This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Ceradon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archive 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10

Well done![edit]

Cheers!

G'day Ceradon. Well done on what I believe is your first Milhist A-Class article! May it be the first of many. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thank you, and I do hope that too. Further though, I've nominated the article for FAC and, if it won't be a burden, can you throw a review for the article over at the FAC review page. It would be much appreciated, but I understand if it's not what your into/don't have the time/just don't want to. Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 07:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC[edit]

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

consolidate[edit]

  • I want to consolidate the artillery exchange information into a separate section, adding new info. But I dunno when I will have time. Maybe soon. Maybe not. • Lingzhi(talk) 10:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ermutigung[edit]

We talked about Ermutigung, remember (Precious)? Alakzi doesn't need it. My greatest supporter, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm in a difficult position. It does not and did not tickle my fancy to block Alakzi. But I really do fear that his attacks against any editors who oppose him will poison the well and only serve to escalate things. As an editor, I shouldn't care, and should just go work on an article. But as an admin, I feel I have no choice. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec, have to go, can't read what you wrote, sorry) ps: I mentioned what makes a personal (!) attack, and mused about the lack of sense in Wikipedia's belief in consensus on ANI. No time for more, - you will find it. Boomerang has been mentioned there also, not by me. Sense, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am back, and thought about the image of poisoning the well. The well which I would like to see crystal clear is called accessibility. It is not poisoned, but muddy. Some people try the tiring process of cleaning, Alakzi is one of them, and very tired. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi[edit]

I see you have blocked Alakzi for 24 hours for "making personal attacks towards other editors". I believe you are mistaken, as I have outlined at User talk:Alakzi #Your ability to use AWB has been revoked, and in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like you to please specify the offending personal attacks and the editors who were attacked. Should you, on reflection, conclude that your action was not the most appropriate in the circumstances, I'd be grateful if you'd rescind the block. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi ANI[edit]

Hi Ceradon. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alakzi, I'm wary of what WP:EW says about "consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues". In fairness to Alakzi, I was initially inclined to place a reciprocal block on AlexTheWhovian for their campaign to drive away productive contributors, intentional or not. Seems to be a history of baiting by AlexTheWhovian that has contributed to the situation. However, the real issue is coming up with a plan and resolution for the access color issue. To that end, I'd prefer to just give a pass with another stern warning to AlexTheWhovian, and give some WP:ROPE to Alakzi and unblock with a firm admonishment, esp re: civility. Interested in your thoughts. (I've got u on my watchlist for now)—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, would it be preferable to cap the interaction ban discussion with {{archivetop}} in lieu of deleting it? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: In regards to the latter point, I've capped it. As for the former, I was a little bit hesitant, but I agree. I'll give Alex another warning, and unblock Alakzi. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Unblocked. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
At best, I was hoping for no objections if I chose to unblock. I'm not sure I would have been big enough to carry it our myself with some of those comment that were thrown your way :-) Kudos. Here's to hoping it all works out for the better.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I really think it will if all sides will calm down and discuss this civilly. Maybe that's too optimistic. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 05:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reconsideration. It looks like things are quietening down now; I think Alakzi was feeling embattled and I'm grateful for the steps you've taken to persuade Alex to back off. I'm pretty sure there is no longer a need for an interaction ban, but thank you for your support for my suggestion. I'm very pleased that Dirtlawyer1 has put so much effort in trying to find a solution to the underlying issues, and I will do whatever I can to help when and if needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thank you. I hope the fact that I was only trying to tone things done was not lost. Here's to hoping this doesn't flare up again. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks so much for your help. Jd027 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Alkazi's unblock[edit]

Are you sure? I'm getting a very bad vibe from them. Most of their contributions consist of 2015 and look what "good" has come out of it. I understand their reasons; it's just the way they approach, especially after disagreements. I seriously disagree with their implied (if I am correct) statement that AlexTheWhovian was at fault for their actions: you are responsible for your own actions, no matter the situation. Are you sure? Callmemirela {Talk} 04:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If I give them enough rope, they will hang themselves. Same thing I told Alakzi. If Alakzi is serious, he will discuss calmly and civilly. If he isn't he'll just be blocked again. I have already warned AlexTheWhovian, who, without question, engaged in bating behavior towards Alakzi. But, in truth, as I said at AN/I, this is a complicated dispute, and both sides bring reasoned and actionable points. Their methods may be worthy of question, but they're intent is good, as far as I can see. But if either of them disrupt progress in getting a dialogue going, administrators will be forced to act. Thank you for your concern, Callmemirela. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for User:Callmemirela to apologise to User:Alkazi for telling him "Wikipedia is only inaccessible to you not others." Once he has educated himself as to why that statement is utterly bogus, that is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Reagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I thought you might be interested to know that I've requested the restoration of my AWB access, something which you might still be opposed to. Alakzi (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 23:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Alex The Whovian[edit]

Hi, Ceradon! I notice you've been keeping an eye on Alex The Whovian and his fondness of late for pushing editors beyond the point of constructive discussion. You might want to take a look at a couple discussions on Whyedithere's talk page beginning at User_talk:Whyedithere#Extant and continuing in the thread that follows. Whyedithere has done a couple article splits recently, and being a newbie, screwed them up in the way newbies often do. Alex is on his case about a comparatively small error, then in his attempt to fix it, actually made it worse. Thankfully, an admin came along soon after and sorted it all out, but Whyedithere is now so pissed off and defensive, there's no way anyone can work constructively with him until he cools down. Trust me, Whyedit is no saint (AussieLegend and I are building an SPI case right now, and he's just come off a block), but Alex really gave him an unnecessarily bad time. Then there's the charming little exchange about gay marriage and straight pride at the end of it all. Not a problem yet, but on the cusp, to be sure. Anyway... I thought I'd give you a heads up, given your recent action. I'm not sure there's any action needed; I left a message on Alex's talk page suggesting he dial it down a bit. Let's see what he does. --Drmargi (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

My interactions with the user in question are now over, unless he happens to be editing the same article as myself. I see the error in my ways (except for the fact that requesting administrator intervention for the article is far from making it worse, and is the correct way of moving an article and its history). Alex|The|Whovian 04:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ARTICLE REVIEW[edit]

Hi Sire!

Could you please help me review my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:9janimi_Channel

Thanks! Soltesh (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soltesh: Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia! In your draft, it seems that a big problem is sources. What we need on Wikipedia for our articles are sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, and cover the topic of the article significantly (i.e. more than passing mentions). At the same time, these sources must work independently from the topic of the article, in this case 9janimi. A good place to start is Google News and Google Books. However, in my searches for "9janimi" in either of those places, I could see nothing that was particularly helpful. Sources need to be available in order an article to remain on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that unless you can find several sources that are reliable, independent and cover the topic significantly, the draft is not ready for primetime right now. I'm sorry if this is discouraging to you, and I hope this doesn't turn you away from Wikipedia. All the best in editing, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 23:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ceradon: Hi sire, thanks and i appreciate your response, firstly it is "9janimi Channel", however i cannot seem to understand why google is yet to crawl this the News results, but below are links to some posts...

http://thenationonlineng.net/9janimi-channel-berths/ http://thenationonlineng.net/9janimi-channel-takes-operations-abroad/

Please, spent days creating this article, and i would appreciate if this article is approved, i can always come in to improve it sir.

Thanks Again!

