| Revision as of 14:07, 19 May 2018 editTonyBallioni (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers49,329 editsm →Note and warning on my talk page.: ce← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:19, 27 December 2024 edit undoSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,435 editsm Reverted edit by 2600:1000:B117:8858:AE0E:9960:52F1:E04F (talk) to last version by ClueBot IIITag: Rollback |
| (1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{notice|Talk page stalkers are free to respond to any edit made here. I'm fine with general discussion of issues related to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia projects here, even if I don't respond. If you post here, I will reply here: I typically ping you in reply, but not always. To make sure you see a response, either watchlist this page or check back later.}} |
|
{{Administrator topicon}} |
|
|
|
{{busy}} |
|
{{notice|Talk page stalkers are free to respond to any edit made here. I'm fine with general discussion of issues with New Page Patrol and related topics here, even if I have not responded for some reason. If you post here, I will reply here: I typically ping you in reply, but not always. To make sure you see a response, either watchlist this page or check back later. If I haven't responded and some time has passed, please feel free to leave a followup message.}} |
|
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} |
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> |
|
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
== A beer for you! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Tony. A beer for you. Hope you are well. ] (]) 02:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
:{{u|Drmies}}, thanks for leaving this. Glad to see there's people around who still think of me. Hope you and your family are doing well and have a great holiday season :) ] (]) 17:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Absolutely, old friend and colleague. I hope you're doing well. Wait. Did I see you edit Bolano? DYK that once upon a time I taught ''2666''? One of the greatest novels ever. ] (]) 00:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Bolaño is my favorite author. I'm making my way through ''2666'' in Spanish now - one of the things that makes him such a master of Spanish prose is his unique ability to use the exact word he means to in every situation. The other thing that's interesting in ''2666'' from the Spanish prose perspective is because of the unique circumstances of his life, his writing style changes depending on the geography of where he's writing about/the nationality of the characters. In Mexico he writes using Mexican vocabulary. In Spain, he writes like a Spaniard, the Chilean characters speak chileno etc. Its a work of art on so many levels.{{pb}}Re: his article, yes, I was going to try to update his article a bit by translating from the es.wiki article on him( ].) Main problem is that a lot of the sources are print that aren't easily available in the US and I didn't want to introduce content I didn't have the ability to verify (in part because I'd be translating a summary into a summary in another language, and I feel like there's too much room for error there, even though my Spanish is professional level.) ] (]) 20:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Whoa you are a man of many talents: I bow to your linguistic knowledge. I only read him in English of course, but what you're telling me only impresses me more. What else have I read recently in that area? '']'', a while ago, which I thought was great and terrifying and I should, but don't want to, read it again--it's a really hard read. I was less impressed with his ''No contar todo''. ] (]) 16:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A cheeseburger for you! == |
|
Hello, ] confirmed as a sock for ]. Best '''--'''] ] 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks, ], I'll keep an eye on the accounts. They haven't techincally violated our policies here yet as the accounts haven't been used at the same time. I'll leave them a note letting them know what are policies are. ] (]) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks Tony, I sent this notification only to let you know about this accounts. Also, note that Sameer Reddy ] and INNAjm ]. Best '''--'''] ] 21:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
* New one ] '''--'''] ] 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
* New one ] with more than 100 edits in enwiki '''--'''] ] 13:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
== Request on ] == |
|
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | to go with the beer from ]. I've been away for a couple of years and on my return I'm dismayed to see that RfA has never changed its spots. I thought that the new monitoring policy was designed to reduce the toxicity, not stoke it. I stand by your comments and I'm glad to see you're still around. It's been a long time. ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
:Thanks. I'm not nearly as active as I used to be, but do stop by from time-to-time. I was pretty surprised to see people think that oppose was a policy violation - I wasn't expecting to have so many edits today... ] (]) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Good to see your plain speaking again TB. And you haven't lost the art of cutting to the chase. Kudpung's right though, WP:MONITOR is slowly—not yet, but gradually—looking like a tool for "civilty policing" rather than ]ing. ]'']''] 11:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The removal ] than the comment would have gotten initially so there’s that. My bigger concern is that they’re just ignoring the emerging consensus that my comment didn’t violate any policy. I took it to their talk page and we’ll see how it goes. Not worth taking to AN, but a big enough concern that it’s worth asking about it on their talk. ] (]) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I stand by you 100% too, btw. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Did you get an answer? ]'']''] 22:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not yet, probably should follow-up in case they didn’t see the talk page message. ] (]) 22:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Serial Number 54129}} . ] (]) 09:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Io Saturnalia!== |
