::Imagine that a vandal starts leaving nasty messages, an event that has many times, with potentially deadly results. Let the minor decide after reflecting further. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
::Imagine that a vandal starts leaving nasty messages, an event that has many times, with potentially deadly results. Let the minor decide after reflecting further. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
::Please deal with the substance of the concern, DemiWit1000, this time at least. I linked to the Nyb's essay suggesting the removal of personal information by minors (#7 I repeat). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
::Please deal with the substance of the concern, <s>DemiWit1000,</s> this time at least. I linked to the Nyb's essay suggesting the removal of personal information by minors (#7 I repeat). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 07:45, 7 July 2011
20:31
Please note that it is currently 8:31 PM BST.(Refresh)
Strange Passerby's talk page procedures
If you leave a message here
I will reply here. Please watch my page for replies.
I will leave a {{talkback}} message only if you are a new editor, or if you specifically request so in your message or on your talk page.
If I leave a message on your talk page
I will watch it for replies.
You need not post here.
Please avoid using {{talkback}} on my page unless it's urgent. If you do leave a talkback message, please timestamp it.
Note that talkback notices are liable to be rolled back or removed at any time, unless they have been responded to in the same thread.
If you reply here to a message I leave you, I will continue the discussion here.
Strange Passerby, I don't think you have established a clear need on why the entire admin corpus needs to be advised; the evidence in the recent cases seems to be limited to actions escalated by Sandstein. Is it your view that when one admin repeatedly acts counterproductively, the solution is to repeatedly remind ALL of the project's admins (of what it knows and otherwise complies with) without actually addressing that single admin who is causing much of the problem? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it would be viable to single out any one admin here. Both Sandstein and HJ Mitchell probably did what they felt to be right, even if both actions could have been handled better. I'm not buying the apparent crusade against Sandstein here. I'm not suggesting this should be a precedent and that all admins would have to be reminded of these principles in future, merely saying a one-off reminder can't hurt. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think admins are understandably getting a tad bit tired of being reminded of things they are already complying with and not in need of being reminded of yet again. If there wasn't an earlier case where the same set of problems unfolded, I'd have agreed that a one off-reminder this time is good, but I think we've been there and done that. At the time, I'd specifically asked for all admins to be reminded of good practice, and they were...but I can't justify continuing that as as a precedent, particularly when it will promote serious wikilawyering and permit such problems to persist. And looking at Sandstein's response to one of your proposed Fofs, I don't think he fully understands. Thanks for your answer though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
La goutte de pluie's sockpuppetry issue
Hi, I'm the anonymous IP involved in the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie over at Teo Ser Luck's page. Firstly, it is really beyond my control that my Starhub IP keeps changing. I am really not on any proxy.
Lihaas has a long history of editing contentious articles, particularly on current political events. I and many others find him to be very reasonable. His edits are motivated by good faith, and he will respond reasonably if you write a reasonable note. Try to work things out informally without drama! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz06:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are cordially invited to join the Asian Games Task Force!
Hello fellow Wikipedian! I just wanted to let you know that Asian Games task force is looking for participants and I thought you might be interested in joining! Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list.
I don't understand. I thought we were supposed to specify the award most likely to be posted on the main page. All I did was put the most prestigious awards next to the ceremony. As for changing "Emmy Award" to "Primetime Emmy Award", that just made it clearer why there is only one expected story per year instead of more for the Primetime, Daytime, Sports, Technology and Engineering, News and Documentary, Regional and International Emmy Awards. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in doing an FTC around the 1952 Winter Games. One question. I'm working on an enormous FTC that, given my current abilities and time, will likely never be completed. My only concern is that if this project picks up steam I don't want this 1952 Winter Games FTC to throw a wrench in that project. Do you forsee it being an issue? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't that much needed. The medal table needs probably a stronger lead of a few more paragraphs, and a few nice pictures, but otherwise it's about there, based on the other medal table FLs. The "list" portion of it is the table itself, and obviously that's already done. It's only the writing bit and that shouldn't take too long. Probably could be done by this weekend and sent to FLC on Sunday or Monday. Once that hits FL then I think FTC should be a pretty easy breeze. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having problems with this IP-jumping editor, who will revert random additions without discussion and without using community processes. I don't have time to write up an RFC, but please suggest an appropriate course of action. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to review the edits I made to Tin Pei Ling page. I shortened it because it was too lengthy days ago. But Elle feels the need to insert sarcastic words again. And Vivian Balakrishnan. I would like to point out Elle linked the word agenda to gay agenda even though Zhanzhao warned not to overdo on gay issues when he should be talking about suppressing video under Talk section. p.s couldn't control the IP tonight. Keeps flipping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that an appropriate link if certain readers (Singaporeans) are unaware of the connotations of the language they are using? Zhanzhao's issue was a different one. You only flip IPs when you get blocked, which is rather curious -- I've never seen someone flip from the 218.186.16.* range to the 202.156.13.* range! Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was ur POV. Gay agenda was linked below, don't see the point of linking "agenda". Refer here. Flipping happens as I edited. You seem to know nothing about dynamic IP so drop the sarcasm.
Orphaned non-free image File:NYCLogo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:NYCLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
To help Kiefer understand what constitutes identifying information, I am going to post an example of identifying information about a miner. Here it is; .
Why is this identifying information? Because it shows an image of the miner's home, and the filename of the image also reveals the town in which that home is located. Therefore it could possibly be used to locate or uniquely identify that miner.
By contrast, a minor (or even a miner) choosing to mention a common medical condition, cannot be used to locate or uniquely identify that person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that a vandal starts leaving nasty messages, an event that has many times, with potentially deadly results. Let the minor decide after reflecting further. Kiefer.Wolfowitz06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please deal with the substance of the concern, DemiWit1000, this time at least. I linked to the Nyb's essay suggesting the removal of personal information by minors (#7 I repeat). Kiefer.Wolfowitz06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
