User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Senior Editor II

City of David page

The page on the City of David appears to make bold and unsupported claims about its authenticity and needs further citation and discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.255.114 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Place {{Citation needed|date=December 2011}} instead. That's the proper way to mark that it needs citations. Please sign your posts using ~~~~, thank you.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting on Talk pages

what the hell has wikipedia come to when you have comments made and left for other editors on the actions or use/abuse of bots themselves get reverted as vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.68.89 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's this little thing called a mistake and there's this little thing called fixing it, which I have done. Please do not be aggressive towards editors. They make mistakes too. Also please sign your comments using ~~~~. Thank You.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as unpleasant and thank you. It was a shock, usually bots skip talk pages, that was like a hit and run by two different bots right after each other and was a bit annoying.86.97.68.89 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a bot. I'm a human being.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

I am sorry for the inconvenience I bring to you. Now I think you have helped me finished the "move and paste" process. How can I delete the warning at the top of the wiki article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjzhao (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. Please sign your posts using ~~~~ and use the New Section button when creating a new thread. Thank you.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's all good.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA

I have moved your adminship draft to User:Cyberpower678/RfA so that it does not appear in User:X!/Tally. Feel free to revert me if you disagree with my reasoning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea I saw. Thanks. I am planning for adminship and I want it to be perfect seeing how there is a 40% chance of succeeding. I want to make sure that nothing is erroneous or will hurt me.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with your attempt. Keep in mind that successful candidates have well over 3,000 edits, and you current have about 2,500. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I am not transcluding it yet.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to check out the statistics of successful candidates here. The shortest tenure for a successful candidate in the past three years was 7 months of editing (twice in 2009). Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

...and self-nominations with less than 7500 are pretty much bound to fail. If you have about 5000 and a good nominator, you'll be in good shape. Otherwise, it looks like you "want" to be an admin, and that's never considered a positive (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My advice would be to wait. Per WP:NOTNOW, your editing history has been brief, and because of this, your chances of a successful RfA will undoubtedly suffer. Briefly looking over your recent talk page messages, it appears you are still learning (which is a good thing!), but !voters like to see more experienced candidates. Of course, this does not diminish your chances of a successful RfA in 6 months to a year if you choose not to run now, but I think you should slow down first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning on RfAing right now. I'm just preparing for it. @BWilkins: I would have to find someone respected who sees me fit to be an admin. Then again, asking them to nominate me wouldn't be seen as positive either.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, an un-transcluded RFA will quickly be deleted. The best advice is when someone suggests you're ready, then you're ready. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And that is what I fear, that no one will ever say that.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm; I'd say sometime in the future, maybe after a few months, you would be a more-than-capable admin. At this point, I'd strongly warn you that at this point, your RfA will definitely not pass. RfA !voters, like me, look for things like these:

• Content creation — a good article or featured article, or numerous ones, is usually looked positively upon by !voters. I've written five good articles, and it isn't difficult at all after I got the hang of working on articles.
• Participation in "admin areas" — Admins have access to the "delete", "block", and "protect" tools. A user should demonstrate or explain their need for such tools; not just because the tools' usage is urgently needed, but that you can be trusted to use them correctly an non-abusively. I'd also recommend you to participate in discussions at venues like "articles for deletion", which usually involves referring to policies or guidelines — you should remember policies as well as you can and interpret them correctly.
• Application of policies and guidelines and having the ability to interpret consensus is important. Users, especially admins, should close AfDs based on consensus, not just your view on the situation. You should carefully examine the !votes in AfDs when doing non-admin closures. This page gives some advice and examples on some kind of votes that have little "weight" to them.
• In general, you're not ready yet (and nor am I); several month's experience, typically at least six months, and at least 5,000 non-automated edits (e.g. Huggle, Igloo, and other vandalism-fighting tools) should get you closer to becoming an admin.

