User talk:Stemoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • currently bored

Click here to leave me a new message, Click here to e-mail me

Stemoc's Discussion Page..Do whatever you want !!
Stemoc's Discussion Page

Per Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) - image was previously showing as dostorted - OK now - I had attempted to fix Pajokie (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)pajokie


Sky Pacific[edit]

I don't think the guide you cite applies to red categories. And I don't see what Jesus has got to do with it.Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I called you jesus because you are trying to walk on water instead of swimming across like normal people....SKy Pacific isn't the only company they own, they also own Digicel Play as well as a red link is justified and yes, it does apply to categories too..--Stemoc 22:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions (1 revert per 24 hours)[edit]

Stop icon
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calibrador (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@TomStar81: WTF??? do you even follow or understand the lasw set on that certain page Tom? I was not the one violating anything, per rule, Gage Skidmore/Calibrador is NOT allowed to change the image on that page and he did quite cunningly by replacing a different image added by someone not aware with one of his added by another..Tom if you have no idea whats happening, please keep away from the page...READ my last few edits, I was ENFORCING THE NO IMAGE CHANGE RULE, not BREAKING IT.--Stemoc 09:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
also @TomStar81: restoring the image back to the original because as per rule, NO ONE is allowed to change the image is not a violation of 1RR or 3RR, its reverting "vandalism" my edit summaries first, It was decided on WP:ANI that the image on that page CANNOT be changed unless it was discussed on the talk page,. It was never discussed but forcefully implemented by 3 users, one of who who reported me who is NOT allowed ot change the image on that page EVER..I reverted them telling why, if thats vandalism then please BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY cause i'd rather not be part of a site where the "Real" vandals who lie all the time never get blocked.....--Stemoc 09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the file on commons to a more descriptive filename. We typically do NOT want images on highly visible current event articles to change without consensus regardless of any specific policy or rule. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I finished chasing this down and it turns out you are owed an apology. The editnote at the time I leave this message is pretty explicit about enforcing 1RR, however in a moment of wiki-failure it doesn't mention anything about the rfc's for the image to be used in the article. In the absence of that rather important information I presumed that there was a edit war here, so I blocked, which in this case was the incorrect action. Thanks to some help from your fellow editors I have chased this down and determined that I am in the wrong and you are in the right, so I have unblocked you. Please accept my sincerest apologies, and if you feel the need to report this at ANI I understand. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@TomStar81: It was decided a while back due to the image getting changed every 2 weeks or so that unless there was "consensus", the image cannot be changed and thus since then we have only had consensus for the current image (august 2015 one) to be used, I tried to change the image back per my first edit cause snake bgd (who was unaware of the rule) changed the image to something newer, I did not see that edit. Gage Skidmore/Calibrador is prohibited from changing the image on that page so cunningly (without using edit summary), instead of changing it back to the "consenus" image, he changed it to one of his and when Wikieditorial changed it again (i knew via the edit summary), i saw the edit history and knew what happened so i changed it back to the original warning Gage to "don't change the image Gage" cause he knows he is not allowed to touch that page per a Topic Ban here and when ZiaLater changed the image again, I reverted, telling him "no one can change the image without discussion" but Gage Skidmore/Calibrador restored Zia's addition even though he is not allowed to so i rolled him back with an edit summary as a warning and then left a message on the talk page for Gage/Calibrador to "It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules and when Wikieditor undid my post, i undid his while telling him "Follow the page rule, this image CANNOT be changed without discussion" then Calibrador warned me on my page and reported me to the 1RR board and he even cited a lie there claiming there was an "attempt to resolve dispute". There wasn't any. What he linked to was me telling him not to change the image on its talk page and quote "It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules" if anything Tom, its Calibrador you should be blocking who has/refused to learn as he has been reported to not one but 3 WP:Noticeboards and not once but atleast 6 times over the last 12 months for intentionally imposing his images into articles...--Stemoc 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
So it would seem, but I've caused enough trouble for editors here for one day. If it makes you feel better, I added a mention of the image to the current edit notice on the page (here), so hopefully we can avoid something like this happening again to other editors who are acting in good faith to keep the image there. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, another issue is that people don't understand "consensus", they think one 'other' person supporting the image they added is 'consensus" and thus add/impose that image without proper discussion, maybe a proper consensus closed by an admin would be much better outcome in the future.....--Stemoc 10:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's hoping. Also, thanks for the understanding over the confusion. Its unusual that people actually work with me after I make an admin level screw up, so the above lay of the land was a pleasant surprise. On the whole I have to say you handled this well, so I am honored to present you with a your own purple heart. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
For grace under fire, you are hereby award this purple heart. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice, Thanks, as you may have noticed, I rarely get "Gifts" on wikipedia lol.. I'll keep it in my private safe :) ..--Stemoc 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin retention[edit]

