User talk:Kntrabssi/archive/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. I also appreciate the help of a third party stepping in to give warnings; warnings from the other party in the dispute are rarely met in a receptive manner. Happy editing. Leebo ^T/C 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking in

Was that information useful? Is there anything else I can do for ya? Let me know. -Mysekurity 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I sit here again at work, waiting for synthesis to complete, and I see that WP:AIV peaked at 5 backlog again earlier today. For some sick and twisted reason, I still want to help. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Yes, I am interested in being adopted by a vegetarian Wikipedian.

I would at first, though, like to add some colorful logo-buttons to my User Page, to link some of my interests.

Maynard s. Clark http://Maynard.Clark.GooglePages.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetarian (talk • contribs)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: ersonal Attacks

Fair enough but i would like to know if Don-J also received this warning as he posted personal attacks geared at me (in addition to a threat to stalk me, while most likely not serious I am sure it was against some part of the TOS). Cosmic Larva 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- I was refering to: "Yeah im a stalker and im gonna stalker you next," which he posted on my profile talk page, it's not much serious but I was under the impression comments such as that were not allowed. If you're not going to do anything about it I understand since it wasn't really malicious, but my comments weren't really that harsh either to be fair, excluding maybe a few curse words. If that's the reasoning here that's fine I was just wondering. Cosmic Larva 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez

What's the matter? Your request for semi=protect was denied? You can't spread false info and have it stick pal. learned your lesson? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.64.187 (talk • contribs).

Try to remain civil, please. As it happens, the request was re-instated. Please stop revert warring and instead, discuss your grievances on the article's talk page. Thanks - Alison^☺ 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Rick Sanchez

Hello Kntrabssi and thank you for contacting me. I've reviewed this article again as you requested, and I'm still leaning towards declining semi-protection. However, it's really on the borderline of protection need, and since another admin leaned towards granting semi-protection I'm going to semi-protect it for a while. That should dissuade the persistent user disrupting it. Best regards, Hús ö nd 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man

Someone told me that if I explained why this should stay on Wikipedia, that I could remove the lable to be deleted. Please see the Discussion page for why I think that this article can stay on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennin (talk • contribs)

Message from Usmcman

wats ur prob man im just foolin around leave my stuff alone, k! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Usmcman (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

replied on your talk page.

Editor review

I've made some comments on your editor review. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kntrabssi! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael / 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Sorry about the strange removal, but I've been having some problems with moderating. It should be sorted now. —Xyrael / 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You know you just warned a bot w/ VandalProof .... right?

Matinbot is an anti vandalism bot designed to automatically revert vandalism, it looks like a freak edit conflict caused the bot to insert that material but still..... VandalProof warning the bot just looks, well, odd.... we have a mistakes page (the bot is pretty darned good, but it's not perfect) if you see anything in the future. :o -- Tawker 05:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page

Whats ur problem man!

Im just trying to educate people for life, they really need to know this stuff. i even bet it will be in textbooks and school books someday because of how awesome it is. oober pwnage bro! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Usmcman (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

About the copywrite

Yeah well its not really taking it and copying it from anyone if im the one that wrote it. i wrote rules to relax and posted it on blogspot. so there pure pwned again! man im on fire! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Usmcman (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Never mind the above. They are trying to reply to me. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.

Dear Kntrabssi/archive/2,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

OK, why not? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider holding off for at least a month before starting another nom - RevRagnarok is a great candidate but you will see opposition of "too soon after last RfA", etc. I would hate to see another one fail. --Mus Musculus 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Until I accept/decline, nothing official happens. According to the nomination page there should be a space before the 2 (I guess to show it is not another user named RevRagnarok2). I also think the previous one should be linked to let people easily see it. I partially agree with Mus, maybe we should wait a bit longer. Is anybody else watching here and want to throw in their two cents? :) Tonite after work I will fill it out. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put it up, and I had an oppose !vote almost before I had chance to update my talk page about it. I wasn't under the impression that any of the oppose was "come back later after more experience" which is the only reason I can come up with off the top of my head that I would've needed to wait longer. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I'm glad you recognised your sentence of "I fully understand that none of you will read this, you will just add 'Oppose' below just because the other people did" as seen here was an overreaction. I haven't decided whether or not to participate in the RfA.

I will say that userboxes are a more valid reason to oppose than another I've seen, namely "I don't trust people who like cats." Though I think that one was for a neutral. --Kyoko 05:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... I don't know. I have a lot of things on my mind right now. One thing to keep in mind is that people have different standards of what an admin candidate should have already accomplished. I think I have pretty high expectations for candidates compared to many, though I don't go so far as to require so many thousand edits or a certain number of featured articles. I tend to prefer candidates who have written articles, or at least had substantial editing experience (i.e. not people who primarily participate in deletion or policy discussions). I personally expect admin candidates to have experience in areas that they say they will be active in, and I browse through their contributions. Above all, I expect candidates to have a consistent record of not losing their temper. That, for me, is far and away the top priority for me. Anger tends to lead people to make unwise decisions, and that coupled with the ability to block or delete pages is a very bad thing in my opinion. A candidate may have tens of thousands of edits, or loads of featured articles, but if the candidate has a repeated history of hothead behaviour and/or blocks, then I will oppose.

