User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#-1) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#1) ➡️

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/32🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳
1	Thanks	2007-07-12 16:18	2007-07-12 16:18	1	400	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
2	Thanks	2007-07-12 19:31	2007-07-12 23:29	2	435	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
3	Thanks #5309	2007-07-13 00:06	2007-07-13 00:06	1	304	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
4	Thanks	2007-07-13 01:31	2007-07-13 01:31	1	102	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
5	Ral's RfB	2007-07-13 01:11	2007-07-13 02:13	3	3821	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
6	My RfA	2007-07-13 04:21	2007-07-13 04:55	2	338	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
7	WP:CHU	2007-07-13 16:22	2007-07-13 16:26	2	971	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
8	Usurpation and edits	2007-07-13 21:02	2007-07-13 21:02	1	1804	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
9	Talk Page?	2007-07-13 21:39	2007-07-15 00:56	13	8386	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
10	Padraig	2007-07-14 08:17	2007-07-14 08:17	1	179	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
11	Thank you	2007-07-14 10:49	2007-07-14 10:49	1	162	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
12	login problem	2007-07-15 01:53	2007-07-15 01:53	1	674	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
13	bureaucrat edit summaries	2007-07-15 02:02	2007-07-15 02:02	1	631	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
14	Database lag	2007-07-16 02:08	2007-07-17 01:17	9	5199	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
15	My RfA	2007-07-16 21:20	2007-07-16 21:20	1	299	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
16	Writing style	2007-07-17 06:24	2007-07-17 06:27	2	658	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
17	Thanks	2007-07-18 12:58	2007-07-18 12:58	1	88	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
18	Thanks!!	2007-07-19 00:32	2007-07-19 00:32	1	465	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
19	Re: New username	2007-07-19 03:34	2007-07-19 03:34	1	77	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32
20	Vandalism	2007-07-19 15:18	2007-07-19 15:18	1	341	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/32

Thanks

Thanks for your message. BTW, my username tells you exactly where you can find me at CMU when I have nothing else to do on campus and/or in the surrounding area. I mostly edit anonymously these days, and use my account only when absolutely necessary. Scobell302 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For renaming me, much appreciated. Fpt 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job at WP:CHU, Andrew. Have a good day! —Anas ^talk? 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks #5309

Hey I see you get a lot of thanks for renaming, just wanted to add mine...;) Also, if I ever want to get rid of the redirect from my old name, would that be a problem? Dreadlocke ☥ 00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the rename. --B 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral's RfB

I have moved your comment from the RfB because it is now closed -- Cecropia 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You said:

Well I guess I sort of feel like this conflict of interest is being handled backwards. The Signpost, as part of the press so to speak, tries to be objective, but as we know well on Wikipedia, truly objective statements are difficult to come by on contentious issues, thus our NPOV practice of covering all differing viewpoints equally. The Signpost does a good job, but it's still no more and no less than a newspaper. Therefore the Signpost should be taken as critically as any press outlet would be in the real world, be it The New York Times or FOX News. Organizations like the Times make an effort to be impartial, which is why they are respected. If Ral become a bureaucrat -- evaluated on his merits, as he should be -- then people who are concerned about the conflict of interest would start treating the Signpost less like the Times and more like FOX. This is the wrong way to go about handling the COI. When Mike Bloomberg ran for mayor of the New York City, nobody said, "I won't vote for this man because, as leader of a financial news service, now my financial news will be biased, and will influence viewpoints regarding the Mayor's economic policy." To use a more hypothetical example, if Frank Rich ran for President, people wouldn't complain about how the Times would become more biased, they would vote for or against him based on his merits as a leader. If the Times' editorial neutrality suffered, Rich would be fired. Basically what I'm saying is, if anything should happen as a result of this perceived conflict of interest, Ral should be evaluated on his merits, and if made bureaucrat, be made to step down by the other Signpost editors/community at large, or alternately people would just trust the Signpost less (if its neutrality did in fact suffer). Nature abhors a void, and probably we'd end up with a competing newspaper. But I don't understand a reason in all of that to oppose his bid for bureaucratship. Andre (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is inappropriate, Andre. I didn't think it would be a problem until I saw quite plainly that it was a problem. A problem in the here and now, not a theoretical problem. Please try to understand this. It is especially important that you understand this since you are now a bureaucrat yourself. This issue was brought up early in RfB and many people thought that there was no indication of COI whatever. Then near the end of the fifth day of the RfB an article appeared in The Signpost which both alerted readers to the fact that Ral was running (canvassing) and then wrote a kid-glove description of his RfB. User:Michael Snow, who I believe4 started The Signpost, just today amended the standing article to make it balanced, a tacit acknowledgment that it was biased. (His edit summary says "additional quote to balance story"). Please understand that bureaucrat is not an award, a goal, an honorarium; it is a job of trust where, if that trust is lost, the process becomes worthless. It is not a judgment on Ral that we wasn't promoted; it was an understanding that news writing and a position of making judgment calls do not mix. Michael Snow acknowledged that himself in his choice of an additional quote to balance the article in question: "In discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, JayHenry argued that there were enough other trusted people to fill the necessary roles, and that "separation of powers is a principle that is good for societies of any size". -- Cecropia 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I wish to withdraw my RfA per Discussion:Neutral by User:Giggy. Thank you. --User:Charitwo/Sig 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the process for withdrawl, but an administrator closed it before I could do anything. --User:Charitwo/Sig 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Hi Andre, Thank you for wading into the change name pool. Your help (and Deskana's) is keeping WP:CHU up-to-date!

