User talk:Useight/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: Sorry for the delay

That's fine, I was also very busy over the last week or so. Hope to finish up the admin coaching soon. STORMTRACKER 94 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

I have finished your admin coaching questions, please tell me what you think. Also, when would a good time to nominate? You said on my talk page that mid-January was most likely, and I think that it sounds good also. STORMTRACKER 94 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A nomination on the 23rd sounds good. Let me know when everything is ready. Wizardman 17:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
23rd sounds great. Thanks for your help! STORMTRACKER 94 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a co-nomination at the page. Get in touch if it needs changing at all. Thanks. Rudget. 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here

[edit] thnx

Thank you for your answer regarding RAM in the older 2001 PC on the reference desk. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just in case...

it's not obvious. I wanted to drop you a line to make clear that this comment is meant 100 percent in jest. I'm making fun of the way people often make horrible assumptions of bad faith and then follow it up with a link to WP:AGF. After I hit save I thought, "oh no, what if Useight thinks I'm serious?" I'm definitely, definitely not serious! Hope you don't mind. Cheers, --JayHenry (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here
That's what I assumed, but I figured it couldn't hurt to clarify ;) --JayHenry (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

The date format that appears on your screen is set in your user preferences (as long as it is linked like [[11 January]] [[2008]] or [[January 11]] [[2008]], so there is no need to change them in articles as long as they are consistent throughout. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

Thank you for trying to "fix" the date format on Sir Edmund Hillary but as he is a New Zealander, the date format will be that for New Zealand so number, month as per the Manual of style. Please do not do this again Nengscoz416 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to talk down to you. I was merely trying to educate you, like so many Americans, that New Zealand is a Commonwealth country and therefore do things the right way (as opposed to your "backwards") plus, are in a different time zone therefore Sir Edmund Hillary, one of our national icons - much the same as John F. Kennedy and George Washington is to you - died at 9am on Friday 11 January 2008.

[edit] Thanks!

Sorry, didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. ><RichardΩ612 09:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello. You answered a question of mine on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Richard0612, regarding edit count. You mentioned you wouldn't vote for someone with less than 1000 mainspace... 500 bare min. if they were excellent quality. Is that pretty much the standard now, in your experience? It seems that many editors require a very high overall edit count (some even saying atleast 4-5000 edits). Do you find that 1000 mainspace is pretty much the norm? I know WP:RFA it mentions just 1000 edit count is a minimum, but that seems to be really low balling it. Guldenat (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here
Understood, sounds reasonable. Concerning mainspace edits, is it important when reviewing an editor (for RfA or any other reason) to divide what sort of mainspace edit the editor has? In other words, was the editor improving an article by adding information and sources, starting a legit article, doing minor edits, or reverting vandalism? Is any one of these things valued above another, are they all taken together as being equal? Is an editor, particularly one under going an RfA, expected to be equally well rounded in all these things, or is it generally acceptable for the editor to have a niche? My apologies for asking you all these questions, but I am interested in understanding what editors expect to see in their RfA candidates, or even in their fellow editors. Guldenat (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
Looking over Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 2 was very informative. Your comment about using twinkle inspired me to look over my contribs, and... well, as you noticed, it's pretty sad. It looks as though I should really begin to shift focus more on actual improvement of articles and such rather then reverting vandalism using twinkle. Sure is a lot of work that needs to be done around here, sometimes its tough to know where to start. As for yourself, when you log onto Wikipedia, what do you have in mind that you want to accomplish? Are their articles you know of immediately that you would like to improve? To you check into WP:To-do list and go from there? I marvel when I see people with 5000, or even 10,000+ edits. Guldenat (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.


Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Question

I think you might have to specify, is it a European or African swallow? Icestorm815 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudget!

Dear Useight, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eagleeye666

Wow, that was fast. I was just about to add and fill out {{Sockpuppet|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}} to the talk page, but found out you already blocked him. Jauerback (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

Yep, thanks for taking care of that one so quickly. Just curious -- did you see the vandalism report first? I had opted for that instead of the sockpuppet report since I figured it would be quicker for the situation at hand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

Thanks for your consideration! I have considered the possibility, though I do not want to pursue it just yet. I appreciate your offer, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Wow. I'm honored at your offer. I'm seriously considering it. I feel like I'm qualified and have a good grasp of policies, but it's hard to look at myself objectively and definitely say one way or another whether I'm qualified or not. You obviously know more about the role and the process, so I'll let you make that call. Jauerback (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here
It's probably wiser for me to go through some questions first. Although I feel fairly confident, the mere fact that I haven't given much thought to an RFA up until now probably means I shouldn't just jump into it without some sort of prep. By the way, I may have to steal the way you show your replies on your talk page ("My reply"). Jauerback (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
I've completed the questions for the most part. Jauerback (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
Done. I'm trying to limit my sarcasm, but it's hard... Jauerback (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
And, done with those as well. Jauerback (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
It's up. Regardless of how this goes, I want to thank you for considering me in the first place and then taking the time to coach me. Jauerback (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
I'd like to vote in some current RFAs, but I feel weird about it while my own RFA is in progress, because I may be perceived as subtly canvassing for my own RFA if I give give a support vote. What do you think? Jauerback (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here

[edit] Coaching

Glad to see you're getting active with your admin coaching. bibliomaniac15 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

[edit] Adoption?

