Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 24 July 2006

NO SPAMMING

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

User:Vitriouxc

This user that you blocked has been using IP addresses to continue voting at RFA's. He has also made borderline personal attacks against you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Randall Brackett. If you could check of this. — The King of Kings 07:57 July 09 '06

Bots

The automatic vandalism bots seem to be a funny invention but could you please stop yours and visit the talk page of Muslim Bulgarians / Bulgarian Muslims?

Date linking

Whoops, my bad; I must have missed that. I thought only month/day/year dates should be linked. Looks like I'll have to revise my editing methodology. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In need of a rouge admin

Would you have any interest in restoring the deleted edits from either User talk:Wsiegmund or North Saskatchewan River? Just for your own personal viewership?— 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thanks for letting me know. I'm not really sure why MONGO is going around removing innocuous edits he made while logged out. --Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal view is to avoid people backtracking his ip to harass him outside of wiki. Syrthiss 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving RFD

You recently removed a number of completed days from WP:RFD. These should have been moved to the archives instead of only being removed from the main page. I've taken care archiving 2 & 6-12 July. Archiving used to be spelled out on the WP:RFD page, but the instructions were moved to the deletion process page awhile back. When I get a chance, I think I'll put back a summary of closing on WP:RFD as I think that move confused things. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually looked at all of WP:RFD for archiving instructions and couldn't find any, so I just sort of assumed there wasn't any archiving. --Cyde↔Weys 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ages and updating articles

I just read your comment here, and you say: "what good is it when the printed edition finally comes around, you buy the book, and you're reading it a few years from now and it's woefully out of date?" - this would actually not be a problem if people would only write in the correct, encyclopedia style. What is needed is for the template to say "<age> (as of <date>)". So in printed articles it would say something like "at the time of printing (date) Madonna was 46 years old". In the infobox, it would say "Age: 46 (as of <date>)". That way, when someone reads a print version of the encyclopedia 5 years after it is printed, they go "Oh, she was 46 back in <year>". Problem solved. Carcharoth 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that adds an extra back-calculation. If you say "XX old in YYYY", the reader first has to calculate the difference between YYYY and the current year and then add that to XX. It's just much easier to specify the year of birth and just calculate the current age off of that. --Cyde↔Weys 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The "in YYYY" changes. If you are reading the online, editable version, the YYYY is the date you read the article. If you are reading the printed version, the YYYY is the date the article was printed. Of course, in the online version, the YYYY could be replaced by "current" or whatever, but my point is that the printed version should show the date the calcuation was done on. Carcharoth 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really not understanding why it's better to give two numbers, age and the date, versus just the birth date. Frankly, the birth date is a more encyclopedic number anyway, so it's more useful to our readers to just give them the birth date than force them to back-calculate the birth date from the age. Also, the birth date is very precise (born on this day, month, and year), whereas with the age thing, unless you want to get very precise and require even more calculation (currently 32 years and 168 days old), it's not as precise. I just don't see any possible advantages to giving current age over just giving the birth date. Probably the best indicator of this is to look around at history books and other encyclopedias: all of them, without fail, list birth dates rather than giving current age. It's just not the way to go. --Cyde↔Weys 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to give age and date without the birth date. I am proposing to give birth date and then, as a bonus, the date of key events in a person's life, plus, if necessary, the person's age at some points, right up to, and including their age at death. I get annoyed at being forced to work out ages, and many biographical encyclopedias do give ages within their biographies. This "age template" is really only for the current age of living people, and is not strictly necessary, as per my comments on the talk page, but I am just pointing out that your arguments that the template gives figures that are soon out-of-date is addressed by this timestamping of such figures with the date they were calculated. Just as all such statements should be qualified with a date. It is the unencyclopedic style of the template, rather than the template itself, that needs changing. Carcharoth 06:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have a problem with such encyclopedic sentences as "When he was 18, he enlisted in the Army." Obviously that makes sense. I just don't think it ever makes sense to give the current age. We should only ever be using static ages. It's just not encyclopedic to include a dynamyically calculated current age. As significant things happen in a person's life give the age when that happened, but there's no use to a dynamic age. --Cyde↔Weys 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalproof warning

