User talk:VirtualSteve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am currently unavailable •••
My local time:
June 2008
Monday
2:01 am EST
14:52 UTC
My local time:
June 2008
Monday
2:01 am EST
14:52 UTC
Conversations will be continued on this talk page when they are started here.
Please be polite,assume good faith
& do not leave a personal attack.
Please sign and date your posts
This user has been on Wikipedia for
2 years, 6 months and 30 days.
This user has been an admin for
11 months and 19 days.


Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

Contents

[edit] Nice to see your name pop up again

On my watchlist - (Aus politics) archiving Hi - how are you? By the way have you been approached by a researcher from Hong Kong uni concerning how wikipedia collaborates? --Matilda talk 04:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Matilda - nice to get a message from a young old friend. I have been around each day pretty well but with not much spare time and relatively few edits as a result (although I have even co-nominated someone for RfA today also). No I haven't received any researcher requests - more info pls?--VS talk 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't know how I was chosen. Had an interview by phone with a virtual whyteboard where I talked about how collaboration worked. Cited Riverina, Gundagai, Australia-NZ relations, Chilean Australians, Snowball marches and Bérenger Saunière‎ as different examples where different ways of collaboration and enforcement of wikipedia policies came into play. The researcher is Andreas Schroeder. he has been in Australia NZ [1] and plenty of other places too apparently - right now in Hong Kong and apparently taking the paper to Hawaii for a conference. I was just curious if anybody else got picked up - presumably some did but don't know how he arrived at the sample.--Matilda talk 05:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's interesting - I guess others must have been picked up (else it is a very small sample :) ) but had not heard a thing about it before your message.--VS talk 05:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Butting in here - I had the same approach and went through the same process last night, cited Riverina and Wagga Wagga as well as some cricket articles. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 :-) glad I wasn't alone. We could get Riverina cited as a worthy example of wikipedia collaboration - that seems beyond featured article status to my mind.--Matilda talk 05:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah ha, well at least he now has the best two collaborators from the Riverina project as a part of his results! :)--VS talk 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casino's page

You've thrown a bunch of cite needed tags on this page - any reason why you can't source any of this info yourself? You're as much editor as anyone else around here. Peter1968 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Peter - please don't shoot the messenger - For this article I have an interest in WP:RS and you have and interest in Casino by indicating the following in your edit summary (Beef Week 2008 is on for a fact - if anyone wants a photo of it as proof, I can add it.) add your facts or be prepared to have material deleted as being uncited.--VS talk 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OH, LOL buddy, nobody is "shooting" you in any way, shape or form. I asked a legitimate question which you sidestepped. No matter, as per WP:RS, the material in question is commented out until such time as someone provides sources. As for Beef Week, when I get off my arse later on today to pick my kids up, I might take photos of the bunting, parades, etc, of it for proof. Peter1968 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good stuff Peter - that will get has got you and Casino back on track. Cheers!--VS talk 01:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just me butting in - some of us read Column 8 - Beef week casino is where he is heading this weekend. So I have added a ref (not column 8) --Matilda talk 01:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Matilda - you are always welcome.--VS talk 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over active Defense

Hey there VS, I appreciate that you are trying to help Enigma, but please remember that over active defenses can kill an RfA. Make a point and move on, don't get into extended debates. You're actually doing more harm than good by, in Enigma's own words, Challenging opposes often has the effect of making opposers even more entrenched in their opinions, and can result in the Oppose receiving more attention than it deserves (see WP:UNDUE).Balloonman (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes I have tried to extricate myself from Hammersoft's returns but his refactoring of the RfA prompted me to return to beat that level of unfairness.--VS talk 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fairness, I was attempting to use Balloonman's own words in his essay. I respect Balloonman and his opinions, and I consider him to be one of the most knowledgeable people on Wikipedia when it comes to the RfA process. As such, I've tried to assist with several of his essays. My addition at the nomination essay was my best recollection of Balloonman's opinion that I once read him mention on WT:RFA. When I thought about it, I do tend to agree with Balloonman about it, but I am grateful to Steve for his defense anyway. At this point, I'm resigned to the RfA failing. I believed before the RfA that it would not succeed, but went ahead with it because of various people reassuring me. I don't mind that at all, because in its current state, I wouldn't pass an RfA whether it was now or in two months or whatever. I'm not going to publicly comment on my feelings about several of the opposes, but I don't need to. It's there for anyone to see. Draw your own conclusions. Enigma message 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Damn, and I thought you were actually learning from me ;-) I honestly expected your RfA to pass... and I now understand why you didn't have me nom you... you were only thinking of me... you wanted to ensure that my perfect record was still intact. Thanks for your consideration ;-) Balloonman (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to tell you that, but that actually was the reason. I saw you were justifiably proud of your record with coachees and noms, and I didn't want to be your black mark. With regards to your essay: I try to learn from everyone. But I generally feel it would be wrong to interject my own opinions into your essay unless you actually invited me to. Right now, your essays are your opinion. Then again, I do tend to agree with you on that aspect, although I don't feel as strongly about it as you. Enigma message 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If that was the reason, I should tell you, I would have been proud to fail with you... It is going to happen... I have my suspicions on whom it will happen with... but I can't have a perfect record forever.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've removed the comments for privacy's sake

