User talk:Caulde/Archive/23

Vand on your page

Umm, there is some "inappropriate material" on your userpage > miscellaneous page. You might want to edit that out. - Jun Hong Junh1024 (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:P Those are the examples of where people have tried to spoof me. Rudget . 10:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

Thank you for the offer and for the observations. Nobody's nerfect, but I try to be consistent at the very least. Sure, let's see if rollback will work, although using UNDO isn't horribly inconvenient either (perhaps I'll change my mind after using rollback). Since I have you on the line, can you offer your opinion on why two admins would continue to keep the pinball page locked after the extensive discussion on what should or shouldn't be on the page has taken place and appears to have reached some form of consensus? SpikeJones (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I've tested rollback after reading WP:ROLLBACK, so I should be good to go. As for the sourcing issues, it was more a matter of two admins feeling that there were an excessive number of external links (which nobody completely disagreed with) but in their pruning of the EL took it upon themselves to remove all EL instead of keeping ones that do legitimately support the article's content. (an example: they wanted to remove the EL to the sole remaining pinball manufacturer left in the world; this would be akin to removing a link to Ford.com from the Ford page) To me, the issue had been resolved per the discussion as the majority of EL have supposedly been moved over to DMOZ as suggested, but those two folks haven't unlocked the article or even made edits that have been requested on the talk page. It all seems a bit excessive and perhaps power-trippy, something I would expect to see on a more controversially-contented article. SpikeJones (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withington

Hello again Rudget, I hope all is well.

Just a note that this and this image are both avaliable on a WikiCommons compatable licence, and are both of Withington landmarks. Hope these help, --Jza84 | Talk 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) They are both in Didsbury. Salford Ian should do some more research. :P Rudget . 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

Another sock of MJD86 (talk · contribs) has popped up: TIAAC2 (talk · contribs). Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to semi protect Today I Am a Clown as it seems to be his favourite target. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Rudget . 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there a quicker way that I can report obvious socks other than ANI or a full report? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me? :P Rudget . 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Rudget (review) 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity

Just out of curiosity, I was paying heed to your comment in the Admin board discussion, and asked in a follow-up post how long I should actually wait, as Redvers pretty much took it upon himself to close the complaint without debate. I always appreciate someone telling me to calm down when I am getting a bit fed up, but it tends to work better if the resulting wait comes with some sort of tangible effect. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always post it on WP:AN. That's where the main action goes, sorry I forgot about the discussion. Rudget . 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eep,sorry for posting to the user page and not the user talk page, Rudget. And I will post it to the AN page, yet again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it would be a stale posting, which would garner even less view, and make me look foolish for submitting something quite old. I have to say that I wish I could have some good faith in how this was handled. Perhaps you could take a moment and point out where you think my suspicions were wrong or that JHunterj did not break the rules? I am pretty disappointed in how this played out, and it leaves me even more cynical about the ability of most admins to do anything but make sure they watch each others' backs. If not that, then just a collection of lazy bastidges,- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from that last post that you have had a bad time with administrators in the past, so hopefully I can restore some good faith in 'us' (which I really shouldn't use anyway, because administrators are just editors with additional tools). I've just read through the two ANI posts which were on the 27th and 28th March respectively—personally I see no problem. Yes, refactoring comments isn't something looks positively towards and the '3RR violation', however I have weighed up JHunterJ’s position against the diffs that you provided, and to be honest, there isn't much to go on. I don't see much of a reason why any further action should be taken. With regards to the 3RR violation, I presume you are talking about Talk:HP (disambiguation)/Archive2–which clearly shows no violation (it wasn't within a 24 hour time period, there is usually 3 or more reverts before a block can occur and it seems almost that you are actually the user, if any, who has violated the 3RR rule here). I'd also like to point out that the user who added that title section, is now indefinitely blocked–so we can't ask him for his opinion. I'd pretty much rather remove that header in the archive (irrespective of whether it was present on the discussion page at that time) because of its irrelevance to the actual discussion. Whether it is 'wandering' or not (which is an opinion in my view) should not be added as a section header. Furthermore, I desire that you and JHunterJ come to some form of agreement where both of you are unlikely to cross paths again–it has worked for me in the past, a great deal in fact. I would not like to see unfriendly behaviour for the sake of a header in an archive of a disambguation page, nor would I like to be the one quoting all said above. Hopefully this helps, Rudget . 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a help, Rudget. I appreciate you taking a look, and helping me to see what was going on in Jhunter's head. I was unaware that an indef blocked person had added the new section title, and the admin doing the refactoring wasn't really taking about what was motivating his actions. Had I known that, I would have removed the content myself before archiving, replacing it with something neutral (which I will do after posting this reply).

