See response on my talk page. On another note, if you've built up your mainspace and admin experience since your first RFA, you should make this year. Let us know when you're ready. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I looked at RFA 2. You ran No. 2 too early after No. 1. Now you'll probably have to wait til early Autumn at the earliest for No. 3. I think you'd make a fine admin. I think with seasoning and working on issues in No. 2, you'll make it next time. Do you have an admin coach? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore I don't know about ;-) Seriously, they're too close in time for the issues raised. Still keep working on them and in the Autumn sometime should be okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. I'll keep it in mind. If I do run again, it would probably be October of November. That was the original plan after I withdrew. We shall see! Wisdom89(T / C)17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how adding versions in other media "clutters the page with useless information". Nearly all of the songs on the list in either Rock Band or any of the Guitar Hero titles have a mention that the song was featured in one of those games (which is notable) or any other video games they've been featured in. Reply on my talk, please. Shapiros10contact meMy work20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe it's consensus. Not to start an edit war.
Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate such things, since I was a little blue from things going so badly, give it a while and some more experience under my belt as far as editing goes and I will reapply, but as someone once said, all in good time.--Kerotan-Have a nice day :)23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to shut up and think about the damage your bickering is doing to candidates. If you disagree with someone's RfA philosophy, take it to their talk page to try and convince them otherwise, or take it to WT:RFA to convince the 'crats that the comment should be considered without merit.
That would be fantastic actually. I've been itching to do that, but the FAC was highly demanding (and rightfully so). I didn't have the time to seek out newspaper, offline magazine articles and books at the local library (or amazon), so I placed it on hold after it failed. Graduate school surely doesn't help either. I'd appreciate any assistance you can offer. Wisdom89(T / C)07:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I can help more in content than what the internet can give me (so unless you suck at googling that probably isn't much), but I'm happy to help with prose/MOS etc... ping me if you're working on it and I'll do what I can. giggy(:O)07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I feel you're the right person to ask. What do I do when an admin restores personal attacks because the remover quoted one in edit summary? Is the act just? Ultra!10:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last removal, many were before this one and were more severe attacks: [1]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, CenariumTalk00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm new. I tried to edit a article on the Scrubs television show page. I've left some comments/questions on the discussion page of the Scrubs television show. Can you take a look at my questions and tell me what I'm doing wrong with my edit? Thank you so much.--Meezer4641 (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
regarding this edit. Really, how many rock bands formed in the Willowdale neighborhood of Toronto in august of 1968? LOL... but yeah, again, good work on protecting the article from fans and vandals alike. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you wanna work with me to get the article to GA, clearly there is a lack of enthusiasm, vented on a dislike of conservapedia. Personally I think we can do it, ive worked on much more controversial articles. Its a shame that some people are saying "why bother", but thats never been my attitude. If you are interested let me know. Regards. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, we can start on it tomorrow if you like? Its late where I am now and ive just had to calm a wiki-friend down in a dispute. I'll read the article in its entirety tomorrow, digest it and get some ideas together. Are there any other major contributers to the article who will get hung up if we start making major changes? — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I recieved a message from you earlier, I was hoping you could advise me on how to delete my account I believe I have much to learn about wikipedia before starting a page.