I would ask though, that when you mark something  Not done, please leave a reason; it isn't always evident. I had to look through yours to figure out what was wrong. Requesters do need to know exactly why their rename was skipped, even if the note only says: "per reasoning in clerk's note." In TinBug → MyTinbugger I am guessing you marked it "not done" because the user didn't confirm, but you didn't say that and you barely gave the requester 4 days. I would give at least a week and then explain the reason. Cheers, Cecropia 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the quick response. Oh, I should have mentioned that if you have a policy question per CHU, don't hesitate to ask WjBscribe. I think he's more up on that than just about anyone. -- Cecropia 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation and edits

Hi, let me link you to a few of the recent discussions on this so you're fully informed about what's going on. I have myself been keen to expand usurpation to certain cases where the edit history is trivial- in particular cases where very old edits were quickly reverted or were only to sandboxes/userpages. Rdsmith4 has expressed a willingness to perform changes in these circumstances - see this archived request by way of example. As you will see, Nichalp objected strongly to the request despite Rdsmith4's assent and tagged it {{notdone}} - follow up discussion between them can be found here and here. Obviously in practice given that neither would reverse the other this stalemate prevented such requests - as there is a period of 7 days in which they can be rejected. When Secretlondon took over performing these requests I raised the question again when this archived request was made - as you see she also declined to perform a usurpation in these circumstance, but expressly said she had no objection to another crat does so. The issue hasn't come up while Cecropia has recently been performing renames and I had rather resigned myself to thinking about proposing a change in the policy. That catches you up on the opinions of crats who have been involved in the process so far. WjBscribe 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page?

Hello Andrevan:

You asked for a consensus before making a change from "Discussion" to "talk". The proposal has been open now on the Village Pump for three weeks, and the balance, as Omegatron said, is on the change side. Given that even you refer to Talk pages and have a Talk page, could you let me know what you concern is about labelling all Talk pages as talk, instead of "discussion"? Bielle 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a very speedy response. I thought that the Village Pump was where one went to try to get concensus. In the same thread there was the change proposed to the "+" sign, which appears to have a concensus, as that change has been made to "leave a comment". I have no interest in wikilawyering, so I am not going to count the number of editors who responded to the "+" debate, as opposed to the "discussion" debate, not what happened in the votes. No one has countered the only reason I gave for the proposal:it makes it transparent to a newbie what a "talk" page refers to. If that's not a good enough reason, then, indeed, there is no reason to change. Thanks again Bielle 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. That's the odd part. Omegatron writes both on the Village Pump page and on the Mediwiki page that he/she has made the change. I can't see it, nor would I know how to find out if it had been done and then reverted. Bielle 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be sure that I understand this: you reverted the Omegatron change of "discussion" to "talk"? (I am having trouble following this, not being any Wiki expert.) If that's so, why didn't you just tell me that you were over-riding Omegatron's decision? What you led me to believe was that a "bold" trial run was still a possible option. If I misread the page history, then I apologise for being annoyed at something that was not your doing. When a Bureaucrat over-rides, the rest of us step back.

