![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In your candidate statement you said that you will 'Advocate that a successful, peer-reviwed membership period in the Moderation Cabal be a pre-requisite for adminship'. Could you clarify whether you mean to encourage users to consider this in RFA, or encourage the Foundation to make this a formal requirement for adminship (of the kind that we currently have zero at the moment). Thanks. Cynical 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for such a tough provoking question. I jhope this process continues like this for all candidates.
I chose my words carefully: I said very purposely advocate rather than seek or any stronger word. While I belive in the community-involved RFA process, I belive also that one of its biggest flaws is that unlike other processes in Wikipedias, where verifiability plays a huge role, the RFA is too much of a "from the gut" response, with a lack of clear, verifiable criteria for objective and neutral editors to be influenced by in voting. This leads to voting being a popularity contest at bet and a self-electing clique process at best.
Adminship is a badge of honor, no soubt, but it carries with it commitment, responsibility, and sheer work, of the boring, menial kind, directed at producing a quality encyclopedia. Hence, a proven, verifiable track record, not just of editing and popularity as it is now, but also of ability to remain cool under pressure and perform menial boring tasks, can only help to develop even further the strengths of the current admin body, while allowing it to expand qualitatively and not just quantitatively.
A lot of RFA's end up being self-electing cliques (contrary to a stated goal of wikipedia against cabals and cliques), or sheer vanity circuses.
I am very open to other suggestions on how to solve these problems, but I think a requirement of actively serving, with a general consensus view of a positive grade, in some project like the Moderation Cabal, or the Neutrality Project, or Esperanza or whatever, will help mitigate the impact of "from the gut" noms and provide, in a positive, community-involving way the disarming of the growing challenge of the cabal and clique issue.--Cerejota 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the response to your comments on Ambuj.Saxena's RfA. If you think it is skewed, then it is skewed to his disadvantage, not in his favour! Tyrenius 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In your candidate statement you point out that there have been many disputes over policy and process recently, and that these represent a challenge to Wikipedia. What solutions do you propose to solve these problems? I'm not looking for a list of new edicts, just a general sense of the direction in which you would take us. Thanks. Cynical 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
From a newbie. How are you supposed to handle repeated vandalism as the one on the golgi apparatus page. Reverting eternally seems pretty hopeless. Best wishes. --Warfvinge 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your trepidation as to allowing every shmo who has a biased opinion post to Wikipedia, but the "nonsense" about Jeremy Clarkson is in fact true. Below are the pages in which those discussion strings still exist. I only wished to add this information to the site as an extension of the controversy that seems to follow Clarkson like a lost dog.
http://www.streetfire.net/2006/07/jeremy-clarkson-dead.aspx
http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/jeremy-clarkson/
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/jeremy-clarkson-dead-ar10877.html
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711140248AA9n1wh
http://www.digg.com/celebrity/The_BBC_s_Jeremy_Clarkson_of_Top_Gear_reportedly_dead_in_Portugal.
I request that the honorable Cynical Google this topic. The list of sites containing reports that Clarkson had gone to his maker are endless.
Thank you for monitoring this website, but, with respect, if it weren't for people like us and the "nonsense" we post for the enrichment of others, Wikipedia would not exist.
67.123.202.214 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself.
You're probably getting this message because the sidebar fairy (JoeSmack for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Lovely. JoeSmack Talk 07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. As I stated in the request itself, I respect your decision to oppose me based on my short tour of duty, but I hope I can earn your trust. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
In short, Tawkerbot2 (and Tawkerbot2A which was only a unique username as I didn't want TB2 norm to be able to edit protected pages) etc is an Apple and TorScript is an orange. I think it was pretty obvious that we were talking about Tawkerbot2 when were talking about no sysop bots (I had no other bots then) (there the purpose would be to autoblock vandals after a test 6 or something like that... a user could trigger it by setting off the bot too much) whereas this is totally unrelated and only does a very limited no-discretion involved task. They are totally unrelated technically, TB2 is in python, TBTA in C#. I just thought I'd try and set the record straight.... you seemed a tad facts confused-- Tawker 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the proper way to reference the note in Radiometric dating (which you had changed to [citation needed])? Dan Watts 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting comment, but not entirely sure what you are refering to. Why would it be deleted? I simply wished to add information and it was never my intention to discredit or vandalise anything. If I have written something wrong then i'm very sorry, but my information came from a credibe source.