HurricaneFan25 22:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but I would add that if adminship was just about whacking the block, delete, and protect, we'd give it out the same way we give out rollback. It's as much about decision-making, and often about knowing when not to push the button. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think giving out the right to block should be given out like Rollback. I do know that it's a much higher level of working just as a bureaucrat is much high than an admin. You see I developed this account to become a bureaucrat or maybe a Steward and use that to take over the world. No, J/K. Actually as I stated on your talk page I have been an IP editor for years and when my IPs started getting blocked or my pages were getting protected, I created this account. When I made the account, I saw the advantages of and the advantages one can get of having an account.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: How do you see the number non-automated edits and the number of auto-mated edits? How do you simply the edit counts of other users? I haven't been able to see that.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing to dig for answers never goes over well :-) I have a link to a whack of tools via a link my userpage ... however, see here to start (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean not knowing how to find out something like that doesn't go well? I could imagine. Thanks for the link.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I meant not know to dig ... when a handful of admins are posting in your discussion about your potential RFA, many of them have a personal "toolbox" of some variety - although not always called that. As an admin, you often have to follow the breadcrumbs to find the real cause of a situation. My advice: learn to follow breadcrumbs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Missed this response. Oh. Well that's embarrassing. For me that is. -.-—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Cyberpower. I don't want to discourage you, but in view of your response some ways above on this page, about your Huggle editing, I don't feel you're ready to be an admin. "I quickly go through edits using a program called Huggle. I review about 60-100 edits per minute. You removing that large chunk of information seemed like vandalism. The program automatically added the warning. Sorry." That response worried me before, when I came to this page, and it worries me more now that I see that you're aiming for adminship, and that you seem to think your edit count is the only obstacle to you becoming an admin. I understand that you want to edit fast, but tools like Huggle don't exist to relieve you of responsibility for your edits. If you can't take complete responsibility for what a tool supposedly "automatically" does, then just don't use that tool. Please take a good look at the box near the top of WP:HUGGLE: "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked." (Bolding in the original.) Right? I was going to write to you anyway, before I saw this RFA thread, and point this out, and mention that "reviewing" 60-100 edits per minute is not the way to do it. Your text at the top of this page, "Please give me details about the revert rather than just a template. There's a strong chance that was an accident" made my eyes bug out a little, because that certainly sounds like you know you're performing too many reverts too fast. A strong chance they're accidents? Please don't focus on racking up edits, and, especially, don't allow tools to speak to users "automatically". Instead let the community see at least a few months of appropriate, unhurried vandalism reverting; otherwise your RFA may turn out a frustrating experience, even if you do wait six months. It's more important to make good edits than many edits, and that's what the "voters" look for on RFA. (Of course also for content creation and experience in various adminny areas, per HurricaneFan and HJMitchell above.) On the plus side, you seem like a very nice guy and certainly not quick to take offense, and they look for that as well. Good luck and happy editing! Bishonen | talk 23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

That message was an apology for a revert I did that looked like vandalism. I reverted it 2 times I believe because that user was section blanking. I wasn't the only user reverting that particular edit. I guess the way I word things come across incorrectly. I of course do take responsibility for me reverts. If I make a mistake, I change it back. There are times when I accidentally hit 'Q' (Revert and Warn user) and I don't realize it. I certainly don't try to hurry to adminship. I don't rack on the edits as quickly as possible just so my edit count is upped. I am reverting at the speed is optimal in keeping Wikipedia vandal free. I could do it much faster but then I will create too many mistakes. I could do it much slower, but, by the time I hit the Q button, someone else already reverted it and in the end, I only wasted time by simply watching other users revert vandalism. If I make a mistake, I revert it and apologize. I sometimes make mistakes. Every editor does. Doesn't mean I am doing it too fast or being inappropriate. There are situations I see where I open the page in my web browser and look into edits to see if it needs to be reverted or not. I check to see if need to manually revert edits, and I have had to do that, or not. If I revert vandalism and get more vandalism as a result, I revert it manually. However, I appreciate your response about my kindness towards people. Much appreciated.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you're happy with your vandalhunting just the way it is, I've got it. Please, there is no need for the talkback templates, I watch my conversations wherever they are. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

