User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 5
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Bash.org AfD
Thanks for the advice on the two bash.org drafts. I wasn't sure what exactly was needed to be done with them, but I relisted them as part of my rounds on the AfD page. I'm still new to all this, bear with me! :P Mo0[talk] 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Halloween crab
I was about to tidy up the halloween crab article that you started when I ran into problems. There are two species to which you seem to be referring: one is the halloween crab Gecarcinus quadratus, a Central American crab, and the other is the halloween hermit crab, Ciliopagurus strigatus (or according to some sources Calcinus spp.), a Hawaiian hermit crab. You give the scientific name of the former, but describe it living in abandoned shells, surely the behaviour of the latter. I'm happy to edit an article about either, but we need to decide which. Which did you mean? --Stemonitis 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I seem to have gotten two crabs with similar names mixed up. I will take a look later, but irritatingly my IP has been blocked, and the admin who did it (Curps) doesn't have an email attached to his account, so I'm stuck only being able to edit my talk page, and can't ask him to sort it out. Bah. Proto t c 07:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Proto, the article that was deleted under AfD was completely different. Therefore, CSD:G4 does not apply here. Please do not mark it for speedy deletion; let's allow the new AfD run through. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 13:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
rm Kathy Lloyd?
You seem to have removed the Kathy Lloyd link from Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years page with the comment
09:43, 12 December 2005 Proto (rm Kathy Lloyd - nn page 3 girl).
What does "nn" mean in this context? The article doesn't seem to have been created, and there seem to be lots of links for the person in Google. Any reason we shouldn't be trying to make such an entry? GRuban 21:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Boldness on AfD
I'll be honest, I worried about putting that many articles back up. I just have to work on the boldness part of closing AfDs, because right now I'm afraid to close anything with a low vote count. I guess I need to learn that I can use my own judgment on the article, that I'm not just an automaton. Thanks for pointing that out. (Well, you didn't point THAT out, but you made me realize... bah, I'm confusing myself.) Mo0[talk] 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey man, thanks a lot for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. PS. You're totally right, Eliza Dushku is damned fine. ;) - FrancisTyers 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD
You realy should say something other than just "delete". Lots of admins will just chuck it out if you don't. Even just "delete per nom" is enough. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
war on blogs at WP:AN
Just to let you know there is a discussion about the war on blogs going on at the administrator's noticeboard and you might want to chime in if you get a chance. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Proto
Yeah, I'm still around that joint, though there's not a lot of motivation to be active. Got "Fed Wars" going down at the moment following a contraction (lost two regionals, one national's about to be demoted). I had a stint as a commish, Burnt's off the EC and playing again, and the game's going through one of it's periodic "yes, we need to change to recruit new people" times- talking about a new site-name and shift away from wrestling to combat sports in general, to attract a wider audience. Je ne suis pas convinced. --Lawlore 15:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Main page
(sniffling) Tears of joy Proto, tears of joy. Marskell 09:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
RFA questions
They were just meant to be an experiment, but I suppose it's been running long enough that I can propose having them added to the template. Thanks for the suggestion! --Deathphoenix 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your nickname
I just thought I would let you know: your nickname in my language roughly means - mind's. Simply mind is protas. Cheers, Renata 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
RfA for you
Hey Proto, I've started your nom which is not yet live on the RfA. Accept the nomination here and then let me know and I'll throw it up (I'll kick around till about 6:30PM GMT) or you can add it the page yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proto. Cheers and good luck, Marskell 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nice. All good I think. Marskell 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
My opposition to your RFA
Hi Proto!
There are a couple of RFA votes which I reacted negatively to. On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hamster Sandwich you openly declared "Editcountitis for life!". On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980 you also opposed the candidacy giving less than 1000 edits as a reason.
