User talk:Caulde/Archive/17

Adminship

Have escaped to the laptop long enough to say two things...(1) thanks, again, for the nomination, and (2)...oooh, the buttons, the buttons. Now, let me get this right. I can delete the main page, but it's generally frowned upon, yes? _GB^T/C 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go?

What are the chances that you and Malleus can both let it go? Any chance? (I'm posting this at Malleus's talkpage as well) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at a resolution, Keeper, are I'm afraid somewhat in vain. I've been too willing to assume good faith, not only with Malleus but with other aswell, the most recent example being the Archtransit incident. I was once told by another member of this community that I should stand my ground and not try to please everyone, and unfortunately I must endorse that view. I'm never going to please everyone, especially Malleus Fatuarum, but what's the point in blaming him for any such thing, he'll just deny it and then we'll be back to square one. This is especially backed up by this. Yet another example of his unwillingness to co-operate with those who are either teenagers, or who aren't agreeing with his views. I apologise for all this Keeper, and sadly, it'll keep on and on.... The only forseeable solution is to withdraw membership from the WP:GM project, which I was going to do anyway, as (some might say ironically) I focus my efforts to mediation and administrative actions. Regards, Rudget . 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback rights request

Hi, I've been wondering if you would consider granting me the rollback rights. In my edits I do deal with rolling back vandalisms and I would find the additional tool useful. As an administrator of pl-wiki, as well as through my contributions here, I believe I have managed to prove that I can act responsibly. In any case, thanks for consideration. Pundit|utter 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. Rudget . 12:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pundit|utter 16:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Out of interest, how come you asked me in particular? :) Rudget . 16:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, you were listed as an admin willing to take care of rollback applications. Also, I believe we met in a couple of discussion on Wiki and what you wrote made sense. Finally, I do like the idea of Mediation Cabal, which you're part of :) Pundit|utter 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester WikiProject

Wow! You're back! On my list of greatest Wikipedians, you are second to Jimbo. Anyway, does your return mean that you'll still be writing the newsletter for WP:GM? Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this?:

A lot of Wikipedia users want 68.39.174.238 to get an account, and this user is no exception.

Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it's in my userbox page, with all the boxes I've created. I had it on my page, but replaced it with a trickery of "New messages". Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPORT

Piss, if the portals are promoted, we use green as background colour for the archived successful nomination. We only use red if it's failed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. But then the GimmeBot started closing them after I had closed them, with red backgrounds so I just started using red again? How come the Gimmebot was introduced to FPORT anyway? Rudget . 12:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to speed up the archive process (See [[Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#Archival process getting tedious - time for a bot?). But right now it's somewhat broken. It doesn't add categories to the page. Another thing, could you do "Features and Admins" in Signpost this week. I know it's very close to deadline, but I have 3 exams this week so I don't think I have time to do this week's issue. (Heck, I really wanted to write this week's, cause my name will be up there on this week's issue as those who are promoted to admins) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GM Project

How come you just removed yourself from the participants list?! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a total disgrace! You are/were one of our projects most valued members, granted you are not as active now you are an admin but it seems such a shame to take away your attention to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Providing information to the masses. I hope no members of the project "drove you out" if so then shame on them. I hope you can reconsider because you were an asset to the group. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem when we are losing decent members. There are loads of people on the participants list who do nothing but at least you contributed. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello. It's Escondites, one of your former adoptees. I need help again!! Again, for references: how do you make multiple references point to a single site, like in the article Microsoft where there are many links to reference N. 1 with that "a b c d" thing? And do you know how to make complex tables? TIA. --escondites 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this didn't work on User:Escondites/sandbox. Does it mean that I'll have to keep my article in the sandbox forever? :-( --escondites 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one with "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many" --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Escondites (talk • contribs) 16:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --escondites 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin school

You will be pleased to hear that I have graduated from year one...my first deletion! _GB^T/C 17:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reviewing my first block, then, my Master...User:Yes, not yes, just to be sure I've got it right...! _GB^T/C 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - suddenly remembered to leave a tag, went back, saw someone else had got there first...! _GB^T/C 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

Read the username backwards. Will ^(talk) 17:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Kiribatians greet people by saying "You have been rickrolled". And it shows all the hallmarks of a troll account. Will ^(talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude

..for blocking the Linkin Park vandal. That guy was getting on my nerves.