I've removed your comments and my response. Enigma is seeking privacy. We should respect that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

With the quick urgent notice out of the way and more time to write: Privacy is of utmost concern to some users. It is apparently so to Enigmaman who felt motivated enough to have his userpage deleted, and apparently made an earlier request to have a revision oversighted. He's made another request to have it oversighted. Respecting that wish is important. The side debate we are having about this issue is between you and I. Airing it out on that RfA simply highlights the problem Enigma is trying to erase. Restoring it make his situation less private. If you want to defend Enigma, then the best course is to leave the comments removed. If you still feel motivated to restoring them, then I suggest you ask for Enigma's permission to do so. If you still have an issue with this, then please take it up with me directly and not on the RfA. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've reverted your re-insertion of the comments. Given there's privacy being protected, I think it's better to err on the side of keeping it removed than restoring it for all to see while awaiting his approval. If he consents, I've no objection to it being restored. Please, let's respect his privacy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is unbelievable - I am asking Engima for his permission. I appreciate you are trying to protect your own reputation but please!--VS talk 23:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't care about reputation. Please see my userpage. My reputation is the furthest thing from my concern. Privacy is important and there's no need to display that on the RfA until we have Enigma's permission. There's no rush here. If you really think my reputation is so important to me, you'll have plenty of opportunity to publicly flog me after Enigma chimes in, ok? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You are being extraordinarily vindictive Hammersoft. You started the comments and you damaged Engima's reputation by doing so - with no concern for his privacy. Then when you are pulled into line for refactoring an RfA you get all supportive. No wonder Enigma is writing to me to let me know how upset he is that he tried to assist you and this is the way that you repay that support. Then you dredge up new things of months ago - Very very unfair.--VS talk 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your version of events is astonishingly different than mine. I suspect there's no middle ground. That said, I don't see there's a need for middle ground to exist on those points. We disagree. You support him, I don't. With that out of the way, I do hope there's middle ground to be achieved in attempting to protect his privacy. By keeping the comments highlighting the problem removed until Enigma's had a chance to respond, we do that. I hope you agree. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Enigma has now come back to me by email - he states in response to my request should the comments be left there -

  • leave them there.
  • It has nothing to do with my privacy.
  • If it means I'm assuming bad faith at this point, so be it.

I trust you will now leave them there - or ask him yourself.--VS talk 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your characters were removed. It was to help the bot with the count, ja? Enigma message 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Too funny! Enigma message 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ftw

Thanks for that i thought i went a bit far did you mean do not feed the trolls ?

  • Yes exactly - calling the IP a name often gives them some jollies - just dealing with their vandalism objectively takes the pleasure from them. Sorry for butting in - it's just that Enigma is trying to achieve some positive support from editors for his request for adminship so I though my return to you might help him.--VS talk 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenses

Can you quit mass-changing the status of living Australian politicians to "was"? It implies that they're dead when they're very much alive.