Hi, I saw vandalism on the page which the warning stated by an IP as the last diff. I then clicked "Rollback" to revert and add a warning to the IP, but as the program was going through the processes of reverting vandalism, I saw the name "AnitVandalBot" and thought "this cant be right!?". To try to stop a warning appearing for antivandal bot, I tried to shut VP down, and I tohught I'd stopped it. Obviously I failed - sorry about that. I've removed the warning, and I think it was caused by the fact that while I was examining the diff of the IP for vandalism, AntiVandalBot reverted and when I clicked rollback, the page was reverted to the second newest edit - so removed AVB's revert. I'm really sorry about this - I would record it as a mistake on VP, but that function causes the program to crash when I try :(. Thanks Martinp23 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've worked out how to use the mistakes log and reported the revert in it (see User:Martinp23/VandalismMistakes) Thanks and sorry Martinp23 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what happened here was that the anon IP vandalized, AVB reverted, and the anon IP used the same vandalism again. Because AVB was set to calm he didn't revert it. Then another user came by, fixed the vandalism, and AVB reverted him because he thought it was blanking vandalism. You were right to fix the vandalism again, though the vandalism warning was unnecessary :-) I'll leave AVB in angry mode for awhile; vandals seem to be more adept at exploiting it when it's calm. --Cyde↔Weys 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Help - a bug

Because you're an administrator, I report the following bug: every time I edit a talk page (since today) other parts of the talk page get deleted. I didn't delete them though (although edit history seems to suggest this) and I have double checked this several times today. Also, the talk page structure seems to get messed up. For instance: I edit merely the "discussion about POV" section in the Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Afterwards another section loses content and my comment ends up in another section as well. (This is not a joke, nor am I a vandal.) Sijo Ripa 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, question number one: Are you using any combination of the following: Firefox, tabbed browsing, Google toolbar? Question number two: Sometimes pressing the button doesn't bring you to editing the section you had intended. Are you double-checking that the edit source you're looking at is actually what you intended to respond to? --Cyde↔Weys 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(1)I use firefox which has a google toolbar included. I don't really know what tabbed browsing is, but if it means I have multiple tabs open in Firefox: yes, I have. (I thought that using firefox only caused cutting off pages once in a while - which means that articles and talk pages are de facto unavailable to read or edit). (2) Yes, I double checked that it was the right edit source. Sijo Ripa 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what's happening is that you are experiencing the Google Toolbar Firefox tabs bug. Basically, what happens if that if you switch between tabs with a tab open with a large amount of text in it, it gets truncated. This is a bug with the Google Toolbar and the Google devs have been notified and are hopefully working on it, because it affects not just Misplaced Pages users but anyone using any Wiki or other type of site with lots of text in an edit box. --Cyde↔Weys 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I only use 1 tab or don't switch between tabs, I won't experience these problems? (Thanks for helping me out!) Sijo Ripa 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to have fixed it for me. Which is annoying though, because oftentimes I need to go back and refer to another source for information while composing a reply, and with this bug, I can't really do that. --Cyde↔Weys 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection

Well.. Didn't know.. It said if removed, replace. I thought they were only talking about the tag. Thats one weird rule... ahh If i could be an admin.. *dreams* :p --Deenoe 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever said that doesn't understand how protection works either :-P And being an admin ... heh, it takes awhile to get to the point where you get admin access, and it's not really that great. You get to block people and delete pages and such, but there's lots of restrictions on this, and if you go outside the accepted bounds you're dealt with in a hurry. --Cyde↔Weys 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Just wondering...

Did you just move-protect or fully semi-protect? --Hello32020 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the protection log. --Cyde↔Weys 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note:

Your bot just got reverted. Hello32020 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Move

The page move is justified . thanks and I do not appreciate your threatening tone for a legitimate editing of wikipedia. If pages moves were not allowed then the feature would not be enabled in Misplaced Pages.--CltFn 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

GDFL and edit summaries

Sorry about the summaries and both picture we're took on Misplaced Pages. --Deenoe 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You could of told me before! :D Life is going to be so much easier now :p --Deenoe 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Images in Signatures (again)

Well, User:Earl Andrew has been using a curling rock icon in his signature... should i re-add my fox icon where the current middle point (•) is in mine? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no, just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't mean you can do it too. I've asked him to change his sig. --Cyde↔Weys 21:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. Keeping the dot. :) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 23:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

if you have time, your opinion please

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ste4k#Curse_hoax
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k

