User talk:Reguyla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Kumioko)
Jump to: navigation, search

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Reguyla. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome!

[Not sure if this is the right template, or if it's one of yours, but it seems to come with cookies, so welcome. Cheers.]

Neotarf (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Reguyla (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you to those that voted in my ban review. Special thanks go out to Fluffernutter for requesting the review as well as The Land and Protonk for their outstanding job moderating the review and their closing remarks. Reguyla (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Filter[edit]

@NawlinWiki: Thank you, I believe there are at least 4 filters with something to do either with my name or the words Ban or Abuse. I don't remember what it said but there was a few times that I triggered 3 or 4 edit filters at one time. Reguyla (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the names of the edit filters and the timeframes of my edits, any one of the following could contain something related to me. Unfortunately I cannot narrow it down farther.
102, 260, 294, 466, 579, 611, 619, 623, 624, 628. I hope this helps. Reguyla (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Adjusted #102. The rest were responding to those horrible things you were saying ;) , not to your name. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Great thans for looking. Reguyla (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment about the standard offer[edit]

I am going to try my best not to comment at obvious trolling, but in case anyone looked here for a comment, since I cannot edit the discussion where it was made, I wanted to clarify a comment that Roger Davies made. The Arbcom, at no time, offered me a "standard offer". In fact, they consistently told me that the decision was not theirs to make, that they wouldn't make it even if it was and that it was a community decision and BASC denied my request repeatedly.

Aside from that, I just want to put this tragic tale of abuse and corruption behind me. Too much time and resources were wasted on the Kumioko Witch hunt by everyone including me. Regardless of any offers that may or may not have been made in the past, I beleive in this project (eventhough I believe it has lost its way in many respects) and it was obvious that members of it were willing to employ any tactic and inflict any casualties in order to keep me out. This "deal" was, IMO, a reasonable compromise for everyone to move on and for everyone to save some face and for the collateral damage to the project and its members and potential future members to cease. The damage that was being inflicted through edit filters, range blocks and unnecessary reversions of edits, as well as my comments and emails was causing uncalculable damage to the project and I felt it needed to end. I for one am glad it did.Reguyla (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • See you in six months, Reguyla. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I hope thats true. There is still a lot of opportunity and desire for people to blame me for stuff or Joe Job my account so we'll see. Reguyla (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • And now it's one day less: we're making progress. Try and forget old griefs, if you can, or as much as you can: both sides will need to do so, since rehashing it will only make them fester. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • [1] = "Yuuuuup. Kumioko writes some great content." Lol, no wonder I was banned. You too Drmies, take care. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In 6 months, if you haven't socked/evaded your ban, I'll support re-instatement. See, I'm not inflexiable :) GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries GoodDay I can easily stop myself from socking. As I stated in the review the only reason I did it was because I considered the original ban and how it was carried out to be illegitimate and simply ignored it, but I still went out of my way not to hide who I was eventhough some tried to prevent me from signing. So you don't need to worry about the if's of me socking. The problem is there are still folks out there who will try and make it look like me, and I created accounts from a lot of public places that could appear like socking if someone else creates an account there. So we'll see how long it is before someone finds something to accuse me of. You may not be one of them, but there are some clever individuals in the community that don't like me and will try and make sure I don't come back. Reguyla (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Homs governorate offensive[edit]

I found some strangeness on a redirect if anyone is watching this page and wants to fix it. Take a look at Homs governorate offensive. Its an article and a redirect all in one. Maybe we should choose one or the other? Reguyla (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for spotting, looks like someone didn't quite know how to do the move they intended to. The Land (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome and thats kind what I thought too. Reguyla (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Obvious copyright problems on Rubin (radar)[edit]

