User talk:Rudget/Archive/27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

userpage | talk | contact | past projects | userboxes | miscellaneous | awards | archive


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

I think you forgot to indent your support. ;)

And now the inevitable persuasion: If you're on the edge, I believe you should read my assessment of the candidate (support #137). It addresses the major points of the opposers, but I may have missed a few. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, and I will. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this not canvassing? Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It is, I suppose, but it didn't sway my current vote. Rudget (Help?) 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good lord, this is not canvassing. Have you even read WP:CANVASS, tool2die4? Rudget has already been to the RfA. Canvassing would be nousernamesleft coming here and notifying Rudget of the RFA, not asking him about his !vote. Good grief. Enough drama already. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I considered the possibility that this was canvassing before posting this, but immediately dismissed it as absurd - Rudget had already participated in the RfA, and this is no different than arguing against opposers. RfA is a discussion, not a vote. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, looks like I didn't read your second message. Oh well, I needed to address such a serious accusation anyways. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usurpation for SUL

Hello! You asked me to log in to confirm this usurpation request. However, it is said in instructions that "If you do not have an account already at the English Wikipedia and have already unified your global account, you do not need to create one. You may place your request without logging in." I've placed a confirmation on my Russian talk page [1]. Hope this is OK. Thanks. User:Volkov 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I see it has been performed now, I think that the bureaucrat will have seen this message and verified the account request. Good luck with future editing. Rudget (Help?) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I just sent you an email to your google mail. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Rudget (Help?) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tan's RFA

Hey Rudget, would you mind adding the edit counter to Tan's RfA? I've seen you do that before (and now that you've contributed to it, it isn't canvassing :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do it now. Rudget (Help?) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rudget. (and BTW, your tricky little edit summaries over there about made my old heart stop ticking. Thanks for the jolt, you meanie...)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I got the trick from DerHexer :) You should try it sometime, it's amazing how many "I can't believe you opposed my RfA! threads you get.... Rudget (Help?) 19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Merseyside

Hi there, I hope this isn't considered spam, but I noticed on the UK Geography project page that you have an interest in northern and Liverpool related pages, so I wanted to ask if you would be interesting in supporting a Merseyside Wikiproject? I'm trying to gauge if there is suitable support before making a formal proposal. Cheers. Zenichiro (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. A place I'd suggest to propose this would be the talk page of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. I don't really work that much with UKGEO, but those at GMWP are experts in what should stand as viable. Rudget (Help?) 15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Topic bans

Hello Rudget. I guess I am, yes. Is there any topic ban you need feedback on? Regards, Húsönd 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense. But lately I haven't been monitoring the Kosovo topic much. Too much trouble there and I was really not satisfied with Future Perfect's intervention last time. I can cope well with the stress of dealing with uncivil users, but I have little patience for coping with admins willing to on their rescue by weaving undue controversies. And there was probably a lot of thread to weave there if I were up for drama. So, I've just decided to have a break on Kosovo to avoid any new confrontations. I hope someone else is monitoring the topic these days (hopefully without too much bashing). And of course, should you need any feedback, I'll be here to provide it. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also been taking it easy on the Kosovo page. Just today/yesterday have I got involved again. Husond, I have no hard feelings. Although it may seem I'm being a dick, I commend you for your current actions. Beam 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll help when ever needed. That may, at least, provide some help for others. Rudget (Help?) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey Rudget, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. I've left some thank spam below. I would also welcome your input at my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam
LOL, yes, I most definately did. I've been meaning to drop in and last you know =). It's part of my "tone down my userpage" initiative. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sense and sensibility

Regarding your question here, you'll probably get some sarcasm, but you deserve an honest answer. You're doing a great job as an admin. If you hadn't said anything, I wouldn't have thought about your age at all, which is a sign that you do good work in a mature fashion. Being a teenager is not the problem (though it's unfortunately phrased in those terms at times). It's acting like a negative stereotype of a teenager that's the problem, and that's been known to happen among our more chronologically advanced admins as well. MastCell Talk 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but in retrospect I suppose I shouldn't really have asked that question. Does seem a little 'glory-hunting' now. I think teenagers are often misinterpreted, but to write from that perspective is a little biased. Sure, the youth do give plenty of reasons to others to indicate that they are 'immature' or 'irresponsible'. But I think greater evaluation of a candidate is needed before such a generalisation. I speak myself because often I find myself being patronised, (I realise this now seems like a sob-story, please forgive for this slight foray) by adults all the time. Like I said in another editors' RfA recently, if we were like others, we wouldn't really be here, dedicating our time to an encyclopedia. Rudget (Help?) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CHU