I didn't mean to be offensive to you. It may be possible that I do it a little to fast every once in a while. I'll watch out for it. Your TB wishes have been respected. You will no longer receive a TB.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying that one of the areas that you want to work is ANI isn't going to win you any supports due to ANI's, rightful, "drama board" image --Guerillero | My Talk 01:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your input. This is not at all discouraging, just input to improve on. I hope when the time comes and one of you feels that I am ready for adminship, that you may consider nominating me for adminship.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Cyberpower678. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied. No need to send me another template; I'll keep an eye out for your reply. By the way, you may want to make the font and text color on this page be a little more...respectful (?)...to the eyes? It's making my eyes hemorrhage trying to read some of it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm able to see it and read it just fine. My don't hurt at all.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage

Any chance you could... tone it down? the large writing and strong colours make it difficult for me to read, I can't imagine how bad it must be for a user with poor eyesight or colourblindness! Worm^TT · (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my Christmas theme.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On a highly related note, please take the yellow out of your signature. It's incredibly difficult to read. --erachima talk 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)]

My signature changes color depending on my current Wiki status. Click here to see the list of status's my signature has.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then, please pull yellow out of that list, because it's very hard to read. And stop forcing all my comments to render in comic sans. --erachima talk 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Woah there. I believe I can choose how my page should be rendered. I also believe I can choose what color my signature has. I believe what you are doing to my talk page will corrupt the current setup and I'm going to have to ask you to stop trying to render it your own way using the </div> tag. I'm also going to have to ask you to be a little more respectful.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have control over your own comments, not other people's. I have merely politely requested you to change --and have now gone out of my way in order to ensure the remainder of the page's formatting is preserved-- but this part is not a request: Do not co-opt my posts into your "whimsical" kitschy eyesore. It is an unacceptable alteration of my message. --erachima talk 00:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not have my comments made to violate Wikipedia:Accessibility. You're the one who picked the theme, you can clean up the archives. --erachima talk 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cyberpower, your talk page is ridiculous. It exists solely for people to communicate with you. People who need to communicate with you don't want to have to strain their eyes to read what's being said on a dark green background, they don't want their comments rendered in white Comic Sans, and they don't want you to reply to them with a signature that's the same colour and thus invisible. The community is very tolerant of what editors do with their own userspace, but only to the extent that it doesn't affect other users. The formatting of your talk page is becoming disruptive—you want to be an admin one day, so look at my talk page, look at Xeno's, look at 28bytes'; we're all admins and none of us prettify our talk pages like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please get rid of the background or at least make it readable. It's practically impossible to read. HurricaneFan25 00:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Guess it's time to give up. Me and my autistic stubbornness. I really need to work on that.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess everyone is right. No matter how many times I try to make my template readable and Christmasy, I guess I was too stubborn to realize that the sole purpose of my talk page is for communication. Decoration is for a house and not a talk page. Thanks HJ Mitchell for making me see that (the hard way). Honestly said, I can really be stubborn and that is something I really need to work on. My layout is universal. All of my subpages alter their layout when I change one of the subpages in charge of that. I would appreciate it that if I get too stubborn, someone please give me a smack in the face.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought

I notice that a number of editors have left comments requesting that you use less garish colors in your signature and in your talk page design. I notice that in almost all cases you rebuff their suggestions. If you intend to run for adminship someday, keep in mind that being stubborn is not a quality that we look for in admins; instead, we like to see admins who are responsive to people's concerns. If you keep telling people, essentially, "I'll do what I want, I don't care if your eyes hurt", I can assure you that it will adversely affect your chances at RfA. Even if you decide not to run for adminship, being responsive to people's legitimate concerns is just a courteous thing to do, and makes life more pleasant for everyone. I hope you will consider moving a bit in that direction. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Granted. I will tone the colors of my pages however, this user is the first to complain about the colors of my signature. If I receive more complaints about my signature, I will change that as well. I do not wish to change the major setup of my user space based on one complaint unless, it violates Wikipedia policy.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How's this?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you changing it, but you now have a dark green signature on a dark green background. 28bytes (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I think you're going to run into a lot of needless trouble if you stick to the position that you'll only change things if they violate an explicit policy. There is something to be said for doing things to make other editors' experience more pleasant, regardless of whether you "have to" according to some rule. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

