Jump to content

User talk:Lradrama/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Lradrama

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 15 February 2024 (fix lint issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Re: RfA comment

Lradrama, sorry if it seemed like I was ignoring you. I'm not. I wasn't sure how to respond when you replied, then your comment got lost in other comments. (I suppose I should have just said that ... that I wasn't sure!  ;-)

Anyways, RfA ... I wish there were more opportunity for consensus-building and general discussion. It seems like many RfA regulars vote but don't watchlist the page ... I guess this because they never respond to comments related to their positions. (Which is what especially surprised me about your response to my comment!  :-) If that happened, I would be relatively contented, and probably wouldn't even feel like advocating a restructuring of the format.  ;-)

What are your opinions about RfA?  :) Cheers, --Iamunknown 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I understand, no worries at all. Yes, I do think a better opportunity for such discussion would be welcome, although not on the votes section, which would probably expand to a great size and look messy as a result. Perhaps we could use the talkpage better? And yes I must admit I am a RfA regular, but I don't watchlist the pages, which has meant on occasions I have been late replying to comments, and I may have missed some. :-(
Another thing I don't really like about RfA is that some people don't seem to review the candidate properly. This is hinted by the fact that some just put either support or oppose with only their signature accompanying this, or something like per above comment etc. I know many of us don't write an essay every time we vote because we do it all the time and it would be just repetition. It's just sifting through the ones who can't be bothered which is the problem. :-( Lradrama 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
About the vote section - I agree, I think that it would be better to maintain the discussion either on the talk page or under the "Discussion" section, otherwise the rest of the page gets quite crowded. I also have noticed that people don't review the candidate. I tend not to comment on RfAs unless I am familiar with the candidate or am willing to sift through some of their edits.
A couple of things, though... I find it frustrating when people oppose based upon one or a couple of diffs (in egregious situations, however, I guess I can understand), or based upon one bad experience. I understand that supporting someone when they have mistreated you can be difficult (I had to struggle to bring myself to support a semi-recent RfB candidate because of our previous poor interaction), but at that point it may be good to recuse one's self.
One proposed format for RfA I like is "Discussion for a couple of days, then strictly blind vote". I normally am opposed to voting, but I think in that case, if consensus were first generated, then measured, I might be okay with it. I would prefer it be only a discussion aimed at generating consensus, but there were a few trial RfAs of that kind in February/March/April (I don't quite remember which month) which didn't work very well.  :-\ That RfA is some bizarre hybrid between consensus and voting seems silly to me ;-). --Iamunknown 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about people picking up on one or two blips and mistakes a user has made in their past. I hate it, because it often alters people's opinions when they see things like that and many people change to oppose. That's how my RfA failed. I made a stupid mistake and everyone swooped down on me like a tonne of bricks. Although to be fair, that was a few months back now, and my Wikipedia-space count was rather low. :-S Lradrama 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: smile

Thanks! And no problem, as always. Gscshoyru 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

You've got one! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've read it. And I've replied. Thankyou very much! ;-) Lradrama 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Lradrama,

Thank you for your contribution to My RfA, which failed with 3 Supports, 0 Neutrals and 5 opposes. Dreamy § 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your RfA. Just address the points that people left for you and I wish you the best of luck for next time. :-) Lradrama 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

 Thank you!
Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for -- 


--Kizor 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I'm glad to see you succeeded! Well done, and happy editing! Lradrama 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Crucio

Based on standard English, the pronunciation would not be SEE. It doesn't have to have an SH to include that sound. Much closer to SHE than SEE. Look at other similar words and you'll see I'm right. 149.4.40.163 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going more on how it is spelt. It is crucio rather than crushio. I think we need to open a discussion on the article's talkpage to see what the wider community thinks, what do you think? Lradrama 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lradrama 2

Ryan Postlethwaite would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ryan Postlethwaite to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lradrama_2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
And it's gone live - best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA

Dearest Supporter,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!
Rudget Contributions 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


You're very welcome my friend, and I'm sorry to see that you were unsuccessful. I'm sure that, if you address the points left for you by all those who participated in your RfA, you will be successful one day. Best wishes and happy editing! Lradrama 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Same to you. I hope you succeed in your RfA, check the history first though! :) Rudget Contributions 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin


You are very welcome, and I'm glad to see that you succeeded in becoming an admin. Best wishes, Lradrama 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA response (KieferSkunk)

Hi Lradrama. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which is still in progress at the moment. I wanted to ask you briefly what you meant in your oppose vote, though - I looked at your list of standards and felt that I'd met most or all of them, though some of them are probably subjective and difficult to measure. May I ask for clarification on what you feel I'm lacking that would make me a good candidate for adminship? (I have updated my response to the first question, about what areas I'd work in, since the RfA was started.)

Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again KieferSkunk! I think my RfA Criteria is causing trouble at the moment. I have always had a criteria in my head, but since I saw that other Wikipedians had written down a criteria in a similar fashion I thought I'd create my own. This was to make my thoughts set in stone and clearer for other people to deduce how I operate. But it seems to have simply caused more confusion, and if it carries on I'll get rid of it.
So, now for your query. Yes, you are correct, you have met a lot of the points I laid down in my criteria. You have done a lot of great article work. You interact well with other Wikipedians. You have built up many months of experience. But my main concern is the Wikipedia-space participation - a key area for administrators. Since there are less than 300 Wikipedia-space edits I thought you needed a little more time to work in these areas and become astablished in them. Once you've had some-more time in those areas, and become accostomed with them, I'll gladly support you. I hope that clears things up.
It is not that I think you are a bad Wikipedian, you aren't, trust me. I just think you need a bit more of a good all-round-experience that's all. But all sorts of people think different things, as we can see just by looking at your RfA, people have different standards.
With love and best wishes, Lradrama 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I think they are fine, and actually more lax than most of the regular posters at RfA. Bearian 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"It is not that I don't think you are a bad Wikipedian" --> double negatives. I believe the sentence should be "It's not that I think you are a bad wikipedian". I think KieferSkunk wouldn't appreciate being called a bad fellow. Hehe. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Just to let you know that I don't hold the whole Earle Martin RfA thing against you. I wasn't exactly polite, so it's only fair that you responded the way you did. The only reason I commented about it on your RfA was because someone said Acalamari mischaracterized something, when I believe he didn't. As far as I am concerned, though I strongly disagree with your RfA requirements, I believe you'll do a good job as an admin, which is why I supported. Good luck. - TwoOars (Rev) 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all, as I said we resolved the whole thing there and then. And thankyou for spotting the mistake in the reply to that RfA query, with the double negative and that! Totally unintentional! ;-) Lradrama 07:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Something for you

[1]. Acalamari 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much! Thankyou for bringing the incident in question to my attention, and once again, I regret that it ever happened. Many thanks, and best wishes, Lradrama 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert - I've requested semi-protection for my userpage to save everyone the effort of having to keep reverting! Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm not surprised you've requested semi-protection! You page seems to have been vandalised a real lot today. That shows your anti-vandal work is excellent. As a result of this, I've got a present for you, just a sec... Lradrama 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll wear it with pride... Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart as I learn the ropes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome and well done in succeeding! Best wishes, Lradrama 10:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well done for passing. Yes, if you take note of the points brought up in your RfA, I'm sure you will be a fine admin. Well done. Lradrama 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Click "show" to see my message.


I am sorry to hear you didn't succeed in your RfA. I'm sure that, if you take note of all the pointers left down people who commented on your RfA, you will become a very good admin in the future. Make sure you are an active participant in Wikiprojects and Wikipedia-space activities and a good article developer. Show competance all-round, including helping struggling users and communicating well with everybody active on Wikipedia. I'm sure you will succeed in the future. Please ask if you need help or are struggling with anything. Best wishes, Lradrama 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm pleased to inform you that, consensus having been achieved, you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou so much! I'm very grateful to all those who participated in my RfA, whatever their views were and to Ryan Postlethwaite for the nom. :-) Lradrama 18:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your recent successful request for adminship! May your mop always be fresh, and your bucket be filled with clean hot water. Good job!
Ariel♥Gold

Ariel♥Gold 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hey there Lradrama, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Once again, thankyou for your support and adminship nomination. Yes, indeed I shall check out the admin school and practice over the next day or so before commencing work again. Thankyou! :-) Lradrama 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your sucessful request for adminship! Thanks also for your response to my oppose during your RfA; I am glad I indented my oppose, and supported you. Good luck! Acalamari 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much! I'm glad you brought the incidents in question to my attention so such happenings can be ironed out in the future. Best wishes, Lradrama 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Qst 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Congradulations on your successful Rfa. Well done!! :D AngelOfSadness talk 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats from me too. Have fun slaying vandals. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, add WP:AIAV to your watchlist, good way to start IMO. :D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I was so late congratulating you. Congratulations from me too--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I just give a big thankyou to all Wikipedians who participated in my RfA, no matter what they voted. All comments were valued greatly. Once again, thankyou. :-) Lradrama 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

vandalism etc.

