User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

smile

99.230.152.143 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

About User:Kobra85

Dear KieferSkunk, I am really sorry for bothering but user Kobra85 is still vandalizing the article National Liberation War of Macedonia, although you warned him once not to do that. he is erasing 80% of the article backed with photographies and references. other users also warned him about his uncivil behavior. Sincerely yours. --Revizionist (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Kiefer did not warn me about my reverts (which have not violated the 3RR rule), but about my temper. Second, only you see it as vandalism, I specifically carried out Future's personal request of rewriting the article, but you helped yourself by reverting it and adding too many images (claiming they're "beautiful") and copyvio material, not to mention overly exaggerating the amount of information which has been rewritten. I suggest you stop going behind my back and bringing this issue up with different admins every time you're reverted. Köbra ^Könverse 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Kobra85: Actually, I did warn you that you were treading on thin ice with respect to WP:3RR - along with my other suggestions and recommendations to you in your talk page, I said "Consider this an official 3RR warning". The edit war there is clearly disruptive. Because there has been a previous warning in this case, I have blocked Kobra85 for 24 hours for violating the spirit of WP:3RR and to prevent further disruption in the article.

I want to make it clear, though, that I am not taking sides in this matter, I am not encouraging or endorsing any specific revision of that article, and I want you both/all to continue working together once Kobra85 is back, to come up with a neutral and balanced version of the article.

Revizionist, consider yourself warned for WP:3RR as well. Avoid back-and-forth edit wars. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand KieferSkunk. But please tell me how to overcome this. Please give me instructions. I spent a whole month researching to write the article. 80% of the article is my contribution. And user Kobra erases it. Tell me what to do. P.S. Kobra does not want to make a neutral version of the text. he just erases my contributions which are 80% of the text, backed with references and photographs. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would Request Comment or get a third opinion next, and if you are still unable to work out the content dispute, I'd take it to one of the admin noticeboards to get some administrator oversight on the article. The idea here is to get more people looking at the article and its revision history, and to form consensus on what information should be included vs. what should not. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, I didn't even realise I was blocked until just then. That's okay, I'm not one of those low self-esteem individuals who edit on Wikipedia every day because they have no life. By the way, Keifer, I'd get my eyes checked if I were you, I only reverted the article twice so, technically, you blocked me for no reason. Köbra ^Könverse 10:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You apparently missed the point of the block. Go back and read WP:3RR again - an admin can block you for any number of reverts at their discretion if it's clear that you're edit-warring. It does not have to be three reverts in 24 hours. So, technically, I had a very good reason for blocking you, and if I see that sort of behavior continue, I will block you again, as will most any other admin. Next time, it will be for a longer period. Additionally, you might want to go read WP:TE - tendentious editors are often considered unduly disruptive, and one of the symptoms of being a tendentious editor is quibbling over the technical details of the 3-Revert Rule. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining, I was just pointing it out. Like I said, I'm not going to have a cry over a measly block on a website. Köbra ^Könverse 07:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you taking the time to "point it out" on my talk page? If it doesn't matter to you that much, why are you even bothering? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

KieferSkunk Thank you for your input. It is duly noted. --SportsMaster (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

VG Guidelines

Hey there. There was a recent discussion on the VG guidelines talk page about the guidelines. Overall, the content of the guidelines has strong consensus. But a few people thought the guidelines had grown cluttered and disorganized, even if their purpose and meaning are rock solid. I put together a new layout at my user page. My goal was to keep the meaning the same, but to improve the clarity and organization of the guidelines.

I've contacted you because I've noticed that you've been around long enough to have taken part in many discussions about these guidelines and probably have the most experience with them. I was hoping you could take a quick look and tell me your gut reaction so far. If there's any areas where you think I'm way off and need to change to be closer to what we have now, or if there's areas where you think I can make further progress. After I've tried to tackle your feedback, I hope to put the proposal to the larger wikiproject.

