User talk:Woohookitty

Archive from when I had a separate vfd comment page

AfD relisting

I'm not an expert, but I think this is the problem with your AfD relistings. Adding a nomination doesn't create a sub-page on the AfD day. It just retrieves the content from the nomination's page. When you close them and add the nomination to another AfD page, it will display a closed nomination. For example, Jarle Roar Sæbø2 is closed on today's AfD. From watching other admins, I think you just say "relisting" below the comments and the AfD will be closed on all pages it is listed on when it is finished. I hope this is accurate/makes sense. :-) Kjkolb 11:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant when the nomination is finished and it is closed by someone, there isn't another open nomination somewhere because it was listed on more than one day. I think there might have been one or two that were closed yesterday too, if you haven't fixed them already. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 11:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to create a fresh discussion page. Just re-transclude the original. Uncle G 13:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Advice

I trust you are doing you best to have an arms lenght opinion. I am very glad to see you are helping out, specially on the wiki page motorized bicycle. I'm sure others are also happy to have your support on many other pages. I do not wish to leave wikipedia. My expert advice on the subject of electric bicycles (though most of the last edits have been elegantly phrased by your click of administrators). There is a conflict of personality, you are a taking charge (I imagine you are a technically inclined person, you love making edits, you are all up for being in charge and making sure people stay in line)(Often this character can been seen as someone that is autocratic from my characters point of view and a conflict often exists.) I am an artist (I have new ideas, I might not be able to word them properly so the technically incline can understand and can be easily disregarded, I'm often regarded as skimpy from your point of view). In my HR course I remember seeing something along these lines (I'd have to actually pull my books out if you want to go more into detail but if there is anything you don't agree with please tell me). When these two personality clash it can be overwhelming for the artist. However in an organization (such as our article creation that we are working on), it is necessary to have artist employees. Actually it is even suggest that the artist be in charge if possible. This being said... *You might have noticed I haven't added anything or very much to the article in a while. I have added many comments to suggest what changes should be done and allowed others to do the change. I hope this clarifies any issues. --CyclePat 17:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD 5-day standard

Hi Woohookitty,

You've shifted the November 1st AfD discussions to Old on 6 Nov, 17:10 (UTC).

Please avoid doing that in future, as many of the day's discussions actually did not had the 120 hours' (5 days) maturity. The AfD bot specifically does this process automatically and ensures that all discussions had passed the full 120 hours before shifting the discussions to Old.

I've got into a minor trouble over this, but I point no finger and accept full responsibility for this myself. Let us just learn something from this and be more careful the next time round. :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Five days

I copy here for your convenience the discussion between two of your admin colleagues, which seems actually to be about your work. I request you check its accuracy, and (unless we are confused about the facts) get back to me about whether any more controversial cases were affected by premature designations by you as Old -- as some of them may (in contrast to the one i noticed) deserve remediation.
--Jerzy•t 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD 5-day standard

Thanks for your calling of the result on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi -- one of the many neglected task categories. I note, however, that you did so 112 hours after my nomination. That's 8 hours short of five days of time, clearly short of any fair interpretation of the "five days" of the policy.

I think, in light of the uncontroversial nature of the deletion, that this needs no remedy. (In more contested cases, i would reopen it for one more full UTC-midnite-to-midnite day -- and harbor misgivings about there being some basis for an aggrieved participant to argue that anything short of 120 uninterrupted hours is insufficient!) In future case like this one, however, i urge you to be as far above reproach as "Caesar's wife" must be, in this activity that can be among the most inflammatory that admins are called upon to perform. In fact, the interpretation i favor and strictly adhere to myself is that 5 days means the passage of 6 UTC midnites. My logic is that this

avoids slip-ups by letting those calling results process a full one-day subpage, based (usually) on the fact that the day of month has increased by 6,
yet ensures that any user can avoid missing the chance to participate in any AfD debate, unless they let 120 hours or more pass without checking AfD.

You will note that such a standard of accessibility was cited as grounds for the sensitive decision for reduction of the length of debate to five days.

I hope you'll act in the future to ensure a firm basis for user's confidence that the timing, at least, shows a conscientious concern for doing deletions fairly and "by the book".
--Jerzy•t 15:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy,

Thanks for your message.

Basically I rely on two tools, 1. WP:AFD/Old and 2. WP:AFD to determine whether the discussions are placed under Old and can be closed.

