User talk:Nousernamesleft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Userpage | User Talk | Contributions | Desk |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nousernamesleft. |
[edit] RfA
Good evening. I wanted to personally let you know that I am not trying to some sort of jerk and, please believe that I am not over exaggerating the affect an admin can have. Beam 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently just battled my way out of an admin's grasp. A personal bias led to me being blocked (twice) and topic banned (twice). Both times it took days for other admins to clean up the mess and fix it. Even though I was cleared and proved right.... I almost left in disgust. It was so humiliating to have an admin strip me of my dignity and remove me from an article that I fought so hard to work on. And the thing is I never broke NPOV or CONSENUS or anything like that. In fact, that wasn't even an issue. It was percieved civility. Honestly, I almost left it was so degrading. I'm afraid that DHMO will ruin some little editor's new career, and even just one editor ruined is too many. Why not wait 2 months to prove that he's matured? I know the answer: he's too power hungry and sees adminship in his grasp. And know that before this morning I never had interacted with him. I spent many hours reading the whole RfA, and went through the last 6 months of his contribs, read his entire talk page, and the offwiki events as well. I can't fathom how 300 people can overlook it! They are blinded, imo, by his good article contributions and apparent suckuppingness (sic). But to say these things makes me look like an asshole and it sucks. Beam 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that concession. However, why do you feel he won't do that? I mean, even as recent as 2 weeks ago he was making snap emotional moves... with such upgraded power these moves could do so much damage if they are made against someone. It's just troubling, to me at least. And the solution to this, to me, is to wait 2 months! 2 months! 60 days! But... I don't see that happening. Beam 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- With 60 days of mature activities, I would be the first to STRONGLY SUPPORT his adminship. Beam 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As to your recent example, we don't know how he would have acted if he had admin powers, that's the thing. above when I say "why do you feel he won't" I am referring to you saying "I, however, remain convinced DHMO will not do so.". And honestly, 60 days would fix this... but it just won't happen, which speaks about him... and not well. Beam 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It could happen. I'm talking to him. I hope this works out! It would be the best freaking admin action ever! Beam 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I made the proposal on his talk page. It's a really tough thing I'm suggesting, and honestly it would take a really dedicated user, a truly selfless action, and some balls to happen. It may be too much to ask. We will see. Beam 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Note
Just a ping to notify you of a discussion here, discussing the application of this message. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 16:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your support vote at Roman Catholic Church NancyHeise (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Admins
At least four under the age of 14? I didn't realize. I thought there was just the one who was 12 when he passed... I guess I was just trying to make a point anyways about the difficulty of passing at a younger age, shouldn't have started mentioning numbers. I am still surprised at that, though. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] rfa thanks spam pour vous
hey Nousernamesleft (nice one) just wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. i've left you some templated thank spam below. also, feel free to comment on my in-depth RFA analysis. best regards, xenocidic (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ant
I've slightly edited your comment at the ant FAC. Although I'm sure it was unintended, what read like a dig at the editor's nationality seemed inappropriate jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- No offence taken! Always fun to see the stereotypical notions held by folks. My problem is more with the FA process which seems to require that the nominator fix problems - seems to be a bizarre case of encouraging ownership! Thanks for the time and review points. Shyamal (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poncelet
Ok Nousernamesleft, I'm up for a collaboration. If you could explain what has been already done, what you think should be done, and what are the sources on Jean-Victor Poncelet (basically put me up to date), then I'll check out to the library today and see what I can find (if you have any links to JSTOR or other that's fine). I'll start reading the article soon. Also, what is you final objective? FA? Randomblue (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The link you gave seems to be a history of hydraulic wheels and turbines rather than a history of Poncelet. Is that the correct link? Randomblue (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Coaching match found
 |
I'm pleased to inform you that several strong candidates for Admin coaching have requested a coach and that I've compiled a short list of candidates you can select from in picking a coachee. Or you can visit the Current requests section and pick another prospective coachee.
Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
- I see you are no longer involved. No problem, really! Malinaccier (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
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. Ralbot (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My comment on RyRy5's talk page
I wouldn't really mention this, but you brought it up at my RFB and I just to make sure I have this straight. There were two parts to my comment that you linked to at the RFB. One was the part in which I said, "then you did withdraw the nomination", which you did do here when you said "I'll believe you, and withdraw the nomination." You also added "but I'm fairly sure actual evidence (secondary reliable sources) should be provided first". Combining your two thoughts there, I believe those mean that the AFD should be closed as per your withdrawal and a {{sources}} tag should be added to the article. I'm not an expert on AFDs, but I'm pretty sure that it should have been closed, since AFD doesn't exist to be a list of article that need cleanup and/or sources, we have categories for that. The article in question was deemed notable. In fact, the article already had a sources tag that was added here before you added the AFD tag here. I'm pretty confident I understood the situation just fine, the only question going through my mind was if I was referring to the correct AFD.
The other part of my comment was when I quoted the Talk Page Guidelines where it says, "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred."
I'm pretty sure I handled the situation correctly on both counts. Useight (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding RyRy5's removing of your comments, if you take a look at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments, it says, "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred." It is perfectly permitted to remove comments from your own talk page, regardless of content. And yes, of course I saw your comment to which you refer, it's right here. RyRy5 was not overstepping any bounds for deleting it, he can does so if he wishes. I understand the situation just fine, I'm just agreeing with the guideline which I quoted above. I, too, think that your comment should have been left there or placed in his archive as per convention, tradition, simplicity, or whatever the word I'm looking for is, but RyRy5 did not break any policies by removing it. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you in that he should have left it, but disagree in that he has to leave it. Useight (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, if it's just a question of ethics, then okay, I see what you mean. But please understand that one person is not bound by the ethical stance of another. In the real world, we're bound by some things legally, but if what a person does doesn't cross the line into illegality, even if it's unethical by some subjective standards, they can still do it. In Wikipedia, same concept, if it's not against policy, but unethical by some subjective standards, they can still do it. Kind of like someone being a vegetarian because they think that's more ethical. They can do that if they want, but they can't try to coerce me into becoming vegetarian. But I didn't come to Wikipedia to debate philosophy, I came to improve the encyclopedia and now I'm going to go back to doing that. I hope this difference in philosophy doesn't come between us. P.S. - Thanks for commenting at my RFB, it's obvious it's not going to pass, but I'm getting an excellent idea of how to improve myself, especially in the RFA-related realm. Useight (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
-- RyRy5 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You
Thank you for your comments in my RFA. I will do my best to address the concerns you have raised. I am trying to do more in the mainspace, but I am running out of ideas for Final Fantasy magic. Hehe. And for the canvassing, it was a misunderstanding on my part. Thanks again. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Email
Check your email. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] re: social sciences
Thanks for the complement about the Political science portal. I've been out of town for nine days, so I couldn't answer your message. I will try to help you out as much as I can, but it might take a couple of days for me to get to it (my schedule should clear up here in about two weeks). But I would be happy to help you get the portal up and running when I get the time. If you have anything else you would like to ask or tell me, feel free to send me another message. Best of luck- Kanogul (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poncelet
It is not true that He was abandoned for dead by his fellow soldiers at the Battle of Krasnoi.[4] . He was fighting, till the last minute. The reference is from his biograph Didion. Do you read French? I can send you a PDF. He did not served as a civil engineer in Metz, he was a professor at the artillery school of Metz. You should also tell his captivity in Saratov. Pierre de Lyon (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent AfD
Hello, you closed the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adonis Italo de Sá Barreto Feliciano. I am wondering if you made your decision based on counting votes (6 delete vs. 2 keep) because in my opinion, the delete votes came about because people either ignored or misunderstood one of the main facets of WP:ATHLETE, which states that any athlete who has played for a fully professional club in a sanctioned competition is inherently notable, and that criterion was met by the player in question, as Carioca noted in his first comment. I am perfectly happy to put this on WP:DRV but I imagine that's just an unnecessary hassle for everyone involved - it's nothing personal with you, I am just an extreme inclusionist when it comes to footballers' articles :-) ugen64 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My RFB
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Admin coaching page
Not that your still my coach, but I just wanted you to see this and I would like it if you commented there. Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