Thanks,
--MarketingVM (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)MarketingVM[reply]
I don't want to bother you, but I recommend you to refrain from participating on RFAs. I have to agree with giggy that you are causing damage to RFAs; also your tread on Golich14's RfA to stop using the troll term. Thank you, macytalk02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall H20 saying that I was causing any damage to RfAs, and even if he did, I would completely ignore it and continue to weigh in on every RfA discussion as I feel all candidates should be evaluated. Secondly, I will again tell you not to use the term "troll". It's borderline incivil, basically just a dig at Kurt. Honestly, if that's how you're going to behave at RfA, then I suggest that you stay away from future discussions as it's apparent that you will only continue to belabor points ad infinitum, derailing the discussion. Thanks. Wisdom89(T / C)02:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. If you are referring to the thread above on my talk page, giggy was talking about a few isolated comments recently where Majorly and I clashed. That's 2 out of..let's see...hundreds or so. At any rate, please get your facts straight before you send me a rather pointed and absurd request not to participate at RfA, especially with a contradictory prefaced "I don't want to bother you" comment. Wisdom89(T / C)02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed— he's not, and is just as constructive as everyone else, if not more so. I'm not sure where you're getting this Macy, as Giggy doesn't seem to have said that... Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
This RFA just started. Please give the world outside of (GMT -5) some time to weigh in. I should have significant support on the west coast and in australia, and those people haven't woken up yet. I will not consider withdrawing at least until after three full days. Please do not be alarmist. JeanLatore (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know I was having a laugh :) What's with everyone being so serious lately? It's depressing. Kind of makes me want to plaster my user page in smiley faces and "cheer up chuck" messages. Naerii17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, god forbid someone think that I would be facetious. It's alright, sorry for responding like that (if it bothered you), it was just the first thing that came to mind when I saw you supporting per his oppose. You're right, RfA is very much a battleground - the irritating thing is that no one is incivil or attack-y as such (and so you can't call them on it); there's just a lack of ... friendliness? mutual respect? IDK. It's weird how otherwise normal people can become complete bitches at RfA. And I'm probably just as guilty of being not-nice as everyone else! As I say, it's depressing. --Naerii17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was contemplating starting a thread about this on my own, but apparently somebody beat me to the punch. RfA should more or less be a civil community discussion, but far too often the supporters become indignant at what they perceive as horrible reasons given by the opposition. You can have that opinion I guess, but, seriously people, keep it to yourself. The next time I see Support - Per user in the oppose section, I'm going to slam my head into my keyboard. Wisdom89(T / C) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my French but it's fucking retarded to support because the opposes don't seem any good. Beam 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it undermines the candidate. That kind of a support certainly doesn't help. It's to make a non-blue linked point. Wisdom89
I totally get you now (now that I reread the pg with my brain turned on this time and per your comment on my page) sorry for the misunderstanding. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm contemplating never running for RFA again." Don't talk like that. You're a brilliant editor who should've become an administrator a long time ago. Wikipedia would be in a world of hurt if it started driving away contributors like you. But I agree, bringing up a RFA candidate's past supports and opposes would be more applicable to an RFB. Useight (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed some of Shoessss' RFA comments haven't been the most constructive. But I've seen you commenting at RFAs a million times and I see "Per Wisdom89" fairly often. I don't think you'll have the same problem. Useight (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
Thank you, Wisdom89, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wisdom89, I was wondering if there is a neat-and-easy way to make graphs and charts on wikipedia. It's seem like there is a wealth of resources that allow you to make tables, but I can't really find an easy way to make a graph. Any suggestions? Thanks!!! ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).
A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)
Your RfA note was short and powerful; to that I say: thanks for noticing!
I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...
In response to your question in a recent edit summary regarding Cloverfield, yes, apparently so. Go to YouTube and search; I've seen the video myself. But I think it's a stretch, at best, to claim definitively that the two audio messages meshed together say, "I don't wanna live". That sound clip is extremely ambiguous played either way, and I'm sure that playing the two together simultaneously doesn't deliver a clear sound. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - but, to my knowledge (and neglecting the fact that the video is ambiguous), YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. Wisdom89(T / C)00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matter of fact, after listening to it myself a few times, it, as pointed out in one of the comments for that video, actually sounds more like "I don't wanna life." Once again, just too garbled to be certain what it says. Any allegedly definitive claims concerning what is said in the clip is clearly original research. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. I respect your opinion, we just had different thoughts. And don't worry, I rarely ever notice different tones on Wikipedia, so in all honestly I didn't even notice any terseness. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding your comment at UAA, after seeing some of the diffs in the AN/I I had no compunctions about blocking immediately and indefinitely. Disruptive username + disruptive editing = indefblock, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sectioning out CP's views on liberalism. I was planning to do so after I retitled the section "Editorial differences w/Wikipedia" to a more general/accurate "Editorial viewpoints and policies", but I was busy with other "holiday slacker" business in real life such as watching the first season of The Sopranos and working out. Also thank you very much for your other constructive edits to the CP article.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that was me. And I didn't see the above message beforehand, so I like to think that I didn't steal it from you. Ha. Useight (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did you make your RFA criteria page. I was thinking about making my own, I just have one issue, I have no clue how! America69 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your support at my RFA. Just a quick comment though explaining my reports at UAA. I didn't want to put it on the RFA page, partially because I don't want to seem all defensive (although I appreciate the irony that this post is going to be doing just that), and partly because I've already got a support vote from you, and me posting will make it seem like I am trying to force you into a stronger support level. Please be assured that this is not the case!
When I report a dubious name at UAA, it is because the name is breaking the rules. Sometimes they are vandals too, but have not done enough edits to warrant a level 3 or 4 warning, and so cannot be reported at AIV. I mention that they are a vandal only account because I believe in including as much information as possible to the admin, but to do it in a concise manner. So I would say something like Name liable to cause offence; edits indicate vandalism only account.
As to your assessment on confusing usernames - I hold my hands up to that and say you are right. I was never entirely clear back then as to what did or didn't warrant a confusing username, and so made errors in judgement. However, since the policy changed (back in April, I believe) so that confusing usernames was no longer reason enough for blocking, I have not reported any more of these.
I mention this, not to try and get you to change your support level, but more to explain my actions. If you wish to adjust your support (up or down) as a result of this post, then that is your perogative, and I will not complain either way. StephenBuxton (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering exactly why we don't cite Conservapedia as a source? Is it just becuase it's a wiki, or is it considered, "unreliable"? Also, not all of my edits about or citing Conservapedia.
There's dispute about this - I think the problem is whether Conservapedia can be considered a primary source. Due to this ambiguity, we should probably keep the direct referencing of Conservapedia pages to a minimum. Wisdom89(T / C)23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I submitted a request to block a chronic IP vandal, who had been warned of the same offense several times within the previous week and had been blocked twice. You declined to block the IP account, stating that the vandal had been incorrectly or sufficiently warned. How was the vandal not sufficiently warned? The talk page had several warnings on it - are you saying that because there was no warning since the last block expired, that it was not grounds to reblock, even though the same vandalism persisted once the account was unblocked? dhett(talk • contribs)23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator, so I cannot decline to block anybody. That note was left for administrators clearing the AIV backlog. Wisdom89(T / C)23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it still doesn't answer my question: what was insufficient about the warnings the user had already been given that led you to attach that note? And if you're not an administrator, by what authority do you make those judgments? dhett(talk • contribs)00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question was inactive at the time of your report, and was, in my judgment, inappropriately warned. Also, any user with "good" standing can clerk/make notations at AIV, UAA, ANI or RFPP etc..etc... Wisdom89(T / C)01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to elaborate? The vandal is persistent and prolific and has been warned of the exact same vandalism scores of times, as documented, so I'm having difficulty understanding what it was that you thought was inappropriate. Thanks much. dhett(talk • contribs)03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wisdom. I'm not here to persuade you to change your oppose. I'm fine with that and respect your opinion. I just wanted to say that after the "block" of reports, I had a conversation with Rspeer here and promised to assume more good faith, though even he said it's a gray area. Even if I don't get the tools, I'll be more restrained in what I put forward. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom, I need to know how to upload photos from the wikimedia, and how to tell if it's OK with the copyright laws and how to shrink a large photo. Right now, I'm looking at this photo for the documentary page Shut Up and Sing at: [6] Hope you will HELP! --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, I didn't forget. Sometimes I just get sidetracked due to work/school. Images has never been my forte on Wikipedia. However, perhaps these links might help you: WP:UPIMAGE and WP:TAG. Wisdom89(T / C)21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That image you linked to above, if it was taken by you yourself, you can release it to the public under GFDL. However, if you just came across it on the internet, then it's likely not-free, or you have to obtain permission from the owner/copyright holder. Wisdom89(T / C)21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom89, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know as well that I meant no insult with my question to you. I fully respect your right to hold legitimate criteria for RfA candidates. Everyone has their own, some less legitimate (Kurt Weber, for example), criteria for the candidates. Yours just intrigued me, as I'd seen you oppose candidates based on mistakes at UAA a couple of times. Mine are quite simple:
1) Good faith editor;
2) even disposition;
3) solid contributions across several areas;
4) good answers to questions;
equals they have my support. I'm a firm believer that editors in good standing, who fit the above four criteria should get the tools. If they would be a "writing admin" -- which I feel we have a dearth of currently -- that's even better. Do you have a basic checklist like this, or what steps do you go through in figuring out who you support? Thanks again for taking the time to visit with me about this. Regards, S.DeanJameson11:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crossposted this to Ryan's page as well.