Hey, thanks for fixing the vandalism on the Dirtblonde entry. However, for some reason, it seems that the "default" version is still not quite right...

this is the best, most accurate version: 12:45, 31 October 2007 82.111.210.121

I don't know how to make this the "default" one...if you could do something about it, whenever you got time, that'd be swell...thank you...

cheers

starcrossed anti_everything2001[at]yahoo[dot]co[dot]uk


If you wish to revert back to a version you think is most appropriate, click on the History tab at the top of the article. You'll then see a list of the 50 most recent revisions (the amount of most recent revisions can be altered from 10 to 500 BTW). You then click on the date/time of the revision you wish to revert back to, which will take you to an edit box. There should be a red notice on the page saying that you're editing a past version of the article and any changes made after will be lost. Use the edit summary to explain the reason behind the revert and click Save Page. It may be wise to drop a note to other editors on the article's talkpage explaining why you've reverted so far back. Happy editing, Lradrama 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

vandalism of User_talk:Onorem

More from 4x warned IP user / multiple user IP account. - CobaltBlueTony 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. The IP vandal in question has now been blocked. Lradrama 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

On your successful RfA. I'm glad to see you succeeded after your brilliant consistant editing beforehand and my previous interactions with you. Once again, well done! :-) Lradrama 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi. Thanks for your vote. Can you tell me or give me examples of what a Wikipedia-space edit is? That could be something that I might expand my interests to, or at least learn about, as I mentioned in my answer to Question #1. Thanks. Nightscream 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Anything within Wikipedia-space is signalled by the Wikipedia:(page name) format in the page headers. Examples include Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They often involve discussions in which any Wikipedian can take part, which shows you have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of using Wikipedia, which is valued in any admin. All Wikiprojects are also classed as Wikipedia-space entries. :-) Lradrama 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, don't worry about it. It's a shame you didn't succeed, but I'm sure that, if you take note on all the pointers left down by people participating in your RfA, you're next attempt should be more successful. Best wishes, Lradrama 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

You're very welcome. It's a shame you had to withdraw. I'm sure that, if you take note of all the pointers left down by other voters, you'll be more successful next time. :-) Lradrama 11:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome and I'm glad to hear of your success. Feel free to ask for help, as admins can still get stuck! It's no problem. Best wishes, Lradrama 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

You're very welcome and I'm glad to hear of your success. Best wishes, Lradrama 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Howdy Lradrama, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad to see you succeeded! You might want to try out your new tools at the useful admin school, something which I'm still doing yet! Best wishes, Lradrama 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad to see you succeeded! You might want to try out your new tools at the useful admin school, something which I'm still doing yet! Just ask if ever need any help - even admins are on a constant learning curve! And don't worry about the useuflness of your contributions, you comments are really valued by the Wiki-community, hence the success of your RfA. Just carry on being the brilliant editor you are. :-) Best wishes, Lradrama 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have serious doubts I will ever be a "brilliant" editor:) However I've played with the toys for a while now & just need to find the en wp way of doing things. Thanks for the message - cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm approaching 25,000 edits, and most of them have been made to establish or improve articles on musical theatre, especially on operettas and musicals between about 1860 and 1925, which was a pretty neglected area in Wikipedia 18 months ago. Best regards, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a fine job! You're very welcome and I wish you very, very happy editing! :-) Lradrama 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Canadian Paul

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.


Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Don't hesitate to ask for help if you get stuck, even admins run into situations and get confused. Try out the new admin school too! Once again congrats! Happy editing! Lradrama 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Don't hesitate to ask for help if you get stuck, even admins run into situations and get confused. Try out the new admin school too! Once again congrats! Happy editing! Lradrama 12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

I noticed that your recently reverted the removal of the title history section in the article. However the page continues to be reverted by fan boyish users who fail to provide reliable source to support their claims. I have recently added even more citations to the section. Could you keep an eye on the page? -- bulletproof 3:16 08:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. :-) Lradrama 12:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New users' help desk questions

I agree with your statement

How many times does an IP or new user miss the big notice with big, bold red letters at the top of the page which tells them that this page is for questions on the topic of Wikipedia only and go on to ask a question like can you help me with my English coursework? Can you tell me about Charles Dickens. It's a common occurance..."[2]

