Jump to content

User talk:Crazynas

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.104.17.92 (talk) at 01:55, 18 March 2013 (→‎WP:AN: deletion discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you leave a message here I'll reply here, unless requested otherwise. If I left you a message I'm probably watching you, at least for a while.

Please don't forget to sign: "~~~~"


The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

re Angus, et al

i am touching up plot points that are in error and/or out of sequence -- i DO know the article is long, but i have deleted about as much as i have added -- if you have not seen the film, please leave mine "as is" - i just watched it today. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.98.103 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've reverted back to your version. Please take a look at this if you have time, which outlines how we try to summarize plots. Happy editing. Crazynas t 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i had already reverted, so i will revert again -- looks like i added, net, about 1300 bytes, -- but it's either take out a LOT of what's wrong, or fix and touch up --

i know there are guidelines, but i know there are always exceptions -- i've seen articles that make a doctoral thesis look like a comic book, and other entries that leave almost all to the imagination, so why bother at all ?

i figure if someone is truthful, and invests the time, a few bytes more or less can't hurt, especially when clarifying/correcting the entry. This article did not even have the cat in the cast, for heavens sake -- a MAJOR role !

Musical Linguist

If you check through the list of admins, she was already desysopped for inactivity. If an admin has been inactive for one calendar year, you can guarantee they will be on the list, much less the six years she's been gone. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I guess I didn't read closely enough, when I looked here it seemed like she still was, didn't notice (at the time I posted) that steward actions do not appear on that list. Crazynas t 07:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh okay, I see how you got confused, no worries :) All the inactive admins for at least a year were desysopped on July 3, 2011 (meaning they were inactive from July 3, 2010 or older). All of them were logged on Meta-Wiki. Inactive administrators desysopped through the process listed on that page you edited are listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/Inactive and admins who were inactive or resigned and who have been inactive for over three years or longer since then are listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/Long-term inactive. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head

The Hitting the Nail on the Head Award
I hereby present you with the prestigious Nail on the Head award for your
helpful action here. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]


The Signpost: 11 February 2013

request

Crazynas, would it be possible to delete the tags on scientific method? I could, but do not want to act yet, as I believe there will be resolution, fairly soon, unlike some tags still on other pages since 2008. Arc de Ciel requested this already. I did not act until Battybot expanded the tag beyond Essay-like, which is acceptable for a single phrase. But for a single bot to expand the tag beyond existing bounds on the article is asking a lot. Thanks, I can watch your page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are uncomfortable about responding, I will wait a little longer, and the remove the bot expansion. I will replace the article level tag with a request to tag disputed points inline. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not uncomfortable responding, just slow. I don't really care what tags are on the page. I just didn't think:
{{multiple issues|Putting a stop to bot action. There are already editors on the case. }}[1]
made sense to an outside visitor of the page. So I reverted to the standard template. I have no opinion about weather tags should be on the page right now or not. Crazynas t 08:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, out of curiosity, what was your motivation for your edit? Crazynas t 08:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My motivation is to prevent the spread of disruptive editing. The basic reason is there is little scholarly documentation on the subject for practioners; Encyclopaedia Britannica didn't even cover it until the 14th edition. It is a subject which was taught in an oral tradition, whose very existence was disputed by the editors of our encyclopedia during the 9 years I have watched it. I and hundreds of other editors have worked to stabilize it, and I intend to continue watching over it as long as I am able. The current dispute seems to be wider than usual, or expected. It will take work and time for it to settle down, again. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP Climate change request.

I declined the request for unprotection given the rocky history of the subject over the years, edit wars, banned users, topic bans, ArbCom cases, and so forth. That article is far from a low profile page. Please use more caution. Thanks Secret account 22:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. First, congratulations on regaining the mop. The reason I requested unprotection on the climate related articles is the logged reason. (15:52, 8 June 2008 Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Attribution of recent climate change (Moving down to semi-protect. No consensus for full at this time, and move made by involved admin. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages.) Relates to an ANI page from four years ago (with a bad link), with no explanation of Arbcom remedies or the like. Perhaps reprotect with a link to a more permanent explanation ArbCom remedy or the like, to prevent future misunderstanding?(Note, the same edit summary is used in the other two climate related articles I requested unprotection on)
On a somewhat related note, Bill Cunningham (talk show host) Only has four edits in the last seven months, which makes it appear like a perfect candidate for PC, so I'm confused as to why you declined it? My understanding was that PC was based on the traffic on the page, not how long it has had issues (per your decline reason).
Regards. Crazynas t 23:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the climate change article, the topic is under ArbCom sanctions. Look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change for more details, unprotection of that page would lead to more problems and drama. As for Cunningham, there has been serious BLP issues in the past and I'm a bit weary of PC here as the subject complained about the article before. I also declined Arroyo for rather obvious reasons. Secret account 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

AutoBlock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Crazynas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This appears to be a hard (possibly range) block on my school IP I would like to request IP-blockexempt (if appropriate)

Accept reason:

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. J.delanoygabsadds 05:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

RE: Richard Garfield

Hi,

Thanks for bringing the concerns of the article to our attention. I just wanted to leave a note and offer a suggestion for you. In situations where there's a posting of non-public information (such as the one you mentioned), these edits should be suppressed by the oversight team. (Don't worry, I already sent an email to them and the edit has been taken care of.) In instances where there are edits that that may need to be rev-deleted, it may actually be better to contact an active admin privately via email or IRC (or send an email to the oversight team for suppression). This helps out because it ensures that we draw less attention to the edit. Again, thanks for your help lately and let me know if you have any questions! Mike V • Talk 09:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, I was a bit asleep on the switch on that one, I did not think that the info was so sensitive that it needed suppression (wasn't a phone# or home address). I thought that admin RevDel would be enough (as opposed to oversight) although you are right, I shouldn't have posted it on RFPP. I'll try not to let it happen again. Crazynas t 10:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome from STiki!

Hello, Crazynas, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding post of users

Hi. Just a friendly reminder that it is always better to inform users that you are hiding their posts. You recently did this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Odd_IP_edits and Wikipedia would run a whole lot smoother if you would just let people know you plan to violate their post (especially in a discussion that you had absolutely no part in previously). I will let you away with it this time and won't revert. Thanks LalaLAND (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This is turning into a giant clusterfudge. Ah well, NEnt opened an arbitration case, so it might get sorted out there. Otherwise I am going to open up discussion at the outing policy. This silliness has gone on too long. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

WP:AN

You're right that I probably shouldn't have reverted for a second time, but I disagree that saying the IP had "no right" (your phrasing, not mine) was uncivil - 99.99% of threads are the threads at the Admin noticeboards should be, and indeed are, closed by Admins. I would therefore argue that this falls as an inappropriate NAC by the IP. GiantSnowman 22:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know what a NAC is. It refers to an essay about deletion discussions.
"99.99% of threads are the threads at the Admin noticeboards should be [...] closed by Admins"
Great way to alienate everyone who isn't an admin.
Wikipedia is imploding in its own bureaucratic nonsense. 88.104.17.92 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazynas&oldid=545113254"