User talk:John254/Archive 5

User:GamePlayer623

Could you do me a favor and block the Ip users who's been vandalizing my page for sometime now? He won't stop. Thanks. GamePlayer623 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from 0L1

I was about ot remove some vandalism on the William Shakespeare article, but you had beat me to it! Being fairly new to RC patrol, what is the quickest way to revert such edits? Thanks for the help. 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 17:25 22 2006 (UTC)

The quickest method of reversion is the use of a rollback script. To install the script, you can copy the text of User:John254/monobook.js into User:0L1/monobook.js When viewing a diff that includes the latest revision of a page, you should see a [rollback] link, that, when selected, will revert the page to the last revision not by the latest editor. John254 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 18:57 22 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection policy

You recently added quite a drastic change to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy concerning the protection of policy-pages, but I don't believe that two days of discussion constitutes a consensus at all. This requires a much wider input from the community, and there were indeed quite a bit of opposition to this policy. It may be best to first seek input from administrators and from more people from the village pump and give this a few weeks before making any major changes such as this, as this essentially rewrites the semi-protection policy. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the above statement by Cowman109 is misleading. As JYolkowski, the only editor who objected to the proposed amendment, stated "it is absolutely not a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand [at all]." [1] Cowman109's purely procedural objection to the amendment, on the basis of its failure to follow the policy making process that he has invented is spectacularly unpersuasive since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Furthermore, Cowman109 has essentially taken the position that unregistered users must be permitted to rewrite the semi-protection policy in this manner -- which remained on display for ten minutes before being reverted -- but a change to the policy to semi-protect a relatively small number of pages must not be enacted without several weeks of prior discussion. [2] If all substantive changes to official policies did require such an elaborate process before being effectuated, this would be a strong argument for semi-protection of all official policies, to prevent new and unregistered users from modifying policies in a manner inconsistent with a unpublished process of which they are almost certainly unaware. I don't see how further discussion on this policy amendment will be productive: JYolkowski was the only editor to objecting to the amendment on Wikipedia talk:Permanent semi-protection of official policy pages; however, all of his objections were refuted, after which he discontinued his participation in the discussion. By contrast, five established users (including myself) offered strong arguments in favor of the amendment. Cowman109 has offered no substantive objections whatsoever to the amendment, but merely insists that it requires additional process before being enacted, purely for the sake of process itself. For any additional discussion of the amendment to be useful, Cowman109 would need to explain how not semi-protecting all official policies would actually improve Wikipedia. John254 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your support of my recent RfA. If I can ever assist you with my new buttons or just to review a page with fresh eyes, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Semi-protection proposal}}

Please don't post a notice of your policy proposal to all the policy pages. his is not how we publicize policy discussions. In any case, that's clearly material appropriate for a talk page. You should use WP:VP and other centralized locations to announce proposals. Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the policy proposal was to semi-protect all official policy pages, the notices related to a proposed action that would be taken on the specific pages to which the notices were posted. I did not post notices concerning unrelated policy proposals to these pages. John254 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see [3]. John254 21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop spamming. It's pretty clear this proposal as it stands is not going to be accepted. More reasonably would be to relax the semi-protection policy for policy pages to allow them to be semi-protected on slighter vandalism and for longer periods of time, but this would not be a major change that would warrant spamming all the policy pages on the wiki; a discussion about that belongs at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. We don't, for example, spam the talk pages of every article before making a change to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I hope you remove these messages as zealously as you have added them. —Centrx→talk • 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

An administrator encouraged me to place these notices. Additionally, such notices appear to be necessary to consider the opinions of a larger number of contributors on this matter, as users who oppose this proposal have frequently insisted that the number of participants in the discussion concerning this proposal is inadequate. John254 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That person is mistaken, and made that statement when almost no one knew about the proposal; the people who saw it in your first round of spamming are the same people who would see it in your second round of spamming. Anyway, such notices are not necessary to summon opinions. It is sufficient to post, like all other policy proposals, on WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The number of participants was inadequate when it was 4 people and was done after less than a week, and there was even present opposition on the page that was not addressed. It has been advertised quite enough. —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you did not post it at either of these places at all. Also, the proposal was noticed when the attempt to semi-protect several pages was made, so even the first round of spamming was inappropriate. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See [4]. John254 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I searched for the new title, but the page was apparently renamed. I have added the page to WP:RFC. —Centrx→talk • 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Se la face ay pale, la cause est... Se la face ay pale, la cause est... 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now, it's because of the amazing support during my recent request for adminship and because of all those new shiny buttons. And if in the future my use of them should not always be perfect please don't hesitate to shout at me any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

