User talk:Ikip: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Brendan19 (talk | contribs)
→‎did you: new section
→‎Concerns: new section
Line 23: Line 23:


see my message from a few days ago? --[[User:Brendan19|Brendan19]] ([[User talk:Brendan19|talk]]) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
see my message from a few days ago? --[[User:Brendan19|Brendan19]] ([[User talk:Brendan19|talk]]) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Concerns ==

Quick disclosure note: I have reason to believe that you dislike editors misrepresenting themselves as neutral or uninvolved. Aside from a civil discussion at [[WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles]] a few weeks ago, I'm reasonably sure that we have had no direct interactions recently, despite my participation at [[WT:Article Rescue Squadron]] and [[WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)‎|its MfD]].

Hi. I have two concerns that I wanted to bring to your attention:
# [[WP:Articles for deletion/Anya/Anastasia (character)]]: Would you clarify how you got from [[Anya/Anastasia (character)]] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAnya%2FAnastasia_(character)&diff=291318825&oldid=291300981 notifications at] [[Talk:The Walt Disney Company]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney]]? [[Anastasia (1997 film)]] is not a Disney film. The text "directly-related to the topic under discussion" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACanvassing&diff=288166141&oldid=287556652 was added] to [[WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices]] as a result of [[WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles]].
# When amending existing comments, please consider appending follow-up comments or striking out rather than editing them directly. As examples, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AArticle_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination)&diff=291225378&oldid=291224229 edited a prominently-placed comment], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination)&diff=291297745&oldid=291288865 significantly changed another], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AArticle_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination)&diff=291325246&oldid=291323702 expanded a comment] after EEMIV had replied to it. These pages may be relevant reading:
#* [[WP:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments]]
#* [[WP:Talk page guidelines#Own comments]] ([[WP:REDACT]])
#* [[WP:No personal attacks#Removal of text]] (more regarding others' comments)
#* [[WP:Refactoring talk pages]] (separate topic, for restructuring discussions)

[[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:59, 21 May 2009

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225)

This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]

The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3]

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report

...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1

wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

ARS

I haven't engaged in any discussion of the project, and I only signed up a couple of weeks ago. I've saved Co-training and Liahavichy Castle thanks to them appearing on the ARS list, both of which took some real digging to find sources and verify notability, so I don't begrudge the article nominators in either case. If editors nominating articles actually paid any attention to WP:BEFORE, ARS wouldn't be needed, but so long as perfectly notable topics with abundant sources are being put up for deletion, there'll be a place for ARS. I am perhaps not a conventional ARS member, as I've agreed with deletion on a fair few articles that have been flagged for rescue. Fences and windows (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve to be in the Article Rescue Hall of Fame. That is great!
I agree with your WP:BEFORE comments, to many editors are using AFD as a way to clean up articles, which is NOT the way it should be done, see User:Ikip/Del.
My views on deletion are changing, there is a lot of crap out there.
Again, thanks for your comments at the MfD. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I very much commend your continued efforts to keep the life-blood of ARS flowing. Also, for maintaining your dignity in the face of continued attacks. . I don't think I could do it! ARS is a wonderful tool for Good faith editors....--Buster7 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buster7, I appreciate it, after the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination) is finished, ARS will be stronger than ever. Ikip (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation/small suggestion

You've been editing almost non-stop (~1955-2340) for four hours, and before that had another big chunk that ended at 1655. Most of your contributions have been to wikispace that is heated and argumentative. You might find yourself less frustrated if, regardless of your timzone, you take a snooze or some such -- maybe someone else will further take up the mantle at the ARS discussion, or perhaps with some eyeballs off Wikipedia, some of the vitriol will just seem...not as intense. Anyway, my two cents. --EEMIV (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you

see my message from a few days ago? --Brendan19 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Quick disclosure note: I have reason to believe that you dislike editors misrepresenting themselves as neutral or uninvolved. Aside from a civil discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles a few weeks ago, I'm reasonably sure that we have had no direct interactions recently, despite my participation at WT:Article Rescue Squadron and its MfD.

Hi. I have two concerns that I wanted to bring to your attention:

  1. WP:Articles for deletion/Anya/Anastasia (character): Would you clarify how you got from Anya/Anastasia (character) to notifications at Talk:The Walt Disney Company and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney? Anastasia (1997 film) is not a Disney film. The text "directly-related to the topic under discussion" was added to WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices as a result of WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles.
  2. When amending existing comments, please consider appending follow-up comments or striking out rather than editing them directly. As examples, you edited a prominently-placed comment, significantly changed another, and expanded a comment after EEMIV had replied to it. These pages may be relevant reading:

Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]