Take a look when you find a minute. And reply directly at my talk page. Randomran (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad you think it's on the right track. I'm gonna get a bit more feedback from Masem and guyinblack to see if there's any glaring problems or omissions. Once they've signed off, I'll get feedback from the broader video games wikiproject. Thanks again! Randomran (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with the GoHuskies/SportsMaster conflict

I absolutely agree with you that GoHuskies has been calm and rational throughout, while SportsMaster has been inflammatory and occasionally assumed bad faith. Also, as you noted, I have checked GoHuskies contribs and, except for a couple of complete foul-ups in regards to overzealous deletionism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskimo kissing -- I believe this was done in good faith, but it was also completely ridiculous!), his contribs seem mostly constructive and reasonable.

So I'm tempted to give SportsMaster an AGF warning and leave it at that. Problem is, if I dig a little deeper into GH's contribs, a couple of troubling trends emerge. The success rate for AfDs started by him in the last six months is 50% (four keeps, three merges, and one delete -- and one of the merges was his second nomination in a few months of one of the keeps!) and it looks like another two keeps are on the way. Most of the keeps were at least reasonable to nominate for deletion, but I still don't like to see a success rate that low for AfD nominating.

GH's very recent contribs are almost exclusively AfDs or stub-tagging for articles SportsMaster has created or worked on. In these cases, he's mostly right. But that doesn't diminish the appearance of stalking.

GH hasn't done anything that I find clearly sanctionable, and he has maintained a civil and rational tone throughout. However, I really really think the project would be better off if he would just not nominate SportsMaster-created articles for deletion. I don't think it's worth creating this much drama for a handful of AfDs that only have a 50% chance of succeeding... :/

What do you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the pattern of GH "following" Sportmaster around probably emerged sometime after the first few AfDs that happened to be SM's created articles - I can see how SM would have gotten GH's attention, and thus GH would start paying more attention specifically to those articles. I've certainly done that before - I've seen a few cases where a couple articles appeared on CAT:CSD that were both created by the same user, and I'd then go look at that user's contribs to see if they'd created more problematic articles beyond the ones that had already been reported. That's not really wikistalking - it's seeing a legitimate pattern and following up on it.

I would consider it wikistalking if GH were to follow Sportsmaster around to other articles that SM happened to contribute to that weren't inherently related to the AfDs. For example, if SM started commenting on Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl and GH suddenly showed up there with his own comments or arguments, I'd consider that suspicious. But I'm guessing that it's more likely GH was specifically looking at SM's contribs after nominating the first two or three AfDs, since he may see SM as a "problem editor".

That said, I think you're right that SM could use an AGF warning (if he's still going on about this after my comment in the WQA). I'd also advise GH to cool it for now and let other editors nominate those articles if they feel the articles need nomination. His behavior does appear too focused on SM - he really probably does have much better ways to spend his time, so I'd just tell him that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I had exactly the same thought about the "following" -- I mean, when I see an editor make the same mistake twice, I ask myself, "Did they maybe make this mistake ten times?" and check their contribs. But this has been going on for a couple of weeks now, and it looks like yet another of the SM-related articles GH nominated is heading towards a Keep (it's a little early, but see [[1]], which is actually a centralized AfD discussion for a whole pile of articles that GH tagged).

The problem is that I have suggested to GH multiple times exactly what you suggest -- that he "refocus his editorial ambitions" elsewhere for the "benefit of the project", and in the event that he spots an SM-created article that he really feels strongly about, get a 3rd party to nominate it for him. He so far hasn't agreed to that compromise. While GH is being abundantly civil, he is also being somewhat tendentious and has displayed over-aggressive deletionist tendencies, which have been disproportionately directed at SportsMaster -- so I don't feel good about telling SM to just toughen up and send him on his merry way. At the same time, GH hasn't done anything that I feel is sanctionable, at least not yet.

I suppose I will point out to him his very low success rate with AfD nominations and ask that he lay off it for awhile..

