Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 14 October 2008

13:39, Wednesday 1 January 2025

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Acount name change

Wow! That was fast. Thank you very much! :) Rsazevedo 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

DigitalNinja

I see that on October 2 you blocked DigitalNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for abusive sockpuppets. Would you mind pointing me to who / what the puppets were? The editor is acting very strange and extremely disruptive at Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and the talk pages of the editors involved, making threats against established users, plotting to file checkuser requests and what looks like a bad faith AN/I report. Could you help us figure out what is going on? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor correctly points out (in his odd way) that the sockpuppet things was more than a year ago - I mistakenly thought it was last month. So that part of it is a stale matter. Sorry to cause any confusion. Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the current difficulties, but the previous matter is likely of little bearing. The accounts used were IP addresses. Despite the incident, I would be minded to believe that DigitalNinja is acting in good faith and would advise that he be dealt with in a respectful manner. WJBscribe (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. After a bit of hot-headedness he's quickly become contrite, helpful, etc. So...lesson being don't provoke seemingly upset editors? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I have an important request to make. Is it possible to add this tool in revision history?. For example we have "External tools: Revision history statistics · Revision history search · Page view statistics" can they be checklinks now?. It is quite useful tools in checking dead links and repairing them. I use it quite often and iam sure many other's would want this tool too. Adding it in revision history would make task much easier. Thanks, That is for now. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That tool does seem useful but I'm not sure what criteria has been applied in the past for adding such links to the revision history. I suggest you propose this at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) and see if there is a consensus for the addition. If so, it should be possible for an admin to add it to the appropriate page in the ] namespace. WJBscribe (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done has you commanded. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done

Nice work. --John (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes; and thanks for the detailed rationale. Let's hope nothing like that incident happens again soon. -- how do you turn this on 02:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A Suggestion

This may not be the place for this suggestion, but you were helpful in the past. As a relative newcomer, but one who makes a number of footnoted contributions, I find it helpful when editors have a suggestion if they do more than simply tag the page, particularly if some work has gone into the submission. Some editors strive to leave a message on one's talk page, clarifying what's needed. But a small minority are preemptory. They either delete with no explanation, or simply post a template. More manners might encourage more contributors. This is an open community but that does not obviate the need for courtesy. Some editors preface their comments with: 'First, let me thank you for your contributions to wikipedia.' What a difference that single line makes! Sorry for the rant, but a couple of recent encounters have made me conscious of the need for editors to be mindful of submissions made for nothing by thousands of volunteers, and to treat them with respect. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, reading the comments on your user page today reinforces my point about courtesy. This entire community could do with more of it. My early experiences on wikipedia were fortuitous, because the first folks I met were gracious and helpful, as you were in our communication about a Commons photo issue. I suppose it's the times in which we live, but it does make one wistful for the days of a bit more civility. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I remain available should you need help. I regret that none of us can waive a magic wand and make the place work. No doubt everyone agrees with the theory of civility, but anyone would be lying to say they have never fallen short of an ideal standard. I think it salient that most content contributors have little dealings with the pages of Misplaced Pages and are largely ignorant of those processes that keep things ticking - I think that is probably for the best. I think along with trying to be as courteous as possible, we should also try and make allowances for people having "off days"... WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken, especially about rank-and-file wikipedians being in the dark about the behind-the-scenes mechanics that keep this miraculous experiment aloft. I also agree about aiming for the perfect day, but sometimes having an 'off' one. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your reply and take care. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi, I would just like to thank you again for nominating me for adminship. I was quite surprised by your offer and even more surprised by the support and trust the community has shown me. I hope I will not let you down and I promise to use the tools to the best of my ability. Thanks again and take care, ~ User:Ameliorate! 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you active?

Would you please comment on the Bcrat noticeboard, regarding Caspian blue? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper?

You think their continued personal attacks against me and unauthorized removal of my comments are all okay? I think you do. The activities are all malicious and why can't they just leave me alone? I just made a simple opinion on the opposition and were willing to have a second thought if I could find good rationale for myself supporting or being neutral. I will listen to User:Rlevse's opinion on this because I don't obviously think that you're neutral on this.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And if Rlevse agrees with WJB...? Would he therefore not be neutral? -- how do you turn this on 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I must listen carefully to his opinion, not WJBscribe's. Nevertheless, you know how I think of you.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, you really need to cool the rhetoric or you may find yourself sitting out a block for disruption. As I see it the matter is closed. If you want to ask Rlevse for his opinion, that's your business. WJBscribe (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening me without valid reason and also condoning the personal attacks? I think their unreasonable oppression meets disruption. I did not know that opposers should endure all attacks by supporters. I'm not living in the middle age.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not been attacked - RfA is not a popularity contest and those opposing are expected to provide valid reasons for doing so. If you are regularly finding yourself in a position where your reasons for opposing are not supported by any other participants in the discussion, you may need to reconsider how you participate in such discussions. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could not find any plausible point from your comment. RfA is not popularity contest (of course), and I provide very valid reasons for my stance. They have to think that the reason I'm opposing the candidate is related to the fact that I don't find any valid reason from their "popularity content". Sorry that I did not show some thrust in you, maybe because I have not shared any single point of view with you per User:Gwen Gale, your support for User:Elonka and others. Thank you for your time. Next time, it would be safer if I'd say "support per somebody" or "oppose per somebody" just like stamped rationale.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail? I didn't see any of this until after it'd all happened. If I get this right, Caspian blue opposed that RFA and I still don't quite get it. I have the same question the first respondent to that oppose did - CB was opposing because he already thought the candidate was an admin? I don't get it either. Then there's an attempt to understand the oppose and it appears to me CB took offense to this and his comments being moved to the talk page. I have to agree with the moving of the thread to the talk page. We, we being crats and others who watch the RFA page, are trying to keep the discussions on point and focused to the issues at hand, partly but not solely because that atmosphere is not appropriate and keeps people from applying for adminship, and that thread drifted away from that and gotten hostile, so I feel moving it to the talk page was the correct thing to do. CB, I don't think people were making personal attacks, they were legitimately trying to understand your oppose. Don't forget, these are not the people who run sockfarms against you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt sorry that the candidate closed some RM too earlier than I expected but I did not express my complaint because I thought he was an admin. So should I provide all diffs of my experiences with the candidate? I was reluctant to do so because I've felt unpleasant with the fact that supporters've been just untouched or gotton no badgering from opposers for their inadequate stamped rationales. However, opposers should always do some research to convince people for how wrong candidates did in the past. Moreover, the formers have present valid reasons to supporter's inquisitive questions until supporters got suitable answers in their standard. I don't understand why people do not accept the fact that their supporting candidate is not regarded good for somebody. Besides, the barely newbie removed my comment from the page as if he were an bureaucrat. Anyway, I will listen to your advice carefully and would not behave conspicuously for my safety to prevent from getting threatening comments from supporters.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a better explanation than you gave in the RFA, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)