|
Could you take a look at and ? I'm concerned that I may have gone overboard out of frustration. ] (]) 07:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:], replied there. I think you were correct on policy. I would never cite a historical FBI memo in an article unevaluated by a secondary source. ] (]) 13:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for intercedinig. The last source they cited, ''Black Sun'' is a reliable secondary source, so I've altered the text and added an information note about the unclear date of the name change. (It's actually possible that both sources are right, that the change was approved internally in 1966, but papers weren't filed until 1/1/67. The internal decision might or might not leave a paper trail, whereas any official change in name -- say for tax purposes -- would have one. Of course that's entirely speculation on my part, so it's not in the note.) ] (]) 17:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;" |
|
:::Can you please return to the page in question and moderate the discussion between myself and BMK? BMK is making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and engaging in multiple behaviors found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors ] (]) 18:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] |
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive == |
|
== March 2018 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;" |
|
Fine we'll talk this out...] (]) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | ] | <span style="font-size: 85%">''']''' </span> |
|
|
|
|
|
| rowspan=3 | ] |
|
== User talk page access for banned editors == |
|
|
|
|- |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Hi Tony. While I don't have any concerns about your close of the community ban discussion regarding DanaUllman, I was wondering if there was a reason why you chose to prevent him from editing his own talk page (or if you ticked that box inadvertently): . |
|
|
|
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. |
|
Usually we don't block talk page access unless a blocked/banned editor has shown an inclination to misuse/abuse their talk page. (See also the notes at ], ].) Is there a history of such abuse in this case? I don't expect DanaUllman to offer a particularly compelling appeal of his ban any timme in the near future, but we don't generally preemptively close off lines of communication. ](]) 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. |
|
:Hi ]. See ]. The two main differences between a ban and an indefinite block are that bans need to be lifted by the community, while a block can be lifted by an individual admin, and that we usually revoke talk page access for banned editors. ] (]) 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. |
|
::Huh. I'm surprised, frankly. Yes, I'm aware of the difference between a block and a ban (I've been an admin since – good God, I've wasted my life – 2005), but I hadn't noticed that the policy specifies that we "usually" pull their talk page access. Still not sure it's necessary in this instance, or that that "usually" really reflects real-world practice and expectations...but it's definitely not worth arguing. ](]) 20:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Barnstars will also be granted for ] previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. |
|
:::Not a problem. I was sure you knew there was a technical difference, but wanted to explain the policy reason why I had the box checked. {{smiley}}{{bcc|TenOfAllTrades}} ] (]) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''. |
|
|
|
|
== A barnstar for you! == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
|
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
|
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ] |
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | sorry...heres this barnstar. ] (]) 15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
] (]) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
=={{utrs|21460}}== |
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1263150419 --> |
|
{{UTRS-unblock-admin|21460|Kim Jong-Un's Whirling Aluminium Tubes|May 10, 2018 19:53:19|Just Chilling|Hi, please see my question on this appeal. Thanks.}}--] (]) 19:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|Just Chilling}}, let a note there. ] (]) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Joker == |
|
== Happy Holidays == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" |
|
—actually, there ''is'' a firm consensus on this, demonstrated in both the article content and talk page archives. Could you please strike this? It was not up for debate. ] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> ] 21:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] |
|
:{{u|Curly Turkey}}: I've a bit, which hopefully addresses some of your concerns. I didn't see a firm consensus for it in that discussion, and it was raised. Regardless, the move didn't go through because there were reasons under the naming policy to not move it at this time. My close only affects the title and discussions relating to it, not article content. ] (]) 21:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' |
|