This remindes me of a related discussion a couple years ago, where I proposed that we should make it easier for people to find the search textbox on our main page. Somehow the idea didn't fly then. (I would like to look it up, but it's so hard to find such things here!) Since then, that situation hasn't improved. I really don't get it: Why do we hide that box at the bottom of the page, four "page down"s away from the "Questions · Help" links? — Sebastian 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it is mighty frustrating. New users are hardly going to know to go all the way down there to find the search box are they? Someone might realise one day. You might want to try reopening the discussion. Lradrama 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently pretty busy with other things, but if you support me then I could propose it somewhere. What do you think would be the best place for that? Help desk discussion, WP:VP or Talk:Main page? — Sebastian 22:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the Talk:Main page is the best bet. Whenever you are ready, we'll give it a whizz. :-) Lradrama 09:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Olsen

Thank you, i didnt see that it was Dual IP vandalism :) --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome, no worries! Lradrama 10:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're in trouble now!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award you this for your anti-vandalism efforts! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


P.S. feel free to change that headline - I just thought you might enjoy a little misdirection! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha you couldn't have chosen a better headline! Thankyou very much for the barnstar! It's very much appreciated! :-) Lradrama 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, Lradrama, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome and I'm glad to see you succeeded in your RfA. Don't forget to try out your new tools at the New Admin School. Happy editing! Lradrama 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Soundblaster X-fi

Hi, i would like to know what your reason is to revert my (very small) contribution to the Sound Blaster X-Fi topic.

It's about the "10:00, 19 November 2007 Lradrama (Talk | contribs) m (17,850 bytes) (Reverted edits by 80.127.2.32 (talk) to last version by 155.246.126.16) (undo)" thingie.

Unless i don't understand what a good contribution is (please enlighten me) i love to hear you're explanation for this edit since it seems incorrect to me.

Thank you, Cmpr

Hello, I am glad you asked, it's better than remaining confused. OK, this shows what I reverted. The text on the left shows your contribution (highlighted in red) and the text on the right is what I reverted it to. I reverted your edit because it wasn't written in an encyclopedia-like language. You displayed a strong point-of-view in your writing, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Just imagine reading that in a text-book encyclopedia - it'd cause many a raised eyebrow. I hope that helps. Best wishes, Lradrama 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply, i understand your revert a bit better now. Although it is a difficult subject (strong point-of-view) and i would like your input once again. The statement of "providing support" in the article is also a strong point of view in my opinion. Because if the support doesn't work (e.g. the driver doesn't install on most systems) it can be debated if support has really been provided. It will be nice if you could come up with a more "encyclopedia-like" way of correcting this section. --Cmpr (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So this device has trouble installing on a regular basis? If that is so, I would say something along the lines of ...although problems with installing this device have been a recurring problem.... This, as you can see, is a statement rather than a point-of-view. Remember, don't write anything if only you have experienced installation problems. You will then need to back the statement up with a reference from an external site. This is anything from a respectable website (i.e. not a forum or MySpace or anything like that) that states that this device has had installation problems. If you want, you could find such an article, and I could show you how to turn it into a Wikipedia reference. :-) Lradrama 13:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to provide external links backing up my statement hehe. The easiest reference might be on the forums from creative labs themselves. X-FI Linux Driver?

This thread talks about the bad linux support from creative labs in general also i think (is this worth another section on it's own you think?). A google search gives many similar hits showing the same user experience that i had. Thanks again. --Cmpr (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I would try to avoid using forums for backup. Is there no professional article or review or any sort of writing on the matter that would be suitable for backup. Forums may well be deleted from articles if they are used as references you see. Just have a flick through Google and see what you can find. :-) Lradrama 18:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are forums likely to be deleted as a reference? Surely it's an excellent reference in this particular case anyways. Let me explain this statement. If a person wants to form an opinion (in this case about a linux driver for the x-fi soundcard) and he or she can choose between "official, respected sites" and the actual user experiences as expressed in multiple threads on the manufacturers website... what would you choose? Maybe both sources? I would give more credit to the actual user experiences since there are many comments to form an opinion on and it's likely that most if not all of the comments are honest. Of course if a good review site (one with a long history of thorough and unbiased researching) can be found it would contribute to the forming of an opinion as well. The fact remains that Creative Labs has no real linux support for the x-fi card and this new beta driver (which is only for 64bit systems as well!) is not helping most people. Unless anyone can prove me the opposite, e.g. a working linux driver, i think it's only reasonable to mention this as fact in the article. Thank you, Cmpr (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take your time to read Wikipedia:Citing sources. This article will tell you everything you need to know about citing your work. It'll be better than what anyone else can tell you, lest they forget something. Please read it carefully. All rules are explained. Lradrama 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lradrama.... this page does not say that forums are not a valid use for citation. On the other hand it does say a few things that support it: Why sources should be cited? -To help users find additional information on the topic. -To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. -To improve the overall credibility and authoritative nature of Wikipedia. Also in the section: "When to cite sources" it says: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source". Now correct me if I'm wrong please...but is there anyone who claims this driver is working like a normal driver should? Not even Creative Labs themselves claim such a thing. They say it's unsupported and beta. I think it's even logical to say that Creative Labs has not provided driver support (working final versions) for x-fi cards in all regular versions (so 32bit also) of linux.