Now, I have myself said that a candidate with only 500 edits almost certainly has too little, yet I would support that person if, in the course of those 500 edits, the person has used 150 edits to article space and talkspace to produce 3 featured articles (that's definitely enough experience with creating an encyclopedia), used 20 edits to participate with thoughtful discussion in 20 *FD debates, 20 thoughtful edits on policy discussion (OK, knows policy), created 5 useful templates with 5 edits, 5 useful categories with 5 edits, and the remaining 300 edits on reverting vandalism, and other janitorial tasks (so we see that the candidate can make good use of the tools) as well as having demonstrated a calm and civil demeanor. I would support that candidate even if the 500th edit (a typo correction) had been left out bringing the number down to 499. I think a candidate with such a record deserves to have an RFA judged based on the contributions and not have it dismissed out of hand purely because of a minimum number of edit threshold. In the case of Hermione1980's vote, I felt that you on a rather inflexible manner opposed a conscientious user of the "show preview" button who had accomplished in 900 edits what most people would have done with about 3000.
The problem is that making votes based on such reasoning suggests superficial thinking and that such thinking can lead to poor decisions being made when carried over to some of the administrerial tasks such as closing tricky AFD debates.
Regarding the AFD, it was Rx StrangeLove and Dmcdevit who explained the concerns. AFD changed its name based on a suggestion of Rossami to emphasise that AFD was not supposed to be a vote even though vote count is part of the decision process when the closing admin gauges the consensus. (See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Oct 2005#Name change (again). I do expect admin candidates who plan to close AFD debates to be aware of such fundamental aspects of AFD.
One thing I can say is that I definitely don't consider you too "deletionist" to be an admin, after all, you voted "keep" and "lost" in this debate and you belong to the best association AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. But really, one would need to behave really irresponsibly on AFD before I opposed someone because of such things, things like voting to delete articles because they contain typos or voting to keep protologisms because presence in Wikipedia proves that it's used. Your voting is absolutely responsible even though I don't always agree with it.
Also, your work in the article space is excellent, with several good articles, and one featured article is one more than I have :-). So you might say that my "oppose" is of the weaker variety, and I will not be sleeping poorly at night if your RFA succeeds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
195.92.67.75
Tell him to do his own homework. ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Your RfA
I think I'm more concerned about the notion of votecounting. Let's take the case you noted: 18 vote to delete and 2 vote to keep. How will you close if the 18 have said "delete nn" and the 2 have given some, perhaps borderline case for notability? Or would you consider the strong majority to be an unbreachable consensus? I know this sounds like a trick question! Sorry. It's not meant to be. I had qualms straight away after voting, because my natural reaction is to support good editors for adminship, so I'm very amenable to changing my mind. As to the other thing, I have 1000 edits, I think, so I'd pass your standard (and despite appearances, I'm not a monkey), and I think having a rough idea of "been here long enough, done enough" is fair enough. I just have qualms at your apparent willingness to apply a rule rather than look through a person's contributions. Of course, that doesn't bear on your use of admin powers! But it shows an inflexibility (which might only be apparent rather than real, I do realise) that worries me slightly. James James 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
RFA
Thanks for asking. I can think of three things off-hand... first, the issues given by some other opposers seem to indicate that you rely too much on strict numbers and votes. This is a common understanding but points to lack of experience; Wikipedia is not supposed to be bureaucratic. Second, most of your Wikispace edits are to either RFA or AFD (although the participation in RefDesk is nice). There's a wide selection of other processes you could take a look at, e.g. Category:Wikipedia maintenance or Category:Wikipedia backlog. And third, if you want to see what the life of an admin is like, watchlist WP:AN and WP:ANI and join the many discussions there. Happy editing! Radiant_>|< 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have noticed that a few users have mentioned that I would be incapable of understanding consensus, and would rely on just numbers. I think the whole issues stems from me using the word 'vote' to describe it, because people do vote, and as soon as I said that, I've doomed myself. I honestly do undserstand what consensus is, and have done quite a lot of work to achieve it in the past on contentious main space articles (such as Talk:Abortion and Talk:Terri Schiavo - I think much of the same applies on Wikipedia: pages. For some more on consensus in AfD, please see User:James_James's talk page, where I think I explained myself reasonably well; I'd be happy to try and clarify on any points you would like to ask on this, if you wish to. It's a little bit frustrating, as I really do understand consensus, but have not been able to explain myself properly.
