User talk:Kmweber

WikiProject Indiana Alerts have been posted:

• Popular page listing

Articles for deletion

• 05 Jun 2024 – Traders Point Christian Church (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Namiba (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
• 19 May 2024 – List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Cocobb8 (t · c); see discussion (10 participants; relisted)
• 28 May 2024 – Purdy Hill, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as redirect by Liz (t · c) on 04 Jun 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
• 28 May 2024 – Shady Lane, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 04 Jun 2024; see discussion (5 participants)
• 27 May 2024 – Old Hill, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 03 Jun 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
• 25 May 2024 – Chicago / Midwest Emmy Awards (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Boleyn (t · c) was closed as redirect by Liz (t · c) on 01 Jun 2024; see discussion (4 participants)
• 14 May 2024 – Brad Chambers (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by BottleOfChocolateMilk (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Doczilla (t · c) on 06 Jun 2024; see discussion (8 participants; relisted)
• 29 Apr 2024 – Wilson, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as delete by Star Mississippi (t · c) on 08 Jun 2024; see discussion (6 participants; relisted)

Good article nominees

• 16 May 2024 – Richmond, Indiana, facility fire (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Tails Wx (t · c); start discussion
• 06 Feb 2024 – R. Ames Montgomery (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by PCN02WPS (t · c); start discussion

Articles for creation

• 30 Apr 2024 – Draft:Fort Wayne Free Press (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 168.91.2.31 (t · c)
• 23 Feb 2024 – Draft:Monon Athletic Conference (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Smoothraccoon123 (t · c)
• undated – Draft:Northern Indiana Railway (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

My RfA

Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA voting

Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms in WP:RFA, and I will block you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, National Merit Scholarship Finalist! Seriously, dude, it's not befitting you as a libertarian to run around RfA making an ass out of yourself. All that's going to happen is the crats will start ignoring you, like they have ignored RfA loons in the past - like that dude who voted against any Jew or Hindu, or that other dude that opposed every RfB because we do not need any more bureaucrats. Don't follow their example, to make sure your fellow editors continue to respect you. -- Y not? 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If caving is what I have to do to earn the respect of these people, I do not want it. After talking with Jaranda online, he has agreed that he will not block me me for continuing to do this, because he now understands why I am doing what I am doing--he doesn't agree with me, but he accepts that I'm doing what I have to do, because it's what I hold to be right. Kurt Weber 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to be political if you want respect. Compromise and pragmatism are part of it. By calling it caving, you're being fair and balanced. That Jaranda will not block you doesn't mean I won't. -- Y not? 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't. Putting forth a legitimate opinion as part of discussion is not a valid cause for blocking. I am doing nothing wrong; I am causing no problems. Those who don't like what I'm saying are entitled to ignore me or attempt to engage me in discussion. Threats are not an appropriate way to get me to change my mind. Kurt Weber 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that was not a threat. I was being cute. I won't block you either. -- Y not? 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But I did attempt to engage you in discussion, perhaps you could come over to the TPH RFA and discuss where I have commented on your comment, if you like. Navou ^banter 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TPH RFA

I have questioned your comment on the TPH RFA. Perhaps you could come shed some light. Thanks, Navou 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop commeting on RfA's about your personal "I view self noms as a power hungry", some people just dont want to draw loads of attention to themselves by having loads of co-noms so please stop this totally idiotic thing, looking at your contribs you dont even both to actually take a look at the user themself just quickly !voting, you made two in one minute recently. So just stop before someone blocks you. Rlest 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT discussion

I have listed a discussion at AN/I here. Regards, Navou 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's to you

		This user is OK!
		You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for your contributions and overall, mostly not-bad-ness. ~ Infrangible 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologise for accusing you of sour grapes at WT:RFA. I would concede that people's views can change over time, and that there's no evidence of you holding a grudge about something which happened over two years ago. I'm also worried that my comments looked a little like an ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer, not the argument. For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your views on self-noms, I accept the validity of your reasoning, and support your right to express your opinion. I firmly believe that freedom of expression is extremely healthy for any community or society (as a libertarian, you no doubt agree with this principle), and I certainly wouldn't advocate removing your comments from RfAs, a course of action which has been suggested by some editors. Walton^One 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Contract Addition

I removed the contract stuff you added to {{Infobox NFLactive}}. It might be a good thing to discuss that on that talk page first before adding it. It's a good idea, i just don't think it'll hold up well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA comments

Just a polite note to let you know that your behaviour on RfA is, along with that of other editors, proving disruptive to the project and is spilling over into user talk pages and onto noticeboards. I'm prepared to block you for disruption along with other users if any future comments on RfAs get out of hand as is happening at present. Please consider your behaviour and examine the impact it is having on the wider community. Nick 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo requests

Saw your comment on the PSI page, and wanted to point out that a number of other articles, including Wabash County, Illinois, Mount Carmel, Illinois, Indiana State Road 64 and those for several neighboring counties and towns also have outstanding Photo requests. I've been hoping to blitz the tri-state over xmas when I go back home, but if you beat me to it, you'll be a minor hero. MrZaius^talk 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I took one Saturday morning last November taking pictures around Princeton; I meant to spend another day taking pictures at other points of interest in Gibson County, but I never got around to it. Perhaps soon I will. Kurt Weber 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies (copied from User talk:Rlest)