PS: Consider archiving your talk page. It's humongous! Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Cancer industry

Hi Rudget, I noticed that you closed this AfD, which I initiated. I take some exception to your early closure, as the material was not speedily deletable, the article author did not get a chance to contribute to the debate, and it was closed well before the traditional (and mandatory) 5-day period which we allow AfDs. Before going to DRV or elsewhere I thought I would request you personally to reopen the AfD and allow it to run its full course. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it's best to give people a chance. Thanks for undoing that, 'preciate it! ~ Riana ⁂ 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Please see Talk:Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and the talk string with tenditious editing and personal attacks. FWIW, I am at a loss of how to proceed. Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply to my request. The anchor points for a review of the issue are: start of talk string, my response and ANI Request. All of these links begin a complex chain of POV-pushing on various editor's talk pages which is fine with me, as I believe that experienced editors are fully conversant with Wicky conventions of how to deal with "campaigning." What is most disturbing is an ongoing series of personal attacks embedded in the talk page commentary. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Fairly Odd Baby

Hi, Rudget. I was looking this up when it went redlink. It's about an episode of the The Fairly OddParents. Would you mind if I recreate as more of an article than it was? cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudget . 15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, got edit conflicted. I fixed it. I left the creator some advice about less being more. My nephew used to watch the Fairly Odd Parents and I did not recognize the subject because of the convolutions. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. I should have gone ahead and detagged when I gutted the thing. Cheers, Dloh cierekim

Eau Gallie Yacht Club

You deleted the article Eau Gallie Yacht Club. The Brevard County Historical Commission considers the building historical & notable. If they consider it historical & marker as such with a historical marker, why was it deleted? The article was a stub. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was very much a borderline case. Apart from it being historical, there was no indication of notability in the article. I'd suggest that you re-read the page, and add any notability to it there. Rudget . 15:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this has clear cut notability due to the fact that the Brevard County Historical Commission (an independent, 3d party org that researches & assess such issues for the county) has already determined it notable enough to place a historical marker on it & they are the experts -- not me. I believe that the last sentence of the history section establishes the historical notability of the building. Besides, this article was a stub & not nearly in a final state. I have to say, I was surprised the article was deleted within minutes of being launched with no time to comment on the merit of the article. IMHO, it simply was premature to delete. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to bring it to deletion review. Rudget . 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice & that's what I will do. Since it was borderline, it shoudl have been tagged for improvement & not deleted. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I have contested my blocking per the posts on the "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" Discussion page, and ask that you review it for me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.157.7 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring links to CAT:CSD articles

Hiya - a quick question. When faced with a deleted article, clicking on links will, even for the most otherwise-orphaned article, show about 20 or 25 links to people's userpages (like User_talk:RMHED, User:Djsasso, etc) where people have got tools to track speedies, RfA's etc.

The problem is that it clouds the issue of whether or not there are any real links that one has to un-wikilink before deleting the article in question. On a couple of occasions there have been actual links to the article, rather than the category, hidden away somewhere in the list.

How does one deal with that? Just check that none of the links are in the mainspace and leave it at that? Or is there some way to require people to put those desk tools on a sub-page like Gb/desk...? _GB^T/C 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that it is fixed - have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/7-Eleven_Kwik-e-Mart...it's a prod, not a speedy, but the same issue applies. _GB^T/C 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

Well, I've blocked usernames there, following the guide set out in WP:NAS. Have a look at the charmingly named User:Fingermasturbation101, and you tell me...! _GB^T/C 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw...you've got a fan club. Sadly they've all been blocked already, but if I spot any new members I will be sure to hardblock. Shall I unblock and reblock ol' Fingers? _GB^T/C 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see this...hope you feel better in short order. _GB^T/C 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

I will not allow mediation until Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko is resolved. What you can do, however, is to look at the discussion in the Sandbox talk page and share you opinion on whose position makes more sense to you. Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person who initiated the (false) puppetry allegation (and Cielo Estrellado knows very well who initiated it).
No connection between the mediation case and the (false) puppetry allegation, since the mediation relates to the article, whereas the (false) puppetry allegation relates to individuals.
When Cielo Estrellaso asked me "Do you agree that as soon as ANDREW unprotects the page we begin making edits at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎/temp, and... List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎ won't be touched by any of us. Do you agree?" - I simply agreed, although I could instead: evade any further discussion - by simply declaring: "I will not allow moving the discussion to the temporary article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎/temp - until the discussion at the original article is resolved". Furthermore, I could have simply initiated allegations against Cielo Estrellado (Tengo mucha información), and then I could have stated: "I will not allow any further discussion about the article - until the allegations against Cielo Estrellado are resolved", etc. I didn't do that, because Cielo Estrelaso asked me to continue the discussion, so I agreed.
To sum up: No connection between the mediation case and the (false) puppetry allegation, since the mediation relates to the article, whereas the (false) puppetry allegation relates to individuals.

