| Revision as of 05:23, 8 November 2006 editJohn254 (talk | contribs)42,562 edits added comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 January 2015 edit undoOiyarbepsy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers26,310 edits ←Redirected page to User:John254 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|] | |||
| ] Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised. | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"|''' ''' | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Vandalism to my page== | |||
| Could you do me a favor and block the Ip users who's been vandalizing my page for sometime now? He won't stop. Thanks. | |||
| ] 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism== | |||
| I was about ot remove some vandalism on the ] article, but you had beat me to it! Being fairly new to RC patrol, what is the quickest way to revert such edits? Thanks for the help. | |||
| <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">0L1 - ] - ] - ] - 17:25 22 2006 (UTC)</font></span> | |||
| :The quickest method of reversion is the use of a rollback script. To install the script, you can copy the text of ] into ] When viewing a diff that includes the latest revision of a page, you should see a '''''' link, that, when selected, will revert the page to the last revision not by the latest editor. ] 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">0L1 - ] - ] - ] - 18:57 22 2006 (UTC)</font></span> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Thank you for participating in my recent ]. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Misplaced Pages, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --] 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA thanks == | |||
| {| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#DFE8FE; padding:5px;" align=center | |||
| |] | |||
| |Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful ], which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --] 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Semi-protection policy == | |||
| You recently added quite a drastic change to ] concerning the protection of policy-pages, but I don't believe that two days of discussion constitutes a consensus at all. This requires a much wider input from the community, and there were indeed quite a bit of opposition to this policy. It may be best to first seek input from administrators and from more people from the village pump and give this a few weeks before making any major changes such as this, as this essentially rewrites the semi-protection policy. Thanks. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, the above statement by ] is misleading. As ], the only editor who objected to the proposed amendment, stated "it is absolutely ''not'' a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand ." ]'s purely procedural objection to the amendment, on the basis of its failure to follow the policy making process that he has invented is spectacularly unpersuasive since ]. Furthermore, ] has essentially taken the position that unregistered users must be permitted to rewrite the semi-protection policy in manner -- which remained on display for ten minutes before being reverted -- but a change to the policy to semi-protect a relatively small number of pages must not be enacted without several weeks of prior discussion. If all substantive changes to official policies ''did'' require such an elaborate process before being effectuated, this would be a strong argument ''for'' semi-protection of all official policies, to prevent new and unregistered users from modifying policies in a manner inconsistent with a unpublished process of which they are almost certainly unaware. I don't see how further discussion on this policy amendment will be productive: ] was the only editor to objecting to the amendment on ]; however, all of his objections were refuted, after which he discontinued his participation in the discussion. By contrast, five established users (including myself) offered strong arguments in favor of the amendment. ] has offered no substantive objections whatsoever to the amendment, but merely insists that it requires additional process before being enacted, purely for the sake of process itself. For any additional discussion of the amendment to be useful, ] would need to explain how ''not'' semi-protecting all official policies would actually improve Misplaced Pages. ] 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for supporting my RfA == | |||
| {| width="93%" style="border:2px solid gray; background:#f2f2ff; padding:3px; cellspacing:10px;" align=center | |||
| | <div style="border:2px solid gray; background:white; padding:0px; width:200px;">]</div> | |||
| | valign="top" |'''''Thank you''''' for your support in ''']''', which passed with a final tally of '''(56/0/2)'''. It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. | |||
| I know I have ] to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. | |||
| :Again, '''''thanks'''''; <sub>└</sub> <sup>''']'''</sup> / <sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub> <sup>┐</sup> 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Thank you... == | |||
| ...for your support of my recent RfA. If I can ever assist you with my new buttons or just to review a page with fresh eyes, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{tl|Semi-protection proposal}} == | |||
| Please don't post a notice of your policy proposal to all the policy pages. his is not how we publicize policy discussions. In any case, that's clearly material appropriate for a talk page. You should use ] and other centralized locations to announce proposals. ]·] 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the policy proposal was to semi-protect all official policy pages, the notices related to a proposed action that would be taken on the specific pages to which the notices were posted. I did '''not''' post notices concerning unrelated policy proposals to these pages. ] 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, please see . ] 21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Stop spamming. It's pretty clear this proposal as it stands is not going to be accepted. More reasonably would be to relax the semi-protection policy for policy pages to allow them to be semi-protected on slighter vandalism and for longer periods of time, but this would not be a major change that would warrant spamming all the policy pages on the wiki; a discussion about that belongs at ]. We don't, for example, spam the talk pages of every article before making a change to ]. I hope you remove these messages as zealously as you have added them. —]→] • 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :. Additionally, such notices appear to be necessary to consider the opinions of a larger number of contributors on this matter, as users who oppose this proposal have frequently insisted that the number of participants in the discussion concerning this proposal is inadequate. ] 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That person is mistaken, and made that statement when almost no one knew about the proposal; the people who saw it in your first round of spamming are the same people who would see it in your second round of spamming. Anyway, such notices are not necessary to summon opinions. It is sufficient to post, like all other policy proposals, on ] and ]. The number of participants was inadequate when it was 4 people and was done after less than a week, and there was even present opposition on the page that was not addressed. It has been advertised quite enough. —]→] • 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It appears that you did not post it at either of these places at all. Also, the proposal was noticed when the attempt to semi-protect several pages was made, so even the first round of spamming was inappropriate. —]→] • 05:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::See . ] 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you for your support!== | |||
| {| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#FADDA8; padding:5px;" align=center | |||
| |] | |||
| <small>23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |style="text-align:center;"| | |||
| If I'm a bit pale in the face now,<br /> | |||
| it's because of the amazing support <br /> | |||
| during my recent ]<br /> | |||
| and because of all those new shiny buttons.<br /> | |||
| And if in the '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''<br /> | |||
| my use of them should not always be ''']''' <br /> | |||
| please don't hesitate to shout ''']''' me<br /> | |||
| any time, sunset, noon or ''']'''.<br /> | |||
| |} | |||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 January 2015
Redirect to: