User talk:WJBscribe

User:WJBscribe	User talk:WJBscribe	User:WJBscribe/Gallery	User:WJBscribe/Barnstars	User:WJBscribe/Drafts
Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

A Suggestion

This may not be the place for this suggestion, but you were helpful in the past. As a relative newcomer, but one who makes a number of footnoted contributions, I find it helpful when editors have a suggestion if they do more than simply tag the page, particularly if some work has gone into the submission. Some editors strive to leave a message on one's talk page, clarifying what's needed. But a small minority are preemptory. They either delete with no explanation, or simply post a template. More manners might encourage more contributors. This is an open community but that does not obviate the need for courtesy. Some editors preface their comments with: 'First, let me thank you for your contributions to wikipedia.' What a difference that single line makes! Sorry for the rant, but a couple of recent encounters have made me conscious of the need for editors to be mindful of submissions made for nothing by thousands of volunteers, and to treat them with respect. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, reading the comments on your user page today reinforces my point about courtesy. This entire community could do with more of it. My early experiences on wikipedia were fortuitous, because the first folks I met were gracious and helpful, as you were in our communication about a Commons photo issue. I suppose it's the times in which we live, but it does make one wistful for the days of a bit more civility. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I remain available should you need help. I regret that none of us can waive a magic wand and make the place work. No doubt everyone agrees with the theory of civility, but anyone would be lying to say they have never fallen short of an ideal standard. I think it salient that most content contributors have little dealings with the pages of Wikipedia and are largely ignorant of those processes that keep things ticking - I think that is probably for the best. I think along with trying to be as courteous as possible, we should also try and make allowances for people having "off days"... WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken, especially about rank-and-file wikipedians being in the dark about the behind-the-scenes mechanics that keep this miraculous experiment aloft. I also agree about aiming for the perfect day, but sometimes having an 'off' one. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your reply and take care. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi, I would just like to thank you again for nominating me for adminship. I was quite surprised by your offer and even more surprised by the support and trust the community has shown me. I hope I will not let you down and I promise to use the tools to the best of my ability. Thanks again and take care, ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you active?

Would you please comment on the Bcrat noticeboard, regarding Caspian blue? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper?

You think their continued personal attacks against me and unauthorized removal of my comments are all okay? I think you do. The activities are all malicious and why can't they just leave me alone? I just made a simple opinion on the opposition and were willing to have a second thought if I could find good rationale for myself supporting or being neutral. I will listen to User:Rlevse's opinion on this because I don't obviously think that you're neutral on this.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And if Rlevse agrees with WJB...? Would he therefore not be neutral? -- how do you turn this on 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I must listen carefully to his opinion, not WJBscribe's. Nevertheless, you know how I think of you.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, you really need to cool the rhetoric or you may find yourself sitting out a block for disruption. As I see it the matter is closed. If you want to ask Rlevse for his opinion, that's your business. WJBscribe (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening me without valid reason and also condoning the personal attacks? I think their unreasonable oppression meets disruption. I did not know that opposers should endure all attacks by supporters. I'm not living in the middle age.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not been attacked - RfA is not a popularity contest and those opposing are expected to provide valid reasons for doing so. If you are regularly finding yourself in a position where your reasons for opposing are not supported by any other participants in the discussion, you may need to reconsider how you participate in such discussions. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could not find any plausible point from your comment. RfA is not popularity contest (of course), and I provide very valid reasons for my stance. They have to think that the reason I'm opposing the candidate is related to the fact that I don't find any valid reason from their "popularity content". Sorry that I did not show some thrust in you, maybe because I have not shared any single point of view with you per User:Gwen Gale, your support for User:Elonka and others. Thank you for your time. Next time, it would be safer if I'd say "support per somebody" or "oppose per somebody" just like stamped rationale.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail? I didn't see any of this until after it'd all happened. If I get this right, Caspian blue opposed that RFA and I still don't quite get it. I have the same question the first respondent to that oppose did - CB was opposing because he already thought the candidate was an admin? I don't get it either. Then there's an attempt to understand the oppose and it appears to me CB took offense to this and his comments being moved to the talk page. I have to agree with the moving of the thread to the talk page. We, we being crats and others who watch the RFA page, are trying to keep the discussions on point and focused to the issues at hand, partly but not solely because that atmosphere is not appropriate and keeps people from applying for adminship, and that thread drifted away from that and gotten hostile, so I feel moving it to the talk page was the correct thing to do. CB, I don't think people were making personal attacks, they were legitimately trying to understand your oppose. Don't forget, these are not the people who run sockfarms against you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt sorry that the candidate closed some RM too earlier than I expected but I did not express my complaint because I thought he was an admin. So should I provide all diffs of my experiences with the candidate? I was reluctant to do so because I've felt unpleasant with the fact that supporters've been just untouched or gotton no badgering from opposers for their inadequate stamped rationales. However, opposers should always do some research to convince people for how wrong candidates did in the past. Moreover, the formers have present valid reasons to supporter's inquisitive questions until supporters got suitable answers in their standard. I don't understand why people do not accept the fact that their supporting candidate is not regarded good for somebody. Besides, the barely newbie removed my comment from the page as if he were an bureaucrat. Anyway, I will listen to your advice carefully and would not behave conspicuously for my safety to prevent from getting threatening comments from supporters.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a better explanation than you gave in the RFA, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, two things to think about A) difs make a huge difference when opposing... if you can cite specific examples where the candidate acted inappropriately, then people will listen to you... not question you. B) When your rationale is literally the exact same rationale that I (and many others) would use to support people are going to question it. Adminship, IMHO, is not conferred by passing an RfA. One can be an admin through their actions/behavior. Those people who look and act like admins BEFORE their RfA, are the one's that I'm most likely to support and spend the least amount of time reviewing. Thus, without any difs or explanation, your oppose looked like it was looking for a reason to oppose.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy WJBscribe's Day!

User:WJBscribe has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as WJBscribe's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear WJBscribe! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thanks, kind of you to think of me. WJBscribe (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat question from another project

Hi, Will. I wonder if you would mind answering a question pertaining to another project. As a rather inexperienced bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote, I've been asked (by a highly valued editor and administrator) to rename an inactive account which has an obscene name. I started the process but got the message "has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one." I think I should go ahead and do the rename, but am hesitant because I don't know whether there are implications I'm not aware of. What do you think? Coppertwig (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - hope you don't mind my intrusion here. I have some experience with mediawiki, while not necessarily the same as Wikimedia, I think renaming won't matter. Global accounts are simply attached accounts - renaming it will, quite obviously, detach since it's a different username. Especially if the user is inactive, it won't cause the wiki to explode ;) Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't pose any problem - it used to be the case that local bureaucrats couldn't rename accounts attached to global accounts at all. When it became possible, a warning message was introduced to confirm that's what you want to do. All you really need to do is remind users that they need to create a new global account with their new name. In the case of an abusive username, you needn't worry about it though you should probably inform the person who asked for the rename that it was a global account - so they can ask a steward to lock and hide the global account if they think that's needed. WJBscribe (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I went ahead and did the rename. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Malice

Please consider an hypothesis: It appears that your point of view is informed by your experience, no less in Wikipedia than in life. It reflects well on such experiences that you seem admirably prepared to bring a generosity of spirit to circumstances you encounter. As a result, disputes which have substance are likely to be treated with the same fine-focus optimism as mere mistakes or misunderstandings may engender. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, I believe your shortened focus missed the point in a minor, easily-forgetable matter.[1]

As you know, you observed: "This all seems fairly ridiculous to me. The way these issues tend to boil over ..." makes three demonstrably false assumptions" (1) that something did "boil over" from a simmering pot, as it were; and (2) that the characteristic display which inspired your comment was an isolated incident; and (3) that Caspian Blue's inflammatory rhetoric illustrates something amiss in WP:RfA rather than something dreadfully awry in the scope of disruptive damage Caspian Blue contrives again and again and again.

I discerned a pattern in this RfA thread -- a strategy which was oddly familiar. I concluded that you were not wrong to be casually dismissive in the RfA context as you perceived it; and yet you and others remain unhelpful in dealing with a kind of pernicious and insidious metastasis which is well illustrated by Caspian Blue's trajectory across a range of disputes.

After re-visiting the thread which caused a modest observation which I'm trying delicately to dispute, perhaps it will help to compare the pattern of that thread with what has now developed [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nihonjoe's bad faith behaviors here].

This is no isolated incident -- it's just the latest in a series of harms which deserve mitigation. In my view, thoughtful attention needs to be invested in a problem which has passed beyond the "reinventing-the-wheel-again-and-again" scope of WP:ANI and the plethora of dispute resolution processes.

I'm persuaded that Caspian Blue conduct is purposeful, but perhaps you will see things differently. At a minimum, I urge you to devote closer scrutiny to what this specific editor has done and is likely to continue to do in the future. The history of Caspian Blue's contributions causes me to wonder if you may be able to invent a more constructive response than I can manage on my own.

My language here is measured, vague, circumspect; but I wonder if Wikipedia might not profit from less circumscribed prose?--Tenmei (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)