User talk:Redrocket

Re: Speedy question

Re your message: Sorry. =) The generic {{db-a7}} would be fine. You could also use {{db}} and then fill in something. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from myself also. :) -- Longhair\^talk 09:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They'll run out of pc's at their local pre-school soon enough :) -- Longhair\^talk 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your reply. It was really, really kind and thoughtful. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Thank you.Thright (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For keeping an eye on my Talk page. Edison (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NPA

Narcissistic administrators deciding whether or not an article or topic is valid is as much in opposition to the policy against personal attacks as rebuttals by the articles' authors. Perhaps, since you're given the power to decide what is and what is not in the realm of wikipedia, you should mark this article for speedy deletion. It does undermine the entire basis by which you judge the rest of the world, does it not?--Rip21 (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied [1] to your talk page, you simmering cauldron of kookiness, you. Redrocket (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Is there a particular template or a warning we should use when users add non-notables to articles like the one we just reverted? Thanks Gwandoya ^Talk 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't think so. I've replied to your talk page. [2] Redrocket (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. :) Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro unblock request

Thanks for your message to my talkpage. Since the editor met the conditions I imposed I feel that the block should be lifted, and have advised the reviewing admin (User:Hersfold) accordingly. Blocks are preventative, and not punitive, and they can only be tested by allowing the user to edit. If they resume the behaviour that incurred the sanction then they can be reblocked - and the chance they had will be gone. Obviously, this can potentially be a bit rough on that area (and those editors) where the "reformed" editor is contributing.

If there are any further instances of poor behaviour, I suggest you try to contact me or Hersfold first to review the matter. I'm fairly sure that neither of us would care to see our good faith being abused, and would look upon the matter pretty strictly. While this is likely not the response you may have wished for, I hope it suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's disappointing. Replied to your talk page. [3] Redrocket (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an imperfect system, with imperfect sysops attempting to regulate it... That said, we can only react according to our understanding of the rules - and consensus. It isn't the admins job to formulate a consensus by acting, but to follow the wishes of the community. If there is a long standing problem with an editor then perhaps you should be looking at a conduct RfC, and see if a consensus can be found there. As for the violations of WP policy, I can only suggest taking the complaint to the appropriate venue. I realise that you are not criticising the actions of an admin, but I am trying to explain why sysops often seem to act in a manner which doesn't appear to resolve a problem to the entire satisfaction of the complainant - the ethos of compromise that lies behind communal editing often means that nobody gets exactly what they want. If the editor is unreformable then they will likely fall foul of policy again, and perhaps they will then be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. Perhaps. If they do reform, then there is no problem. If. It is, as I said, an imperfect system. I hope this helps in your understanding of the restrictions there are on the actions of administrators. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comments regarding this AN/I thread. All other details aside, I'd like to ask you more about removed on sight.
You indicated that edits by banned users should be removed on sight; I read that they may be removed on sight, and that a reverting editor (in this case, me) would, by virtue of reverting, be taking responsibility for those edits.
In fact, I thought my edit summaries "These comments have merit" did take responsibility (for the two talk page comments I reverted). Did I get this wrong? Jd2718 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your talk page. Thanks! [4] Redrocket (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

dude wtf

I was cleaning off some junk that slipped in when I copypasted my stuff so I could add a comment when someone else edited while I was typing, wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.23 (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it, and already apologized in the edit summary on the page. By the way, if you're going to edit here, you should really get a user ID so people know who you are. Most of the time when an anon IP deletes something on that board, it's vandalism. I can't even leave a message on your talk page without a real user ID. Redrocket (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.