Correct me if I am wrong, but 3RR applies to all aspects of the article, be it talk, archive or actual page. It was my understanding that any contentious editing without discussion could be seen as a cumulative effect (an accumulation of 3 reverts in any of the three aforementioned categories, or even 3 reverts in different articles, depending on the tendentiousness of the edits). Am I wrong about this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to reply tomorrow, I have to leave for now. Just letting you know. Rudget (review) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback removed

Hey, I just removed RyRy5's rollback permission. He'd been misusing it. Just letting you know since you had given it to him not long ago. I wasn't sure if you knew him, or just happened to process his request. Anyway, he's a very new editor and doesn't know the ropes yet. Just wanted to let you know.. altho I'm not sure if it's considered polite to mention this, or if rollback is sufficiently "no big deal" that people don't care much. Friday (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, no problem. I'm sure it was with good reason, he'll learn some more and he'll get it back. It's a good learning cycle, and will improve his understanding of en.wp. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Rudget (review) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I encouraged him, if he wants, to ask for it back sometime in the future whenever he's got a bit more experience under his belt. I do like how rollback is working out- it's sensible to hand it out liberally when we know it's easily undone if there's a problem. Friday (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Rudget (review) 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I recently notice that a person's administrator rollback was revoked to misuse but i was wondering i have been editing for a while and i have also revert tremendous amounts of vandalism.I was contacting you to see if i was able to receive the ability to use the administrator rollback feature. I can re ensure you that i will not abuse this feature.

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^Talk^♂ 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know, there is a difference between administrator and non-administrator rollback. I suggest that you read the documentation before using rollback. Rollback is to be used only in the event of clear vandalism, this diff is problematic, proposed deletions can be removed by anyone. [1] is not a clear case of vandalism and shouldn't have been reverted with a "reverted edits by ... identified as vandalism" edit summary or rollbacked. Cenarium^Talk 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about rollback and i understand what it does.

Staffwaterboy ^Talk^♂ 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but you have recently reverted two legitimate edits, that you identified as vandalism. So I think you should wait more time before using rollback. You need more experience. For example, don't you think that you should revert your edit to John Gilkerson ? Cenarium^Talk 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who serials

Annoying, isn't it? Speculation probably won't stop until June, when the twelfth "omg secret!" episode airs. Shame :( Sceptre ^(talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omg my cousin works @ the bbc and he told me all about ti and its oudns groeat! Or not... —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind you about the list and ask you to look at this which has been ignored several times overnight! Thanks... —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been declined. The list needs downngrading to semi right? Rudget (review) 11:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sakotis!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's a Sakotis for you! This cake promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving this cake to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Fernando Buceta (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted user talk page

Would it be possible to get a copy of a user talk page you deleted? I have a feeling that the banned user may have resurfaced as a new account (or simply have been the sockpuppet of another account) and I'd like to retain a copy in case it becomes an issue again. Also, if I could get a copy of their user page it might be helpful, too. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page undeleted. You may need to contact Shell Kinney over the userpage though. Hope this helps. Regards, Rudget (review) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Vermont fixed

I have cleaned it up some, you might want to revisit your comment for the Featured Portal nomination. Soxred93 | talk bot 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many changes per the oppose. So, unfortunately, it still stands. Rudget (review) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA

Well, my last RfA was back at the end of January, so Pedro and I agreed that perhaps a mid April run would be acceptable. I know there are no strict rules for this sort of thing, but generally speaking the community likes to see a 3 month learning period, right? I was thinking about asking what others thought about running a wee bit earlier, but there's really no rush, except for this lull we seem to be experiencing per WT:RFA. As for other nominations, people have dropped messages on my talk page about it. If you would like to co-nominate me, that would be fantastic and gracious of you. Perhaps we can speak about it at User:Pedro/Admin Coaching‎? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudget (review) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

Hey there Rudget, I do not know if you already have a coachee (or if you are even taking them right now), but if you are available was wondering if you would not mind coaching User:Addshore, he made a request to me about it, but at this point in time I do not have enough time, and already have two adoptee's. How about it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already involved with admin coaching with my current coachee, Asenine. Unfortunately, that plus the other load I'm trying to do, means I can't dedicate enough time to a potential need. Sorry. Rudget (review) 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I am kind of in the same boat and completely understand. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Kane's Wrath

Hi there,

Just wanted to offer my thanks for semi-protecting Kane's Wrath! It's been a somewhat frustrating couple of days attempting to prevent those editors from repeatedly adding forum links and content from the article - hell the April Fools joke about a secret campaign mode made it in. Anyway, hopefully it should be sorted now, thanks again!Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rudget (review) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your response on the sock puppet talk page. We had already filed a RFCU and had a "possible" response and we think this is the next step. We've had to deal with this user for quite a long time, and yes, I admit my temper has flared once or twice, but I've tried very hard to stay calm. Is this RFCU a good start for the sock puppet case, and does it need to be expanded greatly? Over several articles, the similarities in style, sources used and material, edit summaries and logic, plus the obscureness of the articles themselves leaves no doubt in our minds. What sort of outcome would be possible if it's proven? Sorry to be such a question asker, it's just that we'd like to get it right this time. Thanks in advance for any help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop fashion

Any chance of a protection over at Hip hop fashion? I noticed you protected clown walk, the person who was spam linking that site is also spam linking the link to an online clothing store they own. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Moore was important!!

Battoubro (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is the subject of a huge project in the western united states!! Perhaps you are just racist towards black people!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battoubro (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 April 2008

Re: My unblock

I want to apologize for not contacting you first - it seems this is something I really need to work on. I had my reasons for doing so and thought they were correct, and so acted on them. I still do feel as though this was the right thing to do, however am more than willing to acknowledge there was a better way to go about doing it. Thanks for your comments, and I'll see you around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - just noticed the comment a couple sections up - seems its impossible to do anything around here without being accused of racism. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKICUP

Hello, Caulde/Archive! A project you are involved in, The WikiCup ,has signed up for automatic message delivery from StormBot, an automated bot account using AutoWikiBrowser. StormBot will be delivering you news and notifications about the project on your talk page. If anything is wrong or you have any suggestions to make, please notify the creator, Stormtracker94. Thank you. This message was delivered by StormBot StormBot (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page protection to Eros Ramazzotti

Hi, I respect the protection but I was hoping it could be set after user: Udonknome's edits were reverted. He has deleted a whole lot of info regarding chart positions and has created a discography in the middle of the article which does not nearly serve the purpose what the former used to. Could we perhaps do anything about that. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As from the template which is on the page, I don't endorse that version of the page, and I am not partial to either version because of this content dispute. I see that ANI has been mentioned in the page history, maybe that may be a good place to start... (or you could resolve this on the relevant talk pages?) Rudget (review) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

No problem, I reviewed this because I knew a bit about her, and was interested to read more. However, thanks are always gratefully received, and make up for messages like "why did you delete my article, you ?!$%*><? " Jimfbleak (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They sure do. :) Rudget (review) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news

[2] It hasn't had the star added yet, but its now featured. Qst (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eros Ramazzotti

{{editprotected}}...for Eros_Ramazzotti#2003-Foward. I made a mistake in typing the header..."Foward" to "Forward". Thanks. Udonknome (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done For future reference, the {{editprotected}} template is usually placed on the talk page of the page which needs to be modified (so in this case, Talk:Eros Ramazzotti). Happy‑melon 10:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that. It was the first time I did it and the template wasn't really much clear on where to put the "editprotected"...at least for me. Also...

Eros Ramazzotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection, now that we've reached consensus as described in the talk page. I'll send a request also the admin who initally blocked it as well. Udonknome (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC) from Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Eros_Ramazzotti_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29[reply]

Rollback

Hi, as you remember, you gave me rollback before. It was about a month ago. Last week, I lost rollback because of an accidental mis-use of rollback that was not vandalsim. It was proved to be a good faith edit after the accident. I was told to wait a week before earning rollback again, along with good edits. I have done that and I am asking for rollback again. I didn't know who to ask, so I chose you since you gave me rollback in the first place. Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should generally wait a few more days (yes, as boring as that sounds). I know 1 week is quite a long time, but try to focus on other things. Ask me then. Rudget (review) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. But the admins did tell me to wait exactly a week since it was not vandalism and it was proved to be a good faith edit. Any comments?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...well I note there has been a few discussions regarding the rollback feature on your account namely (1, 2 and 3) so I am a little hesitant to re-implement the tool per those discussions and their general outcome. I could add it back in a while though, as explained above. Rudget (review) 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

Hi, Rudget. I certainly wouldn't mind if you decided to weigh the issue, and I'm actually looking forward to someone having a say. However, I dislike repeating myself, especially when, for all its complications, the issue is quite obvious: Rezistenta is removing tags that show the info he favors is inaccurate. For now, I summarized the issues in my message to an admin. Please, if you really want to mediate, have a look over that message, over the article history in the past days, and over the hidden comments I left in the text (especially the one where I show that the info introduced by Rezistenta as "census data" does not claim it is a reflection of the census and is contradicted by the actual results - with two sources cited for those results). You could also have a look over the talk page, but I wouldn't know where to start: the problems this article has are basically acknowledged by all users commenting there, with the notable exceptions of Rezistenta and Constantzeanu (who seem to wait around for the discussions to fade out of recent memory, then again remove the tags, without adding sources and, as a rule, without as much as a comment). I'm willing to provide more details and diffs to pinpoint the problem, but it would be easier for me and I would appreciate it if you looked into these issues before we continue (especially since I am more focused on editing than on such debates). Dahn (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The users which removed his edits regarding this aspect, beside me and Constanteanu

this is only a small part of his huge disruptive edits being reversed by others. Beside the fact that all the tags in the article are added only by you, you failed to explain why there are so many tags needed, you failed to explain and justify their presence and you got blocked for edit warring in this article before.You've reported me 3 or more times before abusively for checkuser and to ANI and your accusations were proven wrong. I will suggest to stop with this attidute, take it like a last warning Rezistenta (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly many differences between what is viewed as content-worthy by a few editors on the Romanians page, so helping to mediate here might (or will) take a while longer than I had anticipated. By sorting out what is wanted in the article and helping to find a common adjective here on Wikipedia, which is above all improving the encyclopedia, we should be able to find a compromise (which is probably needed in my opinion) that should appropriate between the differences of opinion here. I'll give a fuller response here within the next 48 hours due to a recently rushed schedule that's just appeared out of nowhere. Regards, Rudget (review) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asenine/AC

Once again, I thank you for engaging in ADCO with me. I have completed stage four, if you have anything else, please do ask! :) asenine ^t/_c 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking over it soon, and see what is wrong or right. Rudget (review) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Rollback

Check the Rollback section on your talk. I added this here just incase you didn't notice I replied above thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Rudget (review) 16:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. How does thursday sound?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial triple crown jewels

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Manchester - when the sheer size of this article is taken into account, I am quite impressed that you were able to get this article to WP:FA, and with pretty much unanimous support too, nice work. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that the Manchester article was much more of a team effort than the other three. Thank you anyway! Regards, Rudget (review) 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

admin

Thanks a lot for noticing my contributions and offering to nominate me for admin. At this time, however, I feel unprepared to accept the responsibilities. I do plan on going for admin in the future, and will contact you when I feel ready. Thanks, [--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But now that you mention it, I would like to recommend to editors that have impressed my during my interactions with them: User:Travellingcari and User:Wildhartlivie. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad, but WRT to the other two users, that is indeed very helpful, and I will be keeping an eye on both of them. Rudget (review) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to poach here a bit, but I've also been very impressed with TravellingCari (haven't had any experience with Wildhartlivie). Not sure how long she's been around, might be tagged as a deletionist because she's around AfD quite a bit, but she has a level head, changes when she's wrong, and communicates very well (see my own talk archives, we've gone 'round quite a bit). Not sure if she's interested, but I would co-nom if you felt she was ready. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's been around afd a lot and actually is (what I would consider) a deletionist, but that shouldn't be a problem. Editors only have a problem with deletionists if all they do all day is speedy delete, prod, and !vote delete at afd's. She has made substantial "inclusionary" contributions. Among them, she has initiated Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks brew and keeper for thinking of me. Rudget, I've seen you around but I don't think we've met before, so hi :) I am interested, but not yet. I've only been active since January (scattering of edits Oct - December) and I think I'd have two things working against me: a) the 'deletionism' mentioned above. Yes, I'm a fan of getting rid of unencyclopedic stuff and I'd say I make good calls in general when taking things to AfD. As Keeper said, I'm totally open to be proven wrong. I like it when people find sources because while I don't think AfD=cleanup, it's sadly the only time people actually clean up an article. I don't know whether I'd call myself a deletionist as I enjoy writing articles and fighting for articles that can be fixed, see Seesmic and Students for Concealed Carry for two off the top of my head. I'm also advocating for better museum coverage and am a research geek, I want to find sources because I think museums are encyclopedic and learning tools. That said, I'm all for guidelines on notability because there are some things that don't need to be here just because there's infinite space in this encyclopedia. I would like some more time to better learn the speedy criteria and this tutorial from Jayron helps me a lot, although I still think I have nominated a handful that were not the best calls and I can see them coming back to bite me.

The second issue I see is I have a "bad" (depending on who you talk to) habit of significant edits in one edit. For example: Backpacking (travel}, Go Fly and Independence Air (intermed edit was my putting the in-use tag) for examples. As a result, my article space edits are lower than I (and some RfA !voters) would like.

What I would like is an admin coach. Keeper, I'd thought about asking you because you're the admin I've interacted the most with, but wasn't sure if you had your hands full with others. I'd looked at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching, but it seemed rather backlogged. I'd like to work with someone to see what I need to improve on before a hopefully successful RfA. I read RfA on and off and know it can be something of a trial by fire for those who Wikiworld don't find ready, and I'd rather not go there until I'm 100% ready. Plus after May with school done I'll have some more breathing time.

So in summary, yes I am interested but not yet. Suggestions? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say great. You definitely have a great track, are willing to do things some other might not, and above all, you're a deletionist! :) I don't mind waiting 2-3-4 months before "bringing" you to RFA (sorry if that makes you sound like a tot). You'll do well, and if as indicated you do follow-through with admin coaching by Keeper, you'll definitely be a great candidate. And hello too! Rudget (review) 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So many colons! TCari, I currently have two coachees, so I would hesitate to take on another in April, only because I don't believe I could give you the time you deserve to "do it right". You should look over the two coachee pages I've worked on though, located here and here, to see a bit of my style of doing things in that arena. Coachee #1 (tan) will probably go through RfA in May/June, Coachee#2 (DHMO) probably August. It would be up to you to see if I was "compatible" with your style. I personally think we would be compatible, based on our talk history, even though you like a sub-par baseball team :-). We could probably move this off of Rudget's talk page, feel free to reply on mine (you know where it is!) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent for legibility) Thank you both. I'm happy to use these next few months to learn. I'm not shy about asking questions when I don't understand or want to learn more, so I know it will be a good learning opprtunity and chance to improve my RfA odds. Am sure I'll be "talking" with both of you sooner rather than later. Back to attempting to working on revising my thesis. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first edit day

Well, technically, I'm a day late, but best wishes anyway ;) Anthøny 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inexperience is laughable... Rudget (review) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think it may be time you cropped some of your watchlist. :) Rudget (review) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage is not on it, for some reason. I'll add it now: the userpage of most of the editors with whom I frequently interact is on my watchlist, including on IRC, and in the course of my AC clerking. Oh well, *added*. Anthøny 11:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Slave

You recently deleted this per A7. It was recreated, I declined another A7 request, and it ended at AFD. There the question / request is to restore the history, which meakes sense to me. Your thoughts?--Tikiwont (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring isn't mentioned anywhere in the AFD, and since most parties agree the current version is sufficient enough to comply with BIO standards, there is no point in restoring the old version. Rudget (review) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last post does so, hinting that the current version is more or less the deleted one minus the history. Anyways, it's just a heads-up. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Rudget (review) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cox

Thanks for the protect, but you kinda did the opposite of helping? It's been determined by consensus (see the links in my protection request) that the added material is libelous and thus violates WP:BLP, and yet you just locked the article to keep it in. Can I get an explanation on this? I'm well aware of the whole "You protected the wrong version" thing, but I thought that WP:BLP was supposed to be enforced at all costs. Dlong (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached? I still see disputes on the talk page, am I right? Rudget (review) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From all but two users (who may or may not be the same person). Consensus does not need to be unanimous... something you should know. Also, even without consensus, it should be removed: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"; that's from WP:BLP. Of course, I'm telling you what you already know. This must be some sort of test of my knowledge on Wikipedia policy, right? After all, you are an admin, and surely an admin would be aware o policy. Dlong (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the policy, the section is still sourced as far as I can see. Rudget (review) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my recent edit at the Cox talk page. The current edit, while sources, is full of misleading content, irrelevancy and non-notable sources. There is no logical reason it should remain.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Cut from my page): I had to take off (work to do), but in the mean time have cooled down. It's just been extremely frustrating dealing with this whole incident. Still, what Chris Nelson requested was what I was going to ask for, so I'd like to thank you for putting up with me and taking care of this incident. Dlong (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback Day