Kurt, I asked administrators to post this as I have understandably not been unblocked. I'm here to apologise for my calling you an idiot under this account. Although I (and in the kindest possible way everybody else on Wikipedia) strongly dis-agree with your reasons to oppose users just because they're self noms has become out of control. I would also like you to know that the IP address what called you an idiot on your talk page was not me, rather banned user Molag Bal who causes immense trouble for me on Wikipedia and did throughout the incident when I edited as Qst. i hope you accept my apologies, I also hope you find it in your heart to stop this opposing requests for adminship based solely on it being a self nomination, Best Regards. Rlest 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Dr. Stephen C. Sillett

Good after noon Kurt. It seems that both Dr. Sillett and myself are in agreement about the excessive length of the wiki entry for Dr. Sillett. While I understand that it is better to trim the article to size rather than bulk deletion, I do not see how my current revision is excessive. How would one "trim the fat" from such a lengthy, young, and self-aggrandizing vanity page. Even this current page is excessive for the calibre of scientist Dr. Sillet truely is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVarkey (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter how good of a scientist you or anyone else thinks he is. The length of a subject's article is determined not by the importance of a subject but rather by how much relevant, verifiable information is available on him. Just because he might not be a very good scientist is no reason to trim down his article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the information that you have removed. Kurt Weber 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir, for your help in the ettiquette of Wikipedia. I reverted the article to the form it was before I ever edited it. I will allow the Wiki community to do any future edits of Dr. Sillett. Thanks. --DrVarkey 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. A lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that since Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia, it is unbound by many of the limitations such encyclopedias experience; specifically in this case, the length of an article isn't dependent upon the importance of a subject but rather on the amount of information available. No need to feel sheepish--you're new, it takes some time to learn the ropes. And feel free to continue making edits to that article as you wish--if you breach any other community standards, as long as your edits are done in good faith all you'll get is a polite explanation of what you did wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opposes to self-noms

I have noticed that you have opposed every self-nomination on WP:RFA, and with all due respect, opposing self-noms on an inherent basis is just wrong. Self-noms are not only allowed, they are encouraged, especially if you cannot find anyone to nominate you without asking (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). I mean, self-nominations are not something to really oppose for, and I have a strong feeling that the bureaucrats will not take your votes without further explanation. Thank you. Diez2 14:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to push this issue, you might want to take it to the talk page or the village pump, and not take it out on the RfAs. Diez2 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been talked to many times about this. I don't see a change in the foreseeable future, even though I'm sure he understands that it's inappropriate to make an accusation without properly reviewing the candidate. It also doesn't make it appropriate to state that you hope the thing you've just accused them isn't true... whatever the candidate is supposed to take that to mean. How should they improve? What can they do in the future to gain his support? This is unclear at best. The only advice I can see coming from the opposes is to canvass prominent RfA nominators for their next try. At least that would ward off 1 oppose. Leebo ^T/C 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not even worth talk about it (I say as I talk about it). He won't discuss it substantively, and was himself a self nom. Personally, I just wish he'd say "hunger for power" instead of "power hunger"... just seems to roll of the lips a but more fluidly. Hiberniantears 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to discuss it several times already, and every time I was ridiculed or ignored. And yes, I self-nommed myself once; that was two years ago. Is it that inconceivable that people might change their minds over time? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with your opinion (perfectly valid) or risk aversion; it's the fact that your opposes are not constructive, or, in my opinion, polite. Both of which are recommended at the top of the Discussion area. They are not constructive because they offer no information about why the candidate is actually unsuitable administrator material. They are not polite, in my opinion, because you openly say you have not reviewed their contributions. It is my opinion that if you do not want to take the time to review candidates, you should refrain from commenting. Candidates are owed polite and constructive criticism. Leebo ^T/C 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, if you at least explained why you believe such a risk exists, many editors might be willing to take your view more seriously. I realize you have no evidence, but why do you feel this way? What motivates you to believe this? Philosophically speaking, do you fear the granting of "power" generally, and therefore fear those who seek it on their own more so over those nominated by others? I think your standard oppose statement frustrates a great many editors because there are many who believe you have the right to make such a statement, but there is very little agreement as to whether or not it holds any value because you do not explain why you believe, and as I have noted, you are yourself a prior self-nom, who simply states you changed your mind... but you do not say why you changed your mind. My point is simply this: If you think you have a well founded reason for opposing self-noms, why not develop a fully articulated explanation of why you believe this in order to make certain your contributions are taken constructively, and receive greater merit? Hiberniantears 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I don't agree with Kurt's assertion that self-nom indicates being power hungry, I find it at least an understandable sentiment. I think people should probably hassle him less about it. If the crats disregard it, so be it. I do completely agree that if someone seems power-hungry, or authoritarian, or displays any tendency to try to throw their weight around, this makes them an unsuitable candidate. Friday (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out recently on WT:RfA, actually, most Wikipedia/Wikimedia positions rely exclusively on self-noms. Historically, bureaucrats were always self-nominated (recently, there was a nomination of a 'crat candidate by someone else, and a very experienced editor wrote in to ask if there was a change in the norms for this position). Arbitrators, stewards, members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors, all are self-nominations only (last year, someone tried to "draft" me to run for ArbCom and was told that that was highly unorthodox behavior, because if the individual wanted to run he would nominate himself). Requests for adminship has always been a mixed process, with some self-noms and some nominations by others (in the RfA thread, someone pointed out that self-noms actually came first, historically, hence the name "requests" for adminship).

I find no merit to your suggestion that self-nomination for adminship, or any other position, suggests "power hunger" more than accepting a nomination by someone else would do so. I strongly urge that you drop these !votes and comments, which clearly enjoy very little support from the community. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)