Are you available to adopt me? I've started editing articles, and have created one about my family's business Petrinis Petrini's (which I need to clean up). I particularly need help with some conflicts (I would call them POV-pusher problems, but not in public) with my edits of the J.D. article. We have some commonality, which is not appearant from my profile. I'll just say that your choice of BYU as a school interests me. I spent 2 years doing (hem hem) volunteer work in Italy (Padova), which was a lot of fun. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

My previous adoptor wasn't very responsive.

How best should I describe my problem with the J.D. article? Just merely mention it and let you glance at the discussion page, or describe the issue here? Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I found you through the list of users wishing to adopt. I started from the bottom of the list. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here
Re J.D. some POV-pushers have been changing my edits because they believe that the J.D. is not a graduate or a doctorate degree. Browsing the archive of the talk page reveals that they have strangled the debate by mere persistence. So I proposed that the article include a section describing the debate. I posted a box disputing the neutrality, and tried to open for discussion on talk, and I also requested RfC participation. The POV-pushers have not responded to the proposal, but have only ressurected their tenable arguments against calling a J.D. a graduate or doctorate degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
Many editors have made attempts to present evidence, but they say that the sources are bad. e.g., an editor will present a statement from a U.S. university about the J.D., but "they" would respond that the U.S. university is just crazy. They basically claim that the J.D. is an invalid creation of U.S. universities and is not the equivalent of any other doctorate and should therefore not be considered as such. I think they are saying that the popular perception that the degree is graduate and doctorate is wrong, but they would respond that there is no such popular perception. One problem could be that these editors might not be living in the U.S. How best to recruit help of others? Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here

Thanks! Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw an article the other day that I can't find any more. What is the wiki term for someone who creates a parallel article that supports their own POV re an existing article? Isn't this an example?: professional degree vs first professional degree (note significant content in latter comparing a US degree to a non-US degree, and the lack of verifiable sources) Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen instances when content has been added or removed without any record of it in the history. Is there some way for people to crack the programming and do so? Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

[edit] User:SolumeirasTestAccount1

This account is actually going to make contributions, but within its own userspace only. It won't harm the encyclopedia, since it's never editing mainspace.

I'll be using the account maybe once a day or week, please can you leave a note at New admin school about it.

All pages it creates will be prefixed as User:SolumeirasTestAccount1/NAMEOFPAGEHERE.

Hope this helps! --Solumeiras talk 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] My RFA

Just to inform you, I have posted my RFA a few days early so I can answer all of the optional questions over the long weekend. STORMTRACKER 94 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

Thanks for all your help with the RFA. I think without the Admin coaching questions completed and linked to the RFA, it would might have been a slightly different story. No one had any additional questions to ask -- except about Jack Bauer.

I've actually been reading some of the material in the new Admin School stuff, already. I realize it's not as effective without actually being able to practice blocks, deletions, etc., but hopefully, it'll go easier when I actually do need to go through with it.

Anyway, once again, thanks. I'm sure we'll speak again, if nothing else, "How do I...?" Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Video game choppiness

I replied on your question over at the help desk. I hope what I wrote helps in some way. Bed time for me. G'night! ScarianCall me Pat 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indef block for anons

I saw that you blocked 71.165.158.26 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for vandalism to blood. While I agree with the block I'm not sure if the block should be indefinite. It's a Verizon IP that may well be dynamic, so there is no guarantee that (1) the same user won't come back under a different IP, (2) other innocent users won't be affected by the block. I hope you don't mind that I've changed it to a 31 hour block. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

[edit] About my sig

My username is Undead warrior, but my username for 2006 was metal head. That was why my sig is like that. I used to change my username at the start of the year. This is the first time I have not deleted my old account and got a new one.Metal Head (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks!
I want to "officially" thank you again Useight for not only discovering me, but offering to be my admin coach. It definitely helped with the RFA process, as well as boosting my confidence. I would also like to thank you for the nomination, and the wonderful words you said it in. I plan on doing some attempting to do some admin coaching in the future, too.

Once again, thanks! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching

Are you still my admin coach? I have been checking my page often. Haven't seen you editing there lately. King Lopez Contribs 10:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply here
Ok. I answered your questions here King Lopez Contribs 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply here
My reply here King Lopez Contribs 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Anoshirawan

The block was because he has been repeatedly warned about replacing the term "Afghan" with "Afghanistani" against consensus. The second and third blocks came about because his first edits back after the previous blocks expired were to make exactly the same changes. The blocks were for disruption and slow-motion edit warring across multiple articles rather than WP:3RR (though he did make multiple (at least 6) reverts or partial reverts to Template:History of Afghanistan). Also note that his "supporter" is a sock puppet of a user banned for pretty much the same kind of edits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply here

[edit] RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.