:: That doesn't address it at all. There was a ''single'' editor—who showed no evidence he had even read the lead of the article—who insisted it was about the comics character. ''What the article was about'' was not the subject of the discussion. What the article ''should'' be about has been the subject of exhaustive discussion on the article's talk page, as well as several other talk pages, such as at ]. There has been talk of having a comics-specific article, and there even was one for a time (since deleted). The subject is long settled, and no impression should be given that it's not. Note that the editor in question has not suggested the article should be rewritten with a comics focus—they simply can't be bothered to peak at the actual article to even find out what it's about. ] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> ] 23:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|- |
|
:::In the RM itself there was discussion on the topic but no clear consensus on that point, which is why I felt the need to mention it. If there is existing consensus elsewhere that everyone who opposed agrees with, then it’s already the consensus for the content in the article and any attempts to change the content won’t happen. I was only addressing the arguments in the RM discussion, and felt the need to mention it as it was raised.{{pb}}The RM closed as ''not moved'' because of the strength of the other arguments based on the article title policy and conventions. That consensus was clear in the discussion, which is why it closed the way it did. ] (]) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | |
|
* Hi Tony. I wish that closers in general would dispense with the bold “not moved” in favour or either “no consensus to move” or “consensus to not move”. This goes directly to moratoria, which I also think you should address in that close. I think it is a “no consensus” which usually means two months before the next RM. I think you declaring a defined moratoria is a good idea, because another RM will come, and better for it to come prepared than to come unilaterally by the most excited proponent. Even two weeks would be better than zero or undefined. —] (]) 23:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
{{od2}}{{replyto|SmokeyJoe|Curly Turkey}} I've based on both of your comments here, and hopefully this addresses it.{{pb}}SmokeyJoe: normally "not moved" is a stronger close than "no consensus to move", which tends to be somewhere in between the two options. I get your point though, and I've clarified that there was a consensus against a move in general at this time. ] (]) 00:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
'''Hello TonyBallioni, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> |
|
* Thanks Tony. On "not moved", it sounds like it is becoming on Misplaced Pages, or has become in the RM Wikipedian subcommunity, a ]. I think that sort of thing needs to be consciously avoided, as a matter of ]. The page was "not moved" last week, and is "not moved" today, so nothing has changed? If a literal reading of the words doesn't convey the meaning, jargon is being used. Are these terms based on RMCI? I don't look there often, I have a particular dislike of important things being recorded there beyond the technical, as it is titled as a page not for the general editor. Closing statements, if a defined set, should be defined on the main WP:RM page, wouldn't you agree? --] (]) 01:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 23:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*: The "not moved" terminology is lifted directly from ], and is the standard wording when there is a consensus not to move the article. You do make a good point though, {{u|SmokeyJoe}}, it is confusing and could definitely benefit from clearer wording. There's probably a case for bringing that up at ] and getting the wording clarified as you suggest. I'm interested by Tony's suggestion there may be a fourth outcome lying somewhere between no consensus and not moved... that's probably overkill to be honest. Some people even dispute whether there is a difference between no consensus and not moved at all, given that there are usually no fixed rules on proposing the move again. (In the case of the Joker, it's clear to me that the subject should be left well alone for the foreseeable future, even had the outcome been no consensus). — ] (]) 09:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Yes, the not moved terminology is directly found in THREEOUTCOMES.{{pb}}{{u|Amakuru}} re: a fourth outcome, I'd never suggest adding ''no consensus to move'' to RMCI (unless it was to combine no consensus and not moved, which I don't think I'd support now.) I was more making the point that it is a close you will see on occasion, usually when there is no consensus but the closer wants to emphasize that it has the same impact as ''not moved'' (or when it should be a ''not moved'' outcome, but one wants to hedge bets on a likely move review...) The Joker RM in my decision was firmly in the ''not moved'' camp, and since SmokeyJoe had brought up the no consensus to move wording here, I also mentioned it.{{pb}}I really like your point about two outcomes, and I think in some ways it is more accurate if not for the outcome of ''consensus to move, no consensus as to title'', which I think having no consensus around as an outcome can help people understand better than if it were just two options. ] (]) 11:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Right, plus the occasional case where the article was already boldly moved, and the move proposal is to go back to the long-term stable title. In that situation, "no consensus" means default-to-moved rather than default-to-not-moved. — ] (]) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Oh, those ones are always fun... Honestly, in those cases it's best to go to RM/TR, have an admin move it back to the stable title (and move protect if need be) and then have the RM from the stable title. That isn't how it works in the real world, though, so yeah, keeping NC around to restore to a stable title is needed. ] (]) 13:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Added by ] . RMCI doesn't receive a lot of attention. --] (]) 13:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== OTRS question == |
|
|
|
|
|