Hi Stemoc, I've been wondering how you came to the idea that "evidently, they all disappoint by becoming 'inactive' within 3-6 months". I've been compiling stats on RFA for a few years now, and while it's been a while since I looked specifically at retention, we currently have roughly as many active admins as we have had successful RFAs in the last eight years. Can I ask how you calculated that 3-6 month figure? My understanding was that admins usually have quite long wiki careers after successful RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 21:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you take into account when you talk about activity levels? from your graph it seems like you consider atleast 30 edits made in 60 days as "Active" but do you consider how many of these admins are as active as before they became admins?. Obviously an admin can make 5k deletions in a month if they choose to cause there are just so many nonsense out there but how many actually do make say consistently a thousand admin actions a month? I would judge that as being 'active' as an admin rather than 30 warnings in 60 days. If you can collect and compile that information, I'd be can drop it to 500 admin actions a month if necessary..We should not be collecting data on active editors, but on active admins--Stemoc 00:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree that the definition of active is unsatisfactory, if it means anything it means active editors who happen to be admins. There have been various proposals to find some alternate way of measuring admins who are active as admins, but they usually founder on such problems as not all admin actions being logged. Our "Active admin" measure does have an advantage of consistency in that it has been measured that way for longer than I've been on the site; So it can show us trends such as us having barely half as many "active admins" as at our peak.
5,000, 1,000 even 500 logged admin actions is a level of activity, even hyperactivity that I'd say was unhealthy and at the 5,000 level could well lead to a desysop. Some deletions are so clear cut that they generate little subsequent conversation, but anyone doing a high volume of deletions is going to wind up with an awful lot of handholding of people trying to create their first article. If someone did 5,000 in two months I'd worry that they were cutting corners. Aside from the problems of sloppy tagging driving away newbies, we also need to watch out for outright vandals who first turn an article into something deletionworthy and then tag if for deletion. So doing deletion properly is time consuming. But wider than that is the argument that admins should be part of our community, and that should mean doing more non-admin stuff than admin stuff. RFA !voters have long opposed specialists who only want to do admin type things, hence the de facto requirement to have added content. There is also the issue that admins are volunteers, and though we have some retired, semi retired and unemployed editors who are volunteering hours here the equivalent of a full time job, a more normal and sustainable hobby is one that you put an evening or two into in a month, hence the threshold for counting very active editors is >100 mainspace edits a month. A thousand admin actions a month, that is an awful lot for an unpaid hobby, especially as some actions represent quite a bit of time.
I think it important that we care enough about both the admin and non admin retention to maintain stats. But I'm not keen on doing anything to imply that we only want full time volunteers. ϢereSpielChequers 16:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Christmas Lisbon 2005 b.JPG

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598


I'm about to leave this site, but I wanted to thank you for adding the images of Julia Sarah Stone. They inspired me to create an article. Took about 10 tiring hours, but I'm happy with the end result. -- James26 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@James26: These things generally work in reverse (article then image) but Good job on creating the article. It looks good, shame you are leaving, i have seen many contributors leave over the last of luck :)--Stemoc 07:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. It usually works in reverse. :) I had noticed for a while that there was no article, and when I searched for images and saw yours, I finally got inspired. Thanks for the compliment, and best of luck to you too. -- James26 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)