Ste4k 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hello Cyde,

I'm not sure if your removal of my comments here has been intentional. I hope that my asking your opinion is not considered "spamming," as I see your neutral/admin oversight as both important for this article in general, and for preventing any mistaken controversial edits on my part. The issue that I approach you on at the moment is why there is a "US Aid to Israel" section, whether you believe it is NPOV, and/or whether I missed some relevant discussion on talk. I am raising my objections there as well, and plan to remove most of it and place relevant sections elsewhere. Thank you for your time, Tewfik 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I removed comments there? I don't recall doing that at all, must have been unintentional. Can you provide a diff so I know what you're talking about? --Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It was Werdnabot. In any event, keep up the NPOVing. Cheers, Tewfik 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since user Tewfik has requested your assistance on the past (assistance which has been useful), you might want to be aware I have raised a mediation request regarding his behaivior towards me at Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Tewfik_harrassment_of_Cerejota.--Cerejota 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Given Cydes comments there is no reason to stay silent. Many are saying that we should assume good faith. In this case the obvious answer to such a statement is why? The well of good faith is not bottomless, as you have just found out. David D. (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Kelly >:-( Cyde↔Weys 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry a bit too cryptic, I cut and pasted it from her page. i thought, since I quoted you, I should at least let you see it. David D. (Talk) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I really cannot divulge the nature of the B. Let me just repeat that I think the reaction to this is way overblown. I've heard accusations of harrassment and vote-stacking; that's totally not it. Now, due to the exposure, Kelly's gone and made a Q list, and I don't even know what that one is about. --Cyde↔Weys 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Q list, I assume she is trying humour as a form of defense. Not very effective though, it just makes people suspect her more. AGF seems to be long gone in this case, whether the reaction is overblown or not. David D. (Talk) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the list at WP:AN/I

Hi Cyde. Just a note. I put back the list you removed from WP:AN/I. I explained my reasoning in there.

If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't revert you, as I don't do revert wars and the whole matter is not worth all the fuss to start with.

However, I would like to ask you to not remove it again, and let me explain why.

You see, I am sure that both you and Kelly and a few others are well-meaning people. In the same time, I hope you understand how unhappy some people are that tabs are being kept about who votes against whom in an RfA. Really, that damages trust, and I hope it won't happen again.

I suggest you let the list stay at WP:AN/I. Removing it gives almost as bad an impression as creating it to start with. Let us leave things as much as possible in the open and move on. How does that sound? You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please expedite block

Can you pleas expedite this block, especially since the user has reverted again (6th or 7th time). This is very disruptive to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Thanks, Tewfik 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes consolidation support

You have recently either supported my userbox consolidation efforts or at least applauded them. Currently, I am putting together another larger batch of userbox deletions which will have master templates. (The master templates are not "live" yet.) Would you be willing to support me in this and any future consolidations? There will probably be a lot of resistance at first to this, so having a group of people supporting me would be greatly appreciated.

At the moment, 5 master userboxes are in the works to replace 72. That may increase significantly if I can get the sixth one to work as I would like. Some of the templates to be replaced are widely used, but with the consolidated templates there is more funcitionability.

Please let me know, you can click above as this conversation is transcluded to all.

