Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cube lurker: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:40, 24 February 2010 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 February 2010: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 13:39, 25 February 2010 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 360h) to User talk:Cube lurker/Archive 2.Next edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{Notice|'''Note on E-mail''' I have recently enabled email for this account. I also don't anticipate using it too often. If you do email me I'd appreciate a note on the talk page to make sure I don't miss it.}} {{Notice|'''Note on E-mail''' I have recently enabled email for this account. I also don't anticipate using it too often. If you do email me I'd appreciate a note on the talk page to make sure I don't miss it.}}
== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 8 February 2010 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
| 1 = 2010-02-08
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 6
| 3 = 2010-02-01
| 4 = 2010-02-15
}}}}
</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0024 -->

== "Re-read policy" ==

There is no need for me to re-read policy. ] (among others) was carrying a personal battle over to an AfD page where it should not be extended. It had little to do with the subject of the AfD, and he (and others) should be called into account. A Nobody appears to flaunt this, removing a comment which calls him down anytime one is posted. Frankly, he needs to be blocked again, as his actions are disruptive. As for you comment, I'll echo ]: ] - ] <small>(])</small> 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:RE: "Execution:" - It was joke, for crying out loud! It was playing on the reply above it. You '''do''' know what the ":-)" on there means, don't you? Geez, Louise! I don't even know any of you all involved, and you're reacting like children. - ] <small>(])</small> 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::Are you confusing "refactor" with "retract"? If "refactor" is correct, I don't see the point or where there is an error. I will gladly fix a problem if you'll be more specific about what and where it is. If you meant "retract" instead, no way. It's a joke. Get a sense of humor. Good grief. - ] <small>(])</small> 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::No, I meant what I said as an play on the comment before it, but to think that I would favor the actual execution of another editor (unless convicted of some heinous crime) is farcical on its face. A joke is a joke, nothing more. If you consider that comment to be over the line, you are way too sensitive. - ] <small>(])</small> 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The comment was made well away from the section where the main body of the argument was taking place, and was placed in such a fashion that its attempt at humor should have been obvious, or so I thought. I was not even a main party to that argument, just a guy on the sideline making wisecracks on occasion. My only direct involvement was a comment on the talk pages of two of the main participants, telling them to take their peeing match (which apparently has its seeds in another altercation in another AfD) elsewhere. ] simply erased the comments, taking the ostrich approach; he apparently is rather ill-tempered and prone to getting in these heated discussions. You don't see many of those at WP anymore, especially those that have been around here as long as he apparently has. - ] <small>(])</small> 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


== Your VOTE 2 vote at ] == == Your VOTE 2 vote at ] ==
Line 93: Line 73:
:My understanding of IP adresses is that depending on your connection IP adresseses can be reassigned. So though someone made those edits on that IP adress, it doesn't mean it was the same physical computer. It just means it was someone else on your provider.--] (]) 14:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC) :My understanding of IP adresses is that depending on your connection IP adresseses can be reassigned. So though someone made those edits on that IP adress, it doesn't mean it was the same physical computer. It just means it was someone else on your provider.--] (]) 14:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


==Email== == Email ==

Someone seems to have blanked your post accidentally due to an edit conflict. The solution to your privacy concern is gmail, which cannot be traced to your real location via headers. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Someone seems to have blanked your post accidentally due to an edit conflict. The solution to your privacy concern is gmail, which cannot be traced to your real location via headers. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
:I suppose I could, just not sure it's worth the trouble. To be honest this is the first time I've been tempted to use it. Let me be clear on the only information that would really sway my opinion. Do you really think you can convince me that this stalker could have googled 'Jane Stalkervictim curling' and not come up with the USCA information even if it hadn't been added here. If you really think so, when i get back to my home computer I'll set up a clean gmail and email you.--] (]) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) :I suppose I could, just not sure it's worth the trouble. To be honest this is the first time I've been tempted to use it. Let me be clear on the only information that would really sway my opinion. Do you really think you can convince me that this stalker could have googled 'Jane Stalkervictim curling' and not come up with the USCA information even if it hadn't been added here. If you really think so, when i get back to my home computer I'll set up a clean gmail and email you.--] (]) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Line 101: Line 82:
We all have that kind of conversation. :) The two word summary of what I would tell you is ''attractive nuisance'', although the details are quite disturbing. Anyway I put a three point checklist on ANI; email only becomes relevant if you get to point 3. Will be checking the inbox. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) We all have that kind of conversation. :) The two word summary of what I would tell you is ''attractive nuisance'', although the details are quite disturbing. Anyway I put a three point checklist on ANI; email only becomes relevant if you get to point 3. Will be checking the inbox. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


