User talk:OhanaUnited: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive 1 (December 18, 2006 - May 31, 2007)
	Archive 2 (June 1, 2007 - July 3, 2007)
	Archive 3 (July 4, 2007 - August 21, 2007)
	Archive 4 (August 22, 2007 - October 19, 2007)
	Archive 5 (October 20, 2007 - November 17, 2007)
	Archive 6 (November 18, 2007 - December 31, 2007)
	Archive 7 (January 1, 2008 - February 18, 2008)

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:36, 26 February 2008

Welcome to OhanaUnited's talk page..
Please read the following before making a comment in my talk page.

If you leave a message here, I will reply in your talk page.
I do not watchlist your talk page, unless you explictly indicate it clearly in your talk page or in your message. I also don't cross-post your message because I feel this is redunant.
If you come here to complain or rant about why I delisted an Good Article (GA) that you like/created/contributed, head over to this page. I have the same feeling as one of my favourite Wikipedia editor/administrator, LaraLove, towards how we got attacked by editors who object our delisting action.
I will not respond to anonymous editors' comments. Go create an account!
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous support, congratulations Ohana. :) If you ever need help with anything, I'll be a question away. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has no one else come here to congratulate you? :) Their bad. Congratulations. I know you'll do well. Regards, Rudget . 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, OU, and good luck with your new responsibilities. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, I think :-) You admitted the errors of your ways. That's half the battle at RfA. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats mate! Looking forward to seeing you around the backlogs. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Ohana. I told you that you'd get it with a little time. :) Drop me a yahoo message when you get a chance. Lara❤Love 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're happy for you! Congrats and enjoy the shiny buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why! Thanks. And yeah, sure thing. Rudget . 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfA

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the best statements I have seen after an RFA. Keep working, and don't rush into the role. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your RfA! And thank you for the RfA card! Cheers! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I hope you enjoy your new buttons, they are quite shiny. Best of luck as an admin, don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. (Well, on anything but autoblocks, I don't understand the pesky beasts.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on congrat's! Enjoy your new mop. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ohana! --Chetblong^{T C} 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I hope the toolset treats you well. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well! Happyme22 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as another deep hole in the ground! Happy mopping :) --Ouro (blah blah) 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'OH!

Sorry I missed your RfA, mate. I would have supported without hesitation, if I'd seen it. I've been a bit zoned out of WP these last few weeks for reasons I think you'll understand, combined with drawing the short straw for this term's timetable. Many congratulations! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		Military history service award
		For tagging and assessing 1000 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building a bot

I haven't actually built a bot. I just use awb the way I assume everyone does. All I did was ask at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval for a bot flag so that I could run awb automated, which means I don't have to approve every edit. You should be able to deliver a newsletter using awb without a bot flag. You need to append your newsletter to the relevant user talk pages, I would guess. It's probably best to ask at the Signpost, they have more experience at delivering newsletteres than me. Hiding T 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

Hi there, I'd be interested in participating in the GA Sweeps if you could use an extra pair of hands, I've reviewed quite a few articles over the last year or so and I've also written at least a dozen myself, so I feel I have a fairly good handle on the GA criteria. Some examples of the articles I have reviewed can be seen at User:jackyd101/GA article reviews, hopefully they're what you are looking for. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Reviews already underway.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nomination

Hello Ohana. First off, Congratulations on your recent successful RFA! I was glad to support. Actually, I had plans to run near the end of March. I have a nominator, and around 4-5 co-nominators, but I would always appreciate another co-nom from you! Tell me if this is possible. Best Regards, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 12:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edison Chen photo scandal‎