Have you considered posting your ideas to the RfA talk page? I wouldn't want to think of ideas by myself. I'd be willing to give my input towards a collaborative effort, but I don't want to have to think of things by myself (especially since I'm working on articles too, as well as dealing with real life concerns). I'm sorry if this disappoints you. --Kyoko 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

more RfA thoughts

I can't get to sleep, so here I am. I've been thinking about what you were proposing. In the current RevRagnarok nomination, you say, "his first nomination was shot down for the most ridiculous of reasons". I think that people should be free to use whatever criteria they see fit when choosing to support, oppose, or remain neutral. Your statement suggests that you disagree with that viewpoint. The reasoning behind a given person's opinion may seem superficial or ridiculous to another, but that's their right. This is part of the reason why we have bureaucrats to decide whether a particular candidate has gained sufficient trust by the community; they (and each individual participant) can decide how much weight to give to a particular opinion. This is why RfAs aren't strictly votes.

I don't think I'll participate in the current RfA, but I do want to point out that the reason many people are opposing is that a second candidacy, begun scarcely over a week after the close of the first one, comes across (at least to me) as being like a sore loser who doesn't want to accept the results of the first RfA. Rather like applying for a job, not getting hired, and immediately applying for the same position at the same place, you know? I'm not saying that you or RevRagnarok are sore losers, but the rapid renomination just creates an impression of wanting to defy the community's will. If RevRagnarok wants to seek adminship in the future, I would strongly suggest waiting 3 to 6 months to allow any raised tempers to subside. I'm sorry if this disappoints you. --Kyoko 09:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC), stuff in green added 14:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I really have to go, but I also think that reasons to oppose like "I don't trust Germans" are ridiculous and in this case, offensive. Nonetheless, I don't see how you would codify what is an acceptable reason to oppose. I think requiring a candidate to have written/contributed to a Featured Article is too strict, but that's just me. Maybe if there were a reminder for people to review an editor's contributions. With RevRagnarok, many people feared that his political views would enter into his actions as an admin. I didn't vote in that and would probably have been neutral. --Kyoko 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RevRagnarok's RfA

I'm glad that RevRagnarok chose to withdraw his RfA, but I'd still like to answer the questions you left on my talk page. First on the issue of his {{uw-vandalism4im}} on user:iloveunicorns I'm afraid you and RevRagnarok are wrong about this. The user only edited the Bruce Campbell article once before the warning was issued. The two other examples that RevRagnarok mentions are from different accounts - one an IP, the other from User:Elcamino88. Honestly, this is eactly the sort of mistake that an admin candidate shouldn't make.

Second I'll be happy to expand on why I believe your nomination statement contained a fairly significant assumption of bad faith: "It should be said that this is his second nomination, after his first nomination was shot down for the most ridiculous of reasons". This is incredibly insulting to the opposers of the first RfA (and note I was not one of them). This is, whether you like it or not, assuming bad faith on the part of the opposers. Indeed the nomination itself show contempt for the opinions of those who expressed an oppose. Even if you think they were all wrong to do so, you should follow our guideline and assume good faith. This is a particularly important skill for an admin to have and the fact that RevRagnarok chose to accept your highly charged and offensively worded nomination reflects badly on him, unfortunately. Gwernol 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious Interests

I'm having difficulty spacing and seeing extra marks appear. Is there a Wikipedia for dummies resource?

Maynard S. Clark 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) vegetarian

Adoption

Can you adopt me, I play sax, guitar, and love music. User: Green Day Is The Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Day Is The Best (talk • contribs)

Template

I found a template for adoption saying " This user has been adopted by user. Is the one you were talking about? If not put the name of it on my talk page and I will put it on my user page. Thank You --Green Day Is The Best 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I was on one of the levels of vandalizing page and it said this is your last warning etc. Is this just showing the template at the top or is telling me, even though I was just on that page. Green Day Is The Best 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please notice that user Andrewben continues to modify the John Kenneth Gormley wiki entry to remove a site that offers critical commentary of the talk show host's content. It's a relevant link.

Thanks,

Dave -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.10.27 (talk • contribs)

Colorado Avalanche

I stated in my edit summary to look at the talk section! Fighting for Justice 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, we should take it to mediation. I don't think the incident merits its own section. A line or two is more then plenty. And I would inform you that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article should be about things that shaped and altered the franchise. Besides, give them bad press the incident did none of that for the franchise. Fighting for Justice 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read

Wow, I can't believe that we have stooped so low as to oppose people not for WHAT they are saying but for how they are typing it. Kntrabssi 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you re-read what I said without the preconceptions, you'll see that I was refering to what was said, not how it was typed. WP:AGF and stuff. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page

Categories: User talk archives

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

User talk:Kntrabssi/archive/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Thank you

Checking in

My RfA

Adoption

RFA Thanks

RE: ersonal Attacks

Rick Sanchez

Re. Rick Sanchez

Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man

Message from Usmcman

Editor review

Welcome to VandalProof!

Welcome to VandalProof!

You know you just warned a bot w/ VandalProof .... right?

Whats ur problem man!

About the copywrite

Thanks for your support.

RFA

more RfA thoughts

RevRagnarok's RfA

Serious Interests

Adoption

Template

Vandal

Tags

Colorado Avalanche

Re-read

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search