User talk:SCZenz

Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. I'll respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.

Pre-admin archives:

Post-admin archives:

/Archive3

re: orphaned categories

Yes, I'll take care of those. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. peace, Tedernst | talk 04:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies. Assawyer 05:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC comments

Hmmm... after re-reading that convoluted wording, it seems that you are right. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive to have a Comments section that's not intended for comments. I'll go revert all the changes I've done since, if you haven't already done so. Cheers. Zocky 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks! freestylefrappe 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! My first vandalism template! :-) -- SCZenz 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category main

Any article that use the {main} template with more than 5 variables will get flaged by showing up in that category. The main template maxes out at 5 five variables to reduce the number of variables and code needed for performance reasons since %99 of the time its only one variable used. --Stbalbach 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah maintainence sounds right. --Stbalbach 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe

Man, he can't leave well enough alone, can he? FSF is his own worst enemy it seems. Ok, i'll be a minor party on that. karmafist 17:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to revert Locke Cole I accidentally deleted your confirmation that parties were aware..and then at the same time you tried to revert his edits...so I guess you could either copy and paste back your confirmation or revert to Raul654 and then re-add my parties...freestylefrappe 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll post the diffs asap. freestylefrappe 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism warnings

please do not remove notices on the administrator vandalism noticeboard when they have only been there for 2 minutes Yuckfoo 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIAV is not a page to appraise administrators of ongoing vandalism; it's a page for users who require immediate action. That user, who had been warned after his last edit, did not require immediate action, so I removed him. However, when he vandalized again, reposting was appropriate—I blocked him just now. -- SCZenz 22:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well then we disagree please allow a notice to last more than 2 minutes next time Yuckfoo 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the instructions on WP:AIAV, you'll see that administrators are changed with making a judgement about the appropriate action, and then removing the name from the list either way. That's what I did. If you disagree with my judgement in a specific case, you're free to take it up with me on my talk page. -- SCZenz 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we disagreed thats why you received my message because it required immediate action Yuckfoo 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But at the time you made the posting, you hadn't given him a chance to respond to the warning. If you give him {{test4}}, I'm not gonna block him unless he disregards it. Later, you reposted, which was proper. -- SCZenz 22:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why even warn someone when they use edit summary "pi vandalism strikes back!" [1] that does not even make sense really next time please leave my note for more than 2 minutes thank you Yuckfoo 22:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pwned

16:22, December 23, 2005 SCZenz blocked "User:24.23.189.98" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeated, warned vandalism)
16:22, December 23, 2005 Freakofnurture blocked "User:24.23.189.98" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandal)

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:24, Dec. 23, 2005

Response on RFAr

I don't disagree that you were "unfailingly polite", but I believe in being deliberately impolite when it is neccessary to get someone's attention or gain their respect, as I think you understand based on your confrontational statements here. The proper application of impolite comments can be very beneficial in any debate... I opened my defense of Pigsonthewing by calling him "a pain in the ass" and I think he appreciated the directness. An impolite, but honest, opinion will usually establish more understanding and respect than clinical politeness.

Indeed, I would only be 'unfailingly polite' through a long debate in the rare cases when I wish to be above reproach so that I may destroy someone utterly.

Things you "might have done better", based upon a goal of helping FSF to improve, would be to:

Give credence to his explanations. Very few people assume criticism to be well-meaning without some reason to believe the person has their best interests to heart. Acknowledge that the 3RR on copyvio situation involved good faith attempts to adhere to policy and might not have warranted a block... establishing yourself as a friendly voice rather than someone 'being mean' increases the likelihood that suggestions of more detailed and polite communication might actually be heeded.
Assume all possible good faith and make allowances for the person inevitably feeling 'put upon'. There was no reason to continue dragging up the 'removed material from his RfC' bit... FSF offered a reasonable explanation, feeling it unfair to add new complaints about him where people had already voted. Is that provably why he did it? No, but it's a reasonable complaint and anyone in his position would feel beleaguered. Stick to the core problems rather than hammering on every mis-step.
Keep others in check to prevent 'piling on' and a 'witch hunt' atmosphere. There are few means more effective for tearing someone down than having some individuals politely critiquing them while others rip into the person in a markedly less polite manner. If your goal is to help someone improve you need to protect them from unwarranted and over-zealous criticisms. Allowing such to go unchecked only guarantees that they will see 'constructive' criticism as anything but and reject it out of hand.

At a certain level 'politeness' is just the window dressing. Most people never see that. I think you do. And that's me... being impolite. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Gloating was definately not my intent. I just wanted to let him know what would happen in an attempt to dissuade him, I don't think he's seeing things clearly at this point. karmafist 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better for the rfar perhaps, but I'm still going to try to be nice to the guy regardless of how he acts. karmafist 06:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's the issue. Not whether i'm nice, but rather the perception of whether i'm nice. Well, in any case, I thank you for your concern there, and I think things will turn out alright, at least compared to what i'm used to in similiar situations. karmafist 06:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Volatile Page Tag

True again. It'll be interesting how that page works out, there are a bunch of angry people on all sides of the issue. DolphinCompSci 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought. Glancing at the edit log for that page has a WHOLE LOT of edits being done rather frequently, so it certainly fits one definition of volatile. Thanks. DolphinCompSci 07:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill O'Reilly page is an extremely volatile page (as you may have noticed)...and there's quite a lot of FUD going on around it on how to handle it.

I think one partial solution could be extremely simple. While the ultimate solution hasn't popped into my head yet (and probably won't, it's midnight here...) I would advocate a sort of tag that goes like this:

"This page is extremely volatile and may not always conform to the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. See the talk page for details."

...or perhaps something to that effect. That way, the attention of the reader is flagged that "Hey, this is a page that's considered very, uh, popular, among certain people who like scribbling!". An inherent messiness comes with a tremendous collaborative effort such as Wikipedia, and sometimes that messiness is a result of random vandalism, deliberate vandalism, angry people (both left and right) and...well, you get the idea.

By the way, thanks for your warm welcome. DolphinCompSci 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I kinda noticed that...I'll stop running against the grain now :D But it is kinda fun sometimes to have a stack that grows up rather than down, even though the rest of the world does it the other way. (That made no sense. I think I'll sleep...now. Night.) I'll use standard practice from now on. DolphinCompSci 08:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Workshop. Fred Bauder 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FSF

Sure, no prob. Just to check, is Free or Freestyle or something like that ok? I'll do the whole thing just in case for now.karmafist 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe

Thank you for the information. In regard to the claims of alleged abuse of administrator powers and behavior inappropriate to an administrator made against Freestylefrappe, I have been threatened with blocking twice by this user: once for removing erroneous claims from an RFC that has nothing to do with me, and two, for politely responding to comments on his talk page. Your thoughts? --Viriditas 00:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I also feel that the user breached WP:CIV through "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" or outright "lies". I am going to assume good faith and give Freestylefrappe a little time to realize his error and fix it. If you have any other suggestions or comments, please let me know. --Viriditas 00:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through it and get back to you. I'm supposed to be on wikibreak! :-) --Viriditas 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I do have a brief question for you. Do you know if a user certifying the basis for an RFC dispute has the right to modify, alter, or otherwise change the Statement of the dispute? According to the instructions, the answer is yes. ("This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section). I would like to sign an RFC as a user certifying the basis for a dispute, and remove an erroneous accusation made by Freestylefrappe without the threat of being blocked. As far as I can tell, this appears to be a legitimate action on my part. Of course, I would like to get confirmation before I do this, so I don't get blocked. Any relevant allegations which can be sourced with diffs, will of course remain in the RFC. --Viriditas 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good advice. You also wrote, "You shouldn't remove accusations made of you, even if erroneous and/or irrelevant, from an RfC." I would generally agree with that statement, except in this case, the statement by Freestylefrappe, namely:In no way do I support what Viridatas has been doing. The harassment is both ways erroneously suggests (sans evidence) that I have harassed user Haizum, and this statement goes against basic RFC guidlines. For example, the RFC is supposed to represent a brief neutral statement of the issue. Freestylefrappe's opinion is not neutral and has no place in the description of his conflict. I can find no justification for his statement on any policy or guideline page. Freestylefrappe has also thrown WP:EQ to the wind, ignoring my requests to post diffs that substantiate his opinion. I see no reason why I shouldn't certify the basis for the dispute, removing unsubstantiated opinions to talk per RFC guidelines. --Viriditas 03:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. What's the best place to ask questions about RFC procedures and get a timely response? --Viriditas 03:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Kwanzaa