If you take a look at any biographical article of a living person, it'll say "is (whatever their claim to fame is). They don't cease being a politician just because they've left elected office. Rebecca (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Rebecca - actually I'm not mass changing them but I appreciate the point you are trying to make. I actually was trying to make them all similar because some pages - not ever visited by me (who are not dead) say 'was' and others say 'is'. Still I appreciate your polite request for explanation and cessation, and will stop doing that part when I am assessing. Cheers. --VS talk 07:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks! It makes a lot of sense to standardise them - but how about standardising them as "is"? Rebecca (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep - I can do that next time for you - again your point is good. Although, rhetorically, at some stage a live ex-politician probably should be tensed as 'was' - I mean they are doing something else now aren't they? Isn't that the same as saying a person is a student at University when in fact they have left and are now doing something else. Anyway as I said that was meant to be rhetorical - I don't have any problem personally with 'is' or 'was' - my goal at the time (since achieved) was to go through and assess all AusPol articles that were at that stage unassessed. Appreciate the request. Cheers.--VS talk 08:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Prom3th3an has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your kind words, you were quick to jump in...are you stalking me or ballon man lol Prom3th3an (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey thanks - actually we're just stalking with the wiki l-o-v-e :)--VS talk 07:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Prom3th3an (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Step away from the computer for a couple of days and all sorts of interesting things happen, RfAs, FARs and other assorted acronyms. Thanks for keeping an eye out for me. And while I am here, I would like to add that I admire your loyalty and support for others as expressed across the entire project. You are an inspiration. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Damn - that's far too big a compliment for me. I appreciate your kindness and comments in all of their places, very much. Cheers.--VS talk 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Go to bed Steve!

You've done a great job tallying, now get some rest! ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia, Template:Largest cities of Australia and Albury

I agree with you about Albury's population but, unfortunately, Template:Largest cities of Australia uses the official ABS data for the Albury-Wodonga Statistical District, as is used at List of cities in Australia by population, which says that the population is 101,842. I don't like theses figures as I feel they completely misrepresent the truth but I've been out-voted. I've had numerous arguments about Newcastle's real population which is 142,000 and not 523,000, whether City of Lake Macquarie is actually a city, why Lake Macquarie suburbs are not actually suburbs of Newcastle and so on. Albury is just another example of why statistics should sometimes be ignored. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair enough - but then the link should say Albury-Wondonga and not Albury. What do you think?--VS talk 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think the template is a little flawed because it specifies "Core City" which can be subject to misinterpretation and defining what the core city is can be WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Good, well of course Albury people will say that Albury is the core city and Wodonga people will have the different view. From my perspective accuracy (our first goal) needs to be reflected and I will certainly back up any changes you want to make that say Albury/Wondonga and then New South Wales/Victoria. Best wishes. --VS talk 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I've edited the template. I found similar issues with Gold Coast and Canberra as well. The citation specifically identifies these as Gold Coast-Tweed and Canberra-Queanbeyan respectively. It also identifies "Albury" as Albury-Wodonga as we've discussed. The one I really hate is Newcastle because that should really be Newcastle-Lake Macquarie-Cessnock-Maitland. :( --AussieLegend (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Good job - yes I can see why you would hate that. For me I have a particular concern with cities that span two states.--VS talk 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Our friend is at it again. He replaced the template at Australia with his own infobox[2] and changed Template:Largest cities of Australia too,[3] reintroducing the issues that we had concerns about. His aim seems to be to get the images into the middle of the table no matter what. I've reverted the changes and am starting a discussion on the Talk pages of both Australia and Template:Largest cities of Australia at Talk:Australia#Cities by population table and Template Talk:Largest cities of Australia#Recent changes respectively in case you'd like to comment. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you - I have since commented.--VS talk 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterwindsail sandbox

I believe that you deleted my sandbox; can I recover it? --Waterwindsail (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I have recovered for you but please note the talk page of that sandbox article. It is important that it soon either moves from sandbox to mainspace (once you have taken all appropriate steps) or you remove the material. Cheers.--VS talk 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the nomination

nt Enigma message 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just realized something

Since it's difficult to collaborate on something like with without communication, I'll wait until I see you're finished. Stupid for me to edit beforehand. Enigma message 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No buddy that's cool - just go for it. It should be more you than me anyhow (cause we play a different game down here and so I don't understand all of the nuances). I will be working on it as time permits - but mainly be looking for MOS and other GA issues to be clean and clear.--VS talk 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was more concerned with throwing you off by making an edit. I don't want you to edit conflict. I'll go over all the changes later and see what I can improve. Enigma message 21:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair call - I am finished for now - all refs are IMO in the right format - and you will notice have a system that allows easy a,b,c, referencing of the same reference. I also removed the second repetition to a Reference section that was on the page. I'll be back later. Cheers.--VS talk 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rfa thanks

steve, I just wanted to thank you for your participation at my RFA. you may also be interested in checking out my in-depth RFA analysis where I am seeking community input on the various issues that were raised. (p.s. - templated thank spam below =) cheers, xenocidic (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your warning to Leestonexxx for his edits on Lee Stone