WP:OR - about translations

Hey, I just wanted to say regarding this policy: the guideline you linked to in your edit summary says that English sources are preferrible to foreign language ones. Well, wouldn't a foreign language source be preferrible to one translated originally by an editor here? That would be the editor's original interpretation of the text. I think the verifiability guideline refers to third-party translations being preferrible to third-party foreign language sources, not first-hand translations. Don't you think it's best to stick to the work of others when writing articles? 66.231.130.70 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That English sources are preferable does not imply that they are required. Characterizing self-translations as original research forbids their use in Wikipedia articles, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. John254 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi John254. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your kind words in support, and especially for your insightful comment in response to the opposes on ethical grounds. I truly appreciate that you would judge me on my record rather infer suitability from a narrow moral perspective. I assure you I'll continue to serve the goals of the project to the best of my ability - irrespective of my personal opinion - and strive to use the tools wisely and fairly. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings! Thank you so much, John254, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion for Template:Puerile4

I absolutely do not agree with the proposed speedy deletion of this template. It is a warning to users who have committed serious vandalism to articles that is probably "divisive and inflammatory" in itself. -- Robert 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how vitriolic the vandalism committed by a user to whom a warning is issued, warning templates should be written in civil language. Describing a user's edits as "puerile" borders on a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and is entirely unnecessary in any case, as template:blatantvandal is quite adequate for warning users who commit serious acts of vandalism. Nonetheless, if you disagree with this proposed speedy deletion, you are welcome to add <noinclude>{{Hangon}}</noinclude> to the template, and to describe why the template shouldn't be deleted on its talk page. John254 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that policy, but I don't think that describing vandalism as "puerile" constitutes a personal attack. Under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks it states, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." -- Robert 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Describing vandalism as "puerile" might not actually amount to a personal attack. Indeed, I've seen editors use stronger language in their reports on WP:AIV. However, the language employed in templates placed on user talk pages is held to a high standard of civility, since the templates will be issued to a large number of users. A description of vandalism as "puerile" could be seen involving a user's personal character, by asserting that the user is "puerile". In any case, there is no need to employ this term in a warning template, as the term "unconstructive" employed in template:blatantvandal is quite serviceable. John254 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it might be seen to involve a user's character (and even if it did, a user that committed the type of vandalism that would warrant this template is in my opinion most likely a puerile person) but I suppose the other template serves the template. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That 'Peurile' template

Hi! I went over to User_talk:BlastOButter42#Hi! myself, trying to sort out what he was trying to accomplish. I've never heard of the template myself, but it looks like he was trying to use a warning template that had been deleted, then he got himself messed up trying to work around it. See my comments to him on that page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what happened. Sorry, guys. --Robert 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi John254, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The nature of consensus is disputed"

Wherever did you get that idea? (Radiant) 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A dispute over the nature of consensus is indicated by the recent edit war over the status of Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, and by the discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Discuss, don't vote, amongst other events. There's clearly a dispute as to the degree to which supermajority opinion may be used as an indication of consensus, and the extent to which voting is, or should be, used on Wikipedia. John254 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

False. The nature of consensus is not explained on WP:DDV or somesuch, but on Wikipedia:Consensus. There is no dispute there. Both the concept of "supermajority" and the entire voting issue are irrelevant since the latest stable version of the template doesn't reference that. (Radiant) 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "majority" could be taken to indicate "supermajority" unless we specifically state that a "simple majority" does not constitute consensus. This, while true, might imply an endorsement of "supermajority consensus". There's really no way to avoid stating a disputed position on the template if we try to define what consensus is not in one sentence. The content of Wikipedia:Consensus isn't disputed, of course, but only because it is describes various competing theories as to what consensus is without endorsing any of them. For instance, consider the following sentence: "While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations." Does that mean that a supermajority can indicate a consensus? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Similarly, even if we are to use supermajority opinion as an indicator of consensus, we don't really know what the numerical thresholds are. John254 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is really beside the point. The issue is that people frequently think that proposals cannot be adopted without a formal vote, which is false. People go "I move that we do this, all in favor say aye", which does not work. People think that a simple majority is required for a proposal to pass, which is also false, for whichever way consensus is defined, a simple majority isn't enough. The intent, thus, is to educate people to work more constructively. The best wording would probably be to cite a bit from WP:POL. (Radiant) 09:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

		Mike's RfA Thanks
		John254: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 152.91.9.144

This comment is inappropiate. While we may disagree on the status of the proposed guideline, to roll back my changes because I'm an IP clearly puts the cart before the horse: It acts as if this policy/guideline already exists. It's just as easy to get "entirely the wrong impression" from a registered account reverting an IP without better reasoning than that. - 152.91.9.144 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Editors Removed from WP:AIV

As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, I see no reason to block a user who hasn't edited in days, hasn't received any final warnings, and has not engaged in blatant vandalism. Also note that on WP:AIV, it says...

If an administrator removes the vandal listing and doesn't handle the matter to your satisfaction, take it to the administrator's talk page, the administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, but do not re-list the user here.

If you still find my decision unsatisfactory, perhaps you should take it to the one of the prescribed venues. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 05:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. Vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely because they present a security hazard (they can edit semi-protected pages if they are older than 4 days), and because such accounts serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the last time a new administrator removed my report about a vandalism-only account, the account was subsequently blocked by Samuel Blanning after I relisted it, although no edits were made from the account in the interim. I'm certainly not requesting that you perform any block that you find to be unjustified; however, as vandalism-only accounts are commonly blocked, I would request that you leave the reports on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so that another administrator has the opportunity to block the accounts. Thank you. John254 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And so you have exposed the flaw (or is it strength?) of administrators – they don't all think alike. I stand firm with my opinion (as I'm sure you stand firm with yours) since I don't believe users should be blocked liberally. I suggest you try WP:AN or WP:RFI to get a broader spectrum of opinions, if you feel it's necessary. -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

n.b. Both of the accounts that Tariqabjotu removed from WP:AIV were blocked indefinitely [5] [6]. John254 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, John254, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

AIV backlogs

Just a quick note. An AIV backlog is something like 8-10 users. Having 2 in the list is not a backlog as it is quite managable. It's when we get up above 8 or so when it becomes a concern. Keep up the good work with the vandal-fighting, Metros232 04:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been placing the template when there are multiple reports listed on WP:AIV since an administrative response to active vandalism is somewhat time-critical. John254 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cent

I see you've added Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles to {{cent}}, which is fine; and I see you've logged the change, which is excellent. I generally shorten such long-winded page titles and pipelink them to something that fits better in the box; this is all the better now that the box has been made so much more compact. Why don't you have a try at this? John Reid ° 11:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 12:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks(HighInBC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vorwerk (company)

You might want to rethink the speedy deletion. The article is going to be translated. Kingjeff 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded and I have joined the admin ranks. I appreciate your support. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to RfA

Do you believe that a single scatological vandalism instance warrants a block? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed an additional optional comment on my RfA to address the question implicit in your opposition. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

very new

Having looked briefly at your comments I see that you have made some incredible changes to this site, I commend you for this. But I would like to ask you why you changed an edit that I made on the page of little known actor Christopher Mitchell? I simply corrected the cause of death which was originally incorrect, I know this because he was my own cousin. Please take this as a polite question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosh gobble (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

your post regarding the 3RR

Unfortunately, I served the whole 3RR and I would like if someone can ban and unban me and say that it wasn't justfied for the record there, or something. :( thanks anyway. Amoruso 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-voting propaganda"

Policy never is established simply by tallying a numerical vote count. Even when polling plays a role (as it often does), the accompanying discussion is essential. The text that you removed implies nothing beyond this. —David Levy 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)