You made an undo edit based on my "strong point-of-view" way of writing a little line. While i now see that there are better ways of stating a fact (which i thank you for), i am also sad that you don't really debate the issue. You say that forums are not good for sourcing and you redirect me to some help page (i love reading help pages) which only confirms that my opinion is correct and does not help your "no forums" argument. So unless i totally misunderstand what you are saying i hope that you will change your opinion and actually help me write a little statement saying something like: NO linux SUPPORT, only UNSUPPORTED BETA driver which many users claim doesn't work as one can check on the forums. Cmpr (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I gave you the links inadequate for the purpose. I feel horrible saying this, but could you please read these, bearing in mind that you wish to use a public forum in your citation, to which anyone can contribute? Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lradrama 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright i read most of it and I'm sorry to say i can't find anything that supports your claim of forums being inadequate (especially in this case). While reading help pages i stumbled over more interesting pages like this one: Wikipedia:Use common sense. About forums to which anyone can contribute - it's not like that is a bad thing. In this situation it's actually a very good thing. Since more comments on the forum mean a more balanced opinion can be formed (we are talking about user experiences with a piece of hardware/software here). But let me make the statement a bit simpler and clearer. Let's not talk about the quality of the driver. Let's only state the obvious: the driver is NOT supported. Creative labs does NOT support the x-fi card on linux. [3]. Now these are Creative Labs own words. So it's clear they offer no support. It's a bit misleading because they state they provide linux 64bit OS support, but a sec later they say: unsupported beta driver with no technical support. Beta is the key word. It means: it's far from finished so we can't give any support. But please give me your opinion about the use of forums to cite as well instead of giving me lots of links ok? Cmpr (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that last sentence bordering on the sarcastic side of things? I have already given you my views on citing cources with public forums, given you links and tried to help you in the best way possible. I can't do much more, if you say there's nothing I've given you that translates into 'do not use things like this to cite sources', then I can't stop you from using forums to cite the article. This is, after all, a free encyclopedia. Do it if you wish, although I won't bank on them being kept in. I won't delete them, because that would be rude and unfair, but if anyone else or a bot does so, I hope you'll see my point. Thankyou, Lradrama 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).

As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.

I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.

Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lradrama 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lradrama 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lradrama 09:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lradrama 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert. :) Funny, my user page was semi-protected to prevent that particular person from doing that. Obviously they were experienced enough to wait to get around the semi-protection. Acalamari 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Glad to be of assistance! :-) Lradrama 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Help or Advice Needed

Hello, may I ask you for some help?

It seems the user whose IP is 66.245.21.217 is a vandal. S/He has made some changes to the Merritt Ruhlen article which contradict some of Wikipedia's policies (neutrality, biographies of living persons, etc.) S/He hasn't discussed the edits on the Talk pages and cannot be contacted in any way. What can/shall we do now? Thank you for any advice in advance! --Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at what the IP has done, and yes, some policies appear to have been violated. What you'll need to do is revert the article back to the date you wish to restore it to. I'd then correct the re-correct the spelling which you corrected after the IP edits were made. ;-) Lradrama 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert—the vandals just love me. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Yes, out of the last 50 edits to your userpage, 23 edits have been vandalism! Talk about being Mr. Popular! ;-) Happy editing and best wishes, Lradrama 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I editted limey to correct a broken link and remove incorrect information. Why was my edit reverted? 129.22.165.250 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I'm not having such a great time in real-life, and I can't think straight sometimes. Sorry. :-( Lradrama 18:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar, It was my first one!. Harland1 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lradrama 19:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Erin Burnett

OK, it's "unhelpful". But, FWIW, true.