==Final discussion for ] == == Final discussion for ] ==


Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of ] Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of ]
Line 111: Line 92:
Your opinion on this is welcome. ] 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Your opinion on this is welcome. ] 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


==Wikiquette== == Wikiquette ==

For the most part, I have ignored these particular editors. More so than anything else, I want it to be clear to someone neutral what is going on, i.e. that the same handful of accounts who come to frequently attack me are ones who refer to others on and off-wiki as "slackjawed retards," "keepmongers," and various other insults, who come to AfD with userpage declared agendas that leave no room for open-minded and objective discussion, who lash out at others with swear words, or who re-arange talk page headings in a less than friendly manner, i.e. I am attacked with stones by those with glass houses or who have an obvious bias to squelch the opinion of someone who succeeds in rescuing articles they want deleted. I said as comprehensive of a definitive statement as I could (while leaving out some real damning gems of diffs from them that can be used only if needed down the road) and hope to be able to go back to my effort of following ] with regards to those particular accounts as it is absurd for anyone to acknowledge someone who swears at you, thinks you're a "keepmonger," thinks you're a "slackjawed retard," etc. I do accept sincere apologizes, but I do not play games. Now at least, I am confident, that should they persist in swearing at, insulting, and hounding someone who is for all intents and purposes avoiding/not letting himself be baited by them, it will make it clear what is really going on and such neutral editors will act accordingly. I have said there and in the other threads what needed to be said. Others are aware of the incivility and bullying from these accounts. Hopefully, they are wise enough to not antagonize me any further as doing so will only make them look the aggressors and hounders for picking on someone who is having nothing to do with them and while no swearing and insults towards anyone comes from me. If they are not, someone neutral will see it for what it is. Thank you for your time and comments. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) For the most part, I have ignored these particular editors. More so than anything else, I want it to be clear to someone neutral what is going on, i.e. that the same handful of accounts who come to frequently attack me are ones who refer to others on and off-wiki as "slackjawed retards," "keepmongers," and various other insults, who come to AfD with userpage declared agendas that leave no room for open-minded and objective discussion, who lash out at others with swear words, or who re-arange talk page headings in a less than friendly manner, i.e. I am attacked with stones by those with glass houses or who have an obvious bias to squelch the opinion of someone who succeeds in rescuing articles they want deleted. I said as comprehensive of a definitive statement as I could (while leaving out some real damning gems of diffs from them that can be used only if needed down the road) and hope to be able to go back to my effort of following ] with regards to those particular accounts as it is absurd for anyone to acknowledge someone who swears at you, thinks you're a "keepmonger," thinks you're a "slackjawed retard," etc. I do accept sincere apologizes, but I do not play games. Now at least, I am confident, that should they persist in swearing at, insulting, and hounding someone who is for all intents and purposes avoiding/not letting himself be baited by them, it will make it clear what is really going on and such neutral editors will act accordingly. I have said there and in the other threads what needed to be said. Others are aware of the incivility and bullying from these accounts. Hopefully, they are wise enough to not antagonize me any further as doing so will only make them look the aggressors and hounders for picking on someone who is having nothing to do with them and while no swearing and insults towards anyone comes from me. If they are not, someone neutral will see it for what it is. Thank you for your time and comments. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Revision as of 13:39, 25 February 2010

This is Cube lurker's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Note on E-mail I have recently enabled email for this account. I also don't anticipate using it too often. If you do email me I'd appreciate a note on the talk page to make sure I don't miss it.