Thanks for being a sounding board! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to my posting on the Wikiquette board. I've taken your advice to me to heart and have decided to lay off the editing of the article for awhile pending some input from other editors, regardless of what User:Sanitycult decides to do. User:Sanitycult has requested an RfC, so I think your intervention is having positive results. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's what I was hoping would happen. Glad to be of service! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: user:24.23.112.130

Hi... looks like this user just doesn't get it, and continues to add POV to articles, despite multiple warnings (not just by me) over several months. Could you please look into it? Zephyrad (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude

Yo dude look what I gotta reply to you hereGears Of War 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Leave me the messages you want but I meant what I said, and your just one of them. Check out my tribute to the Wikiproject, maybe you might wanna add it to your userpage. Ha I crack myself up. Dont mess with me for a couple of days so that I dont completely go beserk.Gears Of War 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha and also, you wanna talk lets start like this. You cant fool me. I knew your intenions. And you know what, if you actualy listened to yourself talking, me and you have similar issues. The project wrongly accuses people of things, and yet people like you kinda confuse me. You act crazy kind of mad and then act legit when your called out. The project is stuck up, I meant what I said. It is stuck way up the butt. And if someone is offended...GOOD. Sadly is was meant to call people out and to offend. Lets continue our disccusion on my talk page.Gears Of War 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Never said you were un-civil. But you get on me about nothing! Im treated like some a-- hole. Im sad right now, kinda feeling hurt. I almost retired a couple of seconds ago. But now...I'll never be an admin. And I feel this hate for you and some other user and the WPVG because you ruined my ambition. I say that you should be more opening and welcoming to users. Any more problems...talk to me on my talkpage.Gears Of War 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet...thanks but no thanks

You know...sometimes I wonder...what would wikipedia be like if we had a tad but more fun. But of course that would just kill some people The first thing that would go through there head is {OMG! Wikipedia...a fun place...I gone). So yeah thats my take. +No one but some people think Im always doing good things.

But then others see me as some young dude...making naive edits and messages, and bein dumb. And that really hurts. And if you never thought about it...Wikipedia could be improved. This wont ever look good on a RFA, so I crushed. And sometimes I wish I never figured out how to join Wikipedia. I've had asked for advice because of wikistress. So dude, PLEASE dont act ligit now cause I swear I could go beserk on you.

Wikipedia scares me sometimes and I sometimes like a few minutes ago I wanted to quit. But some people just burn me up and piss me off. Please, I am kindly asking you...PLEASE dot send anymore messages...my reputation has already been screwed and you'll only make it worse. So good buy for hopefully and kindly forever.Gears Of War 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, suit yourself. Though I am troubled by your "I could go berserk on you" comment - that sounds very close to a threat of violence, and I will take that absolutely seriously if I see it in any form.

Unless you choose to reply to my last comments on your User talk page, I will not send you any more for the time being. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thankyou and I really mean thankyou. But when you say something like I'm about to beat you up, now think about that for a sec. I a 12 year old...what do you think i'm gonna do to you so please chill on that...but dont be suprised if you see me open up some subpages crtisicing the project. Good bye(I'll mention you in anger management, my doctor says you some thing in my past or something like that.) Good bye.Gears Of War 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) A threat's a threat. Doesn't matter who it comes from - it's actually more disturbing if it does come from a 12-year-old kid, because it's likely a sign that the kid has some serious issues that may point to him/her being a bigger threat in the future if he/she doesn't get some serious help. If you're really so troubled that you need anger management therapy, you should probably be asking yourself if hanging out on Wikipedia is a good idea in the first place. :P

If you create subpages in the wikiproject itself just for the sake of criticizing the project, they will be speedily deleted. You can use any of the existing venues to voice your concerns just fine. If you create criticism subpages under your own user page, well... that's your choice. Personally, though, I'd rather see you devote some of that energy toward trying to improve things. Hence why I told you to calm down - once you do, hopefully you can find better ways to spend your time than just retaliating against everyone who disagrees with you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First the anger managment...a joke...dude. Wow...yeah.

Second, I was not threatning you, you would know if I was going to try to hurt you. Man you sound like an parent of a kid from my frekin school. I am not some sycho so dont talk to me that way. PLEEEEAAAASE!

Next, the essay/criticm will not only give my criticm but it will also give advice for surviving the thing. Next, I will never appologized for anything I dont think I've done rong which means, I dont feel sorry for cursing you out(dont add another Vand-1 to my talkpage). I may rejoin but you know it can get dicouraging. So I WILL fight and maybe curse out anyone who treats me in my eyes wrong. So dude, I wanted to maybe get along with you somehwere in all this but hey...it's not happening.Gears Of War 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you can do what you want. But if you're seen as being out of line, you will be blocked. Again, I believe in treating everyone equally, and you are no exception. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, being taped down to the ground for sticking up for what you think is right...good old wikipedia.Gears Of War 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you just don't get it, do you? You're acting like you have some God-given right to act any way you want, and in your own words, you WILL curse out anyone you personally think treated you wrong. Y'know what? That's not how the real world works, dude. It's not just Wikipedia - you try pulling that on ANY Internet-based service with an Acceptable Use Policy, and you'll be banned from it in two seconds flat. And don't get me started on what people might feel inclined to do with you if you try pulling that in real life. In comparison, we've all been quite lenient with you in this regard.

The point I've been trying to get through to you is that there are CONSTRUCTIVE and CIVIL ways to stand up for what you think is right, WITHOUT resorting to name-calling, incivility, personal attacks, temper tantrums and other immature behavior. While you're on Wikipedia, you're expected to abide by its policies - this is NOT optional. That doesn't mean you can't speak your mind, but when you step over that line of treating people like crap because they disagree with you, that's what'll get you thrown out.

I honestly don't know if you're just saying stuff like that to get under my skin or if you genuinely do plan to act the way you described, but trust me, I find it annoying as hell. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is about to get handle right now. Sadly as a 12 year old i will be taken as some one who might not know about the real world. And you know what, HOW DARE YOU dare talk about god given rights. Dude, you a god frekin admin. You know you got power, and I wont let you think I'm going to win any fight because of that right.

Sadly(again)i DONT CARE about what you think. I KNOW whats right for me. And you know what. I'm 12 and frekin proud. Dont you EVER think because your adult you can tell me about real life. You have no right. And whose we all. Are you saying I've been acting crazy and doing bad stuff and your all being liniate. And I know you know you shouldn't block me. Because you know what happens to editors go bad. And I dont want to be a vandalizer. I love wikipedia. But i wont have some users try to talk none sense talk to me. You think your being treated like crap! PLEASE!!! I only acted in good faith until now which pissed me off. You are something special you know that...something thats killing me and making me madder and madder. And like I said if I was truley trying to hurt or treat some one like doo...you would know. As hellish as this convo is...I speak me mind and you speak yours which apparently, we are starting to hate each other. And thats not good. But so be it. And sadly I may not curse when I think I right(or at least not all the time), but I'll fight like a freking soldier. Dude.Gears Of War 02:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)(P.S. I wtaching your talk page too)

Try doing that with a police officer sometime, kid. Let me know how it goes. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i'd love to.Gears Of War 11:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Against all odds in VG talk

In place of this, which I cannot put onto talk pages due to non-fair use image policies, I place the following...

		Civility Award
		For daring to point out rules where others fear to tread. For being amenable to participate in something against the rules, but yet asking others to keep the rules in mind. Lastly, for remaining civil in a tense situation and taking consideration for others to move the situation to your own space to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep your chin up! Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chin up mate... Seeing your "rules don't apply to some"-ish comments at WT:VG reminded me of your RfA. And I wouldn't have nominated you if I didn't completely agree with you. Jappalang, Image:Buddy christ.jpg is... AWESOME! :D giggy _(:O) 08:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your own personal apology dude

Hey Kiefer, i have had a long day at school and the only thing I thought about was our argument. I was totaly wrong to curse at you the way I did. While I was thinking over my actions, I realized that when I was cursing you, I was cursing those others on Wikipedia of treated me wrong. And that is unfair to you. And for that too, I apologize.

I also appologize if i got under your skin. I can be stuborn, and I will fight for what I think is right. I did not mean to get your engines flaring either.

Next, I appologize for my childest behavior. It was totaly wrong, i am sorry. I also appologize for the fact that I almost made you curse. I am very sorry.

I did not wright this to make you look at me better, but to be friends.

So...

Friends?Gears Of War 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. As I said, I think you're a good editor overall - you just let the events of yesterday get to you a little too personally. I accept your apology, and I appreciate knowing that you are willing to think things over. I also apologize for goading you a bit in the discussion yesterday - I probably could have handled my end of it a little better too.