Here is another article problem for anyone who may be interested. Rubin (radar) appears to be mostly a cut and past copyright/plagiarism violation from the "reference" websites. The article itself meets notability but it needs a pretty much complete rewrite. Reguyla (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense, and I'll be glad to see you back when scheduled, but talk pages of blocked users should not be used for purposes other than discussing your block. I'm sure everyone appreciates your effort, but perhaps you'd be better keeping your attention away from en.wikipedia until your block expires. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No offense taken but this edit doesn't really reflect someone who would welcome me back in 6 months. I do find it rather ironic though that in my review several admins and contributors attempted to convince other members of the community that I am not here to "build an encyclopedia", when any idiot who looks at my contribution history can clearly see that is bullshit (especially since my contributions exceed the vast majority multiple times over) and every effort is being made to prevent me from doing that. But oh well, no use crying over spilt Vodka. I also appreciate the suggestion that I take a break but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you wish to interpret it) I use Wikipedia almost everyday and often multiple times. Its also well known where I work that I "Used to" edit fervently so a lot of people bring problems like this to me that they think might need attention. Technically your right though and I am not just dropping every problem I see, I ignored multiple incidents of vandalism and other problems and only dropped 2 here that were sufficiently worthy to invoke IAR. But if the climate has changed on the project and copywritten material and plagiarism are less concerning than in the old days feel free to ignore my suggestion. Worse case scenario this is just a note to myself and in 6 months when the interests of the project take precedence over abuse and Wikipedia politics, the changes will still be here and I will take care of them then. Reguyla (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuff that needs done[edit]

I am making these notes for myself. If someone sees them and feels compelled to do them, great, if not, I will fix upon my return from banishment.

  1. Bayan (khan) is a person and needs the Persondata template, an infobox and birth and death cats. Reguyla (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    Also should let the AWB folks know about this one so they can refine the is article about a person logic. Reguyla (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Copyright and plagiarism problems on Rubin (radar). Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    Will rewrite and repost in Feb if not already done. Saved a copy offline for review and rewrite. Reguyla (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. The Theresa Gallagher linked under Judges here is not an actress so this link is not correct. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Personal property has misplaced redirect syntax at the bottom of the introduction section. Reguyla (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. Forrest Gump, the last line under sequel doesn't make any sense. Reguyla (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  6. B. J. Penn (United States Navy) reads like a resume and needs to be cleaned up and rewritten. Need to make sure this is vetted through other members of the community to ensure no conflict of interest.Reguyla (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  7. AWB is converting fl. to [[Floruit|fl.]] on Wiki, will add links later. Need to let the AWB folks know that this probably shouldn't happen for non Wikipedia Wiki's. Reguyla (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  8. AWB is adding the Orphan template to articles at Wikia when Autotagger is used. Again this should not be happening for non Wikipedia Wiki's. Reguyla (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  9. Diego Suárez Corvín needs an infobox, fill out the rest of the persondata template and additional cats. Reguyla (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  10. Add article for Ordre du Mérite combattant. Translation from French Wikipedia. Article on French WP] Reguyla (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    Add List of Medal of Honor recipients buried in Arlington National Cemetery (maybe without the list of though, thats not really needed). Once done add it to the template and the see also sections of the recipients who are buried there. Reguyla (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  11. Talk:Craig Lucas has the WikiProject Template for Georgia (country) but should have the one for the State. Reguyla (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Also Talk:Laura Ryan apparently. Reguyla (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    and 2 more: Talk:Richard T. Warner, Talk:Wesley Woods. Reguyla (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    And Talk:Cherokee Path. Reguyla (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  12. Submit KY-7 for deletion or redirect to STU-III. Reguyla (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  13. The cleanup listing link in the table here still points to the toolserver. It either needs to be replaced or removed. Reguyla (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  14. Advanced persistent threat contains obvious copy vio. Its already tagged but I will keep watching it until its fixed. Reguyla (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  15. Third Reserve Army of Observation needs refs or at least the unref template. Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  16. HMS Thunder Child needs a space after the comma in the lede sentence. Reguyla (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  17. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 26 - Needs a lot of work and Wikifying. Might contain copyvio. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  18. Fix Template:WWIIJapaneseAuxiliaryShips. Contains multiple redircts to other Wiki's. Should create locally or leave them as red links. Reguyla (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Category for deletion[edit]

@WilliamJE: - I may catch hell for this since I am blocked till February, but I saw the notice you left on my old talk page and I wanted to let you know that account has been abandoned. Its fine with me if you delete that category though. I understand and agree with the reasoning. Reguyla (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirects on old account[edit]

I have made your old account redirect to this page (so you shouldn't have the above problem again). Sorry for making so many edits, I had trouble getting it to work right. —Neotarf (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Reguyla (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. —Neotarf (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RFA is dying[edit]

I haven't posted for a while because frankly this project is spiraling faster to its own death and I find myself losing interest in it with every passing day. There simply aren't enough people here anymore who want to build an encylcopedia and too many who just want to be in charge and in control.

