User talk:Figureskatingfan

This is Christine's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Figureskatingfan.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

You are invited to Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. 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!

ralphamale (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Figureskatingfan. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still interested?

I haven't been checking regularly lately, but I had seen a message that said you wanted to delay a little bit. If you're ready, I'll start work on the nomination statement and get it ready for next week. I think you'd be an excellent addition to the admin corps. And I'm very sorry for disappearing. Karanacs (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I wanted to delay it for after the holidays, and then I had to think about it again. Thanks, I appreciate the support and encouragement. And hey, disappearing is not the problem; not coming back is! And I'm so glad you came back! ;) Looking forward to the nom, I think. Christine (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started the nomination draft: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Figureskatingfan. Now it's your turn - look over the nomination statement and see if there's anything that sounds off, and then start answering questions. When you're ready I'll transclude it (no earlier than Monday, though...will be out of town most of the weekend). Yea! Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, right. ;) I'll work on it weekend and have it ready by Monday. Thanks. Christine (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

You have an unstarted RfA. Would you like me to start it for you? It seem everything is set and ready to put out there.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 10:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Replies there. :) Amalthea 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I posed an extra question regarding your signature. Mind, I have no objections, but I didn't want to leave an oppose hanging out there if the concern could be addressed, one way or the other. Also - Good Luck! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck on your RfA... I had actually looked at potentially nominating you back when we worked on the Wiggles together... but you fell off my radar. Now that you are running, I wish you the best.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Figureskatingfan. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Signature

First of all, I intend to support your RFA. Anyway, this is just an idea as your signature is being discussed, and as it's early days it might be overlooked in general anyway, but although there would be a couple of small obstacles to overcome, it's not impossible that you could obtain User:Christine. As I say, just an idea for your consideration. WilliamH (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Another option would be to use a signature that captured both the user name and real name. My sig has both Balloonman and Poppa Balloon. You could have Christine and build in FSF as yuour sig.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A reversion you made

Howdy. I was reading your rfa, and saw Wifione's oppose. This revert was mentioned. In that revert, it appears that the spelling of only 2 words were changed. Just to clarify, you thought that you were fixing vandalism?--Rockfang (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits from redusernames and IPs are obviously always bad. That's pretty much the approach of the people patrolling recent changes. --81.98.51.7 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus to quote this very editor: In my experience, anonymous IPs are the editors who break WP policy and come here to attack the subjects of BLPs. - She doesn't like anons because some are bad, thus they are all bad. Simple as. We don't need more admins who hate IP users thank you very much. --81.98.51.7 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The mistaken vandalism reversion weakened my support but to know that this user acts more strongly to redusers and IP's is what will draw me to an oppose. I'm sorry Christine and I'm going to have to oppose your RfA. Even though I have my opinions and judgements about these editors and they are the first ones I check on my watchlist, I stay neutral and jugde them based on how they edit and how their attitude towards Wikipedia. An edit like that I would've rolled back using Rollback AGF and not Rollback VANDAL.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 516,879,398) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Toot Toot

Re [1]. Pending Changes. Reviewing. Banning IPs will never happen, I don't think, nor should it really need to. Anyway, why I really came here was to wish you the best for the rest of your RFA. I don't like to do what I did there, but it's something I can never stand to see - new or existing editors being upset by incorrect implications of maliciousness, intentionally or not. Your contributions are awesome, and my little girl (8) thinks Sam got a rough deal, too. See you around. Begoon ^talk 06:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

He he, thanks. It's so brutal, and it's only Day 2! Whew! ;) I'll probably have to clarify; I don't think that IPs should be banned out of hand; just from BLPs, or at least some of them. Thanks for the kind words, and tell your daughter that she's exceptionally bright. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Alice will be pleased. I'll clarify what I said too. PC protection on request of any contentious BLP. Solved. Done. All you need to be sure of is you get the right Reviewers. Well, ok - not quite that easy, but infinitely preferable to preventing IPs from editing. Just as an example, I know of at least one IP who practically rewrote The Rolling Stones as an IP (he's registered now). There are hundreds of other examples of IP editors who contribute positively - gnoming is a common area. With you all the way on the WBC though... Begoon ^talk 07:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies...

