I hoped with possibly reading the things that were at the top, everyone would take a deep breathe and think. I do not think it worked as it turned into a total feud under it until you showed up. I am sorry if I am out of line to ask of such, but this really needs people clearly overseeing. Thank you kindly for your time. ( Please note if you reply, can you please to my page? This way I can see it and know how to get back here to you.)--Truth Mom (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)