:The main problem then, as now, is this: it has not been covered by [[WP:RS|reliable, third-party sources]], which precludes the creation of a suitably referenced article. It has nothing to do with what you or I may think about the relative merits or demerits of the concept. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:The main problem then, as now, is this: it has not been covered by [[WP:RS|reliable, third-party sources]], which precludes the creation of a suitably referenced article. It has nothing to do with what you or I may think about the relative merits or demerits of the concept. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 11:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Who are you?
Revision as of 13:52, 27 October 2011
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Unsigned messages will likely be removed. For messages left here, I will usually respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch for a response there. Start a new talk topic.
for the protect on Heather Mikayle its been a problematic CSD. If you look at the primary author's contribs you'll notice that they've created it under other titles... might want to place a protection on them too, if you see fit. Cheers Petiatil »Talk14:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you make blocks so fast that you do not know which IPs you are blocking? My inquiry is in regards to this edit. You are not supposed to be blocking without giving sufficient warning regardless of how absurd the edit was. The only argument would be concerns over BLP. You failed to warn the IP or even mention BLP in the edit summary so I assume you were not actually considering that.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be completely honest, I am not a big fan of my buddies screwing around with Wikipedia but I am more concerned that admins should know better than to make a 31 our block without warning.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For normal vandalism, I'm perfectly happy to issue warnings. For racist vandalism such as that, I usually don't bother warning - if someone doesn't already know that that's not the way to behave, a note from someone named "Bongwarrior" is unlikely to have much effect. Warnings before blocking are a nice courtesy, but one that's not always extended depending on the situation. By no means are they required. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you were quick to block without giving proper warning and quick to respond to a talk page request for clarification but you are slow in responding to criticism that you do not know how to use the tools you have somehow earned. So I will take your delayed response as acknowledgement that you understand you are supposed to give appropriate warnings before blocking. I will in return try to remember to lock this shared machine at night when drunks are on but it should not be needed since a simple warning would have been sufficient. And at the end of the day you should know better sine we have policies on how to handle disruptive edits. Please familiarize yourself with them.
(edit conflict) The IP is one of my machines. I thought it was funny hearing that it was blocked to a certain extent. But the edit was not OK and I would prefer it more if it was not made. But silliness is silliness and an admin misusing his tools is bad.Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The block without warning was not "OK". Whatever the angle is: I'm not for it. A simple revert + warning would have been sufficient. It really doesn't matter since my account can still edit but since it was such a poor use of tools I feel OK relaying the message that "If you had a bong in your hand you wouldn't be such a bitch". I actually drink and don't smoke so don't care much for that sort of BSing. And the guys are in front of the couch now so they are done. So how about you go read the blocking policy and then lift the block on the IP.Cptnono (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see admin abuse. I see an admin who doesn't know the blocking policy. Disruption has ceased from a user who has admitted to be from the IP. Blocking is meant to be preventative. I doesn't impact me if you release it or not so I am not going to waste other's times at ANI. But I have no qualms wasting your time since you choose to make blocks on IPs without understanding how they are supposed to be done. Your reasoning is that you racism makes it OK. My counter to that is that the handling of any disruptive editing has a set protocol that you are not above. We obviously won't agree (and we don't need to) but one thing I want to make perfectly clear: The edit was bad but you are still a poor admin. And Doc, be a better person who does not enjoy other's conflicts. It is a sorry thing to see and you should feel ashamed for acting like a kid.Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah-huh. Good night, bongwarrior. Over bloody marries I will explain to the guys that they should make malicious edits on their own machines. Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Cptnono: Why you gotta get all "You're not a good person?" with me? This is a fatal flaw in dealing with others, BTW. I didn't attack or judge you with anything I said, yet you did to me. Checkmate? Your move... Doctalk09:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did no say that you were not a good person. I said that bongwarior is not a good admin. Taking things to that extreme is not a fatal flaw (since no one is actually being dead) and I don't need or want your advice on how to deal with others. My move: Telling you to not exasperate situations when you assume your input is needed and using hyperbole when it isn't needed. "Fatal" was laughing about the term "darkie" in the neighborhood I live in.Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think he's a good admin, and I think your methods of testing his qualities as an admin are garbage if you use "friends" like that. Thanks for the input, though: duly noted. ;> Doctalk10:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Survey for new page patrollers
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Bongwarrior! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Seriously dude, this was idea for a novel and while you may think of it as childish many can see this as a spoof biography. Shaun of the dead is a spoof movie and is regarded as one of the best spoof movies of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerangrang (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wadsworth Constant
The Wadsworth Constant has become, for online video producers, a rule of thumb akin to the Rule[of thirds]. As a multimedia producer and trainer, the Wadsworth constant has become an invaluable indicator of relevance in multimedia productions, and should not be ignored for its value. To delete this based on its assumed irrelevance as a product of Reddit is to use the same argument as was once applied to Wikipedia to discredit it - that the workings of a collective cannot be legitimate. Time has proved this argument false where wikipedia is concerned, and will one day do the same for Reddit - another fine example of community curated content. While the Wadsworth constant may have appeared to be nothing more than a flippant exclamation, its legacy is now being used by web broadcast journalists to determine the legitimacy of THEIR work. I believe that the article was erroneously deleted, and would like to ask to reopen the debate around it, as I believe it does have enormous value, and its value will only grown in the years to come. Cbass.cpt (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem then, as now, is this: it has not been covered by reliable, third-party sources, which precludes the creation of a suitably referenced article. It has nothing to do with what you or I may think about the relative merits or demerits of the concept. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