Sent to: Aeon1006, Andrew c, BigDT, Billpg, Brian Olsen, Cyde, Gperrow, Khaosworks, Luna Santin, Marcus-e, MiraLuka, NKSCF, Pegasus1138, Phil Boswell, Plange, RedZebra, Rfrisbie, Riana dzasta, Stefanmg, and Tuspm
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting use of transclusion. :) Can't promise I'll always vote to support, but I imagine that in many cases I will. Feel free to let me know when you post them (I tend not to watch TfD too often), and as always I'll be more than willing to lend what technical advice I can. Luna Santin 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lady Aleena, as noted in an earlier discussion with you, I think consolidation is fine for thematically related userboxes. However, I also support diversity through mass customization, so I'm more inclined to support consolidations that maintain display differences in images, colors and especially wordings. That's easy enough to do with parser functions. I wish you all the best. Regards, Rfrisbie 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the two posts above, I might very likely support it but I'll determine it on a case by case basis. Pegasus1138 ---- 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't overly care too terribly much. I will say that I think having generic userboxes is a good thing from one standpoint - it helps newbies learn Wikicode. If you can't just add {{User Hokie}} to your page but instead have optional parameters like {{User Hokie|year=2001|border=maroon|major=CS}}, that's definitely a good thing. BigDT 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here - case by case. I only voted on the Doctor Who box because it was part of the Wikiproject, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let me know when you need my support LA, Most od th eboxes I use are aprt of a wikiproject anyways or made myself Aeon 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't use userboxes, I only got into this because of the Doctor Who project. But I'd take a look on a case by case basis, certainly. --Brian Olsen 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. Userboxes with optional parameters taught me how to use Wikicode. A master template isn't a bad idea... hell, it should be like that for most userboxes. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like this use of transclusion. I think I'll vote on a case by case basis, but I do like and support the idea as a whole. —Mira 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also take a look on a case-by-base basis. --Gperrow 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have appreciated your efforts so far and will extend my support to similar "consolidation" projects. RedZebra 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know of anyone who may be interested in this, just transclude this to their talk page as it is transcluded to yours. - LA @ 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Stefanmg 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa ... time travel! ;) BigDT 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I always copy some of previous posts. It's easier... I just forgot to change the date Stefanmg 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So Far I like what you have done! See your Talk page to find out How much! Aeon 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One concern I have about this form of communication on a topic that admittedly might be controversial is the potential for accusations of recruiting for votestacking. What are others' views on this? Rfrisbie 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered about this, but unless I am mistaken, this is an uncontroversial tidy up operation. Stephen B Streater 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a lot of you have said, you will take my recommendations on a case by case basis. That tells me that you are ready, willing, and able to tell me when I have crossed the line. - LA @ 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just anticipating a potential issue so you can prepare for it. If anyone ever puts up a stink, you might want to disclose this page is here. But then again, it might never come up. :-) Rfrisbie 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't vote on Misplaced Pages it should not be an issue hopefully. Aeon 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Other consolidations

Myers-Briggs

• ENFJ: 26
• ENFP: 48
• ENTJ: 30
• ENTP: 46
• ESFJ: 15
• ESFP: 7
• ESTJ: 19
• ESTP: 8
• INFJ: 43
• INFP: 80
• INTJ: 135
• INTJ2: 45
• INTP: 151
• INTP2: 34
• ISFJ: 13
• ISFP: 13
• ISTJ: 69
• ISTP: 42

Rfrisbie...have you thought about getting your Myers-Briggs templates deleted in favor of the combined one that Thadman created? That would be another 18 deleted. I did a survey of how many people were using each...

Some people have more than one of these on their user pages, so some of those are duplicates. I know that some look like a lot of people use them, but once we get people migrating from individual templates to master templates, it will get easier and easier to consolidate them. Hopefully we can keep user templates in Template space if we can show that we can police them. - LA @ 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi LA, of course, we all know they're not “my” templates. I just moved some to userspace as part of the effort to find a userbox compromise most people could live with. I wasn’t kidding when I said I support diversity in userboxes. Although I think Thadman’s userbox {{User:The Thadman/Userbox/MBTI}} is cool, it displays differently than the others – only one color scheme with a set of profile scores – and it doesn’t use categories . I don’t have any problem with it or another template designed to consolidate the existing features of the other boxes for “elegance” reasons, as long as no features are lost. However, I do not see a “need” to do it. On a web site that went from 1 million articles to over 1.25 million in about four months, I really consider the number of userbox pages to be a non-issue. I’m also not aware of any material debates on keeping userboxes in templatespace if someone polices them. Maybe you can show me a link or two on that. In this particular case, it’s even more superfluous because all personality boxes already are in userspace (User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality) and the Misplaced Pages directory page was deleted. Rfrisbie 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on GUS on the WikiProject Userboxes talk page. - LA @ 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What that shows me is that you are very well-intentioned in your efforts, your rationale for this process as a means to keep userboxes in template space is not supported by consensus, and the specific case of the Myers-Briggs templates does not apply, since they already are ugly in userspace. Sorry, I'm still not convinced of the need or consensus to do this. However, if you're still interested in combining the boxes for "efficiency," without changing the displays or categories, it's fine with me. Rfrisbie 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have only gotten one reply to my initial statement. I wish that more people would comment for I really want to keep user templates in the template space. I will never use a user template in user space. - LA @ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that LA I have been dealing with other issues, I agree with what your doing it should make things a lot simpler. Aeon 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOTR

I've found a few more that may be worth consolidating: the LOTR userboxes. Luna Santin 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at those, however the merged template would have to have standardized wording. I will give it a good think. - LA @ 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Live master user templates

I have made four of those master templates live. I will not start the TfD process on the ones they are replacing for at least a week. I want to see how well they catch on without a TfD first. However, do you think that I could slip a little note onto the to be TfDd templates noting the new master without too much censure. The message would be in the box appearing on the user pages like a TfD, but not as obtrusive. - LA @ 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. What do the others think? Æon 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the card game user templates have been marked with a message about the master template. The ones which are of different design are not marked as of yet. - LA @ 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion in progress

Here are the TfDs in progress...