Another editor mentioned to me privately that you might want to work closely with one or two of the other VGProj regulars for a sort of "mentorship", to basically learn the ropes in terms of general editing and working on the more social aspects of the project. I don't think I'd be a good person for that since I don't have a lot of regular time to devote to WP, but any of the other regulars would be a good person to work with. How does that sound? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I would love to have you teach me about how to work with the project. That would be awesome since my mentor is not experinced with the WPVG. Talk to him about maybe having a partnership with helping me be a better editor. I still have dreams of becoming a admin so I will have to work twice as hard now.Gears Of War 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have User:Krator talk to him about it, since like I said, I'm not sure I'll really have the time or resources to mentor you myself (and I'm not sure I'd be the best candidate anyway, though I'll be happy to provide coaching and guidance when and where I can). Krator was the one who talked to me earlier about this, so I'll ask him to help.

As for adminship: I don't think you really have to work "extra hard" - just keep your nose clean and you'll do fine. :) Like I said, I had a big blowup here a while back too, and yet I became an admin with relatively little opposition, so it's definitely possible to become one. People aren't as concerned about a couple of incidents here or there - in fact, having an incident like this can help you along, if you can show that you've learned from past mistakes and are able to keep them from happening again. (Also, remember that nobody's perfect - even the most experienced administrators and bureaucrats sometimes blow up at people for no apparent reason. It just happens sometimes - what's important is how you deal with it and how you work with other people in general.)

Lemme tell you a quick story about myself: When I was new to Wikipedia (and also when VGProj was younger and not as well-defined), the article on Star Fox Command was quite detailed and had a lot of what many of us considered to be good information on all the characters, ships and branching plotlines in the game. I had done a lot of work to build a nice table that explained each of the ships, who used them, what their special abilities and weapons were like, etc.. So as you can imagine, I was pretty upset when someone came along and deleted all of that, condensing those sections down to a couple of sentences like "Each character flies his/her own ship, each with its unique weapons and abilities." This same sort of thing happened across many other articles I was helping out with, and at the time I didn't fully understand the community consensus concept that well. I accused Wikipedia as a whole of "video game sterilization", and I was pretty mad about it.

Some time later, I discovered the VGProj and started reading into it a bit more, and I realized that people WERE upholding consensus, and I was going counter to it. People were quite helpful in explaining why the articles were being "sterilized" (as I put it), and what information should be moved to a gaming-specific wiki. That's when I started to see it their way, and I found it was much more rewarding to work toward those ends, once I understood why the policies and guidelines were there.

Yet, as time has gone on, I've also helped to change or clarify some of those guidelines. (No policies yet, but I can claim to have helped with the VGProj guidelines.) Some of those changes were just accepted as I put them in, others required quite a bit of discussion. And a few of them have ended up in fairly heated debates. But the difference now is that I'm helping work toward an overall community consensus rather than just my own ends, and that's making a big difference not only to the project, but to myself as well.

I kinda see a similar path going on for you. Please don't take any of this as a criticism of your age, as I don't mean it as any sort of insult. But you are new to the project, and as such, you don't have the level of experience that many of the other editors in the project do. It's very common for new people to come by with lots of great suggestions and requests, and to start feeling discouraged when the more experienced folks kinda go "Been there, done that", and we do see a number of people leave the project because they feel it's not in line with their personal goals and beliefs. It's only after one has worked with the project for a while that most editors find a good middle ground, and also learn how to introduce their ideas in a way that gets people really discussing the impact of those ideas on existing policies and guidelines.

My advice is to stick around, work with the project, and don't feel too discouraged if a new article gets deleted or a suggestion gets shot down. Realize that it's not because the editor you're talking to dislikes you or your ideas - it's much more often because we've already discussed it before and the current consensus may be against that idea. And if it's something you believe should change, be ready to discuss it and for that discussion to take some time - nobody can get results overnight in a situation like that. :)

I really hope this helps. Again, not trying to be at all critical of you as a person. I just want to help you understand a bit more about how the group has been working, so that you'll understand we really don't mean anything personally here. :) Lemme know if you have any questions.