For example, I find it very amusing that someone started a discussion about lowering the pass requirement at RFA here to a simple majority because of the growing ineffectiveness of the RFA process and a bunch of clowns start insulting them for submitting the idea. I think its a pretty good idea myself, much better than the ideas (which do not exist) that the opposers are submitting.

Submitting a link showing that there are 1393 sysops and then inferring there isn't a problem only shows their lack of understanding of the problem. If they did understand it, they would realize that only about 100-150 admins actually do anything. All the rest are just dead weight and either only edit occassionally, oftentimes once or less a month or not at all. They would additionally realize that of those approx. 150 admins, about 20 or so are abusive and/or are incompetent at being admins and should have the tools removed (several should never have gotten them in the first place) from them because they are more of a hindrence to the project than an asset. There is no doubt that RFA is dying and I say let it die. As long as a few people are willing to submit, then some will argue that it works, which it clearly does not. They would also know that the admin related areas have increasing backlogs, vandalism stays for longer periods of time and spam is making it through at increasing rates.

The Wikipedia culture has degraded to such a point that in order to fix any of our problems they have to be so bad they are ineffective or they stop working completely, so that the community will get off their collective asses and fix it. Otherwise, the community just criticizes those who try and fix the problems or kick them out of the project so they can protect their empires and continue their ongoing and longterm patterns of abuse against editors they don't like, to prove they are the ones with power.