Usually, the AfD bot does the procedure, which allows the passage of 6 days as you've mentioned. However, 1 November's AfD was placed under old by Woohookitty :

(cur) (last) 17:10, 6 November 2005 Woohookitty (→Current discussions - november 1 is officially old)

I did a check at WP:AFD/Old, which did state that 1 November had open discussions and started to clear. I assumed that all discussions that are placed under /Old (by other sysops or bot) are at least 5 days old, but I guess I'm wrong in this case.

I have no intention to unfairly cut short any AfD debates than actually specified. I was thinking more of cleaning up the discussions at first opportunity to avoid accumulation, as the day before I spent numberous hours trying to clear nearly a week's backlog of old discussions.

Regardless of the reasons, I offer my apologies if I've caused any potential problems as the result of "early calling" of the AfD in question. I point no finger at anyone for this, and accept full responsibility myself. To be honest, I'm quite personally very surprised by what has actually happened.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:54 & 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the flame-free response! It sounds like you are an innocent victim, and that my concern should have been directed elsewhere. I appreciate your taking the time to document the situation, especially since you shouldn't have to pay any attention to whether the designation of the day was well timed. I'll take this up with the other editor involved. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 17:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[End of copied material]

Just a third party opinion here. I see nothing in WP:AFD or in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy that says 5 days is a requirement. (It's possible that I missed something though). What I do see is 5 days being given as a typical amount of time spent on Afd. My personal opinion is that longer can be better in questionable cases to give time for consensus to form, but when consensus is clear, I see no problem closing out an Afd a day early. Or even a few days early. If it does say 5 days is a requirement somewhere, I'd appreciate someone showing me where, as I couldn't find it. Friday (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday says nothing wrong here. I have noticed curtailed debates, and i would not be surprised if the policy has been amended to reflect that practice via wording such as you sight. I would, however, argue that such curtailing must be discussed on the AfD sub-page in question, to catch misjudgements before they need effort made to clean up after them, to demonstrate that curtailments are not stealth actions by vandals et al., and make to avoid the effort needed to review VfDs to separate the stealth curtailments from the legitimate ones.
--Jerzy•t 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said on my talk:

I apologize for causing all of this trouble. I won't add dates every again. Thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this was an instance of routine cleanup after normal exigencies of bold editing -- "part of the cost of doing business" the WP way -- and doesn't deserve to be called "all of this trouble". What you choose not to work on is your own business, even if it is overcaution or sulking, but i would be wrong to leave you with any impression that i think any blanket promise is called for! [smile]
--Jerzy•t 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I'd like to ask your help with the vexing John Kerry logjam. I am seeking the interaction of a skilled editor who can work with me on a user page sandbox page towards resolution. What I propose is that I will list what I feel are the essential salient facts for First Purple Heart. Then you can review and challenge me. If you and I can agree on what the actual essential salient facts which should be included there are, then we can next perhaps fiqure out the best way to describe those facts. For example, I see no need to even mention that Kerrry had a bandage or gauze on the next day. No one, not even Kerry has said he was nursing an injury, so why is such a thing notable? The Sick Call Treatment Record establishes the basis for the Purple Heart, not any bandage. Suffice it to say, because I see the mention of the bandage as gratuitious hagiography, I am staunchly opposed to it and am insisting that James prove bandage. Anyway, do you get my drift? Would you be willing to help? Let meknow and I will make up a page. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 00:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Kerry

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:John Kerry for a way to end debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

==BigDaddy sock== http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.40.168.173

thnxDerex @

it's sort of charming to know that he still cares. Derex @ 21:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just block him already? certianly using a sockpuppet to evade a ban is ban worthy in and of itself?--205.188.116.130 07:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting

Please read this. Please take note of "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654".[reply]

As I told Derex, I am not being a d*ck and I am trying to do my best to stay within both the letter and spirit of the rules. You do see that I did not just jump right in with edits in when John Kerry opened up for a while again today, yes? Frankly, I fail to see why you won't support the removal of "bandage". I've already agreed to drop "minor" if bandage is removed. Why is that not a good compromise? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jokes

I wasn't referring to Rex at all in that joke, I generally frown on that sort of behavior. But I apologize if you felt I was out of line, and I will withold any attempts at humor until this whole PH mess is over. --kizzle 22:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should be ashamed

of yourself for abusing your admin powers like that, not only evading your own ban, but unlawfully imposing one on me, and I'm the victem here, you're the one stalking me--Anonrtgt 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that time of the month already miss Kitty?--Anonrtg 02:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should really declaw you before you run this place into the ground--Anonrt 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's it psycho, you've blocked me countless times without giving so much as a single valid reason for the block, you're going to answer for this flagrent admin power abuse if I have to take this all the way to Jimbo Whales' talkpage, myself--Anonr 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]