User talk:Naerii/Archives/April 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your message

Further to your WP:3RR message, if you check the articles edit history and the articles talk page as well as the ANI incident that I brought up with regard to the article, I was in no way whatsoever involved in an edit war. I was trying to stop an edit war which had been ongoing between two users on that article for two days, by restoring it to what appeared to be the last good version before they started edit warring. Having left a message on the articles talk page that the article had been restored to the last version before the edit war I then reverted further edits which constitued vandalism and requested Admin intervention which then happened and the article was fully protected. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring no matter what your intentions are. Here you make your first revert, again here, and again. If people are edit warring and you want to stop it, you should (a) contact the users on their talk pages, (b) make a note on the talk page of the article and (c) report for 3RR or request page protection if the users fail to respond and the edit warring continues. It's always a bad idea to join in yourself, because then you run the risk of being blocked for 3RR and you just increase the tension between the edit warriors of the article. I'm sure you were well intentioned, but then pretty much everyone who edit wars believes they are doing the right thing. -- Naerii 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I still believe that your "Edit warring" warning was excessive, particularly when the incident had already been dealt with by another Admin before your messages. I have been using wikipedia for a long time and I constantly look out for and revert vandalism. I have worked hard to ensure that articles are not vandlised. I also constantly look out for newly created pages for any vandalism, nonsense pages and so forth and also work to improve newly created articlesa, and to help new users with creating articles as well as working constantly toward imporving wikipedia. I clearly made a mistake in this instance, and should have reported it when the first revert of my edit occurred. However in your list of three things I should have done above, I did two of them, I just made the mistake with the third of not reporting it sooner and trying to deal with it msyelf. I fully take on board what you are saying and will ensure that I take the right steps in future. However, I think that your warning was uncalled for. Yes a personal message pointing it out, which I would have fully accepted but not a standard "you appear to be involved in an edit war" warning when it was quite clear I was trying to resolve the issue between two users. And when you had after all already pointed it out on the Admin noticeboard, by which time the incident had by then already been dealt with by another Admin, who had protected the page, and who had given a short block to one of the two users who had been edit warring for two days. Thank you and have fun.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for pissing you off. I gave you the warning before I realised you were the person who posted the notice on ANI. Sorry :( -- Naerii 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabals

There is a new discussion regarding the cabals which were brought up at MfD last week. I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break

See in you in July. -- Naerii 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, was about time someone called time on that. Even I was starting to go in circles. :) Have a good break. Orderinchaos 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"going in circles" is exactly the term I was looking for. Watch now, someone incensed with my decision will revert me and accuse me of attempting to stifle and censor discussion.. -- Naerii 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In 3 months we'll be looking back and laughing at this debate. Some neutral parties probably already are. Orderinchaos 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in case you're interested; here you go. And have a nice break! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I.. no words. -- Naerii 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche

Will Beback is claiming in this edit that you now have changed your mind and that you now oppose my proposed attribution edit. Is this what you actually meant to say? --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose it no, I just decided to give up. -- Naerii 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Considering you just reverted the edit of BLPwatchbot back to an edit by a blocked SPA, I've removed your rollback. Feel free to reapply when you get a clue. John Reaves 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WebCite

Huh. Maybe it's because of the index.php and query string in diffs. --Random832 (contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate vote

Hi! You currently have a duplicate vote in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redfarmer--you have a valid vote in both the support and oppose sections. Just wanted to call your attention to this. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I put my support on the wrong RfA. Too easy to get confused when you're scrolling up the massive RFA page, sorry :( -- Naerii 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries--just letting you know what the RfA bot was reporting. Darkspots (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Although this seems to be a pretty much white talkpage, I'll risk treading on it :)

Thanks for the edit fix at the RFA (I think) wasn't quite sure how to list my support. Jacina. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problemo amigos. -- Naerii 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AFD Closings

I will be online today at 12:00PM (my time its currently 8:27AM) if you wish to discuss these and I can tell you my rationale for closing these AFD's. Thanks and Happy Editing!! Dusti^{talk to me} 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am now logged on. I would like to get this settled if possible. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abi Fry

