User talk:Epbr123: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:52, 24 June 2008

/Archive 1 15 Aug 2006 – 23 Jan 2008
/Archive 2 24 Jan 2008 – 2 Mar 2008
/Archive 3 2 Mar 2008 – 26 May 2008
/Archive 4 26 May 2008 –

Congratulations!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27301926@N02/2548976366/sizes/o/ Oh yeah!! Keep up the good work! Thingg^⊕^⊗ 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te he. It's a shame it was deleted really. I'd like my own article. Epbr123 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I was reverting vandalism and found my username a few times in articles earlier today, where it said "Gary King is an X" basically, or "GK is an X". Gary King is already taken, so I guess the same thing won't be happening to me any time soon :p Gary King (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck

Best of luck with your RfA; looking good so far :) ——Ryan | t • c 10:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late, I didn't check my RFA chart for some time. Would you mind if I did a late co-nom? bibliomaniac 1 5 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd be delighted. Many thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I pile-on the co-nom? It will look weird if I didn't do co-nom this time when you have improved a lot since 3 months ago. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International vandalism

Dear "colleague",

I came across User talk:78.13.246.24, where you posted a final warning. Just to let you know: this is a cross-wiki vandal who is emptying articles on Wikipedia throughout the world. Just check Special:Contributions/78.13.246.24 and compare it to e.g. nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/78.13.246.24...

On Dutch Wikipedia I blocked this vandal for one day now, but a cross-wiki block wouldn't be such a bad idea if you ask me. Anyway, feel free to block this IP now ;)

Kind regards,

Erik1980 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch Wikipedia)[reply]

Aftoater

Hello Epbr123, do you recall where Aftoater came from? I don't see it at the stated coordinates and there doesn't seem to be anything about it on Google books, which is rather worrying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

Hi Epbr123. I've have been redirected here by SandyGeorgia. Could you give the article Emmy Noether a look ragarding dashes (or any other style and prose problem)? Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Dates in refs question

Hi. A few weeks ago you changed some but not all of the dates in the references of Assata Shakur from "Year, Month Day" to "[[Month Day]], [[Year]]" with the edit summary "MoS". I have since added more references in the former format. My preference is for the former because the year is generally far more important for the readers than the day and month (and this is how every college professor that I've had so far has asked me to do dates in footnotes for news articles) and becuase I find the wiki-linking to be over-crowding and unecessary (articles about dates and years are notoriously uninformative to readers; I know that wiki-linking the month and day allows readers to customize their date their preferences for how the date is displayed, but I think the utility of this is minized in a footnote and does not outweigh the cost of creating an orgy of blue text).

I wanted to check with you before I change the references one way or the other. Could you more specifically refer me to the imprimatur in the MoS that you were working from. I've noticed that there are featured articles which employ a variety of reference styles, so it's hard for me to believe the MoS is too determinate on this question. If any additional rationale you had for the change has eluded me, please let me know. Savidan 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. According to WP:MOSNUM#Full date formatting, the same date format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article. So all the dates in the article should either all be linked or all be unlinked. Epbr123 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're referring to but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is desirable. For example, nearly every article uses "Retrieved on 2008-05-09." for access dates, but such a format is unthinkable in the main text...Thanks anyway. Savidan 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My RfA

Thank you for clarifying your position. Below I explain my position, and what would convince me to change my vote to support.

I am greatly distraught at the slow but steady creep of policies, guidelines, rules, and codes of conduct on WP, and the nearly complete emasculation of IAR (it transformed from a guiding principle to a small tool to overcome occasional technicalities). One of WP's great strengths used to be the bottom-up nature of editing decisions (is this specific edit better or worse for this specific article), but that is now being steamrolled by top-down imposition of global rules and guidelines, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. For example,

There is a growing class of very long articles in desperate need of splitting. The reason they aren't split is that editors are afraid the sub-article will be deleted, as WP:N would have it. The splittable material is important, but not independently important.
Generally good, knowledgable editors get a little hotheaded one day, break one of the ever increasing "incivility" codes, and get banned. These people are the lifeblood of the project - people who add the majority of content to articles - and we are banning them by the thousands. Why do you think there are so few wikidragons these days? By the way, what's even worse is the case where 2 wikipedians get into a dispute, and the more politically connected wikipeidan pours through the rules to find a "incivility rule" to bust the other guy on. This happens way more than you might think.
Useful templates that add to articles are getting deleted since they don't fit one of the prescribed "appropriate uses" of template space. The discussion at TfD generally goes,

Nom: "Delete: misuse of template space per RULE 8345b12",
Editors of the article: "yeah, true it doesnt fit the rules, but it actually helps this particular article out.",
Several people who lurk deletion discussions but haven't edited the particular article in question: "Delete per nom."
Closing admin: "Result was Delete: keep voters failed to make policy-based argument for keeping".

In other words, the poor foresight of the people who made the template rules is hurting actual articles.

In order for me to support you as an admin, I need to be sure that you will not contribute to global instruction creep and the destruction of IAR. There are 2 ways you can convince me to support. 1) You can demonstrate that you share my views on the subject. 2) You can convince me that, while you disagree with me, you will not use your admin powers nor your extra social influence to promote harmful top-down applications of global rules. AfD hero (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your first point, and an example I can use to demonstrate this was my vehement opposition to the deletion of Eiffel Tower in popular culture. This was a topic that was acceptable as a section of an article, but not deemed acceptable as its own article. When I said I wanted WP:CIVIL to be clarified, I meant it should move more towards what the community's opinion of civility is, which is that each incident of supposed incivility should be judged with common sense and on a case-by-case basis. It should be more closer to this essay. Regarding your third point, I don't have much involvement with TfD, but would agree that a template should be kept if it helped a particular article. Epbr123 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have misjudged you. I've changed my position to support. Good luck. AfD hero (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you not to follow the advice given to you above. The great improvement of Wikipedia is the adoption of some definite rules, instead of the use of IAR as equivalent to ILIKEIT. In order for many of us to support anyone as admin, we need to know that you will use IAR only when it is absolutely unavoidable. It can be an argument for anything at all. Unless the goal of it has complete consensus it tends to mean improve the encyclopedia the way I want it to be, regardless of the rules the community has established by consensus. Consistency, not improvisation. DGG (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basically I think the guidelines should be followed unless common sense dictates otherwise. I don't think this opinion is too different from either your's or AfD Hero's. Epbr123 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, what you suggest (adopting more and more rules for everything and virtually never using IAR), is contrary to the core foundations of Wikipedia. If you think that makes the project better, fine (maybe it would?). If thats what you think, then work to demote IAR and BURO from policy to guidelines, rather than promoting the current situation where lip service is paid to IAR and BURO but they are toothless in practice. AfD hero (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another RfA

Hiya, I'm finally ready to go ahead with my RfA, for which you nominated me some time ago. I realise you're rather busy at the moment with your own - remarkable - RfA, but when you have a chance I'd be happy to start with mine. Thanks again - and good luck! Pinkville (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering

Thanks for answering my Question in your RfA. I decided to give you a support. {Hellboy2hell (Want to talk?) 11:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

And do please contact me

Please contact me if your RfA is succesful. {Hellboy2hell (talk to me!) 11:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Yep. Thanks for the support. Epbr123 (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo (Disambiguation)

Do you have noticed that on the disamb page the vandalism (intentionally mispelled) in reference to Leonardo da Vinci ? I'm removing it... Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. It's too late to warn the vandal though. Epbr123 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC MoS help

Your name came up here as a person I could ask regarding the use of WP:HYPHEN, so I am leaving this message to ask if you would check the article Montana class battleship and ensure that the article is HYPHEN compliant, and if not, get back to me with needed fixes. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Well done, and well deserved. Kbthompson (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you could do it. Wield your tools boldly, but do not rush into the role. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me, Epbr123. Here's a link to the school for new admins, and here is your new shirt. Good luck. Acalamari 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done from me too. Sorry I missed out on "making it so" myself! Enjoy, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Feel free to transclude or copy my admin dashboard somewhere. You may find it handy, depending on your intended administrative focus. xenocidic (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, could do with more people like you as admins. Congratulations ——Ryan | t • c 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Now we another admin at GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! Now you'll have admin stuff to do so you don't beat me to Huggle reverts as often. :D Cheers, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And additional congratulations on having made more edits to the English Wikipedia (14,765) than any other human contributor in the thirty-day run-up to the most-recent generation of the list of Wikipedians by number of edits! Definitely someone who will find the mop and bucket handy! :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Congrats, well deserved! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Félicitations/Congrats. Do you really get a t-shirt? ;~) Well done, and see you soon! Pinkville (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the successful RfA! Hope you're doing well with the tools! SchfiftyThree 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer player speedy tags

Hello. None of those players are notable for their own article and the redirect serves no purpose. It was my expectation that they met the CSD criteria since the articles consists of nothing other than the redirect. Is it possible to relist them under CSD or do you have another recommendation? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, the redirects do serve a purpose, as the club article contains some basic information about these players, which a reader searching for these players may find useful. Epbr123 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for MOS check in FAC

Hi Epbr123, could I ask for a big favor at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Worlds End State Park? SandyGeorgia found some MOS issues with it, which are detailed on the FAC page. I believe that I have corrected the problems Sandy noted, but she suggested you might be able to help, so if you are able, I would appreciate your taking a look at the article. It has five supports and no opposes, so the MOS issues are the only known problem. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Congratulations on your RfA! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the MOS fixes on Worlds End State Park. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks for your extremely helpful MOS edits on Worlds End State Park, which made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on "Dwarf"

I am very sorry! :* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.114.249 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot query

Epbr, do you have a bot/script that will delink all the solo years at History of the Roman Catholic Church? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Don't Mention It. Hellboy2hell (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stephanie Biddle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stephanie Biddle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Biddle. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for MOS check in FAC

Hello. I have submitted the article Angus Lewis Macdonald for featured article status. SandyGeorgia suggested I ask you for a MOS check because there are errors of logical punctuation, as well as problems with layout and italics. I'd be very grateful if you would do this MOS check for me. Many thanks! Bwark (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

I tagged Paris Hilton's Dog for CSD, which you declined; I have now moved the page to Paris Hilton's dog as per WP:TITLE and would again like you to delete the page please. Thanks. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it warrants deletion, as it's plausible that someone might search for "Paris Hilton's dog". I've changed the redirect to Paris Hilton#Personal life, which is the section that mentions the dog. Epbr123 (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Well there are now two titles differing only in the capitalization of "dog", and according to WP:TITLE "dog" should be lowercased as it is not a proper noun. So I requested that you delete the original all-capitalized title leaving the lowercased title as the redirect. I hope you see what I am getting at. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 08:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't need to follow WP:TITLE, as one of their actual purposes is to redirect titles that don't follow WP:TITLE to ones that do. For example, Paris hilton redirects to Paris Hilton. The main purpose of redirects is to help readers search for articles, and it's plausible that someone may search for Paris Hilton's Dog, as well as Paris Hilton's dog. Epbr123 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see then. Thanks anyway. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 11

Do you have time to check this one over? In particular, I saw some WP:PUNC logical quotation issues, but there may be more. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

full-stop tension

Where a single quote includes internal full-stops, I'm more likely to assume that the last portion of text is actually a complete sentence in the original; in that case, the example above is correct, and we just put up with the fact that the higher-level WP sentence in which the quote is embedded loses its own full-stop (two jostling full-stops, even separated by the closing quotation-marks, would be worse). TONY (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what any of that means; I guess that's why I ask Epbr123 to check WP:PUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS copyedit request

Hi Epbr123. I rewrote 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and I hope to send it off to GAN and FAC before too long. If you have time, would you mind giving it a look and checking for MoS breaches? Thanks, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked vandal changing talk page comments

Hi, a vandal that you just blocked is repeatedly vandalizing the warnings on his own talk page and making personal attacks in edit summaries. See this edit [[1]]. It looks like blocking from the talk page as well is in order. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not possible to block people from editing their own talk page. Epbr123 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be protected for a certain period of time to prevent that user from vandalising their talk page. SchfiftyThree 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. They seem to have stopped now though, so I'll leave it unless they start again. Epbr123 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same vandal is using a different IP to do the same edits now. I'm curious to get your opinion as to what if anything can be done. This guy shows up pretty much every day and vandalizes these pages and then vandalizes the warnings and attacks editors. All of the IP addresses come from within a certain range of AOL IPs, but change often. Can the range be blocked? It seems a shame to semi-protect all these pages for just one person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks can only be used as a last resort, as they can affect large numbers of uninvolved users. Also, they can only be very short-term blocks, so they wouldn't be much use against persistant daily vandalism from a user. According to the Rangeblock-Calculator, up to 4,000,000 users could be affected if I blocked the entire range that vandal's been using. Epbr123 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Message from yourself

Hi, I just got this message : Current revision

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Luiz Felipe Scolari has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC

This was very strange as i've never even heard of that, it definitely wasn't done by myself or this PC/Computer on this network.

Please can you look into this & ammend it? I'm guessing it's some IP mix up or something but I can assure you 110% it was not done from here, I have no idea what Luiz Felipe Scolari is in my entire life lol

The vandalism definitely came from the IP address that you are currently using (see Special:Contributions/93.96.219.152, from June 11). Consider creating an account so you don't receive these errant warnings from people who have previously used the IP address you are assigned. xenocidic (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Chicago

You have recently edited Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) about its prospect as a featured article. Feel free to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar because I can't hardly keep up with you, and I thought I was good! Very well done. Thanks for all your help! Carter \| Talk to me 10:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Epbr123 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the revert?

Why the revert on the history of Germany article? The link I removed hardly seems to meet the reliable sources criterion. Bytwerk (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I missed the intervening edit that you reverted. Apologies. Bytwerk (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

different kind of newbie

FA thanks

Don't let my delinquency diminish your perception of my appreciation for your assistance. You may want to add the following somewhere:

This user helped promote Tyrone Wheatley to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fearby CSD

Hi. regarding the speedy on this article, I submitted it as G1 (nonsense), but you deleted it as A7 (notability). In circumstances like this, where the article is about a person (who may or may not actually exist), but is complete rubbish, does A7 have 'precedence' over G1 ? I'm guessing that, because it was a (bad) vanity article, the person does exist, but in future, should biographical articles like this always be submitted under A7 ? Just curious :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly, G1 only applies to articles that are totally incomprehensible, for example, they contain the text "hdeju e4yyy3wd". If the article looks like a hoax, G3 (vandalism) is more appropriate. In the case above, either G3 or A7 would have been appropriate, as it's probable that the person was real. In hindsight, G3 would probably have been more appropriate than A7, although A7 wasn't wrong. Epbr123 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Summer!

Request

I've just nominated the Elaine Paige article for featured article, and it has been suggested to me that I should ask you to do a quick MOS check on the article. If you could possibly find some time to do this, it would be a massive help! Many thanks, Eagle Owl (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time. Eagle Owl (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Epbr123, my name is Rahul Zinta (Bollywood Dreamz) and I came across your name on Kareena Kapoor's edit history. I noticed that you've significantly contributed to 5 GA's and 8 FA's, and was wondering if you could help me copyedit Kapoor's article. After doing some copyedits, I was going to start a peer review for the article and ultimately nominating it for a GA. That is as far as I would like the article to go. Could you please help me as I would really appreciate it?? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 20:31, 22 June 2008

Hi. Yes, I'll look at it later today or tomorrow. Epbr123 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in serious need of some copyediting!! Thanks for your help!! I really appreciate it!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 21:30, 22 June 2008

Hey, Epbr, would you mind looking over American Airlines Flight 77 and Cold War if you have a chance? I left comments on both FACs, but I see the nominators haven't requested your help, and I'm not sure all issues have been addressed correctly. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt question

You've been discussed at length on my talkpage here. Did you or did you not send an email to User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. after your RfA passed? (I've read the contents of the email - not pretty) He messaged you rather politely here on your talkpage, with the assumption that it wasn't you, and you removed it with the edit summary rv., which looks guilty as hell. This needs to get cleared up ASAP, your integrity is on the line. Sorry for my bluntness. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent it, and Joe Beaudoin knows I sent it. I don't regret the context of the message at all, although I could have made it less nasty. Epbr123 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the worst emails I've read. I have lost a lot of respect for you, and I had only recently regained it after that silly RFC that we bickered in. Dammit Epbr, that was a really really really dumb email to send. What the fuck were you to gain sending it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave my honest opinion. That is all I am going to say on the matter. I'm not going to add to the drama. Epbr123 (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weak response. Your honest opinion was to gloat? To poke a 6 month old wound? Fuck that. Your response was childish at best. Don't worry about "adding to the drama", you fucking created it. Nice. It won't be "all" you say about this, btw, because that email was so ridiculously offensive that I'm taking it further. You are welcome to ignore RFC#2 if you'd like, but it will exist in the next 2-3 days. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gloating was childish and pathetic of me, and I regret this. I also regret not wording what I said in a more civil way, but I was angry at the time. Epbr123 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry over something that happened 6 months prior? Who else did you email? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had just been reading through the RfC, and snapped. I didn't email anyone else, as it was just Joe that I was upset with. Epbr123 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent, too many colons>. Are you open to recall of your admin status? I've now heard on-wiki of at least three admins that are calling for recall of your admin status, and according to your RfA, you only require two. I also noticed that you are not currently in CAT:AOR, even though your Rfa#2 said you would be. I have already retracted my support of your RfA#2. Two other admins find your recent email to be egregious enough to recall you. Are you willing to honor your word at recalling your adminship based on your promise in your RfA? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're wondering, this is the diff I'm basing my comment on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share the sentiments of Keeper76, and would like you to reconfirm your adminship in a recall. This incident is real bad - bad enough to warrent a recall IMO. --Jza84 | Talk 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdenting> Epbr, I did not know whether or not you sent that e-mail, because I had no evidence beyond the e-mail! That is why I attempted to discuss this with you.

The reason I hoped (or assumed good faith, in Wikijargon) that you did not write that e-mail is because it came from a Hotmail account. The hotmail e-mail "service"—as are other free e-mail providers—are used all the time by stalkers and the like to emulate a person in order to discredit them. This has happened to me personally, as well as various webmaster friends of mine in the SF realm. I was hoping that someone else wrote that e-mail and wanted to work with you to make sure that you were protected by a stalker or some sort of vengeful force out to "get you". All I wanted was a "yes" or "no" answer; not to being childishly ignored.

It appears that your conflict resolution skills are in need of extreme refinement. inability to deal with this situation in a diligent and professional matter makes you an inappropriate candidate to be considered for any administrative position anywhere—including Wikipedia. This situation is empirical evidence of this; it has shed all doubts that I had remaining about you as an administrator. In the real-world working environment, such an e-mail would bring disciplinary action that may result in termination. You do realize that, right?

Now, I received your apology (via e-mail) about the first gloating, uncouth e-mail you've sent. I'm not going to reprint it here, since I don't have your permission to do so.

May everyone forgive me for saying so, but I don't believe your apology is sincere. (If you're sorry about anything, I suspect that you are sorry that you've been caught with your proverbial pants wrapped around your equally proverbial ankles.)

There is absolutely no reason why that e-mail had to be sent. It is inexcusable, particularly more than six months after the fact! I had no contact with you after the RfC back in Oct/Nov 2007! None. I had been inactive for more than six months now, outside of the occasional edits to some actor and BSG articles, which are only a handful or two. I did NOT comment on either of your RfAs, although I did read them, and was under the impression that you learned from your mistakes. I was sincerely hoping that you would have matured into a decent, reasonable administrator and hoped that you'd learn from your earlier mistakes. I am extremely disappointed to find that this is not the case.

So I will be supporting a second RfC against you. Now that I'm in the thick of it, I may as well go all the way. While I will freely admit that my opinions of Wikipedia are not glowing, I care enough for the hard working folks on here to ensure that you are held accountable for your actions—this community can ill-afford another Essjay.

In my informed opinion, Wikipedians deserve better leaders; you are not a leader in any sense of the word. Then again, most people aren't cut out for the job, and that's something I learned a long time ago. There's no shame in that. Not everyone can do the job of the person next to them, or three rows down from them. You find your niche and work at it. And if it brings you a measure of happiness in this life, then all the better.

Forgive me if I come off uncouth myself, but I would strongly suggest that you voluntarily step down from your position as an administrator and keep to your area of expertise, which is in the FA/GA arena. You have done great work there. You do not require administrative tools for that area.