Thank you for your message. Let's hope that doesn't happen. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Chinese

hi? I strongly recommend you that you should go to the article Indonesian Chinese and take a look. These two users user:Caniago and user:Merbabu who joined hand in hand & keep reverting what I edited on this topic. These two editors allowed those who degraded Chinese people without reference editing, like Criminal Activity(in which there is no reference at all)[1] in which I objected and wrote down my reasons on the talk page of that article. What I edited about Chinese were raped and robbed in 1998 was totally considered as vandalism and reverted. [2] [3] [4] I believe that they are either sockpuppets WP:SOCK or meat sockpuppet WP:MEAT (i.e. one hired the other one to edit). The editor user:Caniago didn't edit any Chinese topic at all, but when the article Macau was nominated on FAC [5]/GAC [6] page 2007 and 2008, he always came there and objected and gave almost useless comments in order to make sure that article would not be successfully promoted. Please refer to that article's history (i.e. Indonesian Chinese) and see if I did the right thing. I would like to hear your advice before submitting this matter to WP:ANI I am looking forwards to hearing from you. Thanks a lot!!! Coloane (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote down my message on his talk page, mostly user:Caniago disregarded and erased it. Check his talk page. Here I can provided one more evidence that user:Caniago that he always deliberately degraded other Chinese topics like this: [7] in which regarded as so-called de-peackockify from [8]. I sincerely urge you to pay attention to this and give me some advices before submitting this matter to WP:ANI. Coloane (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take anything Coloane says with a grain of salt. He/she is a very disruptive POV warrior who has been blocked multiple times, and banned by the community from participating in anything to do with FA or GA processes (see [[9]]). Presently he is rewriting the Indonesian Chinese article according to his own very biased POV, contrary to the facts provided by the citations in the article. (Caniago (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I can see the reference they provided, however it didn't make a conflict with what I edited over there, did it? Coloane (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any opinion for me to submit this case (meatpuppets: user:Caniago and user:Merbabu) to WP:SSP? as the page states from SSP:

“

Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets.

”

If you think it is not situable for me to submit this case to SSP at the moment as evidence is not enough or they will act against me with irrelvant matter like above, please let me know and I will do that later if someone else complain as you mentioned. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban issue

It is a confusing one! The whole thing was something of a mess at the time, with numerous people coming up with all sorts of things including permabans and so on, which seemed inappropriate and didn't reach consensus anyway. The simplistic view would be - he was disrupting certain content (featured content candidates and reviews, and GA candidates and reviews) and the intent of the topic ban was to bring that to an end. There was no limit set as noone could agree on a limit - the closest to an agreement was 6 months, but there was some confusion over whether he had retired or not. As I said to Josuechan, the most likely course of action is that someone will ask for a review of it at some point, and if his behaviour has improved and he looks unlikely to disrupt, the restriction would be lifted by the community. It would implicitly extend to featured portal candidates/reviews as portals were one area he was disrupting, but if it's anywhere else, it comes down to whether he's behaving disruptively or not. *sigh* Don't you love inconclusive community processes? :) Orderinchaos 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 }}
 :::If you think it is not situable for me to submit this case to SSP at the moment as evidence is not enough or they will act against me with irrelvant matter like above, please let me know and I will do that later if someone else complain as you mentioned.  Thanks! [[User:Coloane|Coloane]] ([[User talk:Coloane|talk]]) 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
+== Topic ban issue ==
+It is a confusing one! The whole thing was something of a mess at the time, with numerous people coming up with all sorts of things including permabans and so on, which seemed inappropriate and didn't reach consensus anyway. The simplistic view would be - he was disrupting certain content (featured content candidates and reviews, and GA candidates and reviews) and the intent of the topic ban was to bring that to an end. There was no limit set as noone could agree on a limit - the closest to an agreement was 6 months, but there was some confusion over whether he had retired or not. As I said to Josuechan, the most likely course of action is that someone will ask for a review of it at some point, and if his behaviour has improved and he looks unlikely to disrupt, the restriction would be lifted by the community. It would implicitly extend to featured portal candidates/reviews as portals were one area he was disrupting,  but if it's anywhere else, it comes down to whether he's behaving disruptively or not. *sigh* Don't you love inconclusive community processes? :) [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)