User talk:FormerEditor2718/10

; Archives
	Current discussion; Archives 2005 - February 2006; March 2006 - April 2006; May 2006 - June 2006; July 2006 - August 2006; September 2006 - October 2006; November 2006 - January 2007; January 2007 - March 2007; April 2007 - October 2007; November 2007 - March 2010; April 2010 - July 2010; July 2010 - March 2012; April 2012 - February 2013; February 2013 - December 2020; ;

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Khan93, I've added more references for the Travis Gordon wiki page besides IMDB

Can you have a look? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_gordon

New references:

Showzampa (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TDWT

TOTAL DRAMA WORLD TOUR...NOAH WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS LOW BECAUSE TEAM VICTORY LOST! STOP AGREEING WITH THAT ANOYNMOUS USER ON THAT SITUATION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.208.122 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SO DON'T AGREE WITH LIES OR SPILERS! THEY ARE BANNED UNTIL THE EPISODE AIRS OR SOME1 CAN PROVE THE INFO IS CORRECT!--98.177.208.122 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

faggot

you faggot bi-sexual mother fucker i think you need to check you asshole for aids and blue waffle you mom has red waffle you dad had purple banana you nigger tit fucker cunt 9000 over i think you have syphilis did you that herpes i gave you.you ichy balls nigger faggot cunt licking bitch ass an hero. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theinfamousblue (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2010 July 7 (UTC)

I know everyone deserves their say but...

I know everyone deserves their say and I can appreciate the desire to keep your talk page as a true record of all discussions no matter have abusive, just make sure you're looking after yourself and not letting the trolls get you down! -- role^player 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

PS I took the liberty of removing the section where an IP tried to offend you. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I've restored it because A) Nothing anyone says on the internet could ever offend me and B) talk pages should be an accurate record of discussion. Thanks for the cookie though. --khfan93 13:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, really? I think it's a personal attack... you're a strange person. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but I don't mind. --khfan93 (t) (c) 00:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi, I'm responding to your invitation to discuss RfA questions on your talk page instead of cluttering up the RfA. or my own talk page. A very reasonable suggestion. 'Years ago' you would have probably not have had as much experience as you have now. My short, polite comment, like all the !votes and comments, was intended for the attention of the closing bureaucrat, and not as a criticism of the person who posed them - like you, I get a bit fed up with the lack of AGF around here. There is an on-going discussion among highly experienced editors, admins, and bureaucrats, in which it has been/is being debated whether or not additional 'optional' questions are required at all. At the moment it looks as if we all agree that they really must be optional and that a refusal to answer them must not go against the candidate, and that answering them must certainly never be a condition of gaining a voter's support vote.
At some time in the future, if a consensus can be achieved, they might be dropped altogether; a lot of RfAs are successful without ever an optional question being posted. Sometimes questions are not really serious at at all, they are possibly misplaced humour in what is one of the few really serious debates on the Wikipedia, and they might be wasting more than just the candidate's time. When I !vote or comment on an RfA I always do a thorough research, and then try to put myself in the candidate's shoes, and frankly an RfA is something I would never personally wish to go through under the present conditions. Do have a look at that debate on RfA talk, and don't hesitate to offer your own opinions - every opinion is welcome.--Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't understand where the Bureaucrat would need to make a judgement as to whether the questions were frivolous or not. Whether the questions are answered is irrelevant to the bureaucrat, only the !supports and !opposes and !neutrals are. I realize that my little addendum, intended as a bit of humor, was inappropriate. However, I have no intention on making an !oppose vote if the questions are not all answered (although I may not make a !support, I would most likely simply not cast a vote) and I stand by the questions as a method of my determining the quality of the candidate for adminship.--khfan93 03:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I fail to see how my level of experience would effect the reaction of other editors to my questions. --khfan93 03:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, the bureaucrats don't count the votes at all - in fact they (are supposed to) weigh up all those very comments. They are supposed to totally disregard all !votes - including the supports - that do not cary a qualifying statement. See how that changes the picture! As i said before, when I participate on an RfA, I put myself in the shoes of the candidate. I also base my !votes (or comments) on an accumulation of experience that would possibly just be enough to get me to pass an RfA if I really wanted to be a sysop. I have nothing against political adherence, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender penchant, age, or infirmity, but there are some other editors around here who get mad when they see people with relatively little experience, being allowed to !vote on something as serious as an RfA. Some think that only existing sysops should vote. I rather support that idea, even if it means I would have to stop voting. Do have a look at that talk page - but only if you're reqlly interested. And for heaven's sake don't stop !voting on RfAs just because of my comments - the very fact that you added some extra questions shows you take the system seriously :)--Kudpung (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely in agreement, but think you overstated it a bit. It's a polite fiction that we don't count the !votes; if we believed that, we wouldn't include a tally in the summary box and as the first piece of information in the close. That said, you did use the word "theoretically" so I assume you recognize the distinction between theory and practice. Here I suspect we agree.

Where we mildly disagree is the notion that all !votes, even supports, should be disregarded if not accompanied by a rationale. I buy into the proposed treatment I've seen elsewhere, that allows asymptotic weighting. Specifically, the default assumption is that an editor is qualified, especially if they are being nominated by a known editor. When I review the evidence, if I find nothing to disqualify the candidate, I think a simple "support" is acceptable, and deserves to be "counted".

In contrast, an oppose ought to be accompanied by a reason. Thus, while not a 'crat, I would count bare support as support, but give less than full weight to a bare oppose. Then the quality of both the oppose and support opinions should be considered, but again, the oppose has to affirmatively make the case, more so than the support.--SPhilbrick T 17:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find your question inappropriate at all. With emphasis that it is optional, I saw your question as giving the opportunity to answer broadly about how they view Wikipedia - a chance to tell us a little about how they view the project. While that could be accomplished in an opening statement, and often is in a self-nomination, it often doesn't occur when someone else nominates. I suppose there's no reason why the acceptance statement couldn't serve that purpose, but this candidate didn't use it that way. I'd totally respect some that declines - they may feel their edits should stand on themselves, but I didn't see it as frivolous at all (Granted, some of the reaction may have occurred before you struck the attempt at humor.)--SPhilbrick T 16:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon images

Copyrights are complicated stuff, and I am sorry to cause a nuisance of myself. Thanks for not biting, though.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]