August 7

User chess variants

Card game user templates

Idol series user templates

Newspaper types user templates

August 11

Prison Break

Law & Order series

Go take a look and tell the community what you think. - LA @ 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Checked them out, went delete on all. Great Job LA! Æon 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's userbox consolidation desk

If you find a group of userboxes which you think could be merged, place them on my userbox desk. Please alphabetalize them over the Edit section with NEW in the section name so it stands out a bit. I currently have 6 projects there. - LA @ 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More user template deletions

To those who are still watching this, please see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25/User templates and give your opinion. - LA @ 08:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

I noticed your comment here which misses the point of a significant number of the oppose votes. As you may not have seen my belated response on the RfA page, or the other posts from opposers, I could correct your misconception here if this would help you. Stephen B Streater 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, so far I don't think I've seen anything to change my opinion of the oppose votes. But who knows, you could make me think otherwise. Let me just make one thing: I saw a little bit of validity in some of the oppose comments, but nothing approaching the level of denying him his request for re-adminship. Nobody's perfect ... and quite frankly, it's the perfect ones who do worry me, because they're so committed to remaining bland and uninteresting to maybe go for bureaucrat some day that they are incapable of making difficult and divisive, but entirely necessary, decisions. --Cyde↔Weys 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"incapable of making difficult and divisive, but entirely necessary, decisions." I think that anyone that opposed Sean Black, against the pressure from established wikipedians, is not the sort of person that is seeking to run for bureaucrat some day. It is quite possible to be a hard arse but at the same time explain ones actions with a rationale. It seems that SB often forgot that this is part of the job. Beating the opposition with a stick is unlikley to win them over sooner. Strong arguments based on reasoning will do the job. The latter is harder but it is what i expect from admins. Sure he may not abuse the tools, instead he may abuse those that disagree with him. I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree on the qualities that are important for admins. David D. (Talk) 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your first comment: yes, the two are not related, I just sort of went off on a rant there. I do think that the RFB process is fatally flawed. In response to the second part: The evidence brought against Sean Black was totally blown out of proportion. So he was a bit rude to two problem users. He's had great interactions with dozens of users who are actually themselves civil and are good contributors. I just didn't see anything there to want to deny giving back Sean the op bit. --Cyde↔Weys 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And I have to say that when i first opposed i was sitting on the fence. If i had seen some constructive rebuttals i think i might have changed to support. Instead, it turned ugly quite fast, and that, if anything made me shift to an even stronger oppose. Anyway it matters not now, since SB has reclaimed his admin status and i do not object to that at all. I think we can all take something from this RfA and use it too imporve wiki in the long term. David D. (Talk) 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think communication and accountability are important qualities for those with power. We all agree that even the best can make mistakes, and these can be most efficiently corrected if they are explained. Danny may make bold decisions, but you notice that he always explains them. You are discussing here. There is no fundamental reason for Sean Black not to do the same. I think that historically this has been his biggest weakness, and there is no reason not to fix it. Stephen B Streater 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Be happy!

Dear Wikipedian, you have acheived a considerable number of edits on wikipedia. This can mean, that you devote a large proportion of your free time to improving the articles on this free encyclopedia. I would like to remind you, however, that Misplaced Pages is not the best thing that happened to mankind since 2000, it is just a mere internet project, and there are lots of other things you can do, if you want to serve the community you live in. There might be opportunities in your local municipality, that would allow you to volunteer your time and efforts to help the diseased, disabled, or otherwise handicapped people. There are also organisations, that would use your time and work to help people in areas of world, where people have never actually seen a computer in their entire life, and don't know what internet or wikipedia is. Such organisations target hunger, diseases, or the lack of proper education in those areas. Please, try to reconsider, if you donate your time and efforts to the community that needs them the most.

Azmoc 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)