Would you mind taking a look at how I judge admin candidates, and offering some feedback? I disagreed with you about Mizu, and I know you seem to have different standards, but I respect your opinion, and would like to pick your brain on the subject. Thanks, S.DeanJameson13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind my jumping in, I just took a look at your criteria. It is mostly good, but appears not to account for situations in where there is a lot of evidence of a candidate making mistakes regarding policy and potential use of tools. In situations as such, I personally would recommend the candidate wait several months and get a better grasp on core polices so they don't stir up issues when getting the tools. There are different schools of thought on this though, which is to say that your criteria is simply different than mine, which is also usually quite similar to Wisdom's. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who hasn't had much to do with that page lately, could you clarify:
Is the page for posting names which the poster would like "reviewed" per discussion, or only for posting names which would be reviewed and acted upon by a single admin? - jc3700:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it's for usernames that are obviously against our username policy and require immediate blocking. Generally, discussion on the page is short lived, but you are always able to drop a comment or two if you wish. Wisdom89(T / C)02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typical structure if you want to make a comment (or you can use these T:UAA,followed by anything additional you want to say) but a "required structure" for actually making the report. I typically enable WP:TWINKLE as it's easier to file the report, otherwise you have to type it out manually based on the instructions at [[WP:UAA]. Wisdom89(T / C)02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the format for making the report is "structured", but the format of the potential discussion, isn't, and while "allowed", "typically" doesn't happen? (I'm essentially trying to discern what is "required", what is "optional", and what is "common practice". Both in the in initial posting, and subsequent to the posting.) - jc3703:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not getting back to you sooner. Bout of Wiki-neglect : ) Anyway, yeah you're essentially correct. Filing the report is structured. Comments about the name in question do not have to be. If it's not a blatant offense/violation, then I just remove it (and I'm not an admin). If it's questionable, I drop a note recommending talking, or waiting until the user edits. Discussion is rarely sparked at UAA though, like you deduced. Wisdom89(T / C)21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thought maybe you had missed it in the midst of other discussions : )
The main reason for my asking is both to gain a better understanding of "current practice" (something that, as someone interested in Wikipedias policies and process, I'm usually interested in), and because I was attempting to gain a fuller understanding of your links/opposition in a recent RfA. Thank you for clarifying for me. - jc3721:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure that I answered your questions adequately enough, and to ask if my position on UAA reports at RfA is abit clearer. Cheers! Wisdom89(T / C)08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you did. And thank you for the insight.
However, as I never did get back to it before it being closed (ah the wonders of distraction on Wikipedia, and RL, for that matter), my thoughts are likely moot atm.
As for my opinion, AFAICT (as you've in the past impressed me as someone who tries to be fair), there was apparently more you were concerned about, and only listed those for a specific set of examples. As, while posting anything at WP:UAA doesn't preclude discussion, that has apparently been the main of the common practice. So, as such, anyone posting those names, may not "necessarily" be someone whose discernment should be questioned, but "may be", especially if indicative of something seen, or even "felt". (Which is valid as an RfA response.) So by your responses, you were helping me see the "broader picture", and (would the RfA still be open), you were aiding me in (hopefully) making an "educated" and informed determination.
That all said, it's moot now, and it's probably best if we all move on : )
Generally, any school IP I report has a warning list as long as an arm. It's clear warning them hasn't worked before and (probably) won't work this time. The few (and very rare) circumstances I come across a new school IP I give them the usual 'three strikes', but when you come across a talk page where you have to acually scroll down to get to the bottom of the page... HalfShadow16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support at my RFA, which closed successfully a short while ago. I said it before, and I'll say it again here: thank you for your increasing your support level. You didn't have to, but the fact that you did means a lot to me. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a lot of other cases, I'd say you're right. But I think what makes this one significant is that it's the first time they've appeared on American television in 30 years - since being on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert program in 1975. If they go on to have five other appearances this year, we won't need to list them each one by one. FCYTravis (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom89, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.
