Jump to content

User talk:Johntex/Talk24: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Haizum (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 36: Line 36:


A poll has been started on the censorship talk page. You're a major proponent for compromise on this issue, be sure to chime in. [[User:Haizum|Haizum]] 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A poll has been started on the censorship talk page. You're a major proponent for compromise on this issue, be sure to chime in. [[User:Haizum|Haizum]] 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

== I need advice regarding Raphael1 ==
Raphael has changed my texts previously, personally attacked me and others and otherwhise vandalised articles.
I do not think that he has done so to be deliberately obnoxious, but he does seem to have trouble understanding what he reads.
Perhaps someone should could volonteer to become his mentor? Not me. I fear him, and I fear writing any answers to him. At least he now has an account. Might it be because his numbered account at one time had a tasc's "last warning" in it, which he cleared that way? Anyway, he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying. At the moment, in the cartoons section, he is winning the battle arguing successfully that the "no personal attacks" policy means that he is allowed to attack us contributors, but we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of muslims if they claim they are offended. He is winning since he is tenacious. I do not think he will win in the long run, but he has been making several just as alien claims using similar tactics , and I know at least two others who have decided to stop writing in the article talk areas, at least for a while, because of him. That makes three of us. I don't mind user talk areas, since I don't think he is even aware of them. Since you are an administrator, I thought perhaps you might had some good advice? [[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:54, 5 March 2006

User:Johntex
User:Johntex/Gallery01
User:Johntex/Resources
User:Johntex/To-Do
User_talk:Johntex
Johntex Photography Resources To-Do Talk
My contributions My admin log
This is Johntex's talk page. To leave me a new message, please click here.
Talk Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4


McCoy on DYK

Hi, you have updated the DYK with the John McCoy entry but I have several concerns. Please note that adminship is no license to update DYK out of process. For example, the article you created was not listed on Template talk:Did you know. The reason the suggestions need to be listed on this page is that other editors find potential problems. Just as the FA director does not update articles to FA status (he follows a process), so should be the case while updating DYK. With the general distrust for admins on the rise, I have always felt that we should never give a scope for other users to claim admin abuses against us. Anyways, next time you have an interesting suggestion from a new article, please add it to the template talk. Also, the article that is being referenced to in DYK must be bolded to make it stand out from the other wikilinks in the entry. Next time you update DYK, please keep these in mind. If you need to reply, please do so on my talkpage. TIA, --Gurubrahma 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gurubrahma, thanks for the message. I'm sorry if my update of DIY was out of process. I was trying to be very careful, but it was my first time to do a DIY update, so it does not surprise me if I made a mistake. Here is what I did:
  1. First, I did list the article at Template talk:Did you know. [1]
  2. After a time, however, I realized that it was the only article left for March 1, and I knew that on the weekend we run the picture of the day instead of DIY. Therefore, I was afraid the McCoy might be overlooked on Friday and that it would be inelligible by the time Monday rolled around.
  3. At that point, I read all the rules about updating the page, including that any admin can do it, and the guidelines for how long an article should probably stay up (at least 6 hours, no more than 24). I saw that the Jordanhill railway station had been up for quite some time - not unexpectedly since it is our millionth article. Still, it seemed like there was time for a short listing of McCoy before the weekend.
  4. So, I put McCoy into the Template, and I removed it from the Template:Talk listing. At this point, I was a little confused by the instructions. There is information there saying "please archive the article" until it is stable, but there is also information there that talks about auto-archiving by a bot. I decided that what the instructions were asking me to do is to remove the article from that Talk page and place it on the relevant Portal history, which I did [2].
  5. Unsure if I did everything correctly or not, I stayed on Wikipedia for several hours [3] to see if there were any issues with the process I followed and to watch for any vandalism to the articles linked in the DIY.
I see now that I missed the part about Bolding the article name. I'm sorry about that.
Did I also do the wrong thing at Step 4 about the archiving? It seems that the way I archived it led you to believe I had never listed it there on the talk page. As I exlain above in points 1 and 4, I did list it, but I removed it myself [4] , following what I thought was the process.
As for the opinions on the wiki about admins, I agree with you that it is very important for admins to set a proper example. Appearance of impropriety can be almost as unwelcome as actual improprietry. However, as I hope you agree, we do have jobs to do, and we will make human mistakes. I feel that users here who are so suspicous of admins that they can't assume good faith, at least long enough for the admin to explain his/herself, can be invited to leave the project with no reason to miss them. All I can do is to read the instructions, try to follow them as best I'm able, and learn from my inevitable mistakes.
I don't know that I will ever have another occasion to do a DIY update. I certainly don't plan to make a habbit of updaing it, though I do anticipate I will list future articles for consideration. In fact, earlier yesterday, I did list Episcopal Diocese of Dallas at DIY. Unlike the Joseph McCoy article, I had nothing to do with writing this one. I just found it as a result of answering a question at the new-user Help desk.
Just in case I ever do update DIy again, can you please help me understand how the archiving is supposed to work? Thank you again for contacting me, and for all your hard work at DIY. Johntex\talk 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Nice answer on the help page!, maybe the best one I have seen so far. :D - cohesiontalk 07:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


3RR

Rgulerdem is the person who violated 3RR. Did you actually look at the diff's you posted on my talk page. Adding a contradict tag does not count as a revert. Gerard Foley 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO he did violate 3RR, however I prefer discussion rather then "ha, ha, you're banned for 3RR". It's the easy way out. Gerard Foley 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Censorship

A poll has been started on the censorship talk page. You're a major proponent for compromise on this issue, be sure to chime in. Haizum 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need advice regarding Raphael1

Raphael has changed my texts previously, personally attacked me and others and otherwhise vandalised articles. I do not think that he has done so to be deliberately obnoxious, but he does seem to have trouble understanding what he reads. Perhaps someone should could volonteer to become his mentor? Not me. I fear him, and I fear writing any answers to him. At least he now has an account. Might it be because his numbered account at one time had a tasc's "last warning" in it, which he cleared that way? Anyway, he is not like some who just vandalises for the sake of it, he believes what he is saying. At the moment, in the cartoons section, he is winning the battle arguing successfully that the "no personal attacks" policy means that he is allowed to attack us contributors, but we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of muslims if they claim they are offended. He is winning since he is tenacious. I do not think he will win in the long run, but he has been making several just as alien claims using similar tactics , and I know at least two others who have decided to stop writing in the article talk areas, at least for a while, because of him. That makes three of us. I don't mind user talk areas, since I don't think he is even aware of them. Since you are an administrator, I thought perhaps you might had some good advice? DanielDemaret 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]