| Revision as of 09:17, 4 April 2007 edit@pple (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,757 edits →Rev's RFA: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:21, 4 April 2007 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,275 edits Rm whole trolling thread, I don't want such stuff sitting on my page.Next edit → | ||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
| I was about to put the Uw-test2 template on Hthc's talk page. If someone puts vandalism like that and it is a first offence, what template do you put on? I have just started with Lupin's vandalism tool, as i do not have enough edits for VandalProof ] 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | I was about to put the Uw-test2 template on Hthc's talk page. If someone puts vandalism like that and it is a first offence, what template do you put on? I have just started with Lupin's vandalism tool, as i do not have enough edits for VandalProof ] 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :They blanked substantial parts of two articles—most of ], in fact. It's a first offence, well, that's true, but it's also pretty much the first thing they do at all. The account has only seven edits altogether. That makes a difference, and I definitely wouldn't go with simply <nowiki>{{Uw-test}}</nowiki>. I guess the person lives in Truro... lol. Your notion of test 2 sounds all right to me. I think I may have gone a little overboard with the <nowiki>{{blatantvandal}}</nowiki>. That's assuming that the Truro edits are good, and not sneaky vandalism. It's hard to tell, all the way from here. ] | ] 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC). | :They blanked substantial parts of two articles—most of ], in fact. It's a first offence, well, that's true, but it's also pretty much the first thing they do at all. The account has only seven edits altogether. That makes a difference, and I definitely wouldn't go with simply <nowiki>{{Uw-test}}</nowiki>. I guess the person lives in Truro... lol. Your notion of test 2 sounds all right to me. I think I may have gone a little overboard with the <nowiki>{{blatantvandal}}</nowiki>. That's assuming that the Truro edits are good, and not sneaky vandalism. It's hard to tell, all the way from here. ] | ] 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC). | ||
| == Rev's RFA == | |||
| To verify: | |||
| * I only add to '''one''' oppose vote, and one comment of my own vote. Thus you're wrong when told me ''don't add threaded '''comments''' to !votes, please.'' | |||
| * My comment was added based on the above vote "''This insults the community's intelligence''", to which I think it violated ] and ]. | |||
| Hope these clarify. Thanks. ''']]''' 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not really. I knew you had only added one comment, I was ''asking'' you not to go on to add another one, which would have made it commentS in the plural. In other words I was asking you to leave my own vote alone. I thought what I'd written was likely to inspire you to opine some more. Perhaps I was wrong about that—I don't know you—but I was very struck by the way you commented—the way you told ''other'' people to be civil and AGF, after ''you'' had written such a very bad-faith-assuming vote yourself, where you referred to other people's opinions as "so-called oppose votes..."! Sorry my point wasn't clear. I did link "So-called oppose" to your vote, by way of explanation. But I didn't want to write a big thing about it, since it was hardly the candidate's fault that his supporters commented so angrily and foolishly. All clear now? ] | ] 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::Not really. First, if I had had intention of adding ''more comment(S)'', I would have had done at the second time I edited the page. Thus, your alarm to prevent me from further commentS was unnecessary. Also, my comment, in my opinion ( I don't know whether you have the same thought with me or not, but I don't care), didn't inspire anything that called "opposite opinion", I just commented "Please..." as you know, because I feel that the sentence "''This insults the community's intelligence''" is unacceptable. Second, I mentioned "the so-called oppose votes" to imply the votes in his previous RFA which I think those were very unreasonable and preposterous. If my memory is not bad, you didn't take part in that RFA.Your reason to oppose him differentiate from theirs, and you include your vote in the league of "so-called oppose vote" by yourself, not something I literally meant (or if my explanation was too ambiguous to understand). Sorry my words didn't satisfy you, because it's my idea about the problem, and I have to clarify that I, as well as other supporters, didn't comment in such "anger" and "foolishness” as you imagine. We just feel regrettable about a capable editor who failed RFA because of his political opinion. Why must I have been angry about that? You don't know about me, so let's me introduce myself, I'm just a new member of this project and made first edits on February 27. I don't suffer from wiki stress like you and others. Lastly, if Rev request for another time, I hope that you'll assess his ability and contributions in justice and don't put prejudice on him just because of these "angry" and "foolish" supporters. Thanks. ''']]''' 09:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh, I get it! == | == Oh, I get it! == | ||
Revision as of 09:21, 4 April 2007
Bookmarks
|
|
ice
|
Talk archives
|
| ||||||||||
I have to agree
Per username choice and editing issues...I have to agree with your rationale here! I saw his odd edit to the talkpage of another newbie(?) in the form of a welcome message at the bottom (easter egging Democracy to Dictatorship, etc.) as another clue. Thanks for protecting wittle ole me.--MONGO 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- You don't say, I didn't see that. I guess I never properly appreciated the hate-mongering potential of easter eggs before. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
- About a year and a half ago, I made a joke about someone being really silly...or something like that. Best wishes!--MONGO 12:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If the traditional easter egg is deprecated, how about a life-size chocolate Christ on the cross? My Sweet Lord! -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...sans loincloth... The Rambling Man 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is being displayed in Nieuw Amsterdam, I understand... Hare hare. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Tip for RfA report
If you want to override the formatting on the rfa report box you can do something like this:
{| align=left !important;
|{{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}}
|}
<div style="clear:left;"></div>
That is what I am doing User:HighInBC#Current_RfAs. InBC 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, ok, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Or keep it in my icebox, rather, in case of future requirements. It happened to be formatted for sitting just where I like it right now, in the whitespace to the right of the TOC. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
personal attacks
Here is the "in a nutshell" summing up of the policy on no personal attacks.