Hi Rudget, per our discussion I've decided to decline your request which, I think, is not a big problem for you. Let me know if I can be of assistance in the future. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Will do. Rudget (Help?) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of Public Information

You deleted this entry as a possble copyright infringement. The publication cited was originally issued by the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. As a US Government publication, the Principles are in the public domain as defined under Title 17 USC §105. I added a public domain statement to the site this morning, but I am not sure it is in the correct form. Please restore the page and advise me if I need to assert the public domain status in a different manner. Thank you,

JudithRussell (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This was left on my talk page, but I am going to have to move this to the talk page of the admin who deleted the article. (I am not an admin and can't restore articles) --Rividian (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes 
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) 07:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deer

Hi. You semiprotected Deer on January 17th. I was wondering if you thought it could now be unprotected. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFB discussion thread

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I just woke up. Perhaps I worded my statement poorly. Let me try again to say what I'm trying to say. Here's what was going through my mind. As I watched the RFB progess I saw people in the support section citing my answer to Q7 and I saw people in the oppose section citing my answer to Q7. Not everyone was citing it, but several were. I thought that was interesting, so I wanted to doublecheck what the stance was of some of these people were at DHMO's RFA. I noted that 7 of 8 had supported it at one time or another (2 eventually struck their comments). I did not draw a correlation between which, or how many even, of my opposers citing Q7 had supported. My point in the statement regarding the "seemingly conflict of interest" was that 7 out of 8 was high enough to give the impression that something could have been askew but I always assume good faith (except in obvious cases that fall under WP:DUCK), and knew that I wasn't being opposed soley for that reason. There are plenty of other reasons for which I can be opposed, such as me being an admin for only 6 months and the fact that I'm not active on WP:USURP, only CHU. As for my "would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA as successful?" question to myself in that same block of text, I was merely trying to convey that there was no answer to that question that could please everyone. I might as well have said, "Would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA by flipping a coin?" I was just trying to say that there was no perfect answer to Q7. Perhaps that's why Anthony has refused to answer it in his RFB. I answered it because, well, if it had made it to the close, then some bureaucrat somewhere along the line would've had to answer it, in a much more real and binding way than my hypothetical way. I'm a man of few words and I really don't like speaking in huge blocks of text (this paragraph is at least twice as big as I'd want it to be) and sometimes when I ramble on I go off on tangents. Anyway, my point in this whole thing was, no, I do not believe there was any sort of conflict of interesting going on, I am not going to question the integrity of the valuable editors who have participated in my RFB. Useight (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

I can has unblock? :) I'm sorry, it just happened to be there...so naturally it was too tempting to resist...I'll let you have the next one, just because I'm so generous. ;) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Thanks, Rudget/Archive, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page.

I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements.
Thank you again.
AngelOfSadness talk 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for the comments on my RFA. I personally felt that the only way to learn something you don't understand is to ask questions. The answers provided by the help desk greatly helped me out. Whilst images wouldn't be my forte if I were to become an administrator, I will do my best to learn everything I can about copyrights. Thanks again. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JeanLatore

A user that you recently blocked, JeanLatore, seems to be showing little interest in editing in a constructive manner. I asked him/her to use edit summaries because the user edited Florida v. J.L. roughly thirty times without edit summaries within just a day or two. That has prompted the user to attack me on my talk page and in edit summaries, as well as undoing edits I've made on articles that he/she had previously not edited. It seems a warning or another block might be in order. The user is also engaging in the use of sexism and profanity on other talk pages as well. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome any scrunity of my edits to articles or talk pages. The above user approached me in a haughty and arrogant manner after I substantially improved an article he obviously feels some pride in ownership of (see edit history of Florida v. J.L. and hasn't left me alone since. The user seems to fancy himself some sort of "cop" on here, and I do not like his attitude. I totally trust you to look into both sides of this and use your judgment. JeanLatore (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)