Eliko (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

GAN backlog picking up again...I'll review if you do :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh mate...what to say...I'm really blushing here...thanks so much. So...erm...is this your way of saying no to the GAN review challenge? ;) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on my public account...

...and leaving aside the fact that you should clearly be scolded for your use of the vernacular in edit summaries :-), would you mind hoovering up for me at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Clamorformore‎ - there's a whole bunch of socks (assuming you agree with my views) that could do with indef-blocking, but no-one's gotten around to it for 12 hours or so...Thanks! _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock just popped up, Cori Nicole (talk · contribs). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and blocked. Rudget . 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

Yeah, I read some last night, and I do understand where they are coming from.I can explain the lack of edit summeries lol. I just somtimes forget because, I'll be on here for so long and think I put it in and I haven't lol. Plus I just think some such as ("added , between 'In 2007...he also') is unncessecary as it's just one symbol and not completely impactful to the article in its entirty. Put that is just my opinon on that. But as I said I do understand. I just want to know if Chris Nelson said anything, just because, everytime I leave a message for him, or make an edit he doesn't agree with he leaves me a somewhat hateful message. It just seems like he thinks he knows everything about editing because he's a jouralism major or something (I'm not trying to get him into trouble or anything, just sayin'). --Cra sh U nderride 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

Hi, Rudget. I think you forgot something in the features and admins column. Shouldn't I be listed? Cheers, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been in last weeks signpost features and admins (published on the 18th) which was done by OhanaUnited. You can ask him since your RFA was closed within the time period 11-18th February or alternatively you can add it yourself. Rudget . 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'kay, thanks. I'll just add it myself. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username block

I'm just curious why you blocked User talk:Blahblahblah4536. It doesn't matter to me either way, but I can't myself see how this name contravenes the username policy. Feel free to ignore this is you're busy with more important things (as I should be myself really). Qwfp (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite borderline. In my opinion, he looks to be a sockpuppet of Scott4545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rudget . 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFB

Hi Rudget. Just a query - your "neutral" on my RFB said I was "a little too inactive in areas where bureaucrats should operate" - is this referring to the fact I haven't edited bot-related pages? I've had plenty of RFA contributions (see [1] for a bunch) and done quite a bit of username related work (including fiddling with the policy [2] and trying to get people to work to it [3]. Not ever being a bot user, I don't really have much I could contribute to bot discussions at this point (that could change if I were to have the b'crat bit, I guess, as I could help out by flagging bots). Neıl ☎ 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate changes have been made to the request. Rudget . 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you, Rudget, for your support in my RfB. I appreciate your trust. Acalamari 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Rudget, thanks for your note. It's partly because I think enough people would oppose to scupper it, and partly because I prefer to spend my time on WP writing and editing articles. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but...

Hi Rudget: Thanks so much for offering to start an RfA for me. However, for the moment anyway, I'm going to take a pass; I'm up to my eyeballs in various things at work, and would prefer to spend my precious Wikitime working on some of the many articles I hope to write. Maybe some day in the future, I'll take you up on it! MeegsC | Talk 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report

First of all, thanks for picking up the WikiProject report for this week. Are you planning on doing this permanently? If you'd like to, it's yours; otherwise, that's fine as well. Ral315 (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Arknascar44 hasn't edited in about a month (wonder what happened to him?), so I'd say that's great. If I might suggest subjects for upcoming articles, I think Kosovo, although currently light on contributors, would be a great subject due to its timeliness, and the heated conflict that's ensued in real-life. You might also consider football/soccer, if for no other reason than because Nanonic wrote an entire draft that you can use as the base of your article.

The other thing I guess I'd say is not to become too weighted down by the way we've done things in the past. There's absolutely nothing wrong with changing the format of the report up a little, or changing it based on the individual situation within the project being profiled. Ral315 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your nice comments along with the barnstar! I have to say that if people are becoming "aware of my presence" it means I probably need to get back to quietly cleaning, researching and writing articles ;) Cheers and thanks again! --JayHenry (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Featured portal nominations

I went to FAC and I don't see the nominator supported the nom. Same goes to FTC and FLC. But at FPC, "support as nom" is the norm. And at FSC, this practice is evenly divided. It looks like the community is divided on this practice, meaning we can set our practice. What's your call? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write it out on nom page to avoid instruction creep. Just bear that in mind and disregard the nominator's support when closing. We don't have to state it outright or strike the nom's support. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Rudget, thank you for watching over FPCs. I learned a new rule, thanks to you. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/52_Pickup

If I'm not mistaken, you may have commented twice on here. You Opposed and Supported. (See Support #7 and Oppose #4) Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The RFA just closed (a little too late to change now) Oh well. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]