Your other concern - I've been involved in many areas of Wikipedia; I have done quite a fair bit of category fixing, and wikified a lot of articles that needed wikifying. I've moved pages. I've also done work on requested article stuff (not the articles themselves, but tidying up the pages, and so on). I've posted on WP:AN from time to time ([1], [2], but admittedly not much. To be honest, many of the discussions there are about blocking, which is something I have no involvement in. I haven't used the incidents at all, I do confess. I realise that it's the place for administrators to be informed that their assistance is requested (it's sort of the Admin bat phone). Anyway, I will check out the old WP:AN a lot more often whichever way the RfA goes. Thanks Radiant. Proto t c 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
RFA and GNAA
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my comments.
I am used to disagreeing with people in AfD discussions. That is par for the course and I don't expect anyone to adhere to my views, which are fairly inclusionist. If our difference stemmed solely from opposing viewpoints on blog articles, I would probably support your RfA.
However, I have difficulty accepting your explanation for why you swore allegiance to the GNAA. Furthermore, your claim to naivete is difficult to fathom:
- When I said Timecop was my hero, I thought it was just a bit of fun, and I certainly wasn't aware he was the leader of the GNAA. I actually had to look up what GNAA meant.
At the time you signed the petition, less than 3 weeks ago, the user's page clearly stated affiliation with the GNAA and sported a user box marked "hate". [3]. At the very least, this user page and talk page messages above your signature should have raised some concerns. Moreover, this is a group that puts up userboxes praising Osama Bin Laden and accusing the jews of having "done the WTC". Are these ideas that you support?
Checking the contribution histories of Timecop and other signatories would have shown you that these users contribute solely through AfD nominations and voting. Their comments in AfD discussions are consistently derogatory. None of that seems to bother you, both when you called Timecop a hero, and to date, since you have neither denounced the approach of this group, nor retracted your signature. -- JJay 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
RFA
I have gone through it and know how hard (or not hard) it is to get involved. It takes restraint and tolerance of other people's opinions and beliefs about you (Lord know I had to put up with some outrageous ones against me). Something an admin realy needs. I'm sorry, I jsut don't think you're ready. Come back in 3 months.Gator (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings from the WP:NOT Bonk-ee
Thanks for your message. À votre question: Oui, car j'habite à Paris. Je parle mieux que j'écris - c'est pour cela que je suis au niveau '4' sur ma page d'utilisateur. "Cet utilisateur parle français"... : )
That "list" has become the Streets of Paris Wikiproject so no problem at all - it's still in the "getting ready" stage but we'll be off and running soon. If it interests you, please feel free to participate!
For the adminship thingy, it's no big deal at all - I just thought it useful to add my two cents to clear things up. You seem to be quite popular and well-liked so I'm sure you'll be the same as an admin. Are you French or French-speaking?
Take care,
RE:Hi Adam
I said that 'Timecop was my hero', not 'The leader of the GNAA was my hero'. I did see stuff about GNAA on his user page, but there are so many userboxes and things on people's pages nowadays, I don't bother to find out any more about any of them. If I'd have said 'the leader of the GNAA is my hero', I might have bothered to find out what they actually were. Now I have (and I only realised it was so controversial when it started getting mentioned in my RFA), I've taken my name off the list on Timecop's talk page. Proto t c 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you send me a link to it.... I might change my vote to looking for a reason to support or something --Adam1213 Talk + 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 08:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Star, Mississippi
When I taged this for CSD, it did seem to qualify under CSD-A1, very short, providing no context, a substub at best. Your additions have blossomed it to a full stub, and I totally agree it does not qualify for CSD now. Thanks! xaosflux Talk/CVU 21:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Your RfAdm
Hello,
In your RfAdm page, you stated that you did not know what the GNAA was before a few days ago. Accordingly, I did a search for the words "GNAA" or "Gay Nigger" in your contribution history, and that leads me to believe that you did know who they were. I have posted to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Proto, you may wish to respond or clarify on that page. -- Curps 05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for your supporting vote! With a 71/1/0 vote, I've been given sysop privileges! Just like any admin, I'm open to suggestions about backlogs or areas to improve.
Now, to go about disrup—improving Wikipedia...
heheheheheh...
