User talk:Amerique

FACs needing feedback view •
Weise's law	Review it now
Battle of Saipan	Review it now
The Motherland Calls	Review it now
Infant school	review it now

Pacific view from UCSC

NPOV

Hey, instead of voting "meh", could you put in agree or disagree. There might be individual editors who will think you're supporting some imaginary consensus. Again.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[1] rootology (T) 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a section for your recall proposal and Everyking's on my sandbox page.

Please edit if inclined.[2] Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've commented on its talk page. - jc37 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

Just so you know, while I oppose the methodology of the recall proposal currently being considered, that in no way reflects my opinion of you. I have really not looked through your other contributions, but I have no reason to believe they are not wonderful. In short, it is not personal. Chillum 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I don't take anything on this site personally. I appreciate your input, though. Amerique^dialectics 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UCR logo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:UCR logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

why did you add that tag on my page you cant until you prove it I will undo it is vandalism and who's House?... If this continues I will contact a admin. MountCan (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop!

I already contacted an admin. and asked him to do me a User cheak to stop you from saying I'm a sock puppet, because I'm not! MountCan (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

House?

I am not House, do me a user cheak to prove it, and so you can leave me alone! I have contacted 2 admins. already MountCan (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AM I block?

Am I block for an error that I did, I'm canadian and wasent expecting this so can I edit or whats going on? MountCan (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not right now, but I'm giving a California barnstar to the first person who does! Amerique^dialectics 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: All done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the California Star. Didn't know that one existed. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Blocked. You might want to ask Alison to run a checkuser on the latest socks and see if an IP block can be done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was never House

1 mistake and this happens? Oh and can I create a new account and start all over, fresh? MountCan (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what you've been doing. And you'll probably make the same mistakes through another account and get blocked again. So it goes. See you again real soon I'm sure. Amerique^dialectics 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I wont make the same mistake I will edit, but well. But you guys were wrong I am not House. MountCan (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin recall.

I heard about your proposal and I have to say that I think strengthening administrator recall is a good idea. This way, we won't have any administrators who are:

• Eccentric
• Ugly
• Strongly religious
• Strongly critical of religion
• Mentally ill
• Private individuals, who keep to themselves
• Opposed to pseudoscience
• Politically aware
• Interesting
• Critical of Wikipedia
• Honest
• Intelligent
• Human, capable of making mistakes
• Competent
• Capable of doing their jobs
• Named Jimmy Wales

In other words, in a purely democratic Wikipedian bureaucracy, high-level administrators would start to resemble politicians, as they already somewhat do. It is good for leadership to be arbitrarily decided by the fickle whims of the anti-intellectual mob, because with the resulting shortage of administrators and the tying of their hands, I would finally have the freedom to IAR. In any case, if Jimmy Wales doesn't respond to this suggestion, I suppose the community will have to decide by consensus on what his opinion ought to be.

In all honesty, it is the virtues of editors which matter. The methods by which those editors come together is arbitrary. There is a trade-off in admin recall between the ability for the community to make stupid decisions and the ability for individuals to make stupid decisions. There is no reason to have more faith in one than the other. So, lack of admin recall is corrupt elitism, the presence of admin recall is whimsical populism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head! Those admins with pointy senses of humor should be the first to find out if the community still appreciates their virtues, following a stand-up performance at a well-attended RFC! Community recall would be like the Gong Show, or even like the early stages of American Idol, but with the audience as judges. Admins are made by the mob, why not let them be unmade by the same mob? You have truly seen the zen majesty of what I am proposing, in that it provides a larger symmetry to balance the existing thing. Amerique^dialectics 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While I know reality shows are very popular right now, I don't think the gong show style is the best way to manage ourselves. If our goal was to create an entertaining show then yes, but we are here to write an encyclopedia. Chillum 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was only joking around. I'm tempted to file an RFA on myself just so that this process could be used against me so i don't seem like an instigator before i put the proposal back in project space. I don't think it would pass, though. (I'm already at least half of the things under Zenwhat's hit list, above.) Amerique^dialectics 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't joking, I meant it. I do appreciate the effort you have taken into reform, I don't think it is the right direction but discussing it with the community is the best way to find out. I disagree with the idea, but I appreciate that you got people thinking. Chillum 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, don't worry about it. The community's decision on this will not be a matter of either of us agreeing with each other. Your comments help refine the idea, before it has a chance to get "gonged out" by the community, so I appreciate your participation at these early stages. Amerique^dialectics 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, you may find this interesting: User:Chillum/Admin reform history. It is a collection of prior proposals regarding admin recall. It may be useful in determining what the community has already rejected and what they have accepted. It has not been updated since Nov. 2007 however so it does not contain any of the recent proposals. Chillum 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)