Jump to content

User talk:WJBscribe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrianGilliford (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 29 May 2008 (→‎Usurp Request BrianGilliford/TGS: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

05:22, Saturday 3 August 2024

User:WJBscribe
User:WJBscribe
User talk:WJBscribe
User talk:WJBscribe
User:WJBscribe/Gallery
User:WJBscribe/Gallery
User:WJBscribe/Barnstars
User:WJBscribe/Barnstars
User:WJBscribe/Drafts
User:WJBscribe/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


AcappellaHosting

Hello, is there a way to undelete the Buffalo Chips page? We have several published articles about our group, several published albums, references on many websites, and we are ranked in the top 24 groups in the country. I can provide all needed links if asked.

Thank you.

Thank you

I know you didn't vote, but nonetheless...

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky

Usurpation Request

WJBscribe thank you for taking a look at the request, but with all respect, i believe you forgot to WP:AGF on the case. I have asked during the proccess if someone had any questions or concerns and explained what the intended use of the account is and why i found it useful. I explained that there are a lot of templates/userboxes/scripts stored on userpages but the request was declined only in base of the voting templates (which i added on the userspace after searching and seeing that they were proposed for deletion and removed in the last years, and pointed clearly to the discussion pages to avoid having them recreated in the template space again). I do not see any problem in removing them from userspace too if it is requested, but this does not endorse that there is no legitimate use of that account. In fact, i expected it to be used for other templates/userboxes including those of other users (those that want to add them). I'm sorry that you are unconvinced that this a legitimate use, i've been not very long here -i'm just starting to learn how templates work yet-, and i won't take over templates from other users to illustrate the case. You said that If a template is useful, it belongs in the template namespace, and i agree with you, but a lot of templates / userboxes / scripts are actually stored on userpages and not in the template namespace Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hawaii/Shaka, User:Flaminglawyer/HapValDay!, User:Arknascar44/Love_Cabal/Template, User:UBX, User:js . I have no problem in having that account run by any other user, you can run it yourself if you wish. On the other hand it's possible that i'm wrong and that it's actually not useful at all to have that space, but nobody has given a rationale yet, or explained why templates on the userspace are bad Iunaw 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unsure why a you want these templates located at subpages of User:- rather than in the template space. Having templates in the designated namespace is clearly preferable as they can be used using the code {{Foo}} as opposed to {{user:-/Foo}} - if a template won't survive in the template namespace I don't think it should exist outside it. Userbox migration was a compromise resolution of a particular issue and I don't think the templates you propose are limited to userspace. I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with what you're trying to do and don't think it justifies my allowing you to usurp the account your requested. WjBscribe 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning looks a lot better! I'll make a further immersion in the WP-policy ocean -templates area- before answering, as i was just considering the fact that there are a lot of userspace templates (that gives the impression that unofficial and official templates coexist) and i'm now unsure whether i had a bad idea or not. Thank you! Iunaw 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comment seemed unkind - perhaps assumed you knew more about how templates work than is is the case. The template special is designed to make transclusions easier. So if you don't include the namespace in a transclusion code - {{Foo}} instead of {{User:Foo}} or {{Wikipedia:Foo}}, the software uses the page in the template namespace. The template namespace is thus generally preferred for templates. You are right that some templates nonetheless exist in userspace. This is a consequence of a period of Wikipedia history known as the "userbox wars". Briefly explained, Userboxes were originally in the template namespace. There were two camps - those who believed these had nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia and wanted them deleted, and those who felt they fostered a spirit of community and wanted them kept. The uneasy compromised that resolved this was that most userboxes without a collaborative purpose would be moved to userspace, distinguishing them from templates that had a direct role in creating content. Hence, why most templates used in userspace now exist on various user subpages. I hope that explains why I am uneasy to perform an action that may disturb the status quo in this area. Also, I have a general unwillingness to rename accounts to usernames that will not be used to actually edit the project. WjBscribe 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

I see you haven't logged into Commons since the 19th, so you probably haven't read the message that I left. You can disregard my question because someone answered it, but how do I request an exception to only uploading 24 pix in one hour? I was on a roll last night until I hit that speed bump. APK yada yada 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was such an limit on uploads - not sure it's particularly helpful. I'll look into it. WjBscribe 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. APK yada yada 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons II

Hi WJB, I've noticed that several M. Lucas images have been tagged as missing sources [1]. I was unable to readd the info in as it's currently protected. Solinkov (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Thanks for being on time to close Gwen Gale's RfA. I'm glad I didn't have to play a game of "find a bureaucrat" today. :) Acalamari 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I remember when I used to have to play that game often. I would have been able to close Sp1's RfA on time if not for my home internet being down for 7 hours! I especially chose the viewing of the new Indiana Jones film I went to so I would be back in time to close it... WjBscribe 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well timed then. :) In fact, I remembered that you used to contact bureaucrats if you needed them, so I decided to take a leaf out of your book. Hope you had a fun time at the cinema too. Acalamari 23:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers from me too for that! All the best :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyelarke / Scott Free

Regarding the name change of Scott Free (talk · contribs), there are some related ArbCom restrictions.[2] There should probably be a note added at the ArbCom page, and possibly Talk:John Buscema, which clarifies the name change. Would you like to do it, or shall I go ahead and add something? --Elonka 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I didn't realise they were under ArbCom restriction. Really should have consulted ArbCom first. Oh well, done now. I'm pretty tired and was hoping to head to bed - just wanted to clear the rename backlog. Would you mind adding notes in the appropriate places? WjBscribe 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can and will do! Also, you might want to set Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as a hotbutton on your browser, it'll be easier to scan for these in the future.  :) --Elonka 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WjBscribe 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfAs

Hello. I usually see you closing RfAs so I think your a good person to ask this. During your time in closing RfAs as successful or unsuccessful, what is the average percentage of a RfA passing? I have noticed personally that RfAs pass around 70% with a good amount of supporters. I am really curious about this. Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RyRy5, I'm going to jump in with some quick statistics. The lowest RFA ever to pass was Carnildo's which was influenced by a pending RFAR iirc. Sceptre's at 72% was the highest fail I could find, but I think higher %s have failed. Other low passes were Krimpet at 67%, ^demon at 63% (was a resysopping), and Danny at 68% (also a resysopping).
As a general rule, RFAs under 70% will not succeed, RFAs over 75% almost certainly succeed, and the 5% in between is why folk like WJBscribe are given the crat flag to make the tough calls. I think an average passing rate, if anyone's even compiled it, would be distorted by the significant number of high % historical passes from when the project was smaller and RFA was easier to pass.
Of course I'm sure WJBscribe or any of the other active crats can expand further, but I figured I'd jump in with some of the history I am aware of. MBisanz talk 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mbisanz. I was very curious about this. In my personal opinion, I think that 69-70% is the average. But I feel that the # of supports take affect also. --RyRy5 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to judge on percentages alone. The guiding principle by which I operate is that th community generally expects that those with more than 80% will be successfull and that those without 70% will not be. That said, RfA is not purely a vote and much turn on individual circumstances and strength of argument. Statistically, I believe it has been a very long time since someone has failed an RfA with 75% or more of the votes, though I would be hesitant to conclude too much from this fact. There is a spectrum of opinion amongst the Wikipedia community as to how far bureaucrats should be guided by those expressing a given opinion on the outcome of an RfA. Although most bureaucrats are likely to sit towards the middle of that range, I expect there is a certain degree of variation in our thoughts on this matter. WjBscribe 07:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. RlevseTalk 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHU

Hi. I see you renamed User: P m kocovski to User:PMK1, but in the process created User:PMK1 (renamed). Shouldn't this be deleted? It doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Thanks. BalkanFever 10:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12 administrator apparent libel and abuse

Hello, this is a request to review an apparently libelous and abusive comment made about a living person at the talk page for Mount Hood, done by administrator Hu12. Toward the bottom at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Hood#Climbing_Records--Saffron1x (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue stems from, as you'll see in the article's history section, my interest in adding a simple climbing record listing for Dan Howitt, with the press article references.

Hu12's post: After going through the "google results" (a disturbing education of sorts[3]), there appears to be a long line of aliases for Dan Howitt, posting over various websites and forums promoting himself and besmirching the characters of fellow climbers and related. Appears this is an attempt to use wikipedia to import offsite conflicts and further an adjenda. It has been removed. I'd suggest that Dan Howitt read the following, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world and Law Of Unintended ConsequencesHu12

My reply: Please remove Hu12's Libel and Vandalism above and please report this user's abuse to Wikipedia administration. Also, Hu12 of the "google results" you searched most are in support of Dan Howitt, with tons of his official summit photos on Rainier, Adams, Hood, Shasta, and listings of his timing officials. You strangely give weight to the abusive chat-site gossip and unsupported libel, and your own post above is of that nature. Chat-sites with this sort of conduct are sad. I'm reporting your libel and abuse to the wiki administration.--Saffron1x (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note Hu12 cites a link above as support for his allegations of Dan Howitt. In reading the chat-site thread, and note it's a mere chat-site and has a lot of personal attacks, gossip, unfounded content, libel, etc, you will, nevertheless, find considerable support for Howitt including climbing record photos, timing officials names, etc. Hu12 emphasizes the allegations about the use of aliases, and this is gossip and unsupported.