FAIL. On the other hand, you can still see. My signature is rarely green these days because I am so busy with school work. On top of that this template will be reverted to its standard layout on New Year's. Then again, you can't. If it's something major being changed, like how my userpage looks, I would rather have more than 1 complaint. This is because if one user finds it an issue while everybody else doesn't, then it's just a personal preference of that user. If more people complain then, I can see that numerous are having issues with it. If it is something major that is in violation of a policy that I am unaware of, I will change it immediately. If it is something minor, I will change based on a user request. Changing the layout of my talkpage as well my signature is what I consider major and would like to have more than complaint before I change. Think of it as a nomination to change something major.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, after so many complaints about the userpage colours, I'm quite pleased to see you change it! As you can see, I also modify my signature occasionally (add a splash of colour here and there), but it's aways readable ... no issues with yours right now (at least on a normal background). Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was too stubborn and thickheaded to realize that the true purpose of a talk page is to communicate, not to decorate (which is meant for houses).—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Other experienced users have effectively covered the things I would say. I would still mention contention creation though; I find it difficult to support - and often won't support candidates that don't have any content credits to their name. I'm not saying handful of Featured Articles, but a couple of DYKs and perhaps even a GA once you've got the hang of it. DYKs do not require amazing prose, and 1500 characters is not much at all. In addition, correct application and understanding of policies and guidelines are fundamental, as well as being able to interpret consensus. However, the best piece of advice I can give you is to bide your time. The incident I blocked you for was quintessentially how not to edit war, and the more time that has transpired and things you've attained since then, the better. I suggest that you wait 9 - 12 months, as I do not expect an RFA before then to pass at all. But please note that "not now" does not mean "not ever". WilliamH (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. Thanks for your advice. Question: I was blocked for edit warring and the reason given was oversight? I'm confused. I thought I oversighted.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oversighting is an enhanced form of deletion. Normally, administrators like myself are able to view deleted edits that editors without admin rights cannot see. Oversighted deletions are not visible to ordinary administrators and are put in place by admins who also have Oversight rights.

Having a block on your log would not be viewed favorably in an RfA. With additional oversight issues? Really not a great start.

I would forget about adminship altogether for the time being and concentrate on editing articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for edit warring, you were blocked for the manner in which you did. Your comment above rather suggests to me that you still don't fully grasp why you were blocked. I agree with Jim - adminship is a long way away at the moment for you, and I would suggest you focus your efforts in another area of Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what I did wrong. It was "The incident I blocked you for was quintessentially how not to edit war"stated by you that confused me. I am well aware of what I done and give my best efforts to avoid getting blocked for that or any other reason. I am an editor of good faith who wishes to help contribute to Wikipedia. I realize that my block is a shutoff to an RfA and I personally don't feel ready myself yet for I see that I have a long way to go. I merely wanted opinions from very experienced users about me and wanted their input about they perceive me and if I could be a trusted admin, if I ever become one.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Being able to realize your errors and being able to learn from them are traits that we definitely need admins to have, in fact not just admins but all users. WilliamH (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I always try to. Thanks for your help.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're up for more learning today, allow me to introduce you to WP:ENGVAR. Changing an editor's British English spellings (i.e. realise, favourably) to American English spellings is frowned upon, especially changing their own talk page comments. (See also WP:TPO.) 28bytes (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you know. I learned 2 things today. Changing English to American is frowned upon and that what Firefox marked as incorrectly spelled was English and not American. Am I still allowed to type in American?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, type in American all you like. Just don't change others' comments to American. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I thought they were typos. Guess not. Side question: is your watchlist loading because mine isn't?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't. Is now. Sometimes there's a lag, nothing to be alarmed about. 28bytes (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm open to tutoring where you could give me something new everyday until there is nothing left to teach.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell ya what, every time I see you break something, I'll let you know! Like, f'r instance, removing other people's comments from an RfA. That's another big no-no. If you no longer stand by a comment you've made, but someone has replied to it, it's better to strike the comment. You wiped out Reaper Eternal's comments and WFCforLife's neutral vote with that edit. 28bytes (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea I saw I did that by mistake. I will strike my vote next time. Thanks for offering to do that. I appreciate it.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 11:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, don't do that to my comments again! :) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry :( —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Things to learn