Hi David, just a note to let you know that I have changed the image at Abi Fry as I found one on Flickr that I think has a better angle than yours. Incidentally, are you a Bat for Lashes fan or is it a photo you just happened to take? :) -- Naerii 05:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Naerii - I could see where you think that photo is better. Mine was nothing special. It's difficult to photograph in the low light of a concert space. I'm a fan of Bat for Lashes, but I did not know their music before I approached their management for an interview. --David Shankbone 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riva Tims

You listed that article as a Prod, but it has been listed as a prod before so cannot be listed that way again. I listed it as an AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riva_Tims. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Foley scandal

The article is a disgrace; only an overview highlighting the major details and immediate concerns is necessary. The article as I had seen it was 14 pages long. The article is written like an in-depth national media outlet exposé. This is not our place! Moreover, it is not our place to present "all" the evidence therein. This is most definitely being given undue weight, in that so much of this material could be summarized, and the references that cover most of the points directly related to the alleged actions of the subject and reactions to them by the public et. al. could be cited. Don't get me wrong; it's obvious to me that the man is undeniably guilty and what he did was inexcusable on so many levels, but the "original research-"like presentation overreaches the scope and intent of Wikipedia in my opinion. The discussion of this subject needs to be overseen by administrators and Wikipedia's scope reinforced from an administrative direction, not freely allowed to constantly be thrown about by biased editors -- one way or the other. The deletion review looks nothing like a review, nor, in fact, was the article deleted, but redirected.

I sincerely believe that I was acting in the spirit of NPOV by my actions, and I am unconvinced by your understated accusation that my use of the tools was "bad." Please have a discussion; don't just chide me.

Resepctfully,
CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA...

[edit] Tabs

By the time you get back it June, the subject will be gone from the village pump, so I'll tell you here that there is a gadget to restore the + in your preferences and save on tab space. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. -- Naerii 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timestamp

Why? Shouldn't it stay until the subpage is inactive? John Reaves 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No edits for 36 hours and the last edit was too say that too much time has been wasted talking about the topic [1]. As there have been no edits but that one for 48 hours I figured it was probably a good time to timestamp and let it be archived and moved on from. I doubt the discussion is going to find an influx of new participants at this stage? Feel free to revert however. -- Naerii 09:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I had assumed it was still active. John Reaves 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of socking.

I didn't sock. I've already provided a number of users the evidence which clears me. I'm more than willing to email you if you want that evidence. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to email me. -- Naerii 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sent. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Responsible Editing Pledge

Restored - thanks for pointing that out. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. (How long would I be blocked for?) Master Redyva ♠ 23:02, April 23, 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not an admin, but I think 3RR blocks are usually 24 hours. -- Naerii 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats really not too bad. It may be worth it. I may have to give it a little more thought. Thanks again. Master Redyva ♠ 23:20, April 23, 2008 (UTC)

Really? It'll just be removed again when you're blocked. And then you'll be blocked and your questions won't be on the RfA. Suit yourself however. -- Naerii 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering its not that serious, yeah its worth it. Anywho, thanks. Master Redyva ♠ 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the RfA support

Thank you so much for your support at my RfA. I decided to withdraw my self-nom before a windfall of opposes! I shall continue my work however, and thanks again. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hope to see you again in a few months. -- Naerii 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Naerii

Would you mind if I removed my two comments (not strike-out, remove) and your one reply on the Philosopher AfD? (Not removing your reason for support, just the three diffs after that). We have a reasonable disagreement, but I believe I am personally giving an early undue weight to my oppose against Philosopher and would like to remove it, as I don't want it to unfairly show any sort of "controversy" regarding the RfA, especially if I contributed to such a dispute. Let me know as quick as you can, I'd like to remove it soon from the RfA. Thank you. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. -- Naerii 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

Did you ever think that you and I would be referenced in the same sentence? 8-). -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

lmao at his comment :P -- Naerii 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

My mistake. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Aleena's RfA

Naerii...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)