As for your recent reversion in respect of the "+" sign, the people who have commented are likely to be only those who don't like it. Those who like it are mostly inclined to say to themselves "Oh yeah, hmm, that works" and go on about their wiki business. I know that you will have considered why the "no" sayers have objected in taking your action. I wouldn't myself think you could assume much from a few hours' trial, but your experience is much greater than mine. Most users have not had time to notice the change or to assess it, so you have cut off even the potential for a "Hey, wait a minute, I liked that change" vote. Bielle 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Consensus link. I did know the concept, and had read it , but a review never hurts. We have tried the Village Pump and by your assessment we did not get consensus and did not have enough editors involved, and, as a consequence, you undid the second option, which was to try it out and see what response we got. Now, you are recommending we "advertise" the proposal better, presumably to get a bigger audience and a possible consensus for change. I need your knowledge. Letting people know about an issue via their talk pages is considered spamming and is a sure way to get shot down or blocked; we've already done the Village Pump which I thought was the way to advertise. How do I advertise it better? This is not a rhetorical question. I would appreciate your advice. Bielle 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was just a simple idea to help some newcomers connect the wiki talk with the wiki discussion. What you are telling me is that the process to effect such a small change is enormously bureaucratic. I have spent enough time already. I will leave it for another generation to try. I am overwhelmed by the promptness of all your responses. (I am copying the paragraphs from this page onto my Discussion page so that the whole of the conversation is in one place, should some stronger editor wish to review it.) Bielle 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be difficult, though that was not what I said. "Enormously bureaucratic" means, to me, "extremely tedious". If you know a way to get around tedium, I'd be very grateful to hear your suggestions. Bielle 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have copied this whole dialogue onto my discussion page, I have made my response there, and will continue to do so should there be further commentary. If this makes problems for you, I can always copy back and forth. Bielle 00:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus for "talk", but there's also no consensus for "discussion". You (Andre) seem to be defending that something is better or should be kept just because it got here first. A.Z. 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By happenstance, I came across the following comment you left on A.Z.'s discussion page:

Like I said, one way to get a consensus is just for something to be around for long enough with no objection from most. Also, I find Bielle's message above to be overly adversarial and antagonistic. Andre (talk)

In respect of the first sentence, it is difficult to have something be "around for long enough with no objection from most" when the attempt by Omegatron to do just that at WikiMedia was deleted by you almost immediately. That is, of course, your privelege and the privelege of any other admin who took exception to the "test". It does seem a little disengenious of you, however, to make the suggestion to A.Z. when that very process had already been tried by Omegatron and stopped by you. I am sorry that you found my comment on his page to be "overly adversarial and antagonistic", but I am completely baffled as to why it struck you in such a way. I had already said the same thing to you above. ("What you are telling me is that the process to effect such a small change is enormously bureaucratic. I have spent enough time already. I will leave it for another generation to try.") I don't see either "overly adversarial" or "antagonistic" in either this statement or the one on A.Z's page. It is only adversarial in the sense that the complications of the process have defeated me; it is a turn of phrase, a common metaphor, unless a process can be deemed to have attacked. I am tired of the entanglements, but certainly not antagonistic, and A.Z. is certainly "another generation", if not two. Perhaps I just need to polish up my writing skills. Bielle 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (Copied to my discussion page).

I just noticed something. My statement on A.Z.'s page was "The bureaucrats won." It was not meant as a personal remark, being both lower case and in the plural, whereas when I used "Bureaucrat" to refer to you, specifically, above, I used a capital letter and the singular form. However, I can see where "The bureaucracy won." would have been less open to misinterpretation and personalization. I will make the change on A.Z.'s page. It was a matter of writing skills, after all. I am sorry to have created an occasion for unhappy confusion. Bielle 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I said that there was no consensus for "talk" and there was no consensus for "discussion". Andre said:

"Like I said, one way to get a consensus is just for something to be around for long enough with no objection from most."

Then Bielle replied to Andre:

"It is difficult to have something be 'around for long enough with no objection from most' when the attempt by Omegatron to do just that at WikiMedia was deleted by you almost immediately."

I keep my original remark. Bielle made a valid point above, adding yet another argument against Andre's rationale: there's no way to ever get consensus by having something around for long enough if he doesn't let anything be around for even five minutes. Plus, "discussion" does not have consensus, according to this view of consensus-reaching: it simply does not have no objection from most. A.Z. 23:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on my talk page on Bielle's talk page. Please, let's stop discussing this issue on three different pages. A.Z. 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Padraig

There are no contributions or existing userpage under this name, so how was my request to change my username rejected.--padraig3uk 08:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the welcome message!