What a disgraceful and disappointing project this place has become. Wikipedia had, and continues to have, such potential, only to be wasted because entrenched admins and a few of their supporters or those who lack the morale courage to do the right thing sit quitely and watch the abuse. The project needs editors willing to do the right thing and get rid of the few abusive and deadbeat admins dragging it down. I have read no less than three discussions recently where even admins have admitted having some admins in mind that should be cut, but they fail to do anything because its too much work and they just don't care. Perhaps my banishment for critizing these abusers sent the desired message to the community of what happens when they are criticized! Reguyla (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kudpung, Dennis Brown: As I have said before in other venues I think highly of both of you but I couldn't disagree more with your sentiments at the RFA page about banned users. Not only are your preceptions wrong, but they are insulting. RFA is broken and has been for a long time. It doesn't matter if the editor is a good one or not, passing RFA has as much to do with luck as it does about hiding in the shadows. Few people are going to pass RFA in current times unless they are careful and plan it. Things like Voting on the winning side of stuff for deletion/discussion to make sure their scores are high. Voting on RFA, doing the occassional cleanup edit and carefully doing some article development without stepping on the toes of whomever owns that article in the process. I am quite frankly surpirsed that both of you would make such comments instead of actually doing something about the process or the minority of corrupt and abusive admins that we all know exists but no one wants to take the time to do anything about, because I am an example of what happens when you criticize admins. I will be the first one to admit that people need access to the tools that currently make up the admin toolset, but they do not need to be in the current package nor does the process of getting them or removing them need to be as gruelling as it is. Hell, we all know that if the majority of the admins ran for RFA today they would fail, so what does that tell you about the RFA process and the admin corps? It speaks volumes to me because I listen. I would also counter that I have in fact come up with ideas to change RFA as have others, you have too, but they don't pass because it would weaken the perceived power of the admins and many don't want that. They want to be in power and will do whatever they need to in order to keep it. That includes those editors who are not admins but want to be. So they vote the process change down because it weakens their future want to have role in the admin clan. Also, saying good candidates don't want to run because RFA is a joke. Good candidates have run and didn't pass. Some examples include Solarra, Koavf, Dodger67 and plenty of others. The fact is, Adminship isn't that big of a deal. You and your peers make it a big deal for various reasons, but its not and was never meant to be. The admin tools should be easy to get and easy to take away. If someone screws up repeatedly or shows a pattern of abuse, then they should lose the tools, no muss or fuss. Frankly your arguments that critics of the RFA process are just banned editors only to be ignored is both stupid and incorrect. I thought better of you than that but I guess Wikipedia has that affect on people. Especially to those of us that still believe in the project regardless of the childish bullshit and bureaucracy that goes on here these days. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the actual resistance to change came from the very quarter that so loudly , boisterously, and rudley complains with the same excess of mantras and diatribes, stabs in the back, and general disruption, that claims itself to be the entire Wikipedia's handful of most elite content contributors. What gives those esitors the right to be so obnoxious? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Kudpung:, this is Kumioko's current only account, not a new user. Reguyla, it's one thing editing this page to note things you will be doing if and when you return, which has the added benefit of noting issues for others - people are willing to turn a blind eye. It's a very different thing to be calling users to your page to discuss meta topics. Please remember that you are currently a banned user and whilst that is the case, you should not be participating in building the encyclopedia. If you carry on calling users to your talk page using the ping functionality, I will be removing talk page access for the duration of your ban. WormTT(talk) 09:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@WTT - Believe me WTT, I am all too aware that some within the community are not interested in building an encyclopedia and have no issue with preventing others like me from doing it either. The list of edits above is a very short one and many more have not been done. The list I am keeping offline is 10 times the length of that one. I keep that list partially to show the types of things I would be fixing if I was allowed to edit and as proof that I am watching things and that those things are not getting done. It is partly in the hopes that someone will see them and do them and partly for me.
Also, I was banned as a justification to keep me from criticizing some of those that aren't here to build one to set an example. I am attempting to abide by my ban the best I can, and as I stated before I like both Kudpung and Dennis. But what they said on the RFA page (not meta) was obviously incorrect and rather than ignore the issue I decided to comment. With that said, as I view these discussions from the outside, it is becoming more and more obvious that those within the "community" have either given up on the project and only continue to stroke their own egos for one reason or another or only care about protecting whatever articles they own. Its becoming more and more clear that building an encyclopedia is not what they are interested in doing and very few are still here for that. Of the few that I think do, none seems to be interested in getting rid of the trouble makers and would rather enforce bad policies against those like myself who are trying to build one. That seems to include you unfortunately. So if you feel that enforcing my block and setting an example is more important than building an encyclopedia and the edits I would do then feel free to do what you have to do. IMO though the Arbcom failed to do the right thing with my ban after being given ample opportunity and left it to the community to fix the disgrace of a ban that I was given which should have been immediately overturned. So it seems less than appropriate to come here looking for excuses to ban me for an occasional edit. Things would have been a lot different for a lot of people if the Arbcom would have done their job in the beginning so now isn't the time. They lost that opportunity. It should also be noted frankly that my "ban" was reduced to a 6 month block and the rules for blocks are different than those of bans. Reguyla (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kudpung, as you are now aware I have been here for a very very long time and I have seen those attempts as well. I also know that they all failed and those failures are for various reasons including some admins and wanna be admins who want the process to stay the way it is and not change sabotaging it. You will not find me blocking any change to the process and I believe I supported every attempt to do anything in the past if only to try something. I also know you tried to change things yourself and after spending considerable time, that suggestion failed and ever since you have shown up to shoot down any other idea that's been submitted. Since many of them mirror your own sentiments in those discussions, it gives those of us who are familiar with things the impression of an attitude of "if its not my idea its a bad one". But the RFA process no longer works and needs to change. That is clear to pretty much everyone and saying that it has gotten better doesn't really help. It hasn't gotten better, there are simply so few RFA's these days, that it appears that way. Reguyla (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realise your ban had been downgraded to a 6 month block - I stopped following that mess of a discussion before the end! I'd still advise that you don't bother with meta topics such as RfA, at least until you return - and even then for preference. It's not worth the hassle. But as to the rest of my comment, please ignore it - it's irrelevent. WormTT(talk) 12:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I wish I could ignore the mess too.:-) Reguyla (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I know people continue to watch this page so I am going to comment on the ongoing discussions on the talk page of RFA.