Dear VirtualSteve: I was cruising Recent Changes when I noticed you reverted this diff as vandalism and then warned Leestonexxx here. When I took a look at the edit, I noticed that it was a change in description to an article about a pornographic actor, specifically in the description of his, umm, professional attributes. Anyhow, I can see how at a glance that looked like vandalism, what with the references to flaccidity and the things that might be an adjective for, but from what I can tell, it was a good faith edit that was subject-matter relevant. At worst, it's WP:COI as it's the subject of an article changing a description of himself to use more favorable wording. Anyhow, I wanted to let you know about the oversight, since I'm prety sure that it wasn't vandalism, and also that, under WP:BOLD I reverted your revert and removed your level1 warning of Leestonexxx. I just wanted to let you know I had done so. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your courtesy in telling me - and (I expect you are referring to this) my belief that it was vandalism came after considering that the editor Leestonexxx used the word my in his edit summary. Of course it is possible that Leestonexxx is indeed Lee Stone and therefore the edit is only in breach of WP:COI but on the other hand it may be anyone and not Lee Stone. That said, it sounds like you have the advantage of having seen Lee Stone's penis - which I haven't and so if you think it is a good faith edit (albeit COI) I am happy to let your changes sit. Cheers.--VS talk 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehe. I actually don't have the benefit of having seen Lee Stone's penis. I was just making an educated guess on the matter. It just didn't seem like vandalism to me, and I had guessed it was a quick oversight on the never-ending RC Patrol that you thought it was, and just funny and ironic that it happened to be relevant to the subject matter at hand, as opposed to the usual case of vandalism whenever an edit involves genitalia. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah well, sorry I thought when you labelled it COI that you had a definite reference point (descriptively speaking) between the new user's name and the article name. I also have to be honest and say it wasn't a quick oversight on my part, because I saw it as an uncited penis description edit, but again I understand your point (and logic) and I will leave it at this stage - although I guess it could be reverted for being at best a COI edit. Cheers and nice to make your acquaintance. --VS talk 07:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You welcomed a vandal!

Hello VS! How are you? You just welcomed a vandal! User:Mbkimura4 created the article Christine luu, which was just deleted after I requested speedy deletion. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm good Masterpiece - thank you for asking. Yes that is the luck of the draw sometimes - I welcomed the vandal about 49 minutes before they were posted a message that they had vandalised, and a few minutes before they decided to become a vandal rather than a good contributor. Oh well, if only they took notice of the fact that *we* are watching. - Thanks for your message.--VS talk 03:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minding your own business

