User talk:Froth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comment wanted on User:light current's one week block 2 Rules for deletion 3 Ouch! 4 Rules for Ref Desk opinions ? 5 Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ? 6 Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules 7 So file 8 VP 9 TfD nomination of Template:Strict

[edit] Comment wanted on User:light current's one week block

I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [1]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up --froth^{T C} 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. StuRat 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [2] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I'd also like you to give my proposed rules for deletions an approve or oppose, however, in order to establish a consensus, if you're willing. BTW, you wrote "Some anon ip removed a very valid reply of sturat's earlier today", can you point me to the post in question or at least the Ref Desk in question ? Did you restore my post ? StuRat 10:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here's the diff. --froth^{T C} 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch!

I realize you're at least partly joking, but damn, do you really feel that I'm vicously censoring? I remove nonsense from all kinds of places all the time- this is the first I've heard it described as such. Friday (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no of course not! Read it carefully- yes it would be unlikely for sex jokes to be mentioned in an article about reference desks, because they've only been one or two isolated incidents. In the same way it would be unlikely for viciously revert-happy admins to be mentioned in such an article because there aren't any. I could have used any example, but one so close to home seemed most potent :) --froth^{T C} 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to be more polite about this since it's clear I've rubbed at least some people the wrong way. Friday (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you asking for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions- some of us are still sore about similar things happening in the past --froth^{T C} 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah. That's what I get for jumping in with both feet and not knowing the history. Thanks for the explanation. Friday (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Possbily not the kind of comment you expected, but I think I brick-walled the discussion while they all try to figure out what I actually said :) --froth^{T C} 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So file

I'll advance to you the same I advanced to others who wished to file an RFC regarding my conduct.

I will gladly waive the two-endorser requirement. I welcome input from the wider community on my actions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VP

See my message on the userlist talk page. Prodego ^talk 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to add me to the mod list now DO NOT REMOVE YOURSELF THOUGH, or we both may not be mods. Prodego ^talk 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, we didn't think of that reason. Anyway you are approved, and perhaps we will see if I can change the mod list as well ;-). Prodego ^talk 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Metapedianism? Now where have I heard that?  ;-) Prodego ^talk 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is VandalProof working well for you? No bugs? Prodego ^talk 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's not good! AmiDaniel is working on that one. Prodego ^talk 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Strict

Template:Strict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- SCZenz 21:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --froth^{T C} 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)