Note: This has already been reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrator Hu12 apparent abuse. Please review WP:CANVASS and avoid forum shopping. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Thank You

hey just a quick thanks for sorting out my rename from AceLink to Smiley. Most apreciated Smiley =) (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hi. I sent you an e-mail recently, don't know if you got it or not. Everyking (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it but only just had a chance to read it. I missed those events completely - will look into it and get back to you. WjBscribe 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive45#Isaac_Huml_.E2.86.92_Blocked_vandal_.23.23.23... I think "Someone by that name has requested it, as it appears in Google searches, and they don't want people to think it was them" or "It's a person's name, and they have requested that it be renamed. Since they do not own the account, and it is labelled as a sockpuppet, I don't see what the problem is" are reasonable explanation, no? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection all the info was there you are quite right. WjBscribe 02:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation committee

Hi WJB. I am interested in helping out a little more with mediation on Wikipedia. I have informally mediated a few article issues in the past and resolved them amicably, I believe. As there are currently no unassigned mediation requests, I can't take the advice of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Procedure to "show my stuff", and instead offer the work I did with disputing parties on Talk:Dane Rauschenberg as an example. Is the Mediation Committee looking for volunteers, and if so, do you think I might be suitable? Thanks. Neıl 11:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, as you can see, we normally ask users wanting to join the committee to take one of our cases to see how they get on. I honestly don't see this would be a problem for you, but it's still good to see how users get on in the formal mediation enviornment. Are you happy to wait until we have a new case for you to mediate? We do get them rather frequently. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at things, I'd certainly accept Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Attachment theory when it's over as evidence of your mediation work given we haven't got any cases at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not WJBscribe!!  :) Thanks Ryan. Seddon has already volunteered on the Attachment theory case, and I don't want to take the work away from him as I believe he's also trying to improve his mediation skills - I'll help out with the Attachment theory case, but yes, when a new case comes up for the Mediation Committee I would be happy to mediate that one - drop me a note on my talk page when a suitable opportunity arises. Neıl 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard RfM trouble

Hello, WJBscribe. Once again I'm trying to encourage editors at the John Howard article to come to mediation due to continued edit wars. However, I'm being antagonised by the comments of an editor uninvolved in this particular content dispute, user:Sarah. Here's the link to the RfM talk page where she has been commenting. There are maybe 10 or 15 editors involved in this dispute, most partook in the edit war. But these comments that attempt to paint me and one other editor as the real problem are affecting the neutral atmosphere of the RfM. Editors waiting to get started on an RfM are in the perfect place for anyone who wanted to influence their perceptions of the dispute, but I don't think this sort of activity should be allowed on the RfM pages. Sincere regards, Lester 11:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username Change

This morning you renamed a user and know there are a few more requests. I was wondering if you could attend to them? SimpsonsFan08 talk Sign Here Please and get Award 12:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages are likely to be pretty busy at the moment. There are few bureaucrats tending to them and we'll get to them when we can - unfortunately people will just need to be patient in the meantime. WjBscribe 17:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I completely forgot about that detail in the software. Thanks for refreshing my memory and I'll keep that in mind in the future. Useight (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames with non-Roman letters

Was a time that I opposed usernames that used non-Roman alphabets. I felt that this is an English language Wikipedia and the names should reflect that. However, in light of the global accounts, I now support changes such as Tigermighty → כל יכול.

I bring this up only because I recall discussing this issue with you a few months ago, and I wanted you to understand the reasoning behind the change in my opinion on this matter.

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I agree that where SUL is concerned, these probably should be done. I suggest asking such users to use latin characters in their signatures to help others distinguish them from other users with non-latin names. WjBscribe 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

Hi WJBscribe. I have a question regarding the namechange process. If I have my name changed, will all my edits be re-attributed to my new account-name? Does this include the images I uploaded and the pages I moved? Cheers, Face 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all your edits will be re-attributed as well as logged actions such as image uploads and page moves. All your settings in "my preferences" will also remain the same. WjBscribe 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp Request BrianGilliford/TGS

First off I'm not sure if this is the right place to respond but I figure its safer than editing the usurp page directly. I'm replying in reponse to your comment on the usurp page regarding my usurp request of the username TGS. It is not me in the german wiki. I actually hadn't realized that person was there until after I submitted the request when I checked into the contribs from other projects. If that has an impact on the request itself I'll understand as I'm not entirely sure how requests involving inter-wiki usernames are dealt with. I apologise again if this isn't the preferred method of replying. I'm at work and wasn't quite sure where to put it.

BrianGilliford (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]