 | This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor. |
How can a section called "Davkal" posibly be anything other than a forum for discussing me rather than content I have added. It is not even called "Davkal's recent edits" or "davkal's POV" but simply "Davkal". That is, we are now going to comment on the the subject "Davkal", ie. a contributor. And this is clear breach of the policy on personal attacks. Please refraion from such attacks. Davkal 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, alack, alack! Betimes an account is editing destructively or tendentiously and administrators have to soothe, counsel, or intervene with such an account holder. Therefore, a discussion of a person's online habitus is necessary from time to time, and if the goal is to best and most peacefully manage rather than "attack," there is the fulfilling of policy mandate. Geogre 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get it entirely, but this is obviously an April Fool's joke, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that is either a joke, or a major misunderstanding of the NPA policy, that is not even uncivil, much less a personal attack. InBC 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads-up (now lay back down)
Hi. Just want to mention that your deletion of the RfC on me is referenced at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me. I am really sorry to be back over there but I do not think that I should leave this latest bit of weirdness unaddressed. Again, this is just so you know; you can fluff up your pillows and have another sip of juice. Later. --Justanother 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have commented. Geogre, Brad, this might interest you too. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks, one can hope this is the end of it. It all started with what I now see as a troll on where he tried to engage me on my talk page over Hubbard's military career, something I have very little interest in. User talk:Justanother/Archive7#"Lessons" response to Anynobody (moved from article talk). He got zero traction there and had to bow out but had more luck engaging me at Barbara Schwarz as that article has little place here and is a
blatant exampletypical example (there are blatant examples, she is simply typical) of what these soapboxers do (whoops, there's mine) and also coming to my talk page to engage me and really get me going, User talk:Justanother/Archive4#What are you saying, exactly?. In the end, just a troll. Anywho, thanks. --Justanother 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (add 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
- Thanks, one can hope this is the end of it. It all started with what I now see as a troll on where he tried to engage me on my talk page over Hubbard's military career, something I have very little interest in. User talk:Justanother/Archive7#"Lessons" response to Anynobody (moved from article talk). He got zero traction there and had to bow out but had more luck engaging me at Barbara Schwarz as that article has little place here and is a
User talk:Gwen Gale
Bishonen, small request of you. User:Ryulong seems to have inadvertently semi-protected User:Gwen Gale's talk page. He protected it for 3 hours but that was at 10:57 and it's now 15:06 and still protected... can you look into this? Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it looks unprotected now. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
- She's sent me e-mail saying she can't edit it. (→Netscott) 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could be a browser issue, esp. if she uses Internet Exploder. They often stop really trying once they get a result 3 times. She should hard refresh, close the browser and come back, etc. If she's got an AOL rolling IP, of course, all bets are off. Geogre 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- She's sent me e-mail saying she can't edit it. (→Netscott) 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
You are right and I am squirming with embarrassment: my only explanation is that is was St. Patrick's Day and I was with some rowdy friends who have been following the various WikiDramas and I made the stupid mistake of allowing them access to my password after imbibing in Murphy’s Irish Stout. Although I did not personally type those words, it was still my fault in having very poor judgment of who I should give personal and privileged information; must always be careful who you choose to trust. I apologize; mea culpa, etc.GrownUpAndWise 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hthc
I was about to put the Uw-test2 template on Hthc's talk page. If someone puts vandalism like that and it is a first offence, what template do you put on? I have just started with Lupin's vandalism tool, as i do not have enough edits for VandalProof Themcman1 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- They blanked substantial parts of two articles—most of Gay, in fact. It's a first offence, well, that's true, but it's also pretty much the first thing they do at all. The account has only seven edits altogether. That makes a difference, and I definitely wouldn't go with simply {{Uw-test}}. I guess the person lives in Truro... lol. Your notion of test 2 sounds all right to me. I think I may have gone a little overboard with the {{blatantvandal}}. That's assuming that the Truro edits are good, and not sneaky vandalism. It's hard to tell, all the way from here. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Oh, I get it!
That thing Geogre said, "Willy hears you. Willy don't care." That's from Grade School Confidential, an episode of The Simpsons. Edna and Skinner proclaim their love over a loudspeaker, and Willy, the only one around, responds with the line. I.e. "I've got work to do." Took a while. Utgard Loki 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Afternoon tea...
... was it? May I be so bold as to make a request for Earl Grey, hot - Lady Grey, if you have it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- ALoan is the beau in the blue coat, friends. But is Bishonen the beauty in red, or the motherly body on the right bringing in the tray? You be the judge, and remember, this is a Japanese tea ceremony. Bishzilla will be along to stomp on it shortly. ALoan, look, "Beau" is a specialist twelve-string guitar player, do something! Bishonen | talk 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
- My dear Bishonen. <bows deeply> Would you like me to play something suitable on my biwa? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Given the number of people here already, perhaps the Frühstück sur l'herbe should become a Fête champêtre? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Featured Wikimood suggestion
How about Levée?
- Needs more head adjustors. El_C 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mind the deportment there, El C. Good idea, The Land, very fetching. I had a more obvious option in mind for the next salon mood, I confess. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