First off: to be sure, some of the various anons' edits have been blatant vandalism. However, I think you miss the point of NPOV. It does NOT mean that an article cannot present a hostile viewpoint of the subject in question. It simply means that the article must present ALL viewpoints on the subject, and leave any value judgments to the reader. Thus, linking to a site hostile to the subject is not a violation of NPOV and is perfectly acceptable. Kurt Weber 01:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

re: deletion of Oven Rack Guard

dear sir, so you saw fit to delete the oven rack guard article because you deem it an advertisement. Then why is this article not deleted, for the same reason.I think there be strong bias on Wikipedia...so how do you get to be in the in crowd? burt 845 298 4229 I dare ya

Roomba From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search Roomba is a robotic vacuum cleaner made and sold by iRobot. It is marketed as a Robotic Floorvac. The Roomba was first released in 2002 with updates and new models released in 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2005 the Roomba Scheduler was released and iRobot began updating third generation Roomba's to the improved 2.1 version. As of May 2005, over 1.2 million units have been sold, making it the most successful domestic robot so far. —the preceding unsigned comment is by BSHUL (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence explanation

The 'here' link includes this explanation of why self-identfying as an admin was not "intimidation";

"My question on the Kumanovo talk page regarding whether another user was aware that I was an admin was not an attempt to intimidate him. If I wanted to block him I would have done so. I was trying to find out why my word was second to a bunch of vandalizing anons."

The '87' update included this 'removal of material from RfC' accusation;

"Removes a claim of WP:OWN vios on his rfc, claiming it to be "nonsense" in his edit summary.[76]"

No problem. Unfortunately, both contained a bunch of things so it's difficult to pin down the specific text I was referring to. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arrested Development characters

I replied to your message on my talk page. --Christopherlin 07:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian communists

Sorry. What I had deleted was a category named "Hungarian Communists", while "Hungarian communists" still exists and is not orphan. The category did not have more than one member, whom I 'needed' for the "communists" category. I'll be more careful in thr future, thank you for letting me know.Dahn 07:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember?

Remember you answered the "Quark" talk page question not so long ago? Well,I THink you better take a look again! :-)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up on my page. :) --jh51681 07:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archjr

Thanks for your attention in the matter --Valermos 07:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

economic fascism

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not the only one that has reverted the article when someone has tried to redirect it without a consensus. I'm just the only one tonight. Also, there was just a vote a couple weeks ago that revealed a lack of consensus: [2]. Here are others complaining about redirecting without a consensus: [3] RJII 07:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi again

well i've been around the circle and haven't gotten anywhere.... what i did learn is...ask 100 admins why your article was deleted and you'll get 101 different answers. i have made all the changes everyone has suggested and i still can't get it published, why not? can you explicitly tell me how to get some review of this? burt

Vandals

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll repost it there too. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 05:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: deletion cool touch ovenrack guard

hi again,

i asked several admins why this article was deleted and received several different reasons for deletion, i have addressed all of them to no avail. the last admin said that it was because "I" posted it. There are many people who have no vested interest in the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, that can submit the article. in fact, one already did and it was speedy deleted. so what is the specific problem preventing the article from being part of wikipedia?...so i can address it

the "Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard" article is as follows:

Ovens and stoves, throughout history, have one thing in common, they will burn the person who comes in contact with their hot metal surfaces, for instance, the oven rack's front edge[4].Devices to protect the hands, such as oven gloves, have been developed, but need to be used consistently, to be effective; so people still get burned. In 2004, a device has been developed by Burt Shulman of Wappingers Falls, NY, called the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, which is a fabric strip that attaches along the front edge of the oven rack and stays in the oven[5]. If a person touches it, even at 500 deg. F., they will not be burned. - The fabric is made from a modern synthetic fiber called Nomex - which can withstand 500 deg. F. temperatures and has both low thermal conductivity and thermal mass [6] These material properties reduce the heat transferred to the skin, during the "touch', so no burn results. Source Articles: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

re: wikipedia deletion review

i looked for the button that says "click here to initiate a wikipedia review", but i dont see it. i asked for specific/explicit help. all im getting from the administration is generalizations that are unuseable to a wikioutsider like me. is this a tactic? please tell me exactly how to ask for a deletion review. also, what would happen if someone just corrects the numerous deletion "reasons" which were cited and resubmits? burt

My RfA

Hi SCZenz, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should have communicated sooner...

In the futre, I would prefer that you ask me to silence myself in front of others and that you do so in a timely fashion. -- Emact 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]