If you're after, as you put it, "something new everyday until there is nothing left to teach", then you should perhaps seek out someone prepared to mentor you through Worm That Turned's adoption school or a similar program. It doesn't teach you anywhere near everything that you would need to know to operate successfully as an administrator, but it does teach a lot of important information for operating successfully as an editor.

Places to find people willing to help with that include Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Or this talk page! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that Worm That Turned... ah, that's me... doesn't have quite enough time to take on full adoptees at the moment. However, I might in the new year. The idea of the school was to give you a good idea about large parts if WP in a lesson format... if you read it all, you should do well :) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will consider it.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 11:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review your reversion of my edit

You (automatically?) reverted my edit of the Sanfilippo syndrome talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3aSanfilippo_syndrome?diff=466078786 in which I removed a completely irrelevant comment. Please take a look and consider reversing your reversion of my reversion :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.66.19 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of that comment. If you feel it needs to be deleted, fine, however, it seems like someone is requesting help.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for homework help. Wikipedia:DYOH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.66.19 (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please sign your posts with ~~~~, thank you.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Attitude Issues

hello, excuse me..i want really know what is my attitude (i'm writing here to not make a long section of me in the other page)? i mean..is it normal that something universally recognized like a science is in doubt? i know that somebody hate psychology but this don't changes the facts..imho Psico pp (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You should note that the thread you posted to on the Talk:Psychology page was pretty much finished in August ... and the issue was resolved :-) PS: Cyberpower would probably prefer you add your posts to the bottom of this page instead of in an unrelated thread (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ah ok, was resolved, so anybody can't talk about it..m mmh...btw, i'm not talking with you ;) Psico pp (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You can discuss it ... but did it need to be discussed further since it was resolved? Article talkpages are to discuss improvement of the article, not philosophical continuations. I became further involved because, as an administrator of the project, I noted your rather inappropriate discourse at requests for permissions. It is for that reason that I provided you with a link to Wikipedia's civility policies in-depth, and that I will continue to be involved if similar "angry" exchanges occur. I also happen to have Cyberpower's talkpage on my watchlist ... and talkpage stalkers are not necessarily unwelcome if it helps resolve issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

philosophical...anyways Psico pp (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BWilkins. Psico PP, you are now auto-confirmed. Your attitude issues has been described by BWilkins. My hinting of a possible legal threat came from you stating the reliabilty of Wikipedia. I have seen comments like that escalate to legal threats which results in the indefinite blocks for users.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 13:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the answer; i don't know every rules...it's my fault, i know. But i only would to know, who are the people who decides if someone can edit or not something. If there are many sources, who decides who is right? (this is not a provocation). Psico pp (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on WP:CONSENSUS. If there are issues obtaining consensus, then we have dispute resolution processes that can be followed. When done right and in a collegial/collaborative manner, it works quite well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

mmm..so if there are more people against an argument, or a science, even they are wrong, the majority wins? Anyway...i will not go on forever, i will do things according to your rules. Maybe something will change Psico pp (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:CONSENSUS and democracy are two different things...we're not a democracy. It's all about the strength of arguments and the linkages to policy. I have seen deletion discussions where 2 people gave strong policy-based arguments, and 15 people gave "because I said so" discussions, and consensus favoured the 2. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ah ok then! ;) thanks for clarification Psico pp (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Psico, here are some tips for when conversing on mine, other user's, and your own talkpage:

1. When posting comments or responses, even on your own page, you should sign it with ~~~~. This is something you seem to be getting the gist of.
2. When responding to a comment, to keep consistency, it is encouraged and recommended that you start your response with 1 more : than the previous response started with.
3. When the indentations get too much, you can always use {{od}}.
4. When starting a new discussion on a talk page, it is correct to start a new section by clicking on the "New Section" tab on the top of the page. There you can fill out a section header and start the discussion.

I hope these tips help.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ok! thanks for this too! Psico pp (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more helpful tips:

1. Users get an e-Mail message every time a change has taken place on their talk page and that may annoy some users. It is best to use the Show Preview to see what you outcome looks like so you can make any necessary changes to your message before saving it.
2. If you like to customize your {{od}} template to match the length of the longest indentation, you can also use {{od|number of : in preceding thread expressed in digits or :}}
3. There are also {{tb}}'s. These templates allow for a user to let the other user know that the y have a message waiting for them by simply posting it on their talkpage like I did to you. You may wish to click here to view more information about how this template is implemented and used.
4. Did you know that some Wikipedia users are just automated bots? It's true. There are automated programs running an account and these programs were by numerous Wikipedians. User:SineBot is and example of one. If there is a user who fails to sign their signatures, it will sign it for you and if the user is new, give the user a message about how to sign their posts. Other bots include User:ClueBot NG is another common bot that scans for vandalism and reverts it while issuing warnings to users and reporting them if they commit several violations. My talk page is managed by a bot called User:MiszaBot III. It's job is to archive my threads after they remain inactive for 3 days. I could set up something like that if you plan to be a long term user and plan to interact with more parts of Wikipedia.
5. MOST IMPORTANT: It is extremely helpful to use proper enough English when talking to fellow Wikipedians so they don't have a hard time understanding what one writes. It is crucial to use proper English, spelling, and grammer when contributing to articles. Typos are allowed but, too many of them may be mistaken for vandalism and may get removed.

Here's a not so indented comment.

Here's me customizing it.

I hope this information was helpful as well.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

lol! I'll never stop to thank you? Psico pp (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Do you plan to stay here and become a Wikipedian or are you just here for a short time?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

mm..i think that i am not suitable for that :) for now, i have to carry on my personal battle :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psico pp (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Expectation management

Literally not a wise idea to make this type of comment. Although his contribs so far seem okay, what's the real rush of giving confirmed if he doesn't intend on editing something that needs it yet. He can edit 95%+ of the articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

True. One of the articles he was working on appeared to have gotten Semi-Protected and as a result, can't edit it. I believe he can be trusted with confirmed status or am I wrong?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

He probably can be, but I'm going to defer to the original reply...multiple overly contradictory responses don't come across well without a real good reason (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 10:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions is not a discussion like RFA. When GB Fan asked a question of the user directly, there's no need for further discussion until the editor returns to reply. In fact, a very contradictory statement ("go ahead, give it to him") just changes the expectations of the editor. As it is, they're not going to to be autoconfirmed, but they'll at least be confused (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So may statement that this user can be trusted with confirmation shouldn't have been made. Sorry.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 10:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4

Hi Cyberpower678. Just to let you know, I've reverted you here. It seems that Q13 was initially skipped over, but it was then commented on in the discussion section, and then Σ asked Q13 and commented here. It was all a little confusing as a result, but the questions should remain in the order in which they were asked. Thanks and let me know if you have any concerns. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikichecker

Saw your question on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed#User:Endtocyberbullying: WikiChecker is known to give errors frequently, you just have to keep retrying after a bit. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of giving errors, it's a matter of it not being able to access it and constantly gives me a 403 Forbidden. I have to refresh about 100 times before it loads.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely what I meant :) I think rather than refresh it 100 times in a row, you should just wait a bit, it seems it works from time to time ie, doesn't work for 5 mins, works for 10, and so on Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I think that might be an access issue concerning the server rather than an error in the page.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Over-enthusiastic anti-vandalism...