  • It is now October 21 and its obvious that RFA is a failing process and I personally hope that continues because its the only way to fix it. What few candidates it does generate are far from enough to offset the flow of work or the number of admins leaving the site. All the admin arreas are completely overwhelmed because too few have access to the tools to do the tasks that need to be done. I agree with Townlake that it be closed and replaced with something else. I also agree with sentiments that the process of becoming an admin and removing the tools should be easier.
  • Administrator Chillum states that there are multiple ways to remove the tools and this is just plain false. Arbcom is the only one that can revoke the tools except in cases where the admin is inactive for an entire year or in obvious cases where the account has been compromised. Even when obvious abuse is evident, people just look the other way because the mentality is that its better to lose 100 editors than one admin even if they are abusive. This sentiment is 100% wrong.
  • Administrator Anne Delong mentioned that the admin process itself should be easier and I agree. However, I do not agree that an admin candidate does not need to know how to properly transclude their template if that is how the process is being done. This shows that they have the basic technical skills necessary for much of the work. If they do not know how to transclude their own RFA, then they do not know how to perform much of the work that they will have access too and do not need access to the tools. Anyone can delete a page or block a vandal, our admins need to have the ability to do the technical stuff as well, at least to a certain degree and this shows that they have the experience necessary to do the job.
  • I cannot participate in that discussion because I am still sitting out my block until February because I stood up to some abusive admins and corrupt arbitrators and I was banished for my insolence and show the community what happens when you criticize admins and the arbcom. But I refuse to just sit by and allow a handful of people to lie to the community and hide the truth. The RFA process has become a huge failure and needs to be completely redesigned including giving the tools to users and removing them. If the current admins do not think this is fair thats too bad. Multiple admins have themselves told me that there are several of their peers that they do not believe should be admins and should have had the tools removed, yet they do nothing and let them get away with it. IMO they had their chance to fix things and make them better and they either participated in the abuse themselves or sat by and watched the bullies and did nothing. So as far as I am concerned those who have allowed the abuse are little better than those who participated in it at this point and if that statement hurts some feelings then thats just tough shit. People do not want to be admins not just because its a bad job, they don't want to be admins because they have the morales to see that there are some abusive ones (probably some that are reading this statement, yes you!) and they do not want to be associated with those abusive individuals. Its a simple guilt by association situation. Reguyla (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Frankly I think that many people do not want to be admins because of a small group of people that take every opportunity to call them corrupt abusive bullies and liars regardless of the basis in reality. It is a thankless job that draws plenty of abuse and you have done your share to contribute to that problem. When your ban is reviewed in 6 months this continuation of past behavior will be an issue. Chillum 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Your partly right, but its only a few abusive ones that the rest of you don't do anything about that makes you all look bad. If the admins would police their own, it would go a long way towards improving their reputation. And just FYI, my block expires in February, there is no review. The review was already done and you got to voice your opinion that I not be allowed back so I couldn't continue to criticize abusiveness in the project. If more people were here to build an encyclopedia as I am it would be a better place. But too many are only here to stroke their own egos and be bullies. I am simply not going to be bullied just because I am not an admin and not exempt from the rules.Reguyla (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you are in for a bit of a surprise if you think that. Yes at the end of the 6 months this will be reviewed. The deal was that you made zero disruption for 6 months. I suggest you re-read the discussion that led to your current probationary period.
To quote the closing "Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance". Zero disruption means zero, not more than zero. My advice is to just stop using Wikipedia completely for 6 months starting today, otherwise you will have a difficult time arguing that you made zero disruptions in the last 6 months. Insulting editors is a form of disruption greater than zero by the way. Chillum 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
First Chillum I am not "attacking" anyone. Not even you and its unfortunate you think I am. Its not my fault that you made a false statement and I called you out on it. As an admin you should know better. On the issue of my block expiration I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that but looking at the statement, "Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance" I would say its going to auto expire. Also Chillum for what its worth I have said before and I will state again here that I have no doubts that some will want to keep block going, particularly some of the abusive admins and arbs I have talked about. As I said before, there are less and less people here that are interested in building an encyclopedia as I am so it does not surprise me that some would not want me to keep building one so they can continue to be bullies to people who will sit by and take it. Also, I am not "disrupting" anything. If it wasn't for some other editors on the site's disruptive presence and attitudes towards editors whom they deem not worthy because they aren't admins, I would never have been banned or blocked in the first place and I would have done thousands of edits a month. So because a few abusive individuals are allowed to be bullies and I wasn't going to stand for it, I was banned as an example to the community and the project lost out on one of its highest output editors and on tens of thousands of edits.\
As some of my background because it appears you have been fooled into thinking I am not here to build an encyclopedia or to contribute to the project and I don't think we really interacted so you don't know the actual truth. I have more than 500, 000 edits, I have created nearly 1000 articles, I have over a dozen featured content and twice that number of GA's. I kept more than 100 WikiProjects alive for more than 2 years while making myself a target for article owners and WikiProjects that want to own their articles. Not to mention the US collaboration of the month I tried to restart and that failed because no one wants to collaborate anymore, the US newsletter that no one wanted or wanted to help with, the images I contributed and all the other things I did here. I can program in Lua and I can edit almost all of the templates and MediaWiki pages including most of the most complicated. I can even edit and interpret the edit filters. I have done more administrative work than most of the admins have. So its laughable to me if you really think I am not here to build an encyclopedia and if that is still the case then I challenge you to do better!