I am sorry for how it's turned out. I don't know how you'll take this note; but just wanted to mention out here that I'm sorry for what's going on at the RfA. Regards. Wifione ^Message 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, but the good news is that the reason why your RfA is failing isn't personal. It is carelessness/sloppiness while using the tools. In other words, it is something that can be easily fixed and once fixed should make you golden next time you run. There are some RfA's that when they are over, you walk away thinking, "that person should never run again." I don't feel that way with you. The opposes are minor and fixable. I would suggest letting it run for another day to get a broader perspective on issues and if it doesn't change to withdraw. You were obstinant enough to go through FAC 5 times with the Wiggles, waiting a few months to rerun should be a piece of cake.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

^^ Harry the Dog WOOF 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you stop using Twinkle for a while, and revert edits manually? Yes, it is a bit slower, but it makes you think more about what you are doing, particularly when it comes to adding the warning templates. The templates, in case you aren't aware, are nicely laid out at WP:MLT and WP:UTN. Personally, I've never used Twinkle - aside from compatability issues with the browser I use, I have concerns about letting something else do the work for me.

Also, when it comes to reverting text, always have in mind the thought that the person who made the edit was doing so for the good of the project. In other words, WP:AGF . If you do that, then you are less likely to have the problems that are hampering your otherwise strong case for adminship. If you label your edit summary as reverting a good faith edit, then when you drop a note on the editor's talk page and discover they are on a vandalism spree, no one will think any the less of you. Just add the next level of warning, report (if applicable), and keep an eye on their other edits.

Of course, you can forget the WP:AGF principle when dealling with a WP:DUCK!.

Anyway, good luck, and if you want any assistance, I'm more than happy to help. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I highly recommend against withdrawing - the appearance becomes that you don't want to hear any more critique, and therefore have no desire to work on the "issues" that are being raised. As they're pretty minor in the long run, withdrawing can be a torpedo. As an admin, you're going to be critiqued until the probverbial cows come home - if you don't want to hear it during an RFA, when will you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, but I'm done. It may appear that I don't want to "work on the issues", but I think that I've expressed that I am willing to work on them. When I saw the WP:POINT oppose, I knew that it was over. I just wanted to nip it in the bud before that part of the RfA got out of hand. I appreciate the suggestions; I'll work on vandalism mislabeling and think about putting myself through the process in the future. For now, I'll go back to my little corner of WP and do what I really love: edit, write, and improve articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done the formalities. I'm sorry for how it turned out, and if you do decide to give it another go in the future feel free to ping me. Amalthea 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to echo the statements above. I am personally sorry for what took place, and accept some blame myself. The reason I pointed out the WP:POINT !vote was because I think you will be a good Admin one day and I wanted your RfA to get a fair shake. My reasons for oppose (again, a very very weak oppose) was only the issue concerning WP:NLT. I know you commented on it, but unfortunately the whole discussion went to hell before I could respond. There are very few "bright line" policies on Wikipedia, at least the way I think about it. WP:Ignore all rules, IMO, means "Ignore all rules except WP:NLT, WP:BLP, and WP:3RR". As the admin that you are, frankly, destined to be, these are the strongest policies that you need to be aware of. If someone makes a legal threat, they are given an opportunity to recant the statement and (unless the statement is recanted) blocked. WP:NLT is about two huge issues: one concerning the Foundation and one concerning the encyclopedia. The first, and most important, is that continued interaction with someone who actually is pursuing legal channels against the Foundation is legally tricky and, well, without the WMF, there'd be no en.wikipedia. The second, and much more relevant to your work or mine, is that legal threats are far, far more likely to simply be an attempt to strong-arm on POV over another. It threatens the virtues of discussion, consensus, and the idea that we can all work together. All-over, I hope that my Oppose and this paragraph (that, I assure you, I did not intend to turn into a tl;dr tome) just serve to remind you that edititng on Wikipedia (and RfA and using the mop) are all open-book tests. If you are unsure the exact way to deal with an issue, it's easy enough to look at the relevant Poli-line and look at how the community wants you to handle it. You do good work, and I know you'll continue to do good work, better work. Show improvement, and I'm sure I won't be the only one who switches columns to Support. Cheers, Achowat (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Better luck next time. On the good side, your RfA ended with more than 50% support which means your next one isn't hopeless. Try again in a few months and I may keep my vote at support. See you around and happy editing.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,501,855) 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry to see some of the comments turned out a little less friendly than ideal (and I think your withdrawal at that stage was probably for the best). I do hope you run again in the future, and I look forward to giving you my support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

DYK for Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bob who?