You might want to slow down a little with the Huggling... Some of your anti-vandalism work is a little over-enthusiastic. For example, you gave an IP a level 1 vandalism warning here: User talk:69.116.68.52 for formatting a paragraph and another IP a similar warning for formatting an infobox. Have a read of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, there's some useful info in there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that myself which is why I am taking a short break from Huggle right now and working elsewhere in Wikipedia. It appeared to me that the edits were harming wikipedia and I reverted it because of the appearance of vandalism. I am strict about vandalism and always have a warning sent if vandalism is apparent. If I am unsure but the possibility is strong that it is vandalism, I will usually just revert it.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably best that you err on the side of caution. If you are unsure then never ever revert. I know I err that way :) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been seeing err a lot lately. What is err?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Er... it basically means to make a mistake - or if you "err on the side of caution", you act in a less risky manner (Of course, to err is human...)Worm^TT · (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is specifically a deliberate, malicious attempt to compromise the project. Also have a read of WP:Vandalism and WP:AGF. Warning templates are useful, but should only be used where appropriate and with common sense. For instance, a couple of days ago you corrected what you thought was a spelling mistake in a comment I made on your talk page. If I was so inclined, I might have been tempted to issue a TPV1 warning. Then I might have issued a tempabuse2 warning for the huggle incident and then maybe even a agf3 warning... But what would that have achieved? Other than to leave you on a level 3 warning and open to a block if you made another mistake? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'm here, I should mention that the edit you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Hicks, in which you deleted a question asked by an IP editor, was not really such a good idea. As asinine as the question may have appeared, deleting it goes against WP:TPG. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 11:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Although, "errr" is also a vocalization like "umm" ... I'm sure I can "errrr on the side of caution" too :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Please limit your non admin closures to places where is it blatantly obvious that a user will not get confirmed status, such as when the user is indef blocked. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on pattern of not receiving confirmation any other admin may have declined stating that they have 8 edits before they are auto-confirmed. Furthermore, he didn't state what the copyright statis of the photos were and I don't want to sound rude but, that I is something I saw that you failed to do.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Assume good faith"

Did you read WP:AGF as I suggested? How do you think the level one vandalism warning you issued at User talk:109.78.206.92 squares with it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. It appears I accidentally reverted a page without noticing it. That page should not have been reverted. I will fix my error immediately. By the way, I did read it.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the reversion, rather the warning you issued to the IP editor. They added incorrect information, but the assumption you should have made was that it was due to a misapprehension on their part rather than due to deliberate and malicious attempt to damage the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the problem is, I didn't even mean to touch that article at all. As you are aware of, when hitting [Q], it will revert the edits and warn the user automatically. It is possible I may have accidentally hit that button without realizing it. As I said, I am fixing it and I already reverted myself on the article and am about to remove the warning.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I am beginning a log and for logging purposes, could you please you the link in my header or my edit notice when filing a revert error. You may also click here as well.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Briefly going through your edit history, I've caught ten instances so far where you've issued warnings to new editors for edits that were not vandalism. That's ten new editors who may have been scared off Wikipedia for good. You should probably rethink using Huggle. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is not vandalism. Placing "RAWR" or "I feel a story coming on omg" or replacing "garbage" with "rubbish" or "this person was also a murderer" was not vandalism? I have to disagree with that. I felt that these were justified responses. Could you please enlighten me what I should consider doing differently?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's some...