My grandmother is still alive, but as the article states, this phrase doesn't see much currency any longer, even in her vocabulary. Now I'm an adult, it's often myself telling her to mind her own ;) -- Longhair\talk 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It was actually a phrase used by late mother-in-law. She didn't though use it in the sense of mind your own business but more as - pause try to think it through - no verifiable sources - ... well perhaps (having reviewed the article ) the 1836 sense - something impossible perhaps as in the song Scarborough Fair - all those impossible tasks the unkind man was asking for - but I haven't got the sense right yet. Definitely a cabal though! You were obviously a model child and never needed admonishment. I was too - it wasn't a phrase used in my family and isn't part of my childhood.--Matilda talk 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatchamacallit was also another of Nan's common sayings, largely used when she was educating me on something or other but couldn't remember what she was in fact talking about :) - Longhair\talk 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey that's great and even works as an obscure reference to the obscure Cabal - I could definitely join the Whatchamacallit Cabal.--VS talk 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Bejesus! was a phrase my late grandfather would often use, but I never knew why, nor could he explain in ways I could understand :) Any ideas? Usage: "To frighten the bejesus out of somebody"... It's had me puzzled to this day. -- Longhair\talk 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Err, never mind... :) -- Longhair\talk 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say - too late to save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bejesus :-( --Matilda talk 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a mission for the Whatchamacallit Cabal - recover Bejesus as a notable article (and really frighten the sh*t out of those not in the cabal :-D )--VS talk 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant to say "frighten the bejesus..." :) -- Longhair\talk 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a classic link to start the new Bejesus article (seems there is actually a Bejesus Quarterly - go figure - what a world we live in).--VS talk 02:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh god don't get me started. I could run off another 700 sayings :) -- Longhair\talk 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the party as usual :-) I was surprised how clearly reading the phrase brought my grandmother to mind. She is the only person I ever heard use the phrase—always in an affectionate, teasing tone—and I had always assumed it was a personal idiosyncrasy of hers. Seriously, articles like this one often get a bad press as trivial, mere pop culture etc. but this is now genuinely encyclopedic, informative and interesting. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—just not a paper one—and articles like this are one of the projects biggest strengths.-- Mattinbgn\talk 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed Matt - and no need to apologise over the fact that out of all of us you are probably the only one hard at real-life work. ;) --VS talk 04:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Minding your own business is an out-of-use phrase? Someone forgot to inform me. Enigma message 04:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha Engima - and you were grumbling ;) when I spelt Honour in real English - this one'll be enough to have you give up on us Aussies and our language for good.--VS talk 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm already at the point where I spell things the British way when talking to people from England. Australia is too much for me! I've never heard of that phrase anywhere, and I'm quite familiar with many esoteric English phrases. Ah well. I saw this thread and the title, and I saw no reference to what the phrase was. Onto better things... I was kept rather busy all this week, but next week I intend to fully investigate our issues with Sid Luckman, and take a trip if need be. Enigma message 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well (I say with tongue in cheek) now at least you know that A wigwam for a goose's bridle is not a furphy and we know that you are fair dinkum in relation to soon reaching a GA status for Sid. Cop that my fine American friend!--VS talk 06:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your RfA comment

Hello, Steve. I replied to your comment here. -- RyRy5 (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, I believe you misunderstood the situation. VS, I hate to say it because of my great respect for you and your opinions, but I find that the opposes at the X RfA, including yours, have a very weak basis. Not quite as bad as a few at my RfA, but none of the three give any substantial reason for opposing the candidate, in my opinion. Enigma message 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you RyRy appreciate your referral, comment appreciated also from you Enigma. I have returned again under your comment RyRy. Enigma I note that even the candidate states that he understands I have a point - but I am not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill on that point - just that for me it caused enough minor concern to provide a weak oppose rather than an unquestioned support.--VS talk 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...in that case with respect your !vote belongs in the Neutral column. I kid, I kid. It's not a big deal. I don't have a vested interest in that RfA. Indeed, it's been a while since I had a real vested interest in any RfA aside from my own. I just decided to go over and read that RfA, and I was dismayed to see the oppose section. Did you look over the other opposes? I guess what I'm asking is for you to dig deeper with the candidate. Is your oppose really solely based on his using 3+ edits to make one post? Enigma message 06:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • [EC - and adjusted to consider that conflict] *5+ edit posts and they are interesting adjustments* But more importantly I should just briefly add that the concern I have in relation to this point relates to the fact that an admin is often required to make decisions complete with edit summary in a brief amount of time - and as such it is important that as little confusion as possible is created by the words used to accompany those actions. This is because many such actions are followed by a flurry of "gotcha" type comments. To overcome this - as far as is possible - edit previewing should occur. I also doubt that my point in the oppose will negate the success of this RfA - but it is likely to already have assisted X to further consider his edits so that they are written more in a way that assists rather than hinders him (and causes far less grey hair in this job that is otherwise "not a big deal").--VS talk 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No doubt that it's caused him to give further consideration to it. Also agree that it won't be a determining factor in the success/failure of the RfA in question. Finally, more editors should use the preview button, although that has its drawbacks as well. did you recognize the wording opening my previous comment? That comment stuck in my head for the two weeks hence. Enigma message 06:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I absolutely did - and of course I used that comment at the time it first entered your recent thought pattern (as you know) because it came from an editor who detailed that he did not know about the attribute cluefullness but still opposed (rather than does know in this circumstance about the behaviour of previewing). I also understand the Edit Conflict drawback of using the preview button - but it is easy to cut and paste to return to where you wished to put your comment in the first place - and it is surprising how often an edit conflict allows you time to reconsider a first response more carefully and/or to add further detail to an initial draft (although this may be related to the fact that I am not particularly intelligent at times). --VS talk 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hic

