Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AzaToth (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 5 December 2005 (about Image:Mozilla Firefox.png). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Jtkiefer/userpage/talk

not sure of the protocol...

I'm not sure of the protocol regarding violations of WP:NOT, but I made an attempt at User talk:Anna05 (see talk page history) to no avail. You were the first admin I saw (on my watchlist - vandal report response). If I'm off-base, please let me know. I like to assume good faith and I'm not so savvy yet as to feel comfortable pursuing it. Thanks in advance. --Elliskev 00:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to seem like a hall monitor... --Elliskev 00:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Trollderella

(Disclaimer - Questions, not criticism)
There are several participants at who all could use a bit of a spanking. Are you sure that a block was the best thing? I simply want to know what your thinking was, see the disclaimer. ^_^
brenneman 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't realised that there had been a report. Trollderella is passionate, but usually amenable to reason, which is probably why Splash chose not to block. She does say at User_talk:Splash "You're quite right on the 3RR stuff", but 3RR is pretty unequivocal. Oh, I'd I had thought Trollderella was a "her", but I have no idea what made me think that.
brenneman 02:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The block is entirely within reason. It was a personal choice of mine to not report the matter to AN/3, but if someone else did, that's up to them, and you've acted correctly on the report. -Splash 02:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What's this? Two admins acting sensibly and courteously over a potentially contentious issue? Excuse me while I go and file an RFC against you both for acting against normal standards. --GraemeL 02:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please check

? I noticed you blocked him earlier; please take a look at his contribution here . Regards, Huldra 10:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left him a friendly reminder regarding civility. Jtkiefer ---- 21:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

History merge

How can one do a history merge without messing up diffs? Shouldn't those merged edits show up on the right date, so if you select one edit of the source article and one of the merged article while viewing a diff, wouldn't this totally mess things up? - Mgm| 00:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Elliskev!

Elliskev! You tried to block me! What did i do this time? Just check out my page! There is NOTHING on it! And Jtkiefer, you should know because you have been checking it for like, a week! THERE IS NOTHING! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.16.157 (talk • contribs) 14:01, December 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Vaporizer

Someone is posting a lot of vavorizer misinformation. Excluding all referances to tobacco and deleating product names. I posted a list of vaporizers onthe market. Gone..

I noticed several links that were supposed to be to NORML which had been changed to growkind.com

I have has a problem with some insiders who keep valdalizing basic information about vaporizers and all mention to The Ubie they are constantly eliminating all but the Volcano Vaporizer

Apparently an admin who may be under severla user names. (hope its not you.. :) I hope these wiki's can get control of what is very serious health info.

I wiki does'nt work. But sometimes it get's stable for a while. Perhaps others will take note and make the necessary fixes too.. I guess wiki takes constant work to prevent erosion. That's sad. Because the method of attack by Rhobite and OwenX has been to erase all trace so people cannot even vote on things.. I hope you are not one or both of these users.

Sad.

The Ubie Is the first smokeless sigarette vaporizer pipe. It is has been chosesn by thousands of wiki readers "clicked on" and even folowed through to the company website.

People WANT this info. But the Volcano Vaporizer Guys want all the business and ave a stronghold on poor wiki and the unsuspecting public.

Hope you can help and addres this in the needed fourms.

Perhaps siki just has too many issues and not enough structure. A sandcastle which is always in disrepair.

Stop by any time. And stay smokeless.

http://AmericanSmokeless.Com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.42.110 (talk • contribs) 20:15, December 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reply posted to User talk:207.106.42.110 Jtkiefer ---- 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

??

??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.110.172 (talk • contribs) 21:25, December 4, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

That's a difficult one. I use many parameters to promote/fail an candidate.

• If the candidate garners more than 80% of the vote: I pass him
• If the candidate has ~95%+ (min 25-30 votes) of the vote, I usually promote him before the nomination ends (up to 12 hrs) to clear up the RFA page.
• If the vote count is <75%, I fail the candidate.
• If the candidate has 10 more oppose votes than support votes after two days, I usually ask him to withdraw, (usually the candidate agrees to the withdrawal).
• If the candidate has between 75-80% of the vote, its my call. I look at the seriousness of the oppose votes: (I'd already outlined this in my RFB). Strictly speaking, each oppose vote negates 4 support votes, and so I take a detailed analysis of the seriousness of the votes. Adminship is about judgement, being civil, and being valued by the community. Its not about inflated edit counts. So what I do is I do not negate 4 votes, I simply negate 1 or 2. General consensus is that the candidate has a minimum of a 1000 edits and been here for a minimum of 3 months with a healthy level of activity. I usually tone down the oppose votes if the minimum demand is 2000+ and >6 months. Similarly if there are weak opposes or no reason for an oppose, I also tone it down.
• In such cases I also check the time the RFA was finalised as well as votes by IPs and possible socks.
• I also never promote at night, as the chance for an error is much higher.
• In case of RFB's the threshold is much higher ~90%
• The above is a rough guide, there are times when I also fail the candidate if I have some doubts. Its sometimes better to fail a candidate when in doubt, as he can always try for RFA again. I always list my reasons.
• I'd like to conclude that each RFA is unique, so the above was just a generalised account of what happens. I treat it on a case to case basis.

I hope that the above matter is what you wanted to know. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

about Image:Mozilla Firefox.png

I uploaded a changed version of the image, I don't know exactly what you mean by copyvio, but the source page specify no license. _→AzaToth 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)