I would seriously hate for you to go through another RfC; I don't believe the results would be kind upon you. I believe such a thing is a misuse of everyone's time involved: yours, mine, and all the people who supported your bids.

So... do yourself a favor and let it all go. You're full of bile, hatred, and vitriol. Rid yourself of it.

Go back to what you are best at, and dazzle us with your great FA and GA work. Please?

Thank you for listening. Good night and good luck. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 261: / Line 261: @@
 :In case you're wondering, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEpbr123_2&diff=217156946&oldid=217156680 this] is the diff I'm basing my comment on.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |  [[User:Keeper76#Origins of My Username|<font color="#ff0000"><small>Disclaimer</small></font>]] 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::I share the sentiments of Keeper76, and would like you to reconfirm your adminship in a recall. This incident is real bad - bad enough to warrent a recall IMO. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
+<outdenting> Epbr, I ''did '''not''''' know whether or not you sent that e-mail, because I had '''no evidence beyond the e-mail'''! That is why I attempted to discuss this with you.
+The reason I hoped (or [[WP:AGF|assumed good faith]], in Wikijargon) that you did not write that e-mail is because it came from a [[Hotmail]] account. The hotmail e-mail "service"—as are other free e-mail providers—are used all the time by stalkers and the like to emulate a person in order to discredit them. This has happened to me personally, as well as various webmaster friends of mine in the SF realm. '''I was hoping that ''someone else'' wrote that e-mail and wanted to work with you to make sure that you were protected by a stalker or some sort of vengeful force out to "get you". All I wanted was a "yes" or "no" answer; not to being childishly ignored.'''
+It appears that your conflict resolution skills are in need of extreme refinement. inability to deal with this situation in a diligent and professional matter makes you an ''inappropriate'' candidate to be considered for any administrative position anywhere—including Wikipedia. This situation is empirical evidence of this; it has shed all doubts that I had remaining about you as an administrator. In the real-world working environment, such an e-mail would bring disciplinary action that may result in termination. You do realize that, right?
+Now, I received your apology (via e-mail) about the first gloating, uncouth e-mail you've sent. I'm not going to reprint it here, since I don't have your permission to do so.
+May everyone forgive me for saying so, but I don't believe your apology is sincere. (If you're sorry about anything, I suspect that you are sorry that you've been caught with your proverbial pants wrapped around your equally proverbial ankles.)
+There is absolutely ''no'' reason why that e-mail had to be sent. It is inexcusable, particularly more than six months after the fact! I had no contact with you after the RfC back in Oct/Nov 2007! '''None.''' I had been inactive for more than six months now, outside of the occasional edits to some actor and BSG articles, which are only a handful or two. I did NOT comment on either of your RfAs, although I did read them, and was under the impression that you learned from your mistakes. I was '''sincerely hoping''' that you would have matured into a decent, reasonable administrator and hoped that you'd learn from your earlier mistakes. I am extremely disappointed to find that this is not the case.
+So I will be supporting a second RfC against you. Now that I'm in the thick of it, I may as well go all the way. While I will freely admit that my opinions of Wikipedia are not glowing, I care enough for the hard working folks on here to ensure that you are held accountable for your actions—this community can ill-afford another [[Essjay controversy|Essjay]].
+In my informed opinion, Wikipedians deserve better leaders; you are not a leader in any sense of the word. Then again, most people aren't cut out for the job, and that's something I learned a long time ago. There's no shame in that. Not everyone can do the job of the person next to them, or three rows down from them. You find your niche and work at it. And if it brings you a measure of happiness in this life, then all the better.
+Forgive me if I come off uncouth myself, but I would strongly suggest that you voluntarily step down from your position as an administrator and keep to your area of expertise, which is in the FA/GA arena. You have done great work there. You do not require administrative tools for that area.
+I would seriously hate for you to go through another RfC; I don't believe the results would be kind upon you. I believe such a thing is a misuse of everyone's time involved: yours, mine, and all the people who supported your bids.
+So... do yourself a favor and let it all go. You're full of bile, hatred, and vitriol. Rid yourself of it.
+Go back to what you are best at, and dazzle us with your great FA and GA work. Please?
+Thank you for listening. Good night and good luck. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">[mailto:joe@frakmedia.net Mail Me]</sup> 02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)