Now just remmember me little laddy, that joh the queensland horse who used to fix the races, and mr humph who once tried pushing in front of me in a sydney bookshop too many years ago to remember, they were/are/whatever the supreme vegemites umm wordsmiths of our culture oz heritage, and they need installing in the great hall of oz phraseology - weve stockmans, miners, why not a great big buggers hall of oztrylian phrases of fame - I mean I ask you - why not? SatuSuro 07:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Too right - I couldn't agree more - help the world talk our way - that'd be a f*ck'n pisser. Cheers as always!--VS talk 07:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Just remember where you put the vasline and dont mix it with the vegmite mate :o SatuSuro 07:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Igorberger

Hi Steve,

Would you be willing to reconsider this decision?[4] Today David Gerard indeffed the editor who started that harassment complaint against Igor. life.temp was a sockpuppet of another editor who got indeffed in March of this year, and life.temp was pursuing vexatious complaints against other Wikipedians. See this request for arbitration filed overnight.[5] I think Igor got caught in the web of a rather skilled troll. If there are concerns about Igor's conduct I'll volunteer to mentor him. Since you were the blocking admin, I'm coming to you with this. Hope it sounds fair. Best, DurovaCharge! 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello Durova - sorry for the delay in responding (I have been otherwise detained during this weekend). I appreciate your courtesy in posting this request here first, given that I am identified as the blocking administrator. In truth however I am only the blocking administrator because the consensus of the group reached the stage of indefinite block (rather than a ban) and contained specific guidelines as to how Igor could return to editing. In particular those guidelines included tutelage under Barneca (which is what prevented an outright ban). The fact is that Igor canceled that tutelage despite Barneca's efforts. In addition I feel it is important to reflect upon Igor's total history (not just that related to life.temp) and the fact is that whilst the ban may have something to do with an initial post by life.temp, the community had reached a stage about Igor that was clearly separate, but if that is not accepted, additional to his dealings with that specific editor.
  • To be perfectly candid then despite Igor being given a life line through Barneca - Igor has failed to follow through with that opportunity. This means that Igor has breached the trust of the community by not addressing all of the many, many concerns that it has with Igor's editing style. By not addressing those concerns he has prevented us from seeing if he has changed. To unblock him now would also be in breach of the community decision which is that when Barneca reached the stage where it was believed that Igor had adjusted his editing style - that that believe would be posted at ANI and the community would reconsider its position, based on the facts obtained through Barneca's tutelage whilst Igor remained blocked.
  • I will also add that there are many of us who have been watching Igor's edits on his own talk page and off-wiki since the block - and for example his link to this series of edits of wikipedia are of great concern as they again reflect some of the very problems that the community had with some of the edits of Igor (who also styles himself as a Troll and unfortunately, even he does not mean to, appears to act as one).
  • All of that said you are kind enough (despite the fact that the link above shows detail of him attacking you personally), to offer mentorship - however to me there is a clear difference between mentorship (whilst unblocked) and tutelage (whilst blocked). Importantly I note that Barneca has never withdrawn his offer of providing that tutelage and towards that end, and I say this with the utmost respect for you personally, given an apparently strong personal relationship between Igor and you, both off and on wiki - I think that for the sake of an absolute abiding by the community wishes, Igor should return to the lifeline through Barneca - but if that is now lost (and we will only know by asking Barneca) through the tutelage of another senior editor who does not have a history with Igor.
  • To sum up then, I am not in favour of reconsidering my decision because it is not my right to reconsider the decision of the community in this way. Igor must in my view go through the process that was offered to him by the community - preferably through Barneca (but otherwise a senior editor that is willing to provide tutelage over a period of time) and Igor should remain blocked until that tutelage is apparently over and the matter of his unblocking is brought for community discussion at ANI from where the community can look at the discourse between Igor and his tutor to compare the Igor of old and the adjusted Igor. My best wishes to you - if there is anything unclear please feel free to return.--VS talk 11:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)