User talk:Rudget/Archive/10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revamping FPORTC

I am proposing some changes to the featured portal nomination process at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#Revamp proposal. Feel free to express your views. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You should also go for the featured portal director position. I really think your contributions will greatly improve the system. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who will promote these directors. I guess community consensus? But one thing I'm sure is that we won't be finding Jimbo :P OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer

I've read every edit you made on that page as you make them. I was kinda waiting til you answer all of them, then go from there. As for that page, I will sometimes respond right away--depending on your response. If you have a specific question, let me know. I am wathcing, not to worry. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Author of an article you've tagged is behaving badly...

Hi Rudget -

See the history page for Special:Contributions/90.195.229.118. I'm being a bit cryptic because it's obvious the perp is looking for this stuff, but the upshot is a) this is an article created by ths subject, so heavy WP:COI b) I put several speedy delete tags and COI notes on this, which the subject deleted, then c) the writer of the note from you (as near as I can tell) DELETED a separate entry that noted lack of source finding. (I'm making a leap of faith that the IP number is the same as the creator, since the only other edits are my tags and the material added by the creator, who wisely used his own name as his user name, then created only one article, the subject of which was himself.) I suspect your latest tag will be deleted as well... we'll see.

Your suspicions are apparently correct, and if this page cannot be speedy deleted, I will happily AfD. I'll also keep an eye on things... Ψν^Psi_nu 14:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry - somehow I got the idea that you were an admin in my addled head. Time for more caffeine. Again, apologies (though treat it as a compliment :) ) Ψν^Psi_nu 14:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grade I listed buildings in Manchester, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

It's been longs since we've talked, but I hope you're enjoying your holidays. New York Dreams (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: RFA

Yes, I've fixed that. Yours is next month? Do you want me to co-nom? ;-)--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

links

Did u bother to read the links? The are from a legitimate news source and are on topic with the article.--D-Boy (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Au RfA

Think you can fix the numbering on that one? I can't see what is causing Kurt's number to start over, could be related to the fact that all of the candidates edits beneath my oppose had #s starting them. Avruchtalk 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh, he justed pasted in what you wrote to him. Avruchtalk 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ack! e/c on removing the nom from RFA, and then you beat me to adding to the unsuccessful list. I'm not complaining, just didn't want you to think i didn't know what I'm doing (you're just faster). --barneca (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

An Administrator is I!

KoL images are copyrighted, so I'll use this PD one instead.

Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my candidateship

Hi. I would like to thank you for supporting my Requests for adminship/Magioladitis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD: Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture 2 — would you agree to application of WP:SALT as suggested by Mike33 in the discussion if I were to close the action as 'delete'? If yes or no, could you indicate that in your opinion summary please? Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree to a salt. :) Rt . 10:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Dear Rudget/Archive, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E ^talk 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost

You did not answer questions 5 and 10 yet, be thorough~ ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Doing... Rt . 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Rt . 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian Indian

If there is any agenda, it would completely the opposite. The links show the social injustices that the malaysian indians are going through. I see no reason why those links should be removed. They specifically discuss the oppression that the malaysian indian is going through by the government there. I would appreciate it if you would at least put some of those links back since they are from a legimate news source that is repected all over the world for its journalistic value.--D-Boy (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aqwis

Just thought you may be interested in my comment, backs up your statement. Tiptoety ^talk 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Well, since your going next month I thought I'd have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudget. Your downfall seems to be those optional questions on policy, so I think I'll run through them here for you: ;-)

1. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks are not punitive in the sense that they aren't retribution. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment.

The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.

Bans tend to be imposed by the arbitration commitee, though they can also be imposed by the community after discussion. A user is technically banned when they are blocked and no administrator is willing to unblock. Blocking, on the other hand, involves an administrator simply blocking a somehow disruptive user through their own good judgement — ie. Simple vandals and trolls.

2. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

A. One should ignore a rule when the rule somehow prevents one from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia

3. What is your interpretation of BLP?

A. "Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies." That means that any material that may somehow negativly affect the lives of living people must primarily be well referenced and must also comply with the rest of our content policies. If the person in question contacts the foundation stating that they want the offending material removed, the material should be immediatly deleted, if not oversighted.

Those are the questions that come up the most. You'll more than likely be given some question concerning some tricky hypothetical situation, just answer that with your own good judgement. You're answer to Q1 seems good, but you might want to work on Q2 — simply mention some good articles that you've contributed to. For Q3 mention that small disute and also mention that you've gotten over it and you enjoy working alongside Malleus Fatuarum. If you've taken medcab cases, mention them here.

Hope that helps!--Phoenix -wiki 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great, there's a lot of stuff there, you should be able to answer the questions no problem ;-)--Phoenix -wiki 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation template

How rigorous is the projects goal to have a source follow the templates and how many of the templates fields can be left blank before you feel a citation needs to be looked at? Right now I'm actually amazed that Wikipedia is accurate to the degree it is. So many of the citations come from personally built pages, and unrecognizable sources, that I have a real challenge deciding, what's reliable and what's not. What do you feel is the most important thing needing to be done from the citation project--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From this I guess you're referring to WikiProject Citation Cleanup. I should be able to answer this more fully tomorrow. I look forward to discussing this with you then. Best regards, Rt . 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't do this to me!

You horrible person you! You asked me an interesting question, and then ran off before you could explain why you needed the answers.

That's despicable, that's mean! Can't you see I'm bursting with curiosity as to why you asked the question? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC) who is turning blue from holding breath too long.