User talk:SoWhy

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index

Request for Adoption

I would love to become a better user and you sound like the person who could really help so plz adopt me thanks --76.176.137.161 (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC) DPS

Hi there. Sorry for the late reply but I didn't see your post at the top of the page. I'd be happy to adopt you but only if you signup. While I strongly support the editing of anonymous editors, I prefer to know that the person I adopted is always the same which is not necessarily true with IPs, as they can be reallocated. Regards SoWhy 10:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My Mistake

On the Criteria for Speedy Deletion page, I initially thought that the paragraph had been in place for quite some time, which is why I reverted its removal twice. I then started to look over how long it had been there, and was shown by another editor that it was actually just a couple days old. My mistake for not realizing it, but just a couple days ago, I had relied on that specific wording for re-instating the WKQX‎ redirect (to WWWN), after a plea for help at the Village Pump, and thought it was just part of the language of the page.

My apologies for my part in the reverts that led you to protect the page. -- Avanu (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Please remember for the future that you should be extra-careful on policy pages as to if and how often to revert. Since they are highly visible, any disruption of such kind should be avoided. Hopefully, it will be resolved at the talk page now. Regards SoWhy 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

It seemed there was a bit of tension with the article IceFrog and I'm sorry. We shouldn't get worked up over that and I won't nominate the article for deletion. But, I also want to see the integrity of the article remain. So, I think it should be improved by going on without the use of the name, Eurogamer can and should be kept as a source, as they are very notable. But the name used has been disputed, since it originated from anonymous user claiming to be a Valve employee. DarthBotto _talk•cont 10:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the talk page. Unless you can prove that Eurogamer is not reliable in this case, the name should definitely stay in the article. Regards SoWhy 10:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA: Elaboration

Hi!

Please emphasize the initial "shown commitment to the project" endorsement.

The second phrase was intended humorously but truly to remind the community of a widespread concern about double standards—to be taken no more seriously (and no less seriously) than Hans Adler's hilarious endorsement "The candidate will abuse the administrator tools only in the ways of which I approve", which reminded me that administrators need not be infallible (and that errors could be corrected ...).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't pick up on the humor when reading it but I understand now. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. On a side note, I fully support that sentiment. The idea that admins are somehow subject to different standards is still as incomprehensibly to me today as it was when I first heard it. Regards SoWhy 16:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

River Song

I left you a note on the talk page. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

AdminWatch redux

As the closing admin on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch, I thought I would ask you first, but this is not a criticism or challenge of your close in any way. I think your decision was fair within the discussion that occurred at the MfD.

That said, imagine my surprise when I (re?)discovered this page: Talk:Chiropractic/Admin_log. This is quite clearly a "shit list", kept in perpetuity by admins against non-admins. My username appears on the list. I also have barely repressed traumatic memories of editing the Chiropractic article. Mummy? Please make the dramah go away! Other editor names appear on the list not because they've done anything disruptive, but because they might do so.

Why the double standard? Why are admins allowed to keep such lists on non-admins, but non-admins are not allowed to keep such lists of admins? --Surturz (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect I'm afraid. First of all, there is no reason at all to assume that the list documents only non-admins. Second, it's not a list by one or multiple specific admins against certain users - it's a log by all those who which to manage the disputes that might arise containing those who were notified of the related ArbCom case and the possibility of sanctions based on this case (e.g. you). It explicitly says that your name on the list does not mean anything other than that you were notified of those restrictions and thus your editing might be sanctioned without having to notify you again. But there is no double-standard here because it was actively used (when it was still active) to attempt dispute resolution if necessary - unlike so-called "shit lists" which are not created in an attempt to resolve disputes at all but merely attempt to document behavior one or more people object to. As the MFD on the aforementioned page clearly said, it is perfectly fine to have pages that are created to resolve actual conflicts.

That said, the page is clearly inactive and the only reason why your name is still on it is because noone edited in 2 years but noone brought it to MFD yet. I'd suggest you taking the page to MFD before claiming that there is a double-standard. Remember: Just because something has not been deleted (yet) does not mean it should exist. See WP:LONGTIME. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)