Well, it has been a few days, it's Friday. I have been making more mainspace edits and have been making reverts with undo. Like you said, wait a few days and it's been a a few days. I hope you give me rollback. Any questions or comments? Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

399 to go

We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo ban

Hello Rudget. Could you please review User:Jawohl's participation at Talk:Kosovo and Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence? In my view this user is disrupting discussions there with persistent trolling (some fine examples [3] [4] ). He also keeps "ordering" users to stop posting their opinions there [5] [6] [7] [8], despite having been told twice to refrain from displaying such attitude [9] [10]. I believe that he should be temporarily banned from Kosovo-related articles and the respective talk pages as per the Arbcom probation (this one, superseded by this one). Care to have a look? I shall accept your judgment whether you decide to ban this user or decline my request. Thank you. Best regards, Hús ö nd 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention, Rudget. I shall bring to your attention any further users who eventually disrupt discussions on this topic by crossing the line into persistent incivility and trolling. Hopefully, communication among users regarding Kosovo-related matters will return to a peaceful, cooperative state. Best regards, Hús ö nd 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Rudget (review) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what to think of this action, since the examples show only small parts of the lengthy discussions. It is true that I have asked from one of the users to "Stop with Predictions" and was reminded by Husond not to do so. But I also apologized to him and the user as well as explained why I did it. I have had difficulties only with user Dab and user Beam and their unwillingness to work in making the article better. Since you have gotten involved, I would appreciate it if you could have a look onto the Kosovo talk page "Disputed territories". I am interested to know your opinion regarding my "behavior" and not to influence you on reverting your decision. Please look also onto this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbachmann#Pristina

                 Would you mind explaining this edit? I agree that this is completely unconstructive, but there doesn't seem to be any ill-air in the second comment, 
                 and I suspect refactoring in this debate is only going to inflame things. Happy‑melon 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
                 if you follow "Jawohl" around a bit, you will note that his approach is to sprinkle talkpages with innocuous tounge-in-cheek rhetorical questions for no reason other than WP:POINT. 
                 I've left him a note about it, but obviously, he'll not listen to me. In due time, he'll just take the path of all the other misfits: (a) reform, (b) get bored, or (c) get kicked out. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been provoked numerous times by user Beam and Dab from the first moment on I started on the Kosovo article. And no matter how hard I have tried to bring the discussion further I have been asked to stop, leave, named a troll and as you can see also a MISFIT. I do not have any problems with other users and that you can also check yourself, aside from that one case were I also apologized. Thanks. I think your decision was a bit hasty but I am OK with it. Just please check the talk page over at Kosovo. Jawohl (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rudget. User Jawohl contacted me and explained that he had no intention of cause disruption, while he also acknowledges that as a new user he is still learning how to deal with other users with whom he disagrees on controversial topics. I am inclined to ask you to review and perhaps reduce the length of his ban, as per WP:AGF [11]. I have hope that in the future this user will display restraint from an aggressive stance and instead engage constructively in discussions. Best regards, Hús ö nd 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rudget. :-) Regards, Hús ö nd 18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

Could you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism and close in a few days unless the opposes (I think I summarised it at the bottom with mine) are dealt with. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Rudget (review) 10:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History merge of Forever Slave and related articles

Please refer to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever Slave where you asked to be "nudged" regarding the history merge of these articles. Consider yourself thereby nudged. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 09:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you. Rudget (review) 10:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" checkuser results

Rudget, I was advised by AGK to talk to active checkusers. I was wondering if you could help me out with something.

User:Stone put to sky has had checkuser requests filed against him. As you will see four accounts were found to be "likely", but no action appeared to have been taken over them. Three stopped editing but were not blocked. But the fourth, Aho aho, continued to post.

Sky has been blocked for sockpuppetry, so if these accounts can be tied to him then that would show he is attempting to avoid sanctions. But he has also been accused of continual sockpuppetry by other users, so a lack of admin response has led to ill will. I would appreciate if:

I could get clarification of what a "likely" report means and how they are dealt with/should be dealt with.
Whether any action will be taken over the continued editing by Aho aho, the other "sockpuppet" accounts not being blocked, etc.

A recent report on the ANI page was pretty much ignored by administrators, even though a number of editors had comments to make. John Smith's (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a checkuser, unfortunately, but I see you've contacted Alison, so you should get an exact answer of her. Sorry. Rudget (review) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

I'm pleased to be able to take a bit of credit for this...! _GB^T/C 13:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

I replied at the noticeboard for my rollback. Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]