After a ticket is handled satisfactorily, shouldn't it be closed? I've noticed many pages in Open Tickets Need to be answered, but the English ones have been answered and are still showing up. <sup>]]]</sup> 14:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yeah, tickets that have been answered should typically be closed. {{replyto|AntiCompositeNumber|Primefac}} handle a lot more tickets than me and could probably give more insight. ] (]) 14:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::👍🏻 <sup>]]]</sup> 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yeah, basically. ] elaborates more on the different states, but tickets that require no further action on our end should be closed. Only exception is spam, which is usually left open and moved to Junk. The Dashboard can take a minute or two to update after taking action on a ticket. --] (]) 15:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::More on ]. ] (]) 15:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Block request == |
|
|
|
|
|
I had a very bad experience and a very bad dispute and an accidental misunderstanding on Test2 Misplaced Pages. The problem was that ] was indeffed on enwiki and three other Wikis for abusing multiple accounts so I reported for their account to be globally locked and the same user, MechQuester, removed my sysop privileges on Test2 Misplaced Pages. Due to this, it is making me upset and therefore, I would like to be blocked for a day to two until the dispute is sorted out. I would like to be able to edit my talk page as well. Thanks. ] (]) 19:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi {{u|Pkbwcgs}}, I’m not willing to place a one day self-requested block, as that’s something that you should be able to control yourself. If you want to be blocked, I will block you for a minimum of one week with no talk page access and the agreement that another admin will not unblock you until the block expires. A self-requested block is not something you should do lightly, so I don’t want to make one lightly. If you still want me to block you under these conditions, you can let me know here. ] (]) 19:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:: In that case, can you please do indef so that I can go off for some time and request unblock when I want to come back. Can you please do an indefinite block with talk page access. I do not have a figure in mind for how much time I want to be blocked for. ] (]) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::], see ]. My requirements are roughly the same as these. If you want a self-requested block to force a timeout from Misplaced Pages, I will do it, but you will need to give me a specific time period (1 week or more) and it will be a block without talk page access. If you do not give me a clear answer such as "I want to be blocked for X weeks/months and I understand I will not have talk page access." I will not block you. ] (]) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I would like to be blocked here for a week without the ability to edit my talk page so that I can have some time off and I hope the dispute will be sorted out on that Wiki for a week and then only I can resume with editing Misplaced Pages. Editing just got too stressful so there had to be something in place to calm me down and this probably could be solution I can only hope for while it gets sorted out. ] (]) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{done}} ] (]) 20:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So... um... I know this is a stupid question, but I don't do much xwiki stuff so if anyone asks me a similar question in the future I'll know... blocking on enwiki does nothing to affect the block status on other projects, yes? ] (]) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No. ] (]) 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That's... kinda what I thought. Thanks. ] (]) 21:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Add Health == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently revisited the article on the study ] and in doing so also stumbled back upon the user {{u|Add Health}} who added a bunch of stuff copied and pasted from the study's website to the article. As you may remember (not sure if you do since admins block a gajillion people a day), after this user had been softblocked for an inappropriate username, and had then made several unsuccessful appeals of the block on their talk page, you made their block a hard block so they couldn't edit their own talk page anymore or create a new account. I suspect that this was a much too hostile way to deal with a clearly good-faith editor who wanted to improve an article, and that they should not have been blocked at all. Clearly they were confused by the huge amount of information presented to them and couldn't find the right page that had the relevant info on it. I think you should unblock them and more clearly explain how to disclose their editing so they can edit without violating ] or ]. ] ] 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:They had ~5 rejected unblock requests, and no admin had decided to unblock them. Revoking TPA around the 3rd or later request is pretty normal. UTRS is available to them if they wish to make an appeal and it was linked to. I see no reason to unblock until they decide they want to comply with our policies and guidelines. ] (]) 00:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Alright, I guess that's fine. ] ] 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Regarding Luigi == |
|
|
|
|
|