Regardless, nothing I have done here, on my talk page, could be considered disruption by any reasonable individual who didn't already have the desire for me to be banned. Look Chillum, I know you don't like me, I know you think I should be banned because I refused to take the abuse and I frankly don't care. I think its unfortunate because I don't think you are a bad person, but I think you have been convinced by others who I do not beleve are here for the right reasons. The bottom line here is that I am here to contribute to this enclyclopedia and I intend to do that whether you personally want me too or not. But don't pretend that you are uninvolved or that you only have the projects best interests at heart because we both know better ok.Reguyla (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Reguyla, you misunderstood my post: my point was that someone shouldn't need to have technical skill to nominate someone for adminship. However, I still maintain that it's not necessary to know every technical detail at the time of applying to be an admin. An admin who learns to use just a few of the admin processes (say, those needed for closing discussions or blocking inappropriate usernames) can help to decrease the backlogs in those areas, provided that they have experience in appropriately applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having the common sense to ask for assistance or further explanation when beginning to work in a new area should be all that's required. In fact, some skills, such as history merges, can't be learned until after adminship because regular editors can't even see what the deleted page processes look like. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I partially agree with that Anne. As you may or may not know, I have long stated that I think the RFA process is too complicated and needs to be made easier. So in that aspect we agree. But as long as the process is what it is, IMO, an admin should be able to transclude their own RFA without breaking it if that is what they are doing. because its not the only process that uses transclusions and it shows they understand how those work. If they don't know how as you mention, they should ask before hand or see how it was done by others. Imagine if they try to edit a MediaWiki page and screw something up, they can do a lot of damage to the site, even if only temporarily. Additionally, a lot of the admin areas as you know require the admin tools so if they cannot even transclude their own RFA, then that is a red flag for me that they aren't ready. I do agree that its not necessary to be able to do all things admin right away and I have frequently advocated that, and I for one am glad they split off the Template editor rights so that some of the technical folks could help out there. I just find it a little unfair for lack of a better term that the only ones who get the tools these days are the ultra conservatives that do not get invovled in anything until after they get the tools and generally have zero technical ability. Especially when a lot of the admin areas are technical and need more participants as well. Reguyla (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't have any trouble with my own RfA, because someone else did the transcluding. However, when nominating someone else, I did have trouble with the clock feature which I had never come across before or since, so it can't be all that common in daily wiki-work, and I take issue with using it as a sole test of technical ability. I've made some other mistakes, too, but I feel no inclination to throw in the towel for that reason. Yes, a good mix of technical experts, content creators and people who can judge a consensus is what's needed - but since there is no particular limit to the number of admins, it's not as though accepting an admin with only some of these skills is keeping out those with the other skills. About ultra conservatives: I presume you mean conservative in behaviour, not politics. Encyclopedias are by nature fairly conservative, rather than trend-setting, and it's likely best if admins aren't wild and woolly risk-takers, but the admins with whom I've interacted seem to be a mixture of characters. I'm not sure what you mean, though, by "do not get involved in anything". What kind of anything did you have in mind? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree that in a perfect world we should have a mixture of admins and I would happily vote support on nearly any idea to change the RFA process or expand access to the various tools. People generally do what they are interested in, so even if they have access to the technical pages, if that is not something they are interested in, they generally won't mess with it. I generally just think adminship and the RFA process has become a hindrence to the project and will need to change for the survival of the project. For example, too much credibility is given to admins based solely on their having access to a couple extra tools that should be given fairly freely and be fairly easy to remove if abused. As it is, its nearly impossible to remove them even when the admins shows a pattern of abuse (due in large part to the incompetence of the Arbcom) so the process of getting access has become a gauntlet. So its a double edged sword. This has further caused the culture of Wikipedia to find any reason to oppose a candidate no matter how old or how petty rather than find a reason to Support. This in turn has made it so that only ultra conservative individuals who do gnomish work, vote on the popular side of stuff for discussion/deletion and don't get involved in things, and particiularly stay aware from contentious areas get the tools. These days in order to become an admin, the editor has to plan it and carefully manipulate the process to check the right blocks...or get very very lucky. Thats not how it should work. Those who do actively participate in contentious areas and vote their conscience of feelings on stuff for deletion/discussion don't stand a chance at getting the tools. This further means that the newer admins are less likely to stand up to abusers because they are, as the culture has evolved, more timid than their longer serving counterparts who have been here for years. Its a dirty cycle and there is no easy overnight fix, but it is a problem and is one of the contributors to the decline of the project and why people don't get promoted. As with jobs or even hobbies, if people do not get promoted (for lack of a better term), even if they enjoy what they do, they are going to move on to where their efforts are appreciated and where they are "trusted". It is because of the widespread lack of trust in Wikipedia that is a primary factor for its decline and the RFA process and adminship is at the center of that trust cycle. Editors see people they respect try and fail and then that disuades them from even attempting it and at some point they get tired of the drama and leave. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @HJ Mitchell: - I noticed your comments about wanting more admins at RFA and wanted to counter that, for someone who says you want more admins, you have a very low support rate. I have noticed you almost always vote oppose in RFA's so it makes me wonder why, if you want more admins, you would do that. Also as you know I am all too familiar with the abusive side of the admin corps and although I will be the first to admin that the abusive ones are only a very small percentage of the total admins, they are some of the most active on the site. What's worse is that others like yourself whom I believe are good admins and aren't abusive don't do anything about your abusive peers that we both know are there. So although you may not be a part of the problem of why there aren't enough admins, you are a factor when you don't do anything to rid the project of the abusive ones and rarely vote any new admins the tools. As I mentioned to Anne yesterday, the only admins that get selected these days are the keep to themselves, ultra conservative types who don't use the tools, so if you want help, you need to start giving active contributors who have experience and know how to use the tools the access. Otherwise saying that you want and need more help is just hot air. Reguyla (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


