User talk:Shunpiker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You've not been welcomed yet! {{Welcome}} (you seem to know your way around). JFW | T@lk 08:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm finding my way. Thanks for the welcome! Shunpiker 09:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] RfC - Feature Article Candidate - what needs to be done
You made some comments on the NLP Feature Article Candidate request [[1]]. I've completed an update to the notes and references style, and the mentors are tightly monitoring the page for wikipedia policies. We now need to get some third party wikipedias to come in a check the references and facts. Enchaner and other editors have begun this process. We really need some outside asistance to balance out the article. There has been a long standing battle between proponents and detractors. We're hoping this has been resolved moving forward. It would be a good time now to encourage other wikipedians to contribute to the article to binrg it up to standard. ---=-C-=- 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ObjC 2.0
See my talk page for a response. Dysprosia 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buffer overflow
Hey, you've made the prose in the Executable Space Protection far more concise, but I think the use of lists could be improved to make it more readable. Let me know what you think, otherwise I will have a stab at getting it right myself. Also, not entirely sure if anything was lost with your edit. -- Tompsci 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please feel free to reformat or amend or whatever! I'm not at all attached to the list format.
- I think I did lose a couple of bits of information, but I'm not sure whether they should be included here, since they both refer (I think!) to Microsoft Data Execution Prevention in particular, rather than to Executable Space Protection in general:
- that the ESP provided by Microsoft DEP is only available with processor support (as opposed to software DEP, which protects pointers from being overwritten and is now listed in another section)
- that DEP can be disabled/enabled per application (I believe the editor was talking about DEP, though this was not explicit)
- If those two points could be generalized -- to talk about hardware support and the scope of protection across the various platforms and software packages -- I think they'd be worth reincorporating. My two cents.
- Thanks! -- Shunpiker 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Cheers ;). -- Tompsci 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diane Benson discussion
Here's the link to the deletion review discussion. Deirdre 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problem users
No, I did not mean that as a good thing. I meant that mediators do not block disputants, it is not they're roll. In fact, because I personally felt that in extreme cases, blocking may be needed, I ended up failing my nomination to become a mediator (that don't except blocking). When I said that there was no trolling "..not yet", there was none that I could tell. In hindsight, you could say, "yes", but I still couldn't tell that at the time. Actually, the idea of inadvertantly "flattering" (I wouldn't use such a strong word) trolls is why I had my falling out with the mediation committee. I do like the idea of being a third party, or encourage some dialogue, but not being allowed to ever block does generate that problem. I learned that the hard way (though I partly was afraid that would happen coming into it).Voice-of-All 06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a classy response to criticism, and it speaks well of you in what looks to be your future role -- my vote is solidly in the minority. Just so you know: I didn't meant that you flattered the trolls. I meant that they always had nice things to say about you. I understand it wasn't in your power to block. And I never envied you, or anyone officially involved with that article, their role. But I think you might have been a little -- ok, a lot -- less generous in extending the assumption of good faith in the face of all that blatant nastiness and fairly obvious duplicity. And I think you inadvertently provided a figleaf (if not a full-fledged shield) by repeatedly portraying a one-sided dogpile ("sockpile"?) as a balanced POV war. Oh, well. It's all water under the bridge now. I wish you the best in your future responsibilities, and especially in your technical endeavors to check puppetry. I'm sure you have rare perspective into just how damaging that kind of thing can be! -- Shunpiker 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to note is that they were not sockpuppets, but meatpuppets. And that was not confirmed until checkuser. They were likely different people, just recruited. I am not sure want you think I should have done. I was filling in officially as a deputy mediator for the conflict, and as a mediator, it is not my job to block, only direct and encourage discussion. Like many other mediation cases, it unlimately failed, as one of the parties turned out not not have good faith. I am not proud of that, and it servered to confirm that tying your hands like that and assuming endless good faith just doesn't work.Voice-of-All 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Our edits crossed! It looks like we drew the same conclusion about "assuming endless good faith". Perhaps mediators need better guidelines about when it is appropriate to withdraw that assumption? Because even lacking the power to implement blocks, mediators might play a helpful role in identifying malfeasance and then, if necessary, calling in the cavalry. When non-(mediators/mentors/admins) play the "bad faith" card, it tends to get lost in the noise of POV warfare. And even when it doesn't, they may not know how to get the attention of an admin, or how to invoke whatever the relevant metapedian process might be. In such cases, mediators can bring attention to the problem more effectively, and on both accounts (neutrality and process). In any case, I sincerely appreciate your reflections on this matter. It's clear they pre-date my protest. -- Shunpiker 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