If Erin loses her job because of calling George Bush a monkey, will that make it helpful?

72.237.223.234 18:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)M, 12/30/07, 1:23pm EST

All we ask is for you to be sensible with what you write. Nothing more, nothing less. Thankyou, Lradrama 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack

Just a quick question: what should one do when subjected to personal attacks like these: [4] [5] from vandals whose vandalism I have reverted? Harland1 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do, you mustn't get angry. Do not abuse these users back. Try to reason with them. If they persist abusing yourself, others and Wikipedia in general, they ought to be blocked. But blocking is the last resort after warnings and attempted reasoning. Changing a vandal into worthy editor is one of the greatest things you can do to this website. :-) Lradrama 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice I will try and follow it! Harland1 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maude Adams

Lradrama:

You just sent me a message (after I had made a couple of edits to the "Maude Adams" article, on Dec. 14, 2007), stating, in so many words, that you did not feel my changes were making any constructive contribution to the article.

However, essentially, all I had done was to correct a couple of SPELLING errors I had noticed while perusing the article (e.g.: "sabbatical" is spelled with two (2) b's, not one (1); and the plural of "rectory" is "rectories," not "rectory's."

Consequently, do you not feel that my edits merit inclusion in the "permanent" article, inasmuch as they do tend to improve the content, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines?

derfla (14 December 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.37.234 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologise for the mistake. Mistakes are very easy to make when on vandal patrol and I apologise for that. One of your edits did look like vandalism at first glance because you accidentally added a capital B in sabbatical when you were correcting the spelling. But it was my mistake. Once again, I am very sorry. Lradrama 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Queries!

Hello! Well, I am new-ish to Wikipedia(as in finding out what can be accomplished, ect- not by days!) and I have some questions!

First of all, why do only some members have things on their, erm, lookups? (Such as "This user is a Harry Potter fan," ect.) And can anyone have these things? And also if so, how do you do it?

Second of all, it is okay if anyone edits a page, correct? By this I mean correcting errors, ect.

Well, I think that is it for now!!

Thank you!


GerardXXXXway (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you find it a nice place to be! Do you mean the little boxes like what appear on my userpage on the right hand side. Yes, anyone can have them. You can them from other people's userpages, or even better, you can look at the whole gallery at Wikipedia:Userboxes.
Secondly, you are welcome to edit Wikipedia at your will. You need not ask permission at all. And of course, correcting errors, like you say, is very much valued by everyone participating in this project.
Thankyou for your queries, I hope that helps, and feel free to ask if you need to again! :-) Lradrama 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Marlith T/C 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, and I hope you have a most happy Christmas too! Happy festive editing! :-) Lradrama 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: A big NO

I thought giving easy access to the undo function on article history pages was a bad idea, but this? It's suicidal! Here are some reasons why I am against this.

  • The undo function gets abused often enough, without an easy access revert tool making things even worse,
  • We have three highly effective vandal bots (although it's fair to say one is much more effective than the other two) and a whole host of admins and other decent Wikipedians who patrol the recent changes with glorious results. Making everyone an admin in terms of vandal fighting would just (at least) treble the amount of vandal fighters, and there'd be so much competition to actually get something done...
  • In the hands of unestablished users, a free for all revert function is a great opportunity for vandals. For a start, it doesn't look like vandalism on the recent changes display list.

No, an altogether awful idea. I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but I'm just extremely surprised that such a proposal has been suggested. Lradrama 11:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the proposal. Nobody is proposing to give it to anyone. In fact it is precisely the "other decent Wikipedians" you list above to which this is intended to be given. Nobody will recieve it without the approval of an administrator, and it will be taken away at the first sign of problems. Your use of phrases like "unestablished users" conveys the impression that you think everyone will have access to it, which is not the case at all. It's actually very likely that nobody will get it unless they're sufficiently experienced they could have passed an RfA two years ago; this proposal is only here to compensate for the community's attitude that "vandal fighters don't need adminship" when in fact this feature is designed specifically for vandal fighting – Gurch 11:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Necessary amendments made over at Wikipedia talk:Rollback for non-administrators proposal. Sorry everybody! Lradrama 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lradrama/Archive_4&oldid=1207825290"