Soltesh (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Table[edit]

on the requests for page protection you said the article was fully protected yet it isn't? TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I recently unprotected it on assurances that the dispute has ended. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 19:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you're online right now...[edit]

Please semi-protect Troy Tulowitzki, José Reyes (shortstop), and LaTroy Hawkins. Those are the main players involved in the trade whose articles keep getting changed by IPs (including 74.214.134.49, the one you just blocked) who don't understand that trade information is not to be added until it's officially announced. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's 2 AM in my time zone and I can finally go to bed now that I don't have to worry about IPs changing the information. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Ceradon, I would like to say thanks for granting me the pending changes reviewer rights. It's appreciated. Ayub407 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. --ceradon (talkedits) 11:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

Hi Ceradon. Thank you so much for your careful, detailed close of Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations in response to this WP:ANRFC request! Your hard work in closing this discussion is deeply appreciated. It is always good to see new closers at WP:ANRFC, and I hope you become an WP:ANRFC regular if you enjoy closing RfCs! Cunard (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cunard. I hope to be about there as well. --ceradon (talkedits) 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1[edit]

Thanks for your review of Sieges of Taunton at A-class review. I've now listed the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias talk 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Supported. Cheers, --ceradon (talkedits) 20:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent RFC[edit]

Though I suspect the form of your proposal wasn't quite right to be widely accepted, I wish you would have kept your proposal open for more than a day, to give time for more editors to weigh in. Even if the proposal didn't achieve acceptance, the discussion is invaluable to gaining insight into what may be acceptable to the community in future. A quick withdrawal unfortunately gives the impression that the proposal lacked a degree of forethought, which I assume was not the case.

My personal suggestion is to have professional mediation to work out the best approach in cases of dispute (and ideally, binding content arbitration, but I know that will be an even harder sell). One key to success is for the process to clearly include the community's input, and not be seen as the imposition of the will of an autonomous group. At present, though, the idea hasn't garnered much support. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It didn't seem that the proposal was going anywhere, but I believe that there does need to be more discussion as to how we deal with situations where, for some reason, consensus is unattainable. I'd welcome more ideas. I have a few of my own, and I'll keep exploring them in the next few days/weeks. --ceradon (talkedits) 03:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Determining consensus requires patience; there hadn't been very many replies yet, which is probably not surprising for a weekend in the middle of the summer for the northern hemisphere. Even so, the replies so far were interesting and helping to reveal other points of view. The only way for a future proposal to succeed is for all interested parties to take advantage of available opportunities to listen to each other and learn. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've unwithdrew it (if that is even a word.) Let's see where it goes. --ceradon (talkedits) 04:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I've also proposed an advisory group. --ceradon (talkedits) 04:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your flexibility! The next suggestion I have is a difficult one to implement (I have often failed miserably at it): try to get everyone thinking flexibly as well. Too often commenters get locked in on their initial interpretation of a proposal, and so filter all their responses in terms of their first thoughts. What is needed, though, is that participants think about what approaches they would find useful in improving the decision-making process. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the proposal for an advisory group: I suggest you explain how such a group would differ from Wikipedia:Mediation and where the group would fit into English Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. I can envision an appropriate role, but it would useful for you to set out your thoughts to ensure a common understanding. Your enthusiasm is welcome! isaacl (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Mediation focuses on article content, while this advisory group would focus on disputes that do not necessarily focus on article content, but on policies, procedures and guidelines, and seek to facilitate the building of consensus when other avenues have failed to do so. This group would build upon past consensus and create proposals that would be beneficial to the community at large, rather than just one article. Thoughts? --ceradon (talkedits) 06:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, how would your proposal be preferable to extending the scope of the existing mediation process to mediate other types of disputes? isaacl (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Perhaps for three reasons: First, mediators select and promote themselves without input from the broader community. This might bring accusations of a "clique" or a "cabal". Second, mediators were put in place specifically to handle content disputes between individual editors. All of a sudden, if we expand their remit to things that they were not put their for and may not be suited for, I can see people not liking that. Thirdly, the mediators themselves may not want the extra responsibility. However, with a new advisory group, we would know they want the responsibility. Cheers, --ceradon (talkedits) 16:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Template editor granted[edit]

Thank you. :) TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 09:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. --ceradon (talkedits) 09:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)