As I'm known to drop off the face of the wiki-earth for days at a time, if you can figure something out that seems to work for an unblock of Luigi Laitinen then please go ahead without worrying about further input from me as the blocking admin. Whatever the solution they'll need some monitoring as there seems to be a bit of a language/comprehension issue.--]<sup>]</sup> 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the note. I'll see what they say, but agree with everything you've said there. Regardless, I'll give them a DS alert for BLP at the end of it to make anything in the future more flexible than block/appeal/conditions/whatever. ] (]) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. I could have sworn I already dropped a BLP DS warning on their talk, but I had them mixed up . --]<sup>]</sup> 23:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I just declined their unblock asking them to answer your questions. I hope that was OK.-- ] (]) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The number of editors appealing blocks who could also use a BLP DS notice is high right now, so that's forgivable...{{pb}}Yeah, no problem declining until they answer the question. ] (]) 23:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Tony, please delete ] and ], so I can complete the global rename ] '''--'''] ] 03:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:], I got one and Oshwah got another. You should be good to go. ] (]) 03:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks {{smiley}} I should wait ruwiki sysops now '''--'''] ] 03:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Event coordinator permission == |
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't seem like there is any systematic qualification for receiving this permission. I regularly run events, and don't really understand why I have been refused. Can you explain to me why you decided I need to apply for this permission for every event I help to run, when some people have been given it without this qualification? --] (]) 12:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:You've never had accountcreator, so there is no reason to switch it for security reasons, and you aren't that active on this wiki, so you don't fall in the guidelines for granting it permanently. You also in your request seemed to indicate that you don't actually run events that often either. ] (]) 12:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requesting 2nd opinion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Tony. If you have a minute could you take a look at the close . I opened a discussion on the talk page but I'd let to get another opinion in case I'm missing something. Thanks... -] (]) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd vote to overturn if it went to a DRV per ], which, ironically given the name, says {{tq|If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.}} You have a valid policy disagreement where different editors disagree on what is controlling. One side had a clear numerical majority and the other side didn't have any particularly strong arguments to overcome that in my view. ] (]) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks. Steve is a solid admin and I hate 2nd guessing another admins judgement calls. A lot of what we deal with is not black or white and judgement calls sometimes can go either way depending on who is looking at it. But this one really does look like maybe he didn't see how lopsided the discussion was. -] (]) 13:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, agreed there on all counts. I can also see why he might have closed that way because a lot of the "keeps" were at the end, and that does tend to make them look larger than they actually are. ] (]) 14:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Looks like this is going to be settled at DRV. -] (]) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::P.S. Since we discussed this outside of the AfD talk page I would gently suggest that you refrain from commenting at the DRV in case you were thinking about it. I don't want anyone wondering if I was canvassing. -] (]) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Commented and disclosed this. I was planning on commenting on it anyway if it went there. ] (]) 20:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for making about me, Tony. It means a lot to me to have my judgement appreciated. And I would certainly say the same about you, you have a lot of experience right across the Wiki and I always value your opinion in any discussions. — ] (]) 18:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thank YOU for the kind words, Amakuru. It is always good to see you around and get your views, even when we disagree {{smiley}} ] (]) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ''German war effort'' arbitration case opened == |
|
|
|
|
|
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) via ] (]) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort/Non-party_mailing_list&oldid=841617130 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== TonyBallioni, you are awesome! == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for adding the event coordinator permission to my account! I will use this power well. :-) ] (]) 01:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Referenced DOY is a bad idea?== |
|
|
Dear Tony. I would really appreciate if you can give your point of view ]. Thanks and keep being awesome :) --] (]) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the kind words, ]. I'm not overly familiar with those pages, so think it'd be better to let others comment. ] (]) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Note and warning on my talk page. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I took your advice and read the note on my talk page. The first thing I'd like to clear up is that I think you have taken this all way too personally as I see that your misperception is that I've accused you of underhanded things. The truth is that I only made some simple observations of things you already freely admit to and are well known for because you express these ideas frequently. So, you can't accuse someone of things they already express to be their own agenda. For example, all one need do is read your comments and they can easily learn from the opinions you freely (and proudly) profess that you have a very strong aversion to the GNG. It does does not take a rocket scientist to figure out this aversion to the GNG is part of your personal agenda (don't worry about it everybody has one or two of them). So, for me to make this observation and point it out isn't accusing anyone of doing anything underhanded, it's simply noticing what your agenda is. I apologize if I came across as accusing you of anything, but I don't ever remember directly accusing you or alluding to anything that you haven't already freely admitted to yourself. So, I saw it as anything but accusing and I apologize if you did. |
