User talk:Thright

Archives

MOVE ALONG!

What every one needs to read, What happens when you challenge a page? You get called "you're acting in bad faith"

Taken from Friday's user page. Excellent advise that we all must follow; Ive been rather astonished lately to see so many people misinterpreting "assume good faith" as though it means "we must always agree with each other." Nothing could be further from the truth. There's plenty of room for good editors to disagree with each other, all in good faith. In other words, criticism is allowed. Because of Wikipedia's nature as a collaborative project, criticism is necessary. Criticism of articles helps us improve them, and criticism of editors helps us become better at what we do.

Too frequently, people cry "assume good faith" or "no personal attacks", without apparently comprehending what these words mean. Being civil is about keeping our discussion focused on useful things, rather than degenerating into schoolyard name-calling. We can disagree strongly, and even use strong words, while keeping the discussion on topic. When evaluating an admin candidate for example, if you feel they have poor judgement, it's OK to say so. It's not a personal attack. When a user is disruptive and a block is being discussed, it's not a personal attack to come right out and say they've been disruptive. You should have evidence, of course, but criticism is allowed.

Admins in particular will tend to attract more criticism, and should be extra gracious in receiving it. If someone has a disagreement with your actions as an editor or an admin, you should listen to them. You might not agree that their criticism is valid (this happens all the time, and this is allowed too) but you'll never know if you don't first take the time to actually listen to it.

Vandal

In response to your comment left on my talk page, the best way to handle someone who is vandalizing you is to ignore them. revert any inappropriate comments, and don't give them the satisfaction of answering them. I've only seen what's going on on your page in passing, but if you think he's harrassing you, you can take it to WP:ANI. Admins will look into the situation, and see what's going on. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!

Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and there are times when editors clash over ideas. It's important for all parties involved to remain civil and work together towards consensus, especially on controversial issues. Redrocket (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay

I noticed your comment on ANI and urge you to reconsider. Wikipedia could really use an editor like you. Not everyone on Wikipedia is confrontational. --clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comments and good luck on becoming an admin. I don;t know, I will take time and think it over. I like the idea of wiki, and I thought I could add valuable info, but I don't think that is possible. It seems like a boxing ring here, not a source of knowledge. Good luck with everything.Thright (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly wish for you to stay, I stand behind everything I have said before, but I hate to see a user leave, I suggest getting that mentorship. The Dominator (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read ANI and your posts, and I've seen your name elsewhere. I hope you stay. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite everything, I hope you stay too. It is very easy to cause friction when you first start editing Wikipedia because you don't clearly understand the numerous rules and regulations, but you'll find as long as you stick to editing neutrally and fairly, that it'll all become a smooth ride (most of the time) in the end. Black Kite 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to chime in and let you know that I also hope you don't retire. It's easy to feel like you're getting bounced around when you first get started. Useight (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd also like you to stay. You have a lot of potential, and you're not afraid to challenge decisions. Don't let one incident put you off. Good luck! — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 06:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your strong support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Wow, thanks for considering me one of the best! I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

Thank you!

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta ^Sing 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hey Thright. I appreciate your strong support on my recent unsuccessful RfA, and especially the comment about the office interview. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching; hopefully I'll still have your support. Thanks again - Tan | 39 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bucer up for Featured Article Review

I just wanted to let you know that you can cast your vote of "support" or "oppose" to the Martin Bucer article as a potential featured article at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Martin_Bucer#Martin_Bucer. Thanks! --Epiphyllumlover--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Help me against Vandalis

I ask to be restored completely, the page Prud'homme knights should NOT be merged. This is the result of Justlettersandnumbers that long just trying to tease me, without having any jurisdiction over content that removes and cancels without reason and justification. I beg you to give him a call because undo months of searching my library and it's really frustrating. I have always worked well with all the wiki. He is always very rude and arrogant, making cancellations and vandalism that I can document them. thank you for your attention. It's a shame to lose months of work and my research much information of interest. Always erase even data sources, sometimes without any powers. Only with the interest of destroying. Ciao --Alec Smithson (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]