I just gotta ask you for one favor: Please trust me to not be critical of you as a person, okay? If I say you're doing something wrong, I'm addressing a specific behavior, and I'll try to do it in a constructive way, including letting you know how you could improve on it (not just pointing out how it's wrong). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deal, I agree to that favor. I only want to make friends while I edit, so thankyou you've really helped me and please comment on my Editors Review thanks.Gears Of War 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Totophi

I am going to make my comments here to avoid further conflict with Totophi. Although I appriciate your role as a mediator and what you are trying to do, I can not agree with your assessment that the sock puppet allegations were made in haste. I am still convinced that Totophi is the anonymous IP addresses and I would still like to check his IP address to confirm this. But even if this is not the case, it is apparent that the anon. I.P.'s are sock puppets for one another which does vallidate my report, even if Totophi is not implicated. Also, I do think there should be a consequence for Totophi's use of personal attacks; even if it is just a 24 hour editing block. I do not feel like I am being unreasonable in that request, as it may prevent him from such behavior in the future. I am not saying that I myself am a saint in this matter but I did not violate any WP policies which Totophi did. Nrswanson (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here to support the second half of Nrswanson's statement: Totophi requires an incivility block. Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand both of your points, but I disagree that a block is required. I shall warn Totophi of the nature of his/her comments and let him know that if he/she continues to use that sort of language toward other editors, it will result in a block. But I did see a response from Totophi in Talk:C (musical note) that indicated he was willing to discuss the matter more calmly, so I'll take that as a sign that this may have been just an aberration. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. His last comment was full of sarcasm (entire second paragraph). He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted.Nrswanson (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No.

No. Mother Niggle (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No what? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On his talk oage, you told him to be polite to other users and he replied no.Gears Of War 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. :) I want to see what his rationale is for saying "no" to my warning that he should assume good faith. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

hey man, that's not cool, at least use the talk back thingy ma bob so I know when you replied Mother Niggle (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What does: :P mean?Gears Of War 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a smiley sticking out its tongue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Can I request that the IP of this account not be able to edit wikipedia? I'm not the only one who uses this IP, but am the only one who uses this account, and my cousin likes to vandalise wikipedia. Ghost109 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Whoa, this project is way different from Wikipedia. I'm not sure of how stable it is. It could deffinetly use some work. Man, they need some serious help over there. Maybe we should get a group a Wikipedians to help out over there for a few months, they really need it.Gears Of War 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cliché Online

Hello there. Just a general thanks for helping in dealing with Cliché, but I'd just like to point out the mistake you made here, I wasn't actually the one who called Cliché a "hypocritical fanboy", that was SeanMooney, I like to pride myself on never, ever personally attacking someone =) Much Thanks! Fin©™ 10:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

fuck you bastard. consider this your last warning. "being a dick?" who do you think to talk like this on my talk page you piece of shit? next time you do that i'll unscrew your head and shit into your neck. and your gay friend falcon9x5/fin is an asshole too. Cliché Online (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have to worry about anyone reversing the block... if he doesn't shape up after the block, I'd say blocking him for a couple of months would be in order... we don't need more badmouthing disruptors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this user is evading his block under the IP 209.169.244.29. The IPs edits are inline with the user's modus operandi. Jappalang (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I went over the procedures there, and it seems that it should not be reported as the IP is not active after the last edit. After thinking through again, I have reconsidered and believe it might be coincidence that the IP and this user edited the article with the same purpose (though it is curious seeing how their efforts in the short spell is like a "tagteam" effort). Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

No bothers, thanks for all your help! =) Fin©™ 10:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are you?

Can you please revisit Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian. I'm not happy with this user and the lack of action. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little abrupt with you there on reflection! Yes I was mad, but I'm cooler now. This situation is just so frustrating - there's no reason for this gentleman to be so hostile with me. Particularly when the feeling isn't mutual and he's aware he's been at RfC. Anyway... thanks for your return, and sorry again. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All very grave

This is all very grave. I wouldn't call it a dispute...merely a difference of opinion. = ) Was such a step necessary? --Cameron* 20:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, Yorkshirian's edits are disruptive and violate several policies, and even after he agreed to tone it down, he's still doing it. I find that very disturbing, and at this point it seems appropriate to get other admins involved. ArbCom is the final rung on the WP:DR ladder, and they have some actual power to enforce decisions. The worst that'll happen is that they'll decline to hear the case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. I'm sure any decisions will be for the best in the end. --Cameron* 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay

Okay, I can understand if you dont want to be friends anymore. I've lost many "friends" today, just one more.Gears Of War 03:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever say I no longer wanted to be friends? One thing you'll learn (the hard way if necessary) is that friends are straight-up and honest with one another. If anyone's going to call off a friendship (or a good working relationship, as I'd prefer to think of it), it'll be you, and it'll be your loss. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kool, i didnt want to loose your friendship.Gears Of War 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Essay

Thanks for the feedback, and fell free to add that part to the actual essay under a new section, it sounds great fir something like "arguments that maturity is the reason" or something of the sort. RedThunder 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

here you go..

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I stumbled across your essay/discussion on Wikipedia talk:Age and Adminship. Well expressed, thought out and very, very logical :). Here's a little something as a token of appreciation. Ironholds 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It's something I've been thinking about and mentally putting together for a while, and RedThunder's essay WIP gave me the perfect excuse to write it out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My editor coaching

I have replied to qustion you left at my Editor Coaching.Gears Of War 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You always do kind things to me. Yiu always make sure that I keep my head on straight and tell me what I've done wrong even when I can't reconize. You help alot with my Editor Coaching, and to top it off, you remain my friend no matter how ignorant I get. Thanks. Gears Of War 11:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for being willing to listen to me. Like I said, you can do well - you just need to get to a point where you're able to do more of this on your own without us watching over you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Hi, as you are looking after an arbitration case I just thought that I would let you know there is also an edit war that is going on between Yorkshirian and Benkenobi18 over the naming of Roman Catholic Diocese articles in UK e.g Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds. Keith D (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Big Mess

Hey Kiefer - long time no talk.

I think part of the problem is that there isn't any central authority on Wikipedia, given that Jimbo's essentially absent. I'm not sure how much you involve yourself in policy issues, but it can't have escaped your notice that policy development is essentially impossible, since the consensus system hasn't scaled. I think the most telling evidence of this is that, after some people held up flagged revisions as being the solution to many of our problems for months, we still haven't implemented them because there's been no consensus as to the best way to do so. There's an aversion to bureaucracy here as everywhere, but bureaucracy is precisely what this place needs: more clarity on who has what powers and how those powers are to be exercised. That's not going to address all the problems - not by any stretch of the imagination - but I've come to the conclusion that it's both the biggest current problem with Wikipedia and the greatest threat to Wikipedia's continued viability.

Personally, I'm a hobbyist editor. I like building articles, so I do a fair bit of that. When I'm in the mood, I'll do some administrative work - generally either deletion stuff or AN and ANI monitoring. But everything I do is because I want to do it, and not because the project needs somebody to do it (an exception is that when I'm specifically approached with an admin-related or dispute-related request, I'll usually fulfill it). Whatever you want to say about my attitude, I think it's the one calculated to maximize my longevity here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your take is a good one. I find myself thinking of Animal Farm - the classic story about socialism and how some are "more equal" than others, etc. WP is kinda in that boat, IMO - without any real central leadership, the site is degenerating into a big repeat of history, in which only the people who yell the loudest have any real sway. The fact is, even as an administrator, I have no real power here. Nobody does, aside from the people who run the servers (and as you mentioned, they're essentially absent).

The problem is, at the very moment Jimbo decides to form a real power structure here, the site will lose its status as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", and will become just another hierarchical site in which people are "allowed" to contribute, but everything is overseen by a governing power. That power can, of course, be corrupted, and there will be too much room for people to accuse the power of controlling the information being put up here. So appointing a central leadership is likely to not be the answer either.