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, I had already agreed to drop all these so-called accusations long before you decided to continue to beat me up about it on my talk page. When I told you: |
|
|
"''However, I think it's best to leave you alone now.''" |
|
|
"''We will call it beating a dead horse and quash it here...''" |
|
|
"''I want to spare you any further indignities of having to come up with any more "explanations" for your behaviour.''" |
|
|
"''Let's just say that even though I shouldn't, and don't have to AGF, that I will do so anyway in favor of knowing that I don't have to prove anything to anybody...''" |
|
|
|
|
|
Stop taking it so personally because the way you have taken this so personal concerns me and is affecting me in a negative way that I don't deserve because you became too ]. This is born out by the fact that you put a warning on my talk page that I clearly didn't deserve. The bulk of the warning talks about disruptive editing revolving around a content dispute and asking me not to restore disputed content. However, I had received a warning 2 hours prior which ''already'' mentioned "edit warring" and I had made a grand total of "ZERO" edits to the page when you decided to come along and double-warn me for no good reason other than the fact that you were ''admittedly'' under the stress of feeling accused and taking things personally. |
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I am bringing this to your attention here is because I feel I have been treated extremely unfairly and ] recommends to me that, "''If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner.''" So, here I am in an orderly and civil manner, coming directly to you to express my concerns about how I feel you may not have acted properly toward me so we can resolve it. |
|
|
|
|
|
First, I think you took things too personal and were too ] to be leaving warnings on my talk page and it clouded your judgement because you were experiencing the understandable duress of feeling "accused" at the time so that you were unable to objectively see that I had already been warned and I had made no more edits since I had been warned the first time. The very fact that you continued to beat me up about accusations on my talk page even after I already agreed to drop it is evidence enough for anyone that you were still taking things too personal to be objectively leaving warnings on my page. I also think it would have been more appropriate to get another admin. to take a look at the situation since an outside viewpoint would not be influenced in any way by the stresses of feeling accused or taking things personally. |
|
|
|
|
|
All I'm asking in order to resolve this is that you kindly rescind the warning and remove it from my talk page. I think this is a very reasonable request considering I have already agreed to stop any accusations before your warning even existed and I still have yet to make any "disruptive" edits since even THE FIRST warning existed and I also have not contested or even said a peep about the removal of the sentence. Plus, I apologized. All things considered, I think I'm giving a lot here and not asking that much in return to resolve this. Thanks. ] (]) 02:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*You are free to take me to ANI. I’ve already explained myself. I gave you good advice, and to be honest, you’re not that great of a WikiLawyer, so I don’t think ANI would go the way you expect it would. Talk page stalkers here are also always free to tell me I’m an idiot, I often am, and my crowd tends to be the type that will disagree with me at will.{{pb}}Also, you really should read up on your ALLCAPS. Warnings are not admin actions and you are free to blank them from your talk page at any time: they’re recorded in the history if they need to be cited at a noticeboard; I won’t be striking though. ] (]) 03:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
**I have ''no reason'' to take you to ANI. Need I remind you that I already agreed to drop all accusations against you ''even before'' you posted the warning on my page? If I have no complaints against you other than just the warning that I want to resolve here now, then why refer me to ANI for that simple matter?? I appreciate you reminding me I can blank my own talk page, but that does not show much regard for my future as an editor here. Anyone could use that warning as a disadvantage and it would be on "my record". I feel that it was unfair to begin with and believe it shouldn't be on my record. If I wanted to blank it from my talk page then I would not have spent my precious time to come here and resolve the matter now. Again, I have no accusations to bring to ANI. I'm only asking that you kindly rescind the warning and remove it at your leisure. Thanks. ] (]) 09:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::April 1st was over .... uhm, April 1st. I think that says it all. <sup>]]]</sup> 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it's all really just a joke, as you suggest, then it should be no problem for this admin. to remove the warning and laugh it off... ] (]) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: {{TPS}}::sigh:: {{U|Huggums537}} just drop it now. Tony, I'm an idiot. That makes two of us. ] (]) 09:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm surprised you suggest me to "drop it" after I