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Cube lurker,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to an article

Hey Cube lurker, I just got a message telling me that the changes I made to an article about Edward Jenner (and the message implies more changes to other unnamed articles) had been reverted back to the original form. That's fine, but the thing is that neither I, nor anyone else who had access to this computer had made any edits to any article- do you have any idea how this could have happened? Thanks. 92.25.251.194 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of IP adresses is that depending on your connection IP adresseses can be reassigned. So though someone made those edits on that IP adress, it doesn't mean it was the same physical computer. It just means it was someone else on your provider.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Email

Someone seems to have blanked your post accidentally due to an edit conflict. The solution to your privacy concern is gmail, which cannot be traced to your real location via headers. Durova 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could, just not sure it's worth the trouble. To be honest this is the first time I've been tempted to use it. Let me be clear on the only information that would really sway my opinion. Do you really think you can convince me that this stalker could have googled 'Jane Stalkervictim curling' and not come up with the USCA information even if it hadn't been added here. If you really think so, when i get back to my home computer I'll set up a clean gmail and email you.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just an update, Floquenbeam made a post that I replied too. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess that's at least in the ballpark of what you were going to explain to me. If so I think I see the concept in general, We may still disagree a bit in the application in this exact situation at least as it was presented originally. As I think about it I think part of the disagreement may come from the amount of credit I give to a stalkers ability to find any info that's out there in any form. Actually a sad bit of social commentary I guess. Are we close enough to me understanding what you were going to explain?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually that's a side of it that I have no objection to discussing onsite. A fair and relevant point in its own right. Basically the tip of an iceberg. Durova 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you. If you think you can pound some info through my thick skull I'll set up an email tonight. Either way this reminded me of something I keep forgeting. Some how what starts with a simple post throwing a question on a talk page turns ends up with dozens of posts and geting way more involved than I intended.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We all have that kind of conversation. :) The two word summary of what I would tell you is attractive nuisance, although the details are quite disturbing. Anyway I put a three point checklist on ANI; email only becomes relevant if you get to point 3. Will be checking the inbox. :) Durova 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette

For the most part, I have ignored these particular editors. More so than anything else, I want it to be clear to someone neutral what is going on, i.e. that the same handful of accounts who come to frequently attack me are ones who refer to others on and off-wiki as "slackjawed retards," "keepmongers," and various other insults, who come to AfD with userpage declared agendas that leave no room for open-minded and objective discussion, who lash out at others with swear words, or who re-arange talk page headings in a less than friendly manner, i.e. I am attacked with stones by those with glass houses or who have an obvious bias to squelch the opinion of someone who succeeds in rescuing articles they want deleted. I said as comprehensive of a definitive statement as I could (while leaving out some real damning gems of diffs from them that can be used only if needed down the road) and hope to be able to go back to my effort of following WP:DENY with regards to those particular accounts as it is absurd for anyone to acknowledge someone who swears at you, thinks you're a "keepmonger," thinks you're a "slackjawed retard," etc. I do accept sincere apologizes, but I do not play games. Now at least, I am confident, that should they persist in swearing at, insulting, and hounding someone who is for all intents and purposes avoiding/not letting himself be baited by them, it will make it clear what is really going on and such neutral editors will act accordingly. I have said there and in the other threads what needed to be said. Others are aware of the incivility and bullying from these accounts. Hopefully, they are wise enough to not antagonize me any further as doing so will only make them look the aggressors and hounders for picking on someone who is having nothing to do with them and while no swearing and insults towards anyone comes from me. If they are not, someone neutral will see it for what it is. Thank you for your time and comments. Best, --A Nobody 07:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)