Good timing by the way, July 4 is Saint Florent's day in France ;)

FlorentGD 10:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

login problem

Hello! I am user ro:Utilizator:Bekuletz on the romanian wikipedia. I have a little problem with my en.wiki account, it seems i've lost my password. I can't remember when I created it, and I think I have not confirmed my email address for that account. I have made no edits on en.wiki using the username User:Bekuletz. My confirmed email address for the ro.wiki account in bekuletz@gmail.com. Can you reset the password, or delete the account so I create a new one? Please answer on my ro.wiki talk page, or send me an email to the address I have mentioned. Thanks! ro:Utlizator:Bekuletz --01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

bureaucrat edit summaries

Hi. Unsuccessful RfA candidates will always be disappointed, as you know, and there is only limited power to the practice of euphemism, but could I still suggest that there must be a more diplomatic way of phrasing the edit summary when you close/remove an unsuccessful RfA than "(failed)". Please bear in mind that the first official word the candidate receives of the result may be seeing that edit on his or her watchlist. A phrasing such as "no consensus to promote at this time," as other 'crats have used previously, would be a good deal more courteous. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Database lag

I can tell when you're renaming someone because of the lag I get on my watchlist. What an odd way of tracking someone else's actions :-p --Deskana (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think every revision that's ever been made to an article is its own record in the database... and it's got to modify every single one because of the username change. That's my hunch, anyway. It makes sense, given that renaming users with more edits causes more lag and takes longer. --Deskana (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You see, that's what I thought too, especially given that renaming an account doesn't change the User ID, but only the username. It's make sense that it caused lag if it changed the user ID. Maybe the primary key for users is a composite key that involves the username... and it just takes a while for a cascading update to complete. It's all speculation, anyway. --Deskana (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed off laziness-4 and speculator-5. :-p --Deskana (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

180 seconds lag, and the first thing I checked was your log. And you'd renamed someone. :-p --Deskana (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I was browsing through your talk page because I clicked the wrong link on my watchlist, and I saw this discussion... :P the reason renames are computationally expensive is due to the way the revision table is laid out. Every single edit has a corresponding entry on this table; for performance reasons, the table contains rc_user, which is the User ID of the editor, and rc_user_text, the actual username of the editor. When you rename an editor, Special:Renameuser crawls through the entire table (which in the English Wikipedia, has about 145 million revisions, as of this time, and is spread over more than 5000 data blocks), and replaces the old username in rc_user_text with the new one. While the table is optimized with an index for these sorts of things (and also for things like looking at Special:Contributions), it is still a massive operation. While reading from the database this way isn't horribly bad (or otherwise, it would have been restricted a long time ago) because there are several slave database servers that handle reads, writing to the database is much more complicated, as all the edits have to be forwarded internally to the master database server, from which they are replayed back to the slaves. If you modify 50,000 revisions with one operation (like renaming Mav), then the difference between the counter inside the master database server and the slaves exceeds a trigger value. At that point, the servers are instructed to allow no more expensive queries (such as internal searches, updating the watchlist, and failing that, new writes to the database) until the databases synchronize back to normal levels of lag, or what we normally experience as a database lag or lock. Additionally, you have to update the entry on the user table (not that bad), and rename a lot of pages under the user's userspace (causing even more entries on the revision table, making the slave-master differential even larger). Notice that Renameuser only updates rc_user_text, not rc_user, so that is a hint that the user id of an account is not updated. However, the real reason behind them not being updated is database integrity: the user id is the unique key of the database, and having a gap there can cause some real issues. If that hasn't made your head spin, then also remember that Renameuser does not even touch the archive table, where all deleted edits are retained, nor the hidden table, where oversighted edits are stored. There is a switch for making the extension look at the archive table (I don't know about the hidden table), but the developers have said that they won't enable that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I suspect that is what happened at (removed) (the earliest edit is a year older than the rest, with admin rollback to boot?), but I'm not sure what he was renamed to in the first place. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

172 seconds of lag, by the way. :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the only way to reattribute the edit to the new account is through developer intervention... thankfully we can see deleted contributions now and avoid this mess. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the message. I will no doubt rely on the many who have been at it longer before long (and hey, this is the first page where new buttons show up). Thanks, and I'll do my darnedist to earn the trust shown by the community. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing style

Although I recognize that your well-intentioned suggestions, for which I thank you, do not seek or require any substantive response, I am compelled to say one or two things (succinctly!) but in the interest of keeping your talk page free of a topic that is really only tangentially project-related/keeping strings of expletives off-wiki (j/k on the latter, I think), I'm replying via e-mail; I hope that's aight. Joe 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of having at least one user whose sentence structure is typically more complicated than mine. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with my name change! Brad 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for fulfilling my usurpation request so promptly! Maxim 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: New username

Thanks! I appreciate it.

Isaac 03:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't know what to do but look here... TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)