FYI: [2]. CC.

Category:Oklahoma articles without listas parameter[edit]

Category:Oklahoma articles without listas parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note but I couldn't vote on it if I wanted too. I'm still in editing jail for criticizing the corruption and incompetence of some of the admins. Just a couple notes though. If this category is deleted, you should also look at the other related Lisas paramters for WikiProject United States (every state and most of the other supported projects have one as well) and you will need to remove the logic from the WikiProject Template as well if that hasn't already been done. It may also be a good idea to simply remove the listas form the ones that do have it to avoid confusion if its determined that its not needed. Another comment on the mention of WikiProject biography. Not all of these articles fall into WikiProject Biography, so using the argument that they are already sorted by that WikiProject only affects about 30% of the articles. Reguyla (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I just wanted to clarify. Although WPOK is not a WPUS supported project, WPUS uses these listas parameters as well so if this one is done the WPUS ones should be done as well probably. Reguyla (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Medal of Honor
Thank you for quality articles on recipients of the Medal of Honor, for quoting the wisdom "We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back.", applied to an honorable oppose, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 February 2010 and 22 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 276th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. People were still building an encyclopedia back then. It was a much better place. Now people are more interested in finding reasons to enforce policy, gain power and block people they don't agree with than of building an encyclopedia. If there was more interest in building an encyclopedia the community would have done something about the abusive and corrupt admins here by now. As it is, those few abusive individuals have so much power that even the arbcom has been infiltrated and is too weak to do anything about them. This project has truly become a sad excuse for an encyclopedia. Thanks for the reminder of better times though Reguyla (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
For example, if I wasn't still blocked I could have helped clear up some of the questions at Template talk:WikiProject United States and the WikiProject talk page, I could have done the items on the list above (which is just a short one compared to the real one I am keeping offline), I would have added several more articles and would have tagged a lot of stuff with WikiProject Banners, not to mention cleanup stuff. But because I am blocked to prove a point to the community not to question admins authority, those edits and a lot of others aren't getting done. Because building an encyclopedia is no longer the priority here. Making sure that admins, especially the abusive ones with all the power, are protected is now the priority and I don't expect I will ever be allowed to edit again so they can continue to be abusive and drag the project down. I averaged more than 10, 000 edits a month prior to me ban/block and those who did less than 100 edits a month still tried to argue I wasn't here to build an encyclopedia. Whats even worse, some actually believed them because they were too lazy to look. Anyway, rant over but needless to say this place has become a sad shadow of what it once was and could be if people cared about the project more than about their power. Reguyla (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template talk:USRSB[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template talk:USRSB requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bazj (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)