already made it clear I dropped it long before this admin. went to my talk page to beat me up some more about it. That's "hitting below the belt" and "not playing fair" when an admin. feels they are being accused so they promptly go to somebodies talk page to repay them by needlessly marring their record even though the person '''''already agreed to "drop it" and leave them alone'''''...] (]) 11:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ec}} {{tps}} Huggums, I would ''strongly'' urge you to reconsider your manner of interacting with other editors, and perhaps your editing priorities. ANI has a very strong bias against new editors with low mainspace edit counts (say, less than 40%) and especially new editors who spend a disproportionate amount of time arguing over policies and guidelines, and at this point if you took anyone to ANI I would guess the result would be a boomerang, and you'd be lucky to come out of it without either a TBAN from edits to the policy/guideline space or a block. I'm not going to hold your conduct last summer when you were a ''brand'' new editor against you, but the way you've contorted yourself the last two times I interacted with you on the MOS:FILM talk page, rapidly escalating a minor dispute to mudslinging, then when threatened with sanctions by NRP (the same admin literally did the same thing both times) apologizing and "thanking" them, before continuing to do the same thing elsewhere, occasionally in areas not subject to discretionary sanctions ... well, it doesn't make you come across in a positive light. Maybe you should consider withdrawing from editing policies and guidelines entirely for a while, and write some articles on whatever topic it is that interests you. ] (<small>]]</small>) 10:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I would strongly urge you to pay attention to the conversation. I have already indicated I have no need for ANI. As for my editing choices, those are my business, kindly mind your your own. Thanks. ] (]) 11:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{ec}} When your edits keep causing disruption on pages on my watchlist, they ''are'' my business. And it doesn't look to me like you have decided to drop it: your last edit to this page before I showed up consisted largely of the text {{tq|''it should be no problem for this admin. to remove the warning and laugh it off''}}. This may just be what you consider harmless snark, but that's not how it looks to the rest of us. Anyway, if you are not willing to take my advice, that ''is'' your business. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Let's be clear Hijiri: You received the EXACT SAME discretionary sanction warning from NRP that I did the first time, and I specifically ASKED for the discretionary sanction warning the second time, So, OF COURSE I thanked him. In fact, I remember thanking him BOTH times. At any rate, I would strongly urge YOU to remember YOUR OWN involvement in ALL of the incidents you mentioned between us. And, I will thank you so very much for not holding my past conduct against me since I was a brand new editor and I'm very glad that I had a good excuse for it now, but what then was the excuse for your own conduct in all of these incidents between us? ] (]) 11:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If you're going to miss the point of my advice, that's also your business, I guess, but please don't come back and throw your misinterpretation in my face as a "gotcha". ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)≠ |
|
|
*I haven’t read all of this, but from what I have, it looks like you’ve been given some good advice, ]. Like I said if you still feel I’m abusing my admin bit here, you are free to ask for a review at AN or ANI. ] (]) 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
**I'll take that as a stubborn refusal to be reasonable and cooperate as well as a general lack of concern and just be happy and say I tried. I'm not willing to waste any more of my time with ANI over something that easily could have been solved here amicably. I offended you now you have your satisfaction so all is well that ends well. ] (]) 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
***I have no clue what I'm offended about, because I don't feel offended by anything currently, just in need of coffee. You Wikilawyered to restore a removal of text from a guideline that has (and had) talk page consensus after you had been reverted by another editor, and continued to post rants about how everyone else was wrong but you. That's disruptive editing, and I always give that as "level 3", regardless of other warnings. The other (IMO, valid) warning from Legacypac was about attacking other editors, and was only related in that you also did that on the same talk page. Anyway, if you're dropping it, fine, but I'm still not exactly clear what I did that was against any behavioral expectations for administrators. ] (]) 14:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Accidental vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' |
|
Due to my inexperience I have accidentally slightly messed up this ] page. I was trying to add a statement, i.e. "statement by reissgo" by editing a chunk called "statement by (username)" but after I added my 2 cents I noticed there there was no new "statement by (username)" ready for the next editor. I have no idea how to untangle the mess I made. Sorry. ] (]) 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|} ] (]) 23:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{tps}} I fixed it for you. Next time please read the instructions, which tell you to copy and paste the section before writing your statement. ♠]♠ ] 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tps}} Hi {{u|Reissgo}}. That was a minor flub. It happens now and then. No big deal. Vandalism is deliberate and malicious editing which this was certainly not. Best regards... -] (]) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
.jpg)