I've replied on my talk page to your comment. I wasn't sure if the page would be reverted so I kept it on my watchlist. Sure enough you reverted, and I don't mind. I also realize your recent RFA nomination didn't succeed. Don't worry, I've also had a couple of failed tries so you're in good company.  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the hunch came after the edit. I sometimes have a feeling someone might not agree and revert, but if it does get reverted I don't take it personally and move on, as POV pushing always meets a sad fate. However, I wouldn't make the change if was certain it would be reverted, though, I hope this clears things up. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

List of human Sesame Street characters

What happened to the lead? This version certainly isn't what the community voted as a featured list. I believe someone axed about 3Kb of the article in this edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a way for us to sort the principal human characters from the guest human characters. Rtkat3 (User talk:Rtkat3) 1:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RM, I'll explain. User:Fortdj33 took it upon himself to create a new article, Sesame Street characters, and then cut-and-paste the leads from the above list and List of Sesame Street Muppets into it. At the time, I decided to let it go (and gee, my failed RfA found that I'm too possessive over articles and lists that I edit), but you're right--it decreases the quality of both lists. If we keep the new article, the leads should be improved in the lists, at the very least. Personally, my preference is to retain the original lists, and delete the new article, which I don't think is necessary. I guess I was too exhausted at the time to make an issue of it. I'm glad you brought it up, since it really should be addressed. Any suggestions?

Rtkat3, that's an easier problem. If we wanted to separate the main characters from the guest stars, the easiest way, I think, would be to separate the table into two categories, "Main characters" and "Guest stars". What do you think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that may work. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think, as a minimum, that the lead needs to be restored to the FLC-accredited version, right now it fails to meet the criteria so should be delisted, and that's a shame given how simple the fix would be. As for the fate of the other article, well that's really out of my hands. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to do it anyway, but I wanted some input first. I'll put a link on the list's talk page to this discussion so folks know why it happened. You're right, it's a very easy fix. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks very much for your positive response and prompt action, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for fun

I found this interesting blog entry about an unusual Sesame Street episode, and one man's (semi-)adult reactions to it. It's not even remotely encyclopedic, but I thought you might get a kick out of it. Against Big Bird, The Gods Themselves Contend In Vain. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic at all! But you're right, very fun. Thanks for the treat. It is interesting to read people's reactions to and memories of The Show. And every once in a while, the writers go into some very bizarre stuff, and since it's Sesame Street, they're able to get away with it. It can be a great mixture of the educational and mundane with the edgy. That's one of the reasons I love it and the Muppets. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sesame Street lists response

If you are talking about the human characters, some of them had their bios up on the Muppet Wiki like Deena's caretaker Pearl. I have noticed that some of the Muppet characters either listed or deleted upon reverting don't have their bios up on the official Sesame Street website. I noticed one of the human characters doesn't have any bio info where I added what I knew. I just recently added a link to Fluffy's page on the official Sesame Street website. By the way, I'm thinking you might be right about sorting the regular characters from the guest characters yet we still have to let people know about anyone that was associated with the "Around the Corner" expansion in the 90's. What do you think? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rtkat3, each entry in this list has gone through the criteria I referred you to. And in another discussion on the same talk page,[2] I suggested (and no one expressed disagreement) that Muppet Wiki, as great a site as it is, not be considered a reliable source. According to WP:RS, user-generated websites like it aren't usually considered reliable sources. If a character's bio isn't on Sesame Street.org, then it shouldn't be here, either. I believe that if the source states that a character was part of ATC, its entry here states it. You can check it if you like, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about the possibility of mentioning which human are associated with the "Around the Corner" expansion when you do your sorting of the regular human characters and the guest human characters which I mentioned in the above comment? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)