User talk:Rudget
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| userpage | talk | contact | past projects | userboxes | miscellaneous | awards | archive |
Contents
[edit] No Such Copyright Infringement
[edit] Thank you from Horologium
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium [edit] Re: It is finished --
Hi Rudget - thanks for the comment at my talk page. As I hope I made clear throughout, I genuinely respected your position on this RfA. Whilst I know that I felt ready for the mop, my feelings are not sufficient for the community to grant me without trust, and the tenure of a candidate can be significant in determining trust. Your comments have made me think, as have most of the opposes/neutrals and at the very least, I shall be even more careful in my early interactions with the tools than I might otherwise have been. I hope that, in a few months' time, I can assuage the doubts that you may still have. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk)
[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, 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)
[edit] A conspiracy, of the Wellwater kind
Hello Rudget, how are you? Could you check out User:Alive Would? Sun? I think I smell a rat. If you want I can give you a list of my suspicions. Thanks, indopug (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- They're similar in so many ways: the creation time just being a small piece of evidence in favour of assuming that they are a sockpuppet. Blocked indefinitely. Quack, quack.. and all that. Rudget (Help?) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow! that was quick; I was expecting another Request for CheckUser. This is his Norwegian Wikipedia account. Can we take action there too? (No doubt he probably has a sock farm there too) Thank you very much for your very prompt action. indopug (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course he has a huge farm of socks, Commons no exception. I actually reported him on the noticeboard some days ago. On no: he has come clean, all socks redirect to him and he has received a second chance, although he got a block today for messing up the categorization of a lot of articles. No need for you to take action there, a lot of users are keeping an eye on him. :) Thanks for blocking him, but don’t expect that to be the last time you see him. — H92 (t · c · no) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Any connection with User:Mortyman? Both editors seem to have a thing for the band a-ha, and both were working furiously on the same article (List of a-ha awards. (Mortyman came back about an hour after Alive was blocked earlier today.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- He's had elaborate conversation with himself if that is the case ([1], [2], [3]). Is that normal for sock-puppets to do? indopug (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Yes I understand and am sorry I caused some heated responses. I will work on dealing with other editors better, you can count on me. I did re-format my user page a bit last night also. Take care and have a good day. JeanLatore (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