Your RfA
Hey Proto, non je ne suis pas français (mais canadien). Gotta stick by your allies, and we seem vote on the same side about 90% of the time on AfD (which is a vote, dammit, whatever the wishy wasy newspeak we have now) and I think you have been sandbagged by a handful of people. Next time, tell ya what, I'll vote to oppose and maybe alleviate suspicions that you are joined in the forces of evil ;) Anyway, remember what Napoleon said: L'art d'être tantôt très audacieux et tantôt très prudent est l'art de réussir. Cheers! Eusebeus 09:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say good luck on your RFA. The votes are becoming more like Political Campaigning (eg, trying to find irrelevant junk while ignoring the integrity of the person) —This user has left wikipedia 18:22 2006-02-01
- In full agreement with the sentiments above. I'm sorry your Rfa did'nt make it, this time. Please don't let it discourage you! Should you run again, rest assured you'll have my support again as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Your RfA did not pass
I regret to inform you that your RfA was closed today by bureaucrat Rdsmith4 as a no consensus RfA. Please do not take this as a condemnation of you or your contributions to Wikipedia. RfAs are only an assessment of the community's opinion about your potential as an administrator at this point in time, not for all time. I encourage you to take the lessons from your now closed RfA and use them to improve yourself as a Wikipedian. You are of course welcome to apply again for administrator rights at a later date. I recommend you wait at least a month, if not two or three months. If you have any questions on this, please feel free to ask me. --Durin 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear about that. Still, I hope you have better luck if you decide to try again in a few months. All the best, smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
- It's a shame, but I'll be rooting for you next time around. Best of luck and happy editing. --Merovingian {T C @} 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also sorry it did not work out for you this time around. You may count on my support again as well in a month or two.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- 71.0% support is not so bad. May be you can reapply in 1-2 months time. Good luck--Ugur Basak 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Proto
I do appreciate your support. And I would very much appreciate your help;). The site is really notable as far as it develops the games for a great amount of platforms. Would you please contact me and let me know how can I impro ve the article on Absolutist Games. Greetings from Casual Gamer!!!
Your RfA
Hi, Thanks for the note. I feel it's quite likely that I'll be able to support next time. You know my reasons for opposition this time - I'm sure they won't be valid next time. Best of luck! Dlyons493 Talk 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just wanted to say the same. I appreciate that you told me, and, if you do run again, just leave a message and I'll most likely (assuming you improve as expected) vote for you! --M@thwiz2020 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
RE:your rfa message
I was thinking about sending my own one out about my failed RFA but I dont know if it would be more spamming people with the ammount of votes I have (mainly opposes) However at the start of my next RFA I think that I will contact everyone that voted about it. The opposes can oppose again stating less and less reasons to oppose. --Adam1213 Talk + 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
RE: Your RFA
Sure, I said what I thought nothing more. I hope you take all those votes to heart, especially the opposes and neutrals. -- §Hurricane[E]RIC§Damagesarchive 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
And another
I didn't get your message because I didn't participate, but I did watch your RfA very closely. There were several "oppose" recomendations that were, well, poorly considered. However, there were some that probably do bear thinking about. The civility/confrontation issues are fairly mild, and the reminder that this RfA will serve will probably ensure that they aren't an issue in the next one. The AfD thing will need some fixing, though. No one will care how old the comments are if in the interim you haven't demonstrated that you're au fait with the whole vote/consensus thing. WP:DRV is a good place to demonstrate this, and if you make consistant rational contributions there several off the people who opposed with notice. Oh, and thanks, I'm filing out the name change forms right now...
brenneman(t)(c) 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to vote for you as I've been really busy recently. Hope you're more sucessful next time. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Not my RfA... but e-wrestling.
Hey, Proto, sorry to hear about the RfA.
I wondered if I could drag you back into the debate about links on the e-wrestling article? I have currently been bold and removed all, asking for verification of notability before they're re-added. Any contribution you wish to have in the discussion would be welcome. Thanks. --Lawlore 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Chuckled...
I don't know why I found this so funny, but congrats on making an old Dark Lord chuckle. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)