Please explain as the message was rather vague.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.11.158.43 (talk • contribs)
The bit about Keith Moon having an 'elegantly wasted appearance' made your edit potentially defamatory, and that's why I had to remove it - because of our biography of living people policy, any negative material without a source citation must be removed immediately. Sorry for the vagueness of the message - it's a semi-automated one, given the volume of reverts we have to do on Wikipedia there isn't time to write a personal message for each person. Cynical 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't be so down about your RfA. Although you had some minor setbacks, I'm sure that a few months of good editing and doing the things you suggested will definitely lead you to a successful RfA. Best of luck. Nishkid64 21:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've reverted your edits to Battlefield High School - the old version also contained the infobox, logo etc. so it looks just as professional. The version you had put in (aside from being a blatant violation of WP:COI as it was written by a school employee) isn't consistent with WP:NPOV, which is one of the three core content policies and is therefore non-negotiable. Cynical 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Cynical, and thanks for explaining the conflict of interests issue. While I appreciate removing sections that are inappropriate, reverting to the old version this past time around:
1. Displayed factually incorrect information, including the removal of current and relevant statistical data
and
2. Included material that was inappropriate and incorrect, specifically the comment (which included grammar and spelling errors, I might add) about our marching program being unique in its presentation of challenge.
This material was opinion-based, not factual, and not only reflected badly upon the institution and the program vis a vis bias, but provided inaccurate information to the general public. Thankfully, I have now gotten my ducks in rows so as to be able to edit the article from my office, and hopefully the newest version complies better with the expectations of the community.
While I am a fierce advocate of our outstanding music program, putting down one program to laud another is not only inappropriate, but it is not factually accurate. Coincidentally, the marching band commend was also a violation of the very NPOV policy you cited, so I appreciate very much your bringing it to my attention. It is all the rationale one needs to remove the biased comment!
Bhs itrt 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
“ | There is no way to account for all of the successes of the many outstanding and talented young people at Battlefield, so it is the policy of the Office of Instructional Technology at Battlefield to regularly visit Wikipedia and ensure the correctness of information and to prevent discrimination, bias, or malice. While the promotion of the free exchange of ideas and information through electronic means is a valuable enterprise, so too is the teaching of students the necessity of good information user skills and information management, as well as the critical evaluation of web-based materials. | ” |
“ | Battlefield High School has made efforts to ensure the information in this article is correct. However, due to the nature of the Wikipedia vehicle, the information contained on this page is not and should not be considered authoritative. As with any internet-based information, please contact the source directly to report abuse or to verify statistical or factual data.
You can contact the Office of Instructional Technology at (571) 261-4518. --Bhs itrt 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
” |
Hello. I suppose that you are thinking that this article should be taken to afd. Have a look at the website of the school. If not satisfied you can write in my user talk or you may delete the page, I don't have a problem. Thanks,--Ujjwal Krishna 15:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The University of Glasgow article that you nom'd for GA is on hold. See its talk page. Rlevse 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You have a reply waiting for you at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching The Transhumanist 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've received two coaching assignments instead of one from the Esperanza Admin coaching program, so inorder to accomodate both students, I've set up a Virtual classroom. And to make the classroom even more rewarding and fun, I've invited some of the most prolific and talented editors of Wikipedia to come and contribute their know how so we can all learn. Currently, we are all comparing the tools each of us makes use of in navigating and working on Wikipedia. So far, Interiot, Rich Farmbrough, and CBDunkerson have been kind enough to help get things started by sharing their experience. You are cordially invited to participate as a student, a coach, or both! The Transhumanist 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've written a translation of Interiot's "geekspeak" post. It took me hours to figure out what he was talking about. Some pretty cool tricks, now described in easy to follow steps. I've also thrown in some of my own tricks, have updated my notes on the interface I use, and have answered students questions in the questions and comments section at the bottom of the page. Let me know if the page is helping in any way. Hope to see ya there again soon. The Transhumanist 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we've moved on to our second lesson in the Virtual classroom, though each lesson is continuous so we may see more additions to the interface share and compare discussions as well. The current topic of discussion is "stubbing," with a short course to kick things off provided by our resident expert on the subject, Grutness.
To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page:
Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom soon. The Transhumanist 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I've followed the link from m:User:Cynical here. Most probably it is your account but I would sleep more happily if you can provide a confirmation in the opposite direction - from en: to meta:.
I am asking in relation to the vote being invalidated. In theory an imposter could register the same name as yours, so the account meeting the suffrage criteria (en.wp one) should endorse the other (on meta). TIA, Goldie (tell me) 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)