• Issued a level 2 warning to User:62.30.147.204 after they legitimately removed nonsense text from Tyne and Wear Metro that was a copyvio of this: Huge removal article content w/o providing a summary appeared to be blatant vandalism. No summary was provided justifying the edit.

• Issued a level 3 vandalism warning to User:72.241.221.229 for adding the sentence "Many teachers usch as ms. hunker help." to an article about a school, Toledo School for the Arts: I wasn't the only mistaking that for vandalism.

• Issued a level 1 warning to User:Clogdiver for an attempt to legitimately redirect from Dan Warton to Dan Worton: I helped this user out once I discovered what his intentions were. The blanking of the article appeared to be vandalism.

• Issued a level 2 warning to User:78.86.229.119 for engaging in a discussion on a user page: I caught myself and reverted my edit as I realized it was a talk page edit.

• Issued a level 1 warning to User:Dingowasher for editing Billy Davies to accurately reflect the fact that he was sacked several months earlier]. I initially ignored this until I realized he was writing was sacked by nearly everywhere on different articles and then I started taking action.

• Issued a level 1 warning to User:72.188.47.24 for correctly updating Where in the World is Matt Lauer?: The IP user complained and justified his edit in which I sincerely apologized. I wasn't the only person who did that.

• Issued a level 1 warning to User:109.176.212.87 for correcting spelling on Potter's wheel (IP user changed US spelling of mold to UK spelling mould as used in original insertion of the text in question). Now that I know the UK spell it that way, I will just say that was a mistake that at the time I thought was vandalism.

• Issued a level 1 warning to User:69.116.68.52 for formatting a paragraph: No reason I could give for that revert. I take full responsibility for my actions. I don't even remember why I reverted that.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I am going offline for a while as my Wikistress meter is indicating.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that. Identify some subjects you know a lot about, or are in a position to find out about. Improve their wikipedia articles. How about the town you live in, or a hobby of yours? The raison d'etre of Wikipedia is the content. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

May be not but, I am incredibly stressed right now coming from elsewhere as well which may be affecting my Wikipedia performance. Above I provided reasons to every edit you gave me. I will admit that I made a mistake on some of them and shouldn't have reverted in the first. I will assume I probably did it carelessly and didn't even realize it. I have begun to be more cautious and careful when I realized I was causing issues.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you've refactored my comments, this time by inserting text into the list of Huggle mistakes, making it difficult/confusing to follow. Please don't do that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for not responding to your post immediately. Since I realized I was causing more disruption to Wikipedia than usefulness due to my stress, I decided to go on a temporary Wikibreak until some of my stress was relieved. When under consistent stress, I tend to perform a little off balance. About your comment refactoring, I was merely trying to be convenient for the both of use. After getting accepted to Penn State, my holiday vacation from school beginning my stress started to decline. I'm still a little stressed with holidays and everything but, I should be able to manage Wikipedia. I would appreciate you becoming a mentor of mine to guide me around or give me a nudge if I am erroneous in carrying out an edit.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 14:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly enthusiastic... I'll keep an eye on your edits and step in here and there if I see things going awry.

One thing that I would avoid is getting too involved in admin-type work too soon. I know you're keen to get a mop some day, but if there's one thing that kills an RfA quicker than anything else, it's over-eagerness to become an admin. Take Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giftiger wunsch for example, a very competent candidate who ultimately failed due to appearing to want it too much. Steer clear of the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions etc., and contribute some content. Articles about Pokemon probably aren't the best place to focus if you want to demonstrate maturity. Wikipedia:New pages patrol is another great place to contribute, but take it very slowly and only nominate in pages that clearly fit into one of the CSD criteria: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Otherwise tag the pages sparsely (no more than two or three tags) and add some categories. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The other thing to watch with new articles is to not tag them too quickly. Give the editors a few minutes at least to build something and then only tag them as A1 or A3 after a minimum of ten minutes. Pay strict attention to the wording of the criteria in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Thank you. I will. Just got back from my holiday shopping. What a chaotic event. All that traffic. Ugh.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)