Ever get the sense that this is one of life's unsolvable problems? It says a lot about human nature, methinks, and I'm just losing my will to keep fighting it. If nothing else, I think I need a wikibreak. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of the imposition of some kind of governing authority (I ran for the WMF Board of Trustees on that platform). I don't think Jimbo has the effective authority to do it anymore (I tried to start a page to establish exactly what the extent of his authority is and where it comes from - see WP:JIMBO), which makes me think that the call will have to come from the Foundation, whose authority to intervene is unquestionable. But once that central leadership is imposed from without, it needs to be perpetuated and elected from within - I'm personally of the view that representative democracy is more truly democratic than direct democracy or the sort of anarchic democracy we enjoy here (though of course Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor an anarchy), so I think individual contributors would be better off in a system with a central authority responsible for clear and uniformly-enforced (hopefully!) policy than they are now. Any intervention by the Board would cause an immediate exodus of retiring contributors, for sure, leaving essays about how Wikipedia has changed and is no longer the wonderful project they started contributing to years ago. But Wikipedia's changing whether these editors like it or not, and the mistake is in thinking that Wikipedia's governance model can remain static through this change. Besides, there already is an exodus of retiring contributors, it's just not centred around a single event - I think Doc glasgow's exit statement captures the problems that are costing us good contributors right now.

As for you, maybe a Wikibreak would be a good idea. I haven't yet felt the need for one, but I suspect that the day will come. If you'd rather not take one, though, what I've done before is thought back to what initially made me love spending time here, and spend time doing that rather than the WQA stuff and whatnot. It's worked wonders for me, but I suppose we're all different. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's definetly something wrong with things in the past, oh, year and a half, ever since the general shift from "add info" to "your info/non-free stuff sucks". Yeah of course cleaning things up is a good thing, but the main problem is some people go too to the extremes while still following the letter of the rules -- as isolated incidents they don't seem bad at all, but pile after pile drives people away because their work is destroyed in the name of making things better, instead of trying to show why this is bad (not to mention editors who make thousands of edits souly removing links, etc, in the name of copyright paranoia, when often there's nothing at all wrong with said links...and similar such things). What I find most interesting is that just about the time the big cullings started to happen was when all the smaller fanwikis started, but people would still rather just delete info instead of move it.

It doesn't help, though, when people go and try to get admin help on clear issues and don't get it. I won't go into details since this isn't about me, but a recent issue has had me grumbling (two reports on spam with one on ANI in between). I think the biggest problem is simple -- WP has gotten so big with so many people who have a different view of what they want out of it, that people keep conflicting. I mean, with 12 year olds who want to be admins because they think it'll make them more important (and cry foul when older people don't let them be), people who are uncivil toward good faith additions -- while at the same time are clearly wrong in the face of stated policies, and people who revert huge amounts of well sourced edits because they happened to be referenced from a product only sold online...well there's a reason why I don't post as much as I could or even revert as much vadalism as I see. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating discussions

I know it can be frustrating to deal with Wikipedians who either ignore policy or rest heavily on essays. But don't let these people get to you. Engage with the people who are being objective and fair-minded. You'd be surprised how much more progress you'll make when you ignore bad arguments, instead of trying to demolish them. You'll also find yourself less frustrated. And if you do find yourself getting frustrated, just take a break. Wikipedia is not on a deadline. We'll improve it gradually. Cheers, Randomran (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a consequence of editor conduct and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles needing copy edit (tentative name)

Hello there!

I have begun laying the groundwork for a new WikiProject that has a very simple goal, to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the articles tagged for copy edit, and I am wondering if you are interested in helping me start it. This project is not a clone of WP:LOCE because we will not deal with requests for review (that is currently handled by our good friends over at Peer Review).

I expect that this will be a relaxed, happy and casual WikiProject, because participants will be able to take things at their own pace and use the project page to ask other participants for help. The project proposal is here, and I have created an almost-functional project page in my userspace here.

There are now over 4000 articles needing copy edit, and very, very few people working on them, so any help, however small, is appreciated. If you are interested, please sign up at the proposal page. Once we have enough people, I will shift the project page, along with its subpages from my userspace into the Wikipedia namespace. For now we can use this section of my talk page to discuss the direction and details of the project, and, of course, its name. *grin*

Cheers!-Samuel Tan 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)