- what Ed Poor did 5 days ago to you on CP after your comment on Aschfly's talk page. I am angry for you. That's awfully poor judgement on his behalf and I have opposed his RfA for it and left a note on his talk here. ScarianCall me Pat!11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now we see the punishment for voicing your opinion here [7]. I am a longtime contributor here, and at CP but I dare not speak my mind under my real name for fear of the consequences.--AnonCPeditor (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain me why are you always insulting me every time I say something about Kurt? Or could you please stop bothering me? doña macy[talk]20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting you. I was firmly asking you not to slyly insult Kurt by taking jabs at his reasoning and comments. It's unhelpful and downright rude. I also have no idea what you're talking about when you say "always". I've barely interacted with you, although last time I seem to remember you flatly telling me to stay away from RfA. Now, I'd like to make a request. If you don't have anything civil to say to anyone at RfA, or myself, then please don't say anything at all. Wisdom89(T / C)20:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Kurt's opposes come creates polemical discussions, and can be frustrating for some users. I totally get that. However, please don't misconstrue my comments towards you as insults. That was not my intention at all. Wisdom89(T / C)08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is perfectly fine. I really appreciate the fact that you were willing to tell me that. However, you do not have to justify yourself. You may find this difficult to believe, but I understand exactly where you are coming from.
I have been using Huggle since last February. As time went on, I subconsciously began a cyclical pattern where I would slowly begin to lose focus on what I was attempting to do by fighting vandalism. Thus, I would go through spates of immaculate reversion records and then regress into what, looking back, was absolutely horrendous, rough-shod battering ram-type reverting. I knew this was happening, because I would start getting a lot of complaints from people I had erroneously warned, but I could not identify why it was happening. Eventually, I realized that I was no longer fighting vandalism to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, I was doing it as an "Us vs. Them" type of thing. After that, I tried to keep focused on the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia before anything else, and all the other project spaces exist merely to protect and augment the article space.
A little while ago, I began to read and comment on WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:RFA, User talk:Keeper76, and, to a lesser extent, User talk:Iridescent. This brought me into more meaningful contact with those who really write this encyclopedia. I saw that many of them were frustrated with the way that too many career vandal-fighters knee-jerk revert everything that remotely resembles vandalism without taking two seconds to look at the context. Although I do not think I was as bad as some people were, I still left some to be desired. I decided that I would pay attention, sit back, and take a look around before I made a revert and before I tagged a page for speedy deletion. I also decided that I would do my best to keep my focus on the true goal of Wikipedia.
I'm sorry if none of this is relevant to anything, I don't really know why I wrote 90% of that; I guess I was trying to show how I can understand where your oppose is coming from...
Hi Wisdom89. This is the second time you have removed the MySpace link at Opeth. I think what was previously discussed was (1) that the article passed FA with the link in place, and (2) that WP:ELdoes allow MySpace links when it is one of the band's "official" sites. I would lean towards keeping it there, but there might be some aspect of this that I have not considered... :) Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter further. Per WP:EL links to avoid, myspace is plainly stated as one example. Furthermore, links that do not add anything beyond that which is already contained in a featured article should be avoided. Why do you feel it should be added? Does it contain information that cannot be integrated due to some other issue such as copyright? I don't recall removing it the first time. Cheers! Wisdom89(T / C)03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links to official sites are generally considered appropriate for inclusion, per WP:EL. Note that at the top of the "Links to avoid" section, it says, Except for a link to an official page of the article subject. MySpace links, if official, are generally included in articles about musicians. For one thing, they provide a link to audio files that cannot be integrated into the article, due to copyright. I suppose it would be more important to include the link if it is the only official site for the band, which is not the case here, hence the bit of ambivalence on my part. :) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromoklaquestions?21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for your participating in the account creation process. ——RyanLupin • (talk)13:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page!
Thank you for participating in my RFA. I understand your concerns about my lack of article writing experience. I will be careful and I will think carefully about my actions before I do anything. If you see me delete or protect something and I was incorrect, please tell me.
Since you removed it, I thought I would let you know there is an active section here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SLJCOAAATR_1, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The editor has been very rude, and has no signs of stopping (due to this edit as a good example: [8]). I'm not sure what else to do at this point. I thought the vandalism page would be suitable, since he did an attack after a final warning. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, the problem has been dealt with. That's weird: my first post shows the first few words spaced out, but I didn't type it like that. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your continued dedication and passion to a project that has at times treated you very poorly, it is my pleasure to award you this humble token of appreciation. Pedro : Chat 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!
Hello! My name is Carly and I am a marketing intern for a company called Adventure Central, we are an online travel booking site. I am new to Wikipedia and really need some help learning to edit articles, get rid of vandalism, and so on.
If you have any questions for